Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive859

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

Noticeboard archives


Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong[edit]

At its heart a content dispute. Consensus has appropriately been sought at WT:LANG, and Knowledgekid87 makes a potentially valid suggestion about WP:RSN if there's a dispute over the reliability of the encyclopedia source referred to below. Nanshu and Ryulong should both be mildly careful about conducting a slow-moving edit war on the article/redirect pages while a consensus is being established at the Wikiproject. But there's nothing here that presently requires admin tools, and this thread isn't going to resolve the underlying content concern. Euryalus (talk) 12:25, 10 October 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.

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong

Yes. Yet another Ryulong (talk · contribs) thread. This time he mass-deleted language articles just by labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields:

where I contributed substantially using a dozen of published sources (some of which are available online). This is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen since I joined Wikipedia in 2003.

Of course, labeling them as a "fringe theory" in the commend fields alone does not justify mass deletion. Otherwise one can revert any change s/he does not like. So his comment is synonymous with "I HATE YOUR EDIT!!!"

Ryulong is a regular at this incident noticeboard and is very familiar with 3RR and other conflict related stuff. But he has a fundamental misunderstanding on what Wikipedia is. Given the fact that he is an experienced user, there appears no hope that he would amend his behavior. I think the only feasible solution is to keep him out of Wikipedia. Any suggestions (especially on procedural details)? --Nanshu (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:RFC/U (that said, don't use such pejorative rhetoric there, or you won't get far) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    I raised the edits in question on the Japanese WikiProject's page and another editor agreed that these divisions were not accepted by the linguistic community at large. The primary article on this language family only suggests that there are six when Nanshu created articles on five undiscussed languages. Nanshu has been particularly mad at me whenever I disagree with his edits, and this is frankly nothing new. He did not have to come here to this board first when he could have responded to the discussion at WT:JAPAN about his very issue. I see no such attempt. I will be restoring the articles to the versions prior to Nanshu's vast and u discussed changes, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    Nanshu has also been warned in the past over his unnecessary attacks against me whenever I dispute his expertise on these topics. While I cannot easily access these threads in the notice board archives right this second,mother can be found. In fact, he was blocked earlier this year for disregarding the warnings he was given for his comments about me. He has called me a disaster at the langauges WikiProject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    The previous thread is here which includes a warning from Atama, which resulted in a block in May of this year. Nanshu's comments at WT:LANG include claiming "Ryulong sees Wikipedia quite differently from us", has the gem that I am suffering from "Knowledgelessness (or simply ignorance)", "Unteachability and unwillingness to cooperate", claiming I am owning these pages, and referring to me as a "disaster". Atama specifically warned Nanshu that he was not to talk down to me as if he was a teacher and I was his failing student, and this is exactly what Nanshu has done, yet again. He may be a self proclaimed expert in these dying languages, but he cannot work with others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think the real problem is Nanshu's dramaticism. The whole "this is the most violent series of actions I have ever seen" thing, and his acting like some sort of victim of abuse should be evidence of that. He insults Ryulong's competence at WT:LANG multiple times, which he has been blocked for in the past. He has made no attempt at discussion whatsoever, only his complaints here and at WP Languages. He can't deal with criticism and refuses to coöperate with anyone who opposes his views. I will also say that this AN/I post would be about me, or anyone for that matter, had I/someone else had reverted his edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also see this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The various languages for which User:Nanshu created articles (Toku-No-Shima, Yoron, Oki-No-Erabu) are listed as such, i.e. listed as languages, in the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, published by Oxford University Press – definitely not a fringe publisher. The IEOL also points out that these languages have no mutual intelligibility with Kunigami, to which Ryulong has redirected them, so I think Ryulong is on shaky ground here content-wise – at any rate this is not a matter that is clear-cut enough for an admin to ride roughshod over a contributor who has invested quite a bit of work to expand content in this area. Andreas JN466 05:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that there are more sources that say there are only six languages in the chain, because traditionally each island claims to have its own language due to isolation and areas of mutual unintelligibility. There is very little coverage of the languages Nanshu made pages for anywhere online, and this is under more discussion at the langauges project. Nanshu simply has a history with me where he sees me as inferior to him in his knowledge on this subject and finds anything I do a danger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
1. I believe the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics is quite authoritative. [10] (What content can be found online is really quite immaterial here.) 2. If you simply delete the content he creates, you should not be surprised that he sees you as a danger. Andreas JN466 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
all I am aware is that for the past several years we have only acknowledged the existence of 6 languages native to the ryukyu chain, and not the 4 new ones he made pages on that are considered dialects of two others and the content fork he made for the fifth because he disagrees with the name given to the language, which is even in the ISO standard. If there's very little documentation on these languages in general, that means they are not accepted as being separate languages as much as they are even referred to as dialects of each other. I also don't know why he has been repeatedly removing the kanji and kana names of these languages from the articles in question, why he has been insistent in his talking down to me, and his complete abhorrence to attempt to form a consensus, as I had started a discussion on this before he flew in a rage here and at the linguistics project. Nanshu is the problem. My stance in not agreeing that these splits, expansions, and the such based on an extremely small handful of paper sources that for all I know do not even discuss these as separate languages but rather dialects within the larger languages (as he has completely ignored one island's supposed separate language) but rather his personal research that he is posting to Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that "more sources" say there are only six languages. If some reliable sources say there are six, and other reliable sources say there are more, then we can and should produce duly weighted material covering both viewpoints, and make a note of the fact that reliable sources disagree. What we do not do is cover only the majority viewpoint and make wholesale deletions of the minority viewpoint. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The minority view point has only ever been presented by Nanshu in the last 72 hours.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Then he's in the wrong too, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. You must stop removing reliably sourced content. If you feel it doesn't represent the majority point of view, either add reliably sourced text giving that point of view, or tag the article with {{NPOV}} or some other maintenance tag so that others are aware of the problem and will take steps to fix it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources combine Amami (and its Northern & Southern split), Kikai (which Nanshu omitted), and Tokunoshima into one language (UNESCO) and Kunigami (what Nanshu redefined as "Northern Okinawa"), Okinoerabu, and Yoron into a second language (UNESCO, again). Nanshu produced these articles using minimal sourcing, reliable or not, to have an entire page full of the extensive IPA information. All of his articles rely on research performed by one individual years ago which defines all of these as dialects (because that's what the Japanese government considers them all) rather than unique languages. Much of the articles he produced were heavily unsourced, including the new classification systematics he came up with to categorize the several new articles he made to justify his rewrites and splits. All I did was restore status quo on something that was in effect a controversial decision. Just because it involves new articles does not make me any more wrong in my behavior than he has been acting.
And this is exactly how he has reacted to me adding information on other languages that he deems that I am a dunce in, such as the dispute over whether or not Hokkaido had a name in Ainu as seen here, the dispute over the use of ï at Kamuiyaki when I found sources that used "kamwiyaki" instead seen here, and a similar issue over the way to write the origin of the colloquial name of the New Ishigaki Airport as seen here. This is not, as Nanshu cries, an issue with me removing content. It is just Nanshu being unnecessarily combative whenever I challenge him and this needs to be stopped, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, but look – you've simply gone and deleted his articles – articles on languages that are listed in the Oxford University Press International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think that's more combative than his crying foul. I'd become combative if I were in his position. Andreas JN466 13:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What does it say about the languages in said encyclopedia? Let's have a look. There's barely anything about them, and they're all listed under Japanese rather than independent entries that provide any level of information about the language. Because the majority of sources say that the languages he had created pages for are synonymous with each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) I linked to the relevant page above. For all of them, it says, "Inherent intelligibility is generally impossible or very difficult with other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese." (Note the phrasing "other Ryukyuan languages and Japanese".) Even if these are considered dialects by some scholars or politicians, there is no problem with having sourced articles about them, where such disagreements about classification can be mentioned. Wikipedia has lots of articles about language dialects, and rightly so, as each dialect has its own characteristics that can be studied and described (see Alemannic German etc.); and if there are sources about these properties that satisfy RS, then I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about them. Andreas JN466 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I only just then saw that there's nothing in the book about them except the statement that there is "generally impossble" mutual intelligibility. This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. Every other source Nanshu exclusively used in the articles describes these as dialects (all Japanese sources do this). I do not see this listing in that encyclopedia (effectively one publication's insistence that Kunigami, Okinoerabu, and Yoron are all separate from each other) as reason enough to combine several sources describing them as "dialects" to produce all of the articles on the languages that Nanshu decided to make after he was bold enough to perform a major expansion on the original articles and call me a disaster and continually talk down to me, an act he was blocked for in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Notice that Ryulong employs the repeat-a-lie-100-times strategy here. He has never proved that I misrepresent a fringe theory as being mainstream. The meaning of "majority" in his mind is quite different from ours. He only relies on the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. Just compare UNESCO, Ethnologue and Glottolog. You will see they present drastically different classifications. This inconsistency can be attributed to complicated isoglosses reviewed by Karimata (2000). Recent papers including Pellard (2009) and Lawrence (2011) demonstrate that this problem is unsettled. For a complete list of sources, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong. Ryulong knows nothing about the research history I outlined. And do not forget the most important question: how does this justify mass removal of content with reliable sources? --Nanshu (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You're presenting something which as far as I can tell from the research I've done, and the consensus that has existed on this site for years, is that you are presenting information which is not accepted by the mainstream. There should be more available on these proposed pages in any language than can be found. Below, WP:BOLD is cited by Rdfox 76. So that means WP:BRD should be followed. You were bold in your creation. I reverted (undid the split, and made pages redirects), and there should then be a civil discussion instead of you using your usual tactics of acting like a high and imghty tenured professor and I'm some student who just doesn't get it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong, you say, This is frankly the only source that defines them as separate languages. That's simply demonstrably false. For example, in addition to the highly reputable International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, we have Tomoko Arakaki (28 June 2013). Evidentials in Ryukyuan: the Shuri Variety of Luchuan: A Typological and Theoretical Study of Grammatical Evidentiality. BRILL. p. 7. ISBN 978-90-04-25340-7. This says, The contemporary regional varieties of Luchuan can be divided into two large major groups: Northern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the north, and Southern Ryukyuan, the varieties spoken in the south (Uemura 1992). The Northern group is subcategorised into eight kinds of languages, and the Southern group is further subcategorized into three. The Northern varieties consist of Kikai-jima, North Amami Oshima, South Amami Oshima, Tokunoshima, Okinoerabu, Yoron, North Okinawan, and South Okinawan. The Southern varieties are: Miyako, Yaeyana, and Yonaguni (Uemura 1992[2003]; Shimoji & Pellard 2010). P. Heinrich wrote a book chapter on "The Ryukyuan languages in the 21st century global society", published by the University of the Ryukyus. Etc. The sources do not bear you out. As for the wider issue, firstly Wikipedia should reflect any diversity of opinion on whether these are languages or dialects, and secondly, why should it be improper for Wikipedia to have a well-sourced article on each of them? Sources are available. Andreas JN466 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
All of this discussion should be happening at WT:JAPAN, where I first raised the issues of his edits, or WT:LANG where Nanshu also started a thread (that way I can pick apart the fact that he constructed IPA tables from sources that as far as I can tell do not use IPA to describe anything). The fact is that regardless of my own mistakes in not finding sources to support his edits, Nanshu has spent most of his edits in this content dispute personally attacking me. Perhaps I was wrong in reverting everything with the term "fringe theory" but Nanshu has spent as much time arguing that he is right and I am wrong as much as he has been calling my edits an act of violence (twice in this very thread), calling me a disaster and lacking knowledge amongst other attacks (in his thread at WT:LANG). Nanshu is being a drama queen about this all. Ever since he and I began having content disputes, he has failed to assume good faith in every instance. I have complained time and time again about his personal attacks towards me whenever we find ourselves editing the same article. I suffered from his attacks in 2010. It happened again in 2013, and I raised it for discussion when it happened again earlier this year. Nanshu has been warned in the past that he should not be talking to me as an inferior being or a child, and he was blocked for it but because he infrequently edits Wikipedia the block basically served no purpose. The only reason he is editing Wikipedia heavily now is because I dared to challenge his expertise. Why else is he constantly acting as if I killed his father and then shat on the grave?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want Nanshu to dial down the rhetoric, I recommend you lead by example rather than exceeding him. All of this is quite unbecoming. Take a break; you can do better than this. Andreas JN466 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have documented how Nanshu has done nothing but belittle me whenever I happen to get in his way over disagreements over dying Japanese languages. I do not deserve the abuse that he sends my way just because I disagree with his contributions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Andreas, note that Ryulong is trying to obscure the point. This is not split/merge stuff. What he is doing is complete removal of content with reliable sources. I don't think there is a way to defend his misconduct. ---Nanshu (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You split up two articles to make 5 new articles, one of which is just a content fork of one of the original articles, and I reverted that split. You don't go to ANI automatically to cry foul.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Might I make a suggestion at this point from an outside non-admin perspective? Wouldn't the simplest solution here, the one that would likely result in the least gnashing of teeth, and the one that would resolve the situation in complete compliance with WP guidelines and policies, be to temporarily restore the articles and then immediately send them to WP:AFD? Do that, and we can get an outside consensus on whether these qualify for separate articles, or should be merged back into the original ones. The delay would also provide some time to determine if there are additional sources supporting the separate articles; remember, there is no deadline, so waiting a couple of weeks for a final resolution won't hurt anyone.

Without digging deeply into the issue, as this is NOT an area I hold any expertise in beyond one semester of Japanese in college--the second aborted when I realized that my mid-30s was too late to try and learn kanji--my personal opinion would be that Nanshu seems to have made a decent case, based on a reliable source; I don't know if I'd necessarily keep them as separate language articles, but at a minimum, I would retain the information in a merge rather than just revert to status quo ante. Ryulong, I understand that there may be past history involved, but even so, "Be Bold" is one of our pillars, and editors should not be chastised for performing major expansions to provide due weight to a reliably sourced opposition view, even if it hasn't been covered on Wikipedia before--PARTICULARLY in that case, actually; new, reliably sourced material should be welcome for examination and editing for weighting purposes. Only items already discarded by consensus as fringe theories, unsourced and controversial material, and items sourced to unreliable sources should be rejected out of hand. (However, this entire paragraph is my personal belief, based on a mildly inclusionist view of policy and the pillars. Either way, I suspect that an AfD would resolve the issue with much less shouting than an ANI...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then there's going to be some policy war on what constitutes the notability of a language. And, again, it's not a reliably sourced opposition view. He used Japanese language research papers defining these as "dialects" and their minimal listings in Ethnologue and that Oxford encyclopedia to justify completely renaming the Kunigami language as the "Northern Okinawan language" and produce pages on the other partially intelligible dialects, new pageso n his own personal means toc lassify allo f thepage s he made, and consistently removing any Japanese language text providing the names of the languages from the article without justifying why. I'm all for a discussion, which is why I started one at WT:JAPAN, but Nanshu went over my head to call for me to be banned because he's dramaticizing everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I feel that by just blanking pages, Ryulong circumvents the normal deletion procedure, where we need a consensus to delete rather than to add. But I also want to ensure in the ANI that mass removal of content with reliable sources would not happen again. If this kind of violence is tolerated, Wikipedia has no future. --Nanshu (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you stop saying my edits to turn a bunch of pages into redirects is "violence"? This is ridiculous. This is my problem with Nanshu. He is playing the victim over content which isn't actually gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, Nanshu is objecting to the fact that you've reverted over 40 edits by him over the past three days across a range of articles. That's bound to piss someone off. I've seen milder actions described as wikistalking, bullying and harassment on this page.
In my view, this situation calls for wider input. The suggestion by rdfox 76 above is a good one. I propose we give Nanshu the time to bring the articles to the sourcing standard he would aspire to, and when he's done, let the community assess notability in a well-prepared AfD which right from the beginning presents all the sources used, and any other sources available that may impact notability (one that Nanshu seems to have missed is Noguchi's "Dialect acquisition and code-switching on Yoron Island", published in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics). Andreas JN466 17:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Rdfox 76's proposal is fine. But Nanshu's behavior is not. He can object to the actions I've done without insulting my intelligence by acting as if he is a professor and I am a student he's given a failing grade.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wider input? Ryulong gets what Ryulong wants, if not by hook than by crook. Look at the history of Ultraman, a Japanese TV show that was widely syndicated in the US. The article had a picture of the hero fighting a monster, demonstrating what Ultraman looked like. Ryulong constantly edit warred to have a screenshot of Ultraman replaced by Japanese text from the opening credits, essentially the same as replacing a picture of Superman with the wrod "Superman!" When a long-term compromise was reached using both the image and the opening credit card (still in Japanese, although this is en.wikipedia) he basically vandalized the sceenshot, which was already a cropped, low res image, and made it of unacceptable quality.
At the same time he complained the picture was of low quality, and insisted on my talk page that I upload a screenshot from another episode more to his liking. He then removed the image, and edit warred to have it replaced with a hi-res image of Ultraman stolen from a commercial website that provided no attribution for its provenance. So now the article has meaningless opening credit shots as its main picture, and a hi-res image stolen from a commercial website offering no license for its use in the text. But Ryulong prefers the monster in that picture, so a stolen hi-res pic is fine. (In the meantime my original fair-use screenshot was deleted as an orphan.)
I have a real life, I don't have time to battle this shi..tuff. Users like Ryulong (who's been blocked how many times now?) make it impossible for adults to edit mainspace constructively. I suggest a
  • Lengthy Ban by some admin familiar with all the cases against Ryulong on this board. Oh, and BTW, I am no expert, but I happen to have Cambridge's Languages of Japan and various books by Roy Andrew Miller that contradict Ryulong's bizarre assertion of "fringe theory" here. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Medeis is making a mountain out of a mole hill in the content dispute we had at Ultraman where he was constantly upset that the screenshot he took and uploaded to Wikipedia (File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG) was repeatedly taken out of the infobox by other editors in favor of the show's Japanese (and English) title cards, as is standard practice on every other article on television programs. This is documented on the article's talk page at Talk:Ultraman#Why Can't We Have a Title Card at the Top? where another editor made a statement about the article's usage of Medeis's screencap in the infobox rather than the title card. At no point during the dispute was the file he had uploaded ever removed from the article. It was merely moved to a lower position, as seen here. Not to mention that he blanket reverted much of the article to a point he preferred, which included throwing the English title card into the infobox's "title" section and claiming that Japanese text has no place on an article on a Japanese topic. I could also point out Medeis's constant accusations of sockpuppetry whenever someone reverted him, or claimed vandalism (other reverts and other claims unsupported by policy going back several years). And he is really taking my request for a higher quality, but still small sized image as an unnecessary slight. And then when a different editor uploaded a different image to replace the one Medeis uploaded, Medeis began this narrative on the alternative image (File:Ultraman and Zetton in Thankyou, Ultraman.png) that because the uploader found the image online and uploaded it as a fair use image, it somehow counts as "stealing" because the website the image comes from was as he claims a "commercial website" and thus it was not valid fair use (my message to him here). I assume he's making the same statement about the completely different image I found that is in use on the article (File:Ultraman Festival 2013.JPG) because it's a clear photo from a press junket that has been resized rather than the grainy screenshot of a 1960s television show. This is not a reason to ban me. This is a reason to scold Medeis for holding this stupid grudge all because I dared to defy him, much like I dared to defy Nanshu. And "vandalizing the screenshot" when I resized it to comply with the non-free content policy. Please, Medeis. Grow up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
And I've admitted my mistake and wrongdoings in regards to reverting Nanshu. This does not need to become a dogpile of more people who I've somehow slighted by daring to edit the same articles as they do and having some knowledge of policy and the topic that contradicts their actions as Medeis has made it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Dogpile? He doesn't deny he downgraded the image or edit warred to have it deleted. Again we see Ryulong is a simple liar. He is the one who both insisted on my talk page that I upload some other image he preferred, and he is the one who downgraded the quality of the now deleted image (since the image was deleted after his edit warring, see an admin for its history). Nothing he says can be trusted, look at his block history, he should be banned for his endless disruption. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking about a topic ban or a site ban? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I made a simple request to you, Medeis, to perhaps produce an image of better quality that more clearly depicted Ultraman and a monster he has fought. Anyone reading your talk page can see that. And I did not "downgrade the quality" of anything. I resized the file (an exact copy of this image in its original resolution can be found here) per WP:IMAGERES: "If you believe an image is oversized, either re-upload a new version at the same file location, or tag the image file page with a {{Non-free reduce}} template, which will place it in a maintenance category to be reduced by volunteers...". And I did not "edit war to have it deleted". You were the one edit warring over 3 years time to make sure the file you uploaded was at the top of the article. When the second file was uploaded, I removed it, you restored your file when it was replaced by the other editor, I restored your version, decided the other was better, you began your false accusations of not complying with policy, I reverted, self-reverted, self-reverted again, and then split the difference by uploading a third unrelated file with proper sourcing and attribution that clearly shows the subject of the article. This does not mean I deserve a ban. It means you deserve a trout because for someone who's been on Wikipedia this long, you should know the policies better than you're showing you do in your poor attempt to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ryulong is a proven liar whose statements are ingenuous. He's claimed above that he wanted a better quality image of an image whose resolution he himself decreased. There's no question of this, and any admin with access can see the edits--given the image was deleted after Ryulong's edit warring I cannot provide diffs, but anyone familiar with this page is also familiar with Ryulong's endless disruption on every front. The user needs a long term general blocking for his inability to deliberate and act civilly and in good faith, not a topic ban, a general blocking. Read his history and all will be obvious. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are you actually reading anything I've said to refute your ridiculous claims? Your screen cap was shit quality. It was blurry. It did not clearly depict the characters in any way and I can prove that with the file that was mirrored on the Ultraman Wikia. I asked you if you could possibly procure a better looking screenshot but also reminded you that it had to be a certain set of dimensions because of the non-free content policy. I do not know why you are so fucking incensed over the fact that I changed the dimensions of the screenshot you uploaded in order to have it properly comply with WP:IMAGESIZE. Now get off your fucking high horse because all I ever fucking did was resize your grainy and poorly timed screenshot and dare to think someone else's discovery elsewhere on the Internet would be a better option even though you wiki lawyered five ways from Sunday any way you could have your version on the article and nothing from anyone else. Someone hat off this off topic garbage from Medeis, please, because it's clear he just will not accept that I know more about the non-free content policy than he does.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to interpret Ryulong's comments logically, but he appears to propose lots of new policies to Wikipedia. For example:

  • We can be bold to mass-remove content with reliable sources, without discussion.
  • If the title of a paper appears to be at odds with one's ideological agenda ("languages" and "dialects" in our case), it can be removed completely.

Will they be accepted by the community? The answer is obvious. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And I wonder if Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) still endorses Ryulong's mass removal of content with reliable sources. --Nanshu (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • My advice would be bring some of the disputed reliable source to WP:RSN. If they are deemed reliable by others who are uninvolved then I see no reason why the content should stay removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The point here is mass removal. Actually, I posted a list of sources I cited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Mass deletion of language articles by Ryulong and wait Ryulong to pinpoint the reason why each of them must be removed completely. If he would have done this, I would have gone to WP:RSN. --Nanshu (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I do. Mass does not equal total. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Then help Ryulong. He has so many things to done to defend mass removal. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
your sources for hese pages were minimal in content and context (some comprise one or two pages at times) and you seemed to be making much more out of 6 pages of Japanese text per subject than seemed possible. Not to mention that you cherry picked sources to prove that these dialects, as considered by the sources you gleaned and other existing sources, are languages unto themselves. Everything you wrote contradicts other articles on the project, and you still never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language. And additionally why you have constantly made ad hominem attacks whenever I dare contest something you've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming a typical Ryulong thread. Extremely long but no substance. He keeps replying. It does not matter to him however pointless his comments are. He is just waiting people to get fed up. Unfortunately, this strategy is proven to be very effective. After all, we are volunteers. Life is short and we can use our limited free time better. This is done at the cost of the devastation of the community. It's clearly harmful to Wikipedia's development. I ask for you patience. This strategy shouldn't work any more.

The point is simple from the very beginning. Ryulong mass-removed content with reliable sources, without discussion. He fails to defend his action. And judging from his comments here, it is highly likely that he will do this kind of disruptive editing again. We need effective measures to prevent this from happening. --Nanshu (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's because whenever someone raises a thread against me on this board it is always for a trivial reason that outweighs the policy violations perpetrated by the original poster. There is also a growing consensus at WT:LANG that supports my actions due to the fact that there is nothing out there that supports creating separate articles for these 3 dialects, completely renaming a language/dialect, and making up your own personal interpretation of the language families that contradict every other article on Wikipedia on the subject and the mainstream theories.
Nanshu, you keep saying I'm violent, a waste of time, devastating the community, etc. Stop it. I am tired of it. You have been berating me and talking down to me since at least 2011 when I dared to add "Aynu Mosir" to Hokkaido and it has colored every single conversation we have had since. You did not bother to participate in any of the conversations that had been started. You automatically cried "violence" and brought this to ANI. You've clearly not learned anything. You are not superior to me. I am not superior to you. We are equals on this website and perhaps it is your behavior that is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen you participate in any discussion that hasn't been made for the express purpose of getting rid of whatever I might have contributed to the project in the area of these dead and dying languages of the Japanese archipelago, and constantly rehashing arguments after you've disappeared for months and the conversation either came to a decision without you or just died on its own. No one should have to deal with someone as obstinant as you.
And it's not my fault Medeis decided to open up his own old wounds and cry foul over a deleted fair use image he uploaded that he thinks was vandalized when I made it 50% smaller.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for quoting, but I just remembered something after reading this:

  • "never answered me as to why you removed シマユムタ and ヤンバルクトゥーバ from the articles, completely renamed the Kunigami language into the Northern Okinawa language, and completely ignored the Kikaijima language".

Nanshu has done this specifically before, where he went through many of the towns and villages of Okinawa Prefecture and removed some of the native names of the settlements[11][12][13], while leaving others alone[14][15]. He then ignored my demands for a reason for his actions[16]. This is obviously a pattern. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Irrelevant. Unless you explain how this justifies mass removal of content with reliable sources, you are dodging the most important question.
  • Unsourced. Ryulong's unsourced claims are unverifiable.
  • Covered by the "Folk terminology" sections in a much better way (with at least 8 reliable sources, accent information whenever available, etc).

--Nanshu (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your bold actions to split up two articles onto all of these content forks that your claiming have reliable sources, despite the fact there is no established consensus on Wikipedia or in the linguistic community for the terminology and divisions you employed. I hoped that by restoring things to as they were it would foster a civil discussion on the merits of your system, but your behavior makes that difficult.
What unsourced claims? Because I have sources. You just constantly reject them because you think I'm inferior to you.
You did nothing of the sort in the edits that Sturmgewehr88 addresses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, revisited[edit]

Because he is not getting the desired results here or at the linguistics project, Nanshu is making baseless claims in an unprecedented attempt to discredit my opinion on the topic. He has accused me of being some sort of political activist violation WP:Advocacy because I think one language classification is better than the one he produced on all of the articles he's angry at me for reverting him on. This has got to stop. Nanshu cannot edit this project collaboratively if this is how he reacts to every single disagreement he has, as I have shown throughout the larger thread above in other diffs and conversations (more like berating lectures) I have had with him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is doing an all-or-nothing game. He thinks he has a right to keep Wikipedia in the state of nothing unless he agrees to expand. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Admitting that mass removal of content with reliable sources (instead of merger, for example) was a mistake is the first step to depart from nothing. The most important question is left unanswered even though this thread is getting painfully long. It's clear who cannot collaborate with others. --Nanshu (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This thread is going nowhere. Nanshu's argument for creating these content fork/fringe theory articles is falling apart on WT:LANG, the redirection of which articles is the whole basis of his complaint here. The fact that this whole time he's done nothing but belittle Ryulong with holier-than-thou rants that're stretching into WP:TLDR territory, coupled by the fact that not everyone agrees that his newly invented languages are even notable, just shows that this motion to block/ban Ryulong should be closed. I again stress Nanshu's over-dramaticism and total failure to coöperate constructively. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I also can't believe he would refactor this section break. This thread has gone no where from the beginning. Was my stated rationale for the redirecting and u splitting wrong? Perhaps. But Nanshu cannot be worked with when he is challenged on his edits like this. He was bold, I reverted, and instead of civilly discussing its devolved to his usual attacks on me rather than my actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And now there's a straw poll because he's not getting his way and he's framing this as "Nanshu vs. Ryulong" instead of actual discussions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This has gone on for 4 days now. It's clear that if administrator action hasn't been taken already, it won't be; this thread is now pointless. Would an admin please close this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You really love to stir shit up don't you Ryulong, how many ANIs a month you get? Loganmac (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually a half of one. Now don't pile on because you hate the player and not the game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Jesus I went back to edit my formating fuck up and you had already fixed it thanks, how many pages you watch, and how much time you spend on Wikipedia Loganmac (talk) 11:38, 10 October 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.

Yik Yak and Qjndakdnakdnad[edit]

Sock and master blocked by GB fan. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:55, 10 October 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.

This user is singularly-focused (the entirety of their edit summary bears this out on inserting a mention of an app similar to Yik Yak called "Masquerade" into the article. At first it was in the body, then it was in the "See also" [17] section (it doesn't actuallty have its own article, thus running contrary to WP:SEEALSO. User is now now engaging in a scorched-earth "if mine can't be their then yours can't either" [18], in removing link to Erodr that actually is notable and simioar to Yik Yak. Discussion at the talk page, Talk:Yik Yak, seemed promising at first, but the user subsequently tried to remove that section of the talk page, then went back to the old behavior. We're clearly in I Didn't Hear That territory. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but simply to promote a product. If they cannot make edits for any other helpful purpose, perhaps a block is in order.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Amateur hour update. Mr. Qjndakdnakdnad has now created a sock, @Encyclopedicbrown:. Account created at 19:32, makes its first edit at 19:33, which just so happens to be the same link addition that Qjndakdnakdnad has been pushing...and that editor just posted something to my page at 19:27. Is a formal SPI filing needed, or can we just deal with the obvious shenanigans now? Tarc (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And both of them have attempted to blank this ANI section. Encyclopedicbrown here and Qjndakdnakdnad here. Meters (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have indef'd Encyclopedicbrown and blocked Qjndakdnakdnad for 36 hours as sockpuppet and master after they both blanked this section. GB fan 02:17, 10 October 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.

"WP:BULLDOZERING" of article / Possible Editor Stability Issue Issue with Editor Actions Effecting Stability of Page[edit]

Legacypac has agreed to use the WP:RM procedure for all controversial or potentially controversial moves. I suggest that user:DocumentError does the same for his/her own protection against misunderstandings. I also suggest that both editors re-read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines particularly the first seven bullet points in the section Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration. Also I would suggest that both editors read WP:LAME to get an a prospective of how disinterested editors will view a heated dispute like this one. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article 2014 military intervention against ISIS is already a contentious article, however, Legacypac, who has recently come off a 1-year topic ban on WP:BLP, has taken an extremely disruptive sense of ownership over it, making substantial, unilateral changes - including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) - while discussions are ongoing or after consensus has been achieved. The article requires careful editing, and a slow and methodical approach. But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade. (I'm sorry for that colorful metaphor; however, that's the most appropriate way to describe what has recently occurred succinctly.) A very small sample (of many examples of page moves and snow closes he's imposed that had to be undone) -

- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [19] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" votes to said move.
- On 2OCT he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [20]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[21]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it.
- On 5OCT, the same day a consensus discussion had closed regarding the order of nations in the Infobox, he - again unilaterally - changed the order of said nations to break consensus. His excuse, as always, was that it was "messed up" and he had to take immediate action, though he has been told it is not needed for him to assume "emergency powers" to make what he feels are "urgent" edits. The ordering/reordering of nations is a time consuming process and this behavior is supremely disruptive for those of us already putting hours into this article to see it trashed sans discussion in one fell swoop.
- On 4OCT he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [22]
- He, again unilaterally, has started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout 2014 military intervention against ISIS. But he's done it in such a sloppy way that we now have both terms being used interchangeably throughout.
- He repeatedly tells people who question these edits to "AGF" and repeatedly files frivolous ANIs asking for people to be topic banned. I use the term "frivolous" objectively - I was among those he filed an ANI against and it tracked 10 editor comments; only he and one other editor !voting in support of said ban.

Request: There is a fine "partisan" balance in these articles and the "side" on which LP has aligned himself (who, with the exception of LP, are cooperative and interested in consensus building) will most certainly oppose any action against him as this would disrupt said balance. So, I'm not asking for any "sanctions." What we would appreciate much more than that is an uninvolved admin simply doing a drive-by on the article's talk page for the next couple days. I know it's a lot to ask but I think it's more productive than bans or blocks. DocumentError (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The continual attacks and the editors own hostility and obvious bias speak for themselves. I already responded to most of these accusations in an ANi against DocumentError and on the talk page points 33-39. None of them have any substance. For example, the consensus dealt very clearly with the American-led coalition, but now DocumentError expands it to mean all parties - seems like a straight up intentional misrepresentation about me. I doubt I'll want to add much else here. Legacypac (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Telling you to "chill out" is not "hostility" but I apologize if you took it that way. We've tried everything from begging to bargaining with you in an effort to get you to discuss before editing, particularly the major edits that you specialize in (such as renaming every instance of ISIS to ISIL [which has to be painstakingly, manually, undone] or repeatedly moving entire pages). If I resort to California surfer talk, please construe it as total and complete desperation, not hostility. DocumentError (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Didn't we just have a conversation a few days ago in which you repeatedly cited the essay WP:CALMDOWN? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Leaping straight to the conclusion that Legacypac is "unstable" seems like a stretch. It looks like Legacypac has taken WP:BOLD to heart maybe more than is wise. These are contentious topics where nearly every article includes at least one heated discussion over how to present content. Legacypac should probably slow down and attempt to reach a written consensus before taking major actions like page moves and massive content reorgs. I don't see evidence of edit warrior behavior, but it's pretty easy to end up violating WP:1RR when you are making large edits without discussion, and it certainly can be disruptive. I will note that I agree with Legacypac's interpretation of the consensus on the alphabetical infobox ordering; it certainly wasn't my intent in voting yes for Assyrian militias to be listed above major players in the intervention, and I'm not sure how the consensus there could have been construed as such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I finally realize DocError must have thought everyone agreed with his strictly alphabetical position, while I think no one else agreed to that. As per the RfC question i understood we talking about groups within the American group. I guess he was the one that put the bell in such a strange order, while I assumed he had just reordered just the American led group as the rest of the editors agreed. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, not an opportunity to be insulted and maligned by a hound. I was starting to think that DocumentError was becoming quite reasonable dealing with the stupid Au vs Uk fight others engaged in but this AM I see i was mistaken. Note that the rest of his accusations here are baseless, just like the alphabetical issue. Spending so much time on this page I learned you can say pretty much anything without penalty including swearing but I will abstain. Dont want anyone else to think me unstable. As for my rework of the article the great thing about wikipedia is that anything can easily be changed so if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on. I did not revert anyone and i never even looked at who wrote what, just took a wholistic view of the article and related articles to best serve the reader. While I dont own the article I was feeling rrally good about all my hard work until someone said a bunch of stuff a lot harsher than 'calm down'. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about: "bring it on" is just not a constructive approach when dealing with a very delicate, emotional article. The edits you are making are so large that it is very difficult to undo them, though we have been patiently doing that anyway. Your refusal to discuss anything, instead simply yelling "Bring it on!" just isn't working anymore. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a serious misread of what Legacypac said: "if any other editor has constructive criticism or edits bring it on". Legacypac can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he's merely noting that it's a collaborative environment and welcoming other editors to contribute or critique -- not daring them to challenge him or threatening to edit-war or anything like that. (That being said, his comments downthread are entirely less nuanced.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Got it. My interpretation may have been colored by his comments downthread and/or elsewhere. I apologize if I misread his intention with "bring it on." DocumentError (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, Kudzu1. That's not how I interpreted it when I closed it so we're both on the same page. However, I also don't think anyone thought we should relabel the sections to lump all non-U.S. actors into a single miscellaneous catchall category. That was never discussed and is a significant break from status quo. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make something very clear. DocumentError keeps making up stories about me. Top of the section he accuses me of moving the page multiple times. Absolute bullshit. I moved it one time last night shortly after an uninvolved editor moved the page to something that would never get consensus. I only moved it back to the very closest available name.

  • Long standing name: 2014 military intervention against ISIS
  • new undiscussed name by another editor: Military intervention against the Islamic State
  • the name I choose because I could not revert: 2014 military intervention against ISIL.

I would not have even made the move except to to get back to 32/33 characters of the long standing name so any future renames could be properly discussed. But why do I need to defend my actions? Can I simple pretend he does not exist? He seems to be here to wage war with various editors not build anything. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But why do I need to defend my actions? You don't. No one has asked for your banning or blocking. I have asked for a daily admin drive-by for the next few days due to a pattern of very aberrant and unusual behavior you're exhibiting. If you don't plan on doing anything highly unconventional in that time you don't need to "defend" yourself. DocumentError (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? – Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Forget the RfC, which should not've been opened. There is a long-standing RM discussion that has been ongoing on the talk page. Until that is closed, there should be no more discussion of the title outside of that discussion. Please consolidate. RGloucester 01:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the two discussions should be consolidated. We have groups of editors !voting in two different sections on the same thing. DocumentError (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, Legacypac, moments ago, just unilaterally closed the discussion [23], declaring an older, seemingly abandoned, RfC on this topic to have "reached consensus" (after an IP editor injected a "support" !vote to seal it) and thereby essentially voiding the !votes of Epicgenius, Empire of War and others who commented on the most current RfC instead of the old one. He then declared our requests for him to stop and communicate prior to unilaterally barreling through the article to be "personal attacks" and unilaterally closed that discussion, as well. [24]. Legacypac, once again, you do not own this article - please just stop and communicate with the other editors before making page moves, major changes, and closing discussions. DocumentError (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

He was right to close the "RfC", as it wasn't really an RfC. The correct thing to do, DocumentError, is to direct those people to the requested move section, so that they can comment there. That way we'll have a nice consolidated discussion. I've added a notice to the bottom of the talk page as such. RGloucester 13:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, RGloucester. The problem is, the other move section was also closed almost immediately after he shut-down the "RfC." So directing people to a closed discussion is like directing voters to a polling place the day after election day. Shouldn't we have given Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc. a day or two to log-in and receive the alert that they need to move their !votes to the "consolidated" RfC before it was closed? (In fact, had they voted, the RfC wouldn't have been closeable as it would no longer have had consensus.)
I'm extremely concerned with how many editors are being shoved out of the decisionmaking process about this page due to a pattern of rapid and un-discussed RfC closings and structural changes. The problem becomes doubly concerning due to the fact all the editors being sidelined have the same editorial perspective. This will only result in continued ill-will, drama, and turf wars which I know neither you nor I want. (By way of comparison, I have a discussion point [non-RfC] right now that has been open for 24 hours and I'm the only person who has !voted. On the precedent that's being set, in another 24 hours I suppose I could declare consensus, close it, and start editing the page, but there's no way I would ever think about doing that and I can predict the hysteria that would result if I did. I think those of us on the "non-U.S." side in the page are hoping a similar level of respect can be extended to our thoughts and opinions.) DocumentError (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate Issue[edit]

Requested Admin Action: If DocumentError can't prove each of these 5 BS accusations here and now I want him banned. On second thought I want the Admins to take whatever action they think is appropriate - but I reserve the right to ignore the User completely and expect full immunity from any action he brings against me in the future. If he can prove these 5 points to the satisfaction of 3 different Admins Iand no he can't shop unlimited Admins until he gets 3) I'll take a 90 ban myself.
1. He falsely accuses me of including repeatedly moving the entire page (!) Show us the diffs to prove it. Yes yesterday I moved the article back (1 letter off) from a new title that DocumentError stated he does not like on talk. 2. He accuses me of going against consensus on the Belligerents order, but we have now established that he rearranged the Belligerents in a way that went against the consensus. Show us the diff for my revision and the consensus I breached. I'll submit what I did to any Admin to review. 3. He said (here and on talk) that "But he keeps driving a bulldozer through it at 80kph and when people yell at him to slow down, rips his shirt off and starts waving around a live hand grenade." That sounds like loony behavior - and now I see he is backpedaling with a false apology. Show us diffs that are anything like what he describes. 4. He claims I yelled "bring it on!". (I really don't remember saying anything like that) Please show us the diff where I told him anything like that. 5. He says there are many examples of snow closes and page moves that had to be undone. Other then two snow closes a long time ago that were undone on a technicality (I had never tried a snow close before, still learning, and the editor that undid agreed it was snow) can he provide even 1 diff of the "many" snow closes that had to be undone. We either have community standards here we follow or its a free for all slander and disruption fest. I'm curious to see which it is. I'll check back on this in a few days. (edited for clarity)Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely pushing your luck here - asking for a WP:BAN? Seriously, stop digging your own hole and get along the panda ₯’ 22:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Does this mean your response to Epicgenius question above Can you wait for the RfC to finish before moving the article (or not)? is no? Again, this is what we're discussing. You are politely asked to stop unconstructive editing and instead of slowing down to discuss our concerns you become extremely excited and agitated. I think the only diff you've asked for that I haven't already provided is "Bring it on" - here is is: [25]. The rest are above, just slow down, and read them if needed. No one is asking for your banning or blocking; please read with an open mind what the community is saying about your most recent disruptive edits here and kindly consider adjusting your behavior. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius I have no interest in moving the article. If someone with more power than me can move the article back to the long standing title I will not complain one bit. Look this is not fun. That is my point. I ask other editors to think how they would feel if they were treated the way I am being treated and had these things said about them. Are each of you stable? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief. If there is any administrative action that can or should even be contemplated in this entire clusterfuck of a dispute, it's an WP:IBAN. There is no case for a topic ban, there is no case for an actual ban, and the only case for even a temporary block in either direction (which I still think would be draconian) is this persistent, relentless WP:BATTLE and WP:HOUND activity that may have originated with nominator, but is now clearly being mirrored by Legacypac. Can we be done with this -- or at least done with blowing this up all over admin noticeboards and article Talk pages? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have decided to simply ignore all communication or actions by the nominator. Life's too short to let such people ruin your day. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"Possible Editor Stability Issue". Uhm...if there is nothing more to do here....boomerang the OP for a blatant violation of NPA. Suggest a 3 day block. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, I don't mean "editor stability" as in "a crazy editor" I mean "stability" as in an editor's aberrant actions destabilizing the article; the aforementioned mid-discussion page moves, etc. Poor word choice on my part, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Mark Miller. DocumentError (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what we're discussing. The fact you've been ignoring all communication from every editor; not just myself but all of us. The page has become incredibly unstable because of the unilateral, major edits you are making including moving the title, and renaming ISIS to ISIL throughout, while acting in a highly unusual way toward editors who attempt to engage or invite you into discussion. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
DocumentError is correct, Legacypac did not have consensus to change the title of the page.--Empire of War (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a content issue. Either strike out the accusation or be in violation of NPA. Seriously. This isn't brain surgery.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Than you (edit after the fact) to DocumentError for the change!.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I also want to thank DocumentError for removing this personal attack on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIL: [26] I'm not sure the edit summary does it justice, but the de-escalation is nonetheless appreciated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Kudzu1, you need to stop right now. You're following LP's M.O. of wolf-yelling about non-existent personal attacks when people communicate directly and bluntly about disruptive behavior. I edited my remark because it wasn't concise, not because it was a PA. If you have any further issues, bring them up on my Talk page. Don't derail this thread which is already too long. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Was your intention not to de-escalate when you removed the part of your comment where you issued Legacypac an ultimatum and warned he would be "riding into the sunset" if he didn't self-revert? I took it as an attempt to de-escalate, but your reaction is unexpected. Sorry if it was misconstrued. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Kudzu1, I've responded on your Talk page. DocumentError (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not defending Legacypac's move to the new title, which obviously should not have been done while the move request was underway, but in the interest of context, it should be noted that he was moving the page from a different title to which the page was moved, without discussion, while the debate was in progress. IIRC, he should have been able to move the page back, as I don't think 2014 military intervention against ISIS was salted by the single undiscussed move, but there may be technical issues there that I am unaware of. Either way, he should have requested administrative assistance if he was unable to fix the title himself, rather than making a contentious move. But that's a mistake -- not evidence of "instability", IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The page is very unstable - he didn't just make the undiscussed move, he then went through and made 23 manual changes of "ISIS" to "ISIL." Again, all while a consensus discussion was going on trending in opposition to such a change and over the strenuous objections of half-a-dozen other editors. And it's not just this time or this one article. He did the same thing with Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and other places. Again, no on is asking for a ban or block. We are asking for an admin to join the discussion as he is non-communicative with his peer editors. DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think changing one letter in an acronym that is already inconsistent in its usage throughout Wikipedia is "very unstable". I also don't see evidence of him being "non-communicative"; on the contrary, he has been posting frequently on the Talk page and has provided rationales for his editing. Should he have waited for the results of the discussion to shake out -- yes. And another editor would be within his or her right to revert the undiscussed ISIL/ISIS changes. But I think this has been blown out of proportion. It seems like this is being handled adequately by WP:BRD without the need for yet another AN/I report and this ridiculous back-and-forth sniping between the two of you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, just to note: there was a discussion on this matter at the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page, which favoured using "ISIL" for consistency. It would be absurd to have a separate usages at each of these articles. Perhaps he merely thought he was enacting consistency? If so, bravo. This mess is quite a mess, and it's about time it got mopped up. Either way, no one should be moving this page whilst a move discussion is ongoing on the talk page. It'd be nice if some administrators came in and began to moderate the large amounts of vitriol and nonsense edit warring on both sides. RGloucester 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, RGloucester. DocumentError (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, slap my ass and call me Betsy, because it looks like all three of us agree on this. How about that for a sensible path forward? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"Betsy"! *Smack!* ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's great we all agree. Not to be a buzzkill, but just to clarify what we are agreeing on, we agree that we would like to have an admin or two hang out on the page for awhile (as per my OP), is that correct? (Of course, that's easier said then done, since admins seem to an endangered species of late.) DocumentError (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see how it goes without an admin if we all make a better effort to communicate, AGF, and not participate in this WP:BATTLE stuff on AN/I and other noticeboards. That goes for all of us who are involved here, without prejudice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I think we don't all agree then. But that's okay. DocumentError (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I am against having an admin around to keep things on track if necessary; I am generally a proponent of active observation, at least, of contentious pages and issues by uninvolved admins. But I don't like the way that this AN/I report is presented, suggesting that the admin should specifically target one editor for scrutiny, and I don't think we are helpless to resolve our own disputes and issues without the involvement of an admin. Hopefully that at least brings us close to being on the same page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I never asked for an admin to come by and scrutinize an editor. That's not what "drive-by" means. I presented the most current reason we needed an admin, and then requested one. Had I simply said "hey admin, come sit on this page!" they first question would have been "why should I?" If you want to get in the last word on this, go ahead, I think the case for observation has been made by RG, EG, EoW, and myself so I have no more input. The only thing I'll ask is you try not to offer an interpretation of what I said that gives it a sinister subtext. DocumentError (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Re page move. I did try to revert the uninvolved editors page move but could not. The last page move I tried to fix was blocked by the old page name occupying the space (and still is). I assure you there was no intent to override concensus on the trivial matter of ISIS vs ISIL in the page name. As for editors who make broad based personal attacks then edit them out after there have been responses to improve their image... that stinks of something of trying to make the other edit look like he is over reacting. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move sequence[edit]

It is the huge number of moves, page request to move, discussions about moves that causing a lot of problems and instability, this in turn if fuelling feelings of bad faith. This mess is a good example of this.

The page move sequence is a bit complicated but AFAICT this is what happened. There was an outstanding page move request on the article's talk page:

opened by user:Kudzu1 at 04:27, 25 September 2014.

As I see the move history. User:PleaseConsider should not have moved the page while there was an ongoing RM. user:Legacypac should not have moved the page to yet another title (the correct procedure is outlined at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves) which is move it back to the original title or ask for a technical move at RM if there is a technical reason why a non-admin can not revert the move.

user:Legacypac the move discussion you initiated here was out of order for two reasons. All controversial moves should be discussed using the WP:RM procedure. You must not open another RM when there is one currently open on a talk page (apart from anything else it confuses the bot), and it can potentially confuse editors which means that one or both RMs my reach different conclusions because not all editors participate in both conversations. The correct procedure is to suggest the alternatives within the single RM and see if one of the alternative names gain a wider consensus.

user:DocumentError at the start of this long ANI section you wrote

"- On 6OCT, with no warning, he moved the entire page to "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" [27] even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before and was tracking a majority of "oppose" !votes to said move."

It seems to me that you were unaware that there was an open WP:RM higher up the talk page so the move discussion you link to was inappropriate (given the earlier still open RM), and that you were unaware that there had been another page move only four hours before user:Legacypac moved the page. Given this new information do you wish to alter anything you have written about the page move that user:Legacypac made? -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for the effort User:PBS. I've learned quite a bit about page move procedure and RfC (or so called "RfC's") in the last few days. There are obvious differences between the well thought out policy and the actual chaotic practice I've observed here, and I'm trying to learn how to use the official tools. I sincerely apologize for my evident policy breaches, and I assure everyone they were only in good faith. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PBS. With respect to 2014 military intervention against ISIS, I'll just say that I think the fact the earlier discussion was shuttered immediately after the second discussion was closed - without alert given to the people who had registered an opinion only in the second discussion - was unfortunate. Had Epicgenius, Empire of War, etc., been given more than a few minutes warning to move their !votes before closure was declared by an involved editor, there would not have been a close consensus. I AGF that !vote-rigging was not the reason the fast sequence of closures were made but merely reflect that, in a highly charged atmosphere, great caution and deliberation is always preferable to WP:BOLD closures and edits.
In the separate case of 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq it appears [28] there was only one discussion occurring when the unilateral decision to move the page was made with the declaration "Iran leads no one" and over the strenuous objections of the majority in that discussion. [29]. DocumentError (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping everything in one place for evaluation here are several more fresh PAs. I'd appreciate not being hounded and attacked all over Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac - you relentlessly accuse other editors of targeting you for personal attacks and then post diffs, like the one above, that contain no such attacks. Merely addressing a comment toward you ≠ personal attack. Neither I, nor anyone else, is out to "get" you. DocumentError (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for documenting this sequence, PBS. Since the page is now at the title agreed by consensus, there is no evidence of bad faith in the previous undiscussed moves, and the moving editors have been advised of the problem, my inclination is to just let this drop. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The page is not at the title agreed to by consensus, as the discussion was closed minutes after the second discussion was suddenly and unilaterally declared void - disallowing persons who only opined in the second discussion from moving their votes. That said, I agree with Kudzu1 there is no evidence of bad faith by Legacypac. Our only concern has been a penchant for engaging in major article restructuring, like page moves explicitly against consensus (as he did in the separate case of 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq [30] [31]), as well as a pattern of aberrant behavior such as declaring he's being targeted by other editors when attempts to communicate with him are initiated. While this is disruptive behavior, I have no reason to believe bad faith and feel LP is doing what he genuinely feels is improving WP and, perhaps, the world generally (the latter, though a noble intent, may be the crux of the problem). DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@DocumentError you wrtie "The page is not at the title agreed to by consensus", but I moved the page to its current title after assessing the open WP:RM. My decision was made on the guidance given at WP:AT and the consensus for that guidance in the opinions expressed in the RM. What ever Legacypac did or did not do with opening and closing a conversation lower down the page is not directly relevant to the current page name, and from the comments Legacypac has made on user talk:Legacypac, it is unlikely Legacypac will make a similar mistake in the future.
As to your second concern. The links you have provided are to the same page move not two different ones! I think that Legacypac made a mistake and should have initiated an RM before making the move, however I do not believe the move was done in bad faith any more than your revert of move was (presumably you were following the advise at WP:RM#Undiscussed moves). Legacypac has now used the talk page to initiate an RM (see Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move). When there is bad faith between two editors it is often a good idea for then to try to minimise as far as is reasonable direct exchange on talk pages for a time to allow passions to subside. So I suggest that if Legacypac will agree to assume for the next year that all article page moves Legacypac wishes to make are potentially controversial, and agrees to use the WP:RM process for all article page moves, that this ANI is closed with not further action taken. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
For my part I've learned correct procedure on moves and intend to follow it forever.
To the end DocumentError erroneously sticks to the narrative that I did awful things "including repeatedly moving the entire page (!)" found in the first line of his report. - something I immediately asked him to prove and he can't because it is a lie, like most of the other crap he says about me. In good faith I publicly self-imposed an interaction ban but DocumentError continues to follow me around saying nasty things about me with his new found freedom of knowing I will not respond.
Since DocumentError feels it necessary explain his view of my world view, and since at WP you can apparently say any outrageous thing you want with no consequences (the recent ANi on HiLo48 proves that), I am going to very temporarily break my self imposed ignoring of DocumentError and share my observations for the benefit of others who he may interact with.
If you pull back and take a wide view of the facts, things become clear. He tenaciously edits from an anti-America/anti-West/pro Iran bias-often carefully concealed but occasionally plainly laid out. He has taken many actions to put whatever Iran is doing against ISIL into every article about what the American-led group is doing (merge, delete, rename, RfC's). It extends to even silly things like pushing the USA to the bottom of a conflict box below =/-21 other parties, including ones lacking real armies, then throwing a hissy fit when it gets changed and crying that I broke consensus, pointing to a vote where every other editor voted differently than his idea. If I remember correctly, his outrage over that infobox is why he started this complaint. When consensus goes against his very bias views he starts process after process to discredit other editors and force his way. Although he will almost never listen to anyone else's opinion, I sure wish he would find another great wrong to right elsewhere.
The freedom to collaboratively collect and share information on the internet is severely restricted in Iran and anyone who exhibited a pro-USA bias equal to the pro-Iran bias exhibited by DocumentError would need to ponder their desire to keep their freedom or even their head. Here are WP we are tolerant and patient and allow anyone to edit (including ISIL fighters as one editor pointed out recently). Please don't let the freedoms of Wikipedia be trampled in the battleground actions of people who prefer regimes that, in real life, prevent people from enjoying these freedoms. Thank-you for reading my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
LP - this kind of political monologue is not appropriate for WP. Your above commentary makes me deeply concerned you still don't understand we don't edit according to politics, but according to RS. Also, I will once again ask you to please refrain from publicly declaring myself and other editors are out to get you. No one is out to "get" you. DocumentError (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
PBS - sorry, I think I copied the wrong link. Here [[32]] is where LP moved "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" which occurred after the community expressed opposition to such a move. In it, he rationalized his decision to override consensus with the explanation that "Iran leads no one." That said, it's water under the bridge. I think your proposal sounds like a great way to wrap this up. As per my OP, I was not seeking any type of block or ban against LP, only administrative counsel be offered to LP and you have delivered. The only other thing I would ask is that LP's above statement in which he describes me as "crying" "anti-America" "hissy fit" throwing editor who needs to be stopped to prevent WP editors from being beheaded [33], be juxtaposed against GraniteSand's statement for which he received a preventative ban and consideration be given to possibly lessening it slightly. I'm not going to press that, though, it's a matter for your discretion and if you decline the request I won't bring it up again here or anywhere. Thank you. DocumentError (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

page move sequence Iran article[edit]

My comments do not need to be (incorrectly) summarized and linking too immediately below my comments. I never said anything about about any editors being beheaded!! I feel very chastised for changing one letter in a page name when trying to revert an undiscussed title. Since the sequence of page moves on the Iranian intervention has been brought up countless times as something I have done wrong, here are the facts.

30 September 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,059 bytes) (+4,059)‎ . . (←Created page with ...
17:57, 2 October 2014‎ Legacypac (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,473 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Legacypac moved page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq: see talk pg - Iran has intervened in Iraq, and leads, nor is likely to lead any state actors)
20:15, 2 October 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,588 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DocumentError moved page 2014 Iranian intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq: a move is currently being discussed on Talk with 1 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral comment - give discussion a chance before moving, please)
15:18, 4 October 2014‎ Pahlevun (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,909 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Pahlevun moved page 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq to 2014 Iranian-led intervention against ISIS)
18:58, 4 October 2014‎ DocumentError (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,497 bytes) (0)‎ . . (DocumentError moved page 2014 Iranian-led intervention against ISIS to 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq over redirect: GF reverting of move by Pahlevun - note there is an active discussion regarding this move)

How can the editor who uses my page move to suggest I am "unstable" and other nasty things have the audacity to say these things when that editor moved the exact same page to a 3rd unique title (adding 2014 to the old title) also before the discussion closed?

Also I do not suffer from paranoia (everyone out to get me) or any other mental condition. These personal attacks are out of hand. I'll wait for the apology. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me anymore as I've already indicated I'm content with PBS' proposed solution. But, since you chose to bring it up, I think you omitted a few things in the sequence. Here's a corrected version:
- 30 September - DocumentError created page "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq"
- 00:46, 2 October - Legacypac declared DocumentError shows "bias toward Syria and Hezbollah" [34] for supporting the proposal "Should Hezbollah be included as a belligerent, including flag icon in the infobox?" (a proposal which has, since, approached consensus of the community)
- 01:09, 2 October - Legacypac proposed moving "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" [35]
- 02:06, 2 October - a discussion on the Talk page on Legacypac's proposal had registered 3 !votes in respect of the move: 1 in support of move (Legacypac), 1 opposed to move (DocumentError), 1 calling for a decision to be deferred until later PointsofNoReturn [36]
- 17:57, 2 October - with no further opinions expressed since 02:06, Legacypac went ahead and moved the page anyway, against the trending consensus [37], declaring "Iran leads no one" [38]
- 20:15, 2 October - DocumentError reverted 17:57 move by Legacypac to original "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq" [39]
- 15:18, 4 October - Pahlevun moved page to yet another new title "Iranian-led intervention against ISIS" [40]
- 18:58, 4 October - DocumentError reverted 15:18 move by Pahlevun [41] and left a polite note on his Talk page alerting him that there was an active RM discussion
Thanks for your passionate interest in this topic, Legacypac! DocumentError (talk)
The "corrected version" includes this misstatement "- 20:15, 2 October -DocumentError reverted 17:57 move by Legacypac to original "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq"" As I pointed out clearly above, his own page move was not a revert, he also picked a 3rd title in the middle of a move discussion. The sequence I posted is cut and paste from the logs, his version is just more error. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no misstatement. There was no "3rd title." The page was originally named "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq." You changed it to "Iranian intervention in Iraq" over everyone's repeated objections and in the middle of a move discussion. I changed it back to "Iranian-led intervention in Iraq." DocumentError (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sigh - what to say in the face of obvious error? Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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


Nothing actionable here. Please discuss on the article's talk page. And Saqib, please be aware of the three revert rule.  Philg88 talk 15:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kash201313 has been repeatedly vandalising Muhajir Sooba article. Previously he was warned not to vandalise pages. --Saqib (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Saqib. I don't think what Kash is doing is vandalism. He/she has not been using edit summaries to explain his/her edits, but neither have you. In the absence of a clear explanation, it is imperative that you assume good intentions of the user. The first step is to politely ask the user on his/her talk page about any issues you come across.
Admins, I see no cause for action here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 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-warring to add original research...[edit]

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Kkm has a long history of disruptive and against-consensus editing which culminated, yesterday, in them adding raw financial "data" (Google search results) to a series of corporate articles with edit summaries claiming the sources added were "annual reports". They weren't, of course, annual reports but were search results from Google Finance which Kkm has interpreted themselves to provide year-on-year "financial results". Despite the obvious sourcing problems, Kkm has since edit-warred to keep his original research in various articles, two in particular, avoiding Accenture where he has a history of disruption. The edits to Cognizant ([42]) and Infosys ([43]) claiming the addition of "annual reports" speak for themselves.

I should point out at that this string of 8/9 October edits comes after Kkm edit-warred in February/March/April at Accenture and got reverted multiple times for trying to add the same thing again and again and again (some of those reverts included Kkm edits and other disruption). For all the edit-warring then, Kkm's only contribution to the Accenture talk page was this.

Kkm is obviously here only to add his "expert" financial analysis to articles, rather than relying on the actual expertise of established, reliable financial analysts. He has proven he is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. I'm tagging both NeilN and Begoon who have been part of the latest discussion and Silver seren who was part of the last one. Stlwart111 11:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kkm is a very keen editor, but not one who seems able to grasp policies and collaborative editing. I first encountered him at the Illustration Lab, where he was making dozens of requests for vector conversions of company logos. He was pointed to the procedures, which ask users to take some steps to see if the graphics were already available online. Despite many requests for him to help us by looking first, especially given the massive number of requests he was making, his answer was always basically "I don't want to do that". Later he made an attempt to get graphists to add incorrect licences, so that he could use the graphics on other wikis: see this discussion. Also this extraordinary response: Neither there is a language barriers nor I'm snubbing your comments the fact of the matter is I'm reluctant to help you. Yes, that's 3 years ago, but a stroll through Kkm's talkpage archives and editing history doesn't show that this disappointing attitude towards collaboration has improved at all.
I think there are certainly language and competence issues - the many edits he makes to financial data have no, or garbled edit summaries like "fixation done". As Stalwart says, he often blindly edit wars with no discussion, and uses misleading reference titles like "Annual Report", when in fact he is interpreting Google data himself. Considering the number of this type of edit he makes, I do find it concerning - there does seem to be an element of OR or SYNTH. The unwillingness to discuss compounds this.
I think he means well, but he has a combative and uncollaborative approach, and a certain sense of "entitlement" which grates. What to do? I'm not sure, but since I was pinged I'm offering an opinion. He is certainly disruptive when edit warring and refusing to discuss. I think, at a minimum, there needs to be some acknowledgement of this from the user, and a commitment to edit within community norms. Begoontalk 11:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that this editor likely means well. They are likely here to improve the project. However, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR damage articles, as opposed to improve. Their tremendous unwillingness to change when politely advised to change is concerning. Their bull-in-a-china-shop "no" when confronted with the requirement to change is disturbing. Their continual insertion of WP:OR after being advised many times is disrupting. I would not be opposed to an indef block - with indef meaning "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". Such convincing would require showing a true understanding of OR and SYNTH, possible topic bans, and quite possibly a mentor the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Guys if you don't accept the financial statements data put from Google Finance or Yahoo Finance will you accept from original company website. I will put company's financial data from the official website of the company or I might take from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website. We must ensure that whatever the financial data we put it must be accurate. We typically get annual figure once the company publishes its fourth quarter results. Let me know what sources should we take when putting financial statements. Thank You--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You haven't understood this discussion. It's about your relationships with other editors, willingness to engage in discussion, ability to contribute collaboratively and general competence to understand our editing principles here. Those are the things you need to address. Begoontalk 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Guys if my behavior vexes all of you then I apologize from bottom of my heart. If possible please forgive me for my rude behavior with you in the past. And of-course pls answer my above questioned. I'll certainly follow the Wiki guidelines as well as maintain a cordial relationship with my fellow editors.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 18:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Rude behaviour in the past? You were calling people "morons" and promising to continue edit-warring only yesterday. You're still edit-warring elsewhere right now. Stlwart111 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's the better question: do you understand WP:SYNTH?. Formal financials come from the company; period - not from Google, Yahoo, or my belly button. Taking someone else's numbers and passing them off as official is fraudulent, dangerous, and an inappropriate synthesis. This should be obvious the first time you were asked to stop, and should have been obvious before you even began. the panda ₯’ 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Remarkably, Kkm is now edit-warring at Tata Motors because he doesn't understand what "Key People" means in the context of an infobox; demanding that they only include "current exec". Rather than discussing it on the talk page (as suggested) he's just blindly reverting on the basis of nothing but his own (incorrect) personal opinion. The responses above confirm he just isn't getting it. Stlwart111 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Meh - now I look at that again, the edit itself might be ok, I suppose. I'm not sure - the past information and citations seem like they would still be useful in the article. The underlying problem, though, is clear - removal of sourced content with no proper explanation, then edit-war reverting when asked to discuss in the proper place. We cannot collaborate if discussion and co-operation are refused with combative, opinionated, barely intelligible edit summaries. Begoontalk 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere is there a guideline or policy that says "Key People" must be current execs only. But that's not the big deal - once again, it is the combative attitude and attempt to demand certain things on the basis of an expertise that doesn't exist. Those two disruptive edits came either side of an edit to this thread seeking forgiveness for past disruptive behaviour. Can we please get an admin to step in and put a stop to this disruptive behaviour? Stlwart111 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No where in company article ex-executives are mentioned in "Key people" section. As I have already said if you are keen to put ex-executives name with proper source you can, but in other area certainly not in "key people" section. If you have any doubt pls ask any admin I'm sure they will guide you. By the way pls answer the question that I asked you. Cheers--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You're just not getting it are you? You have no consensus for your edits, certainly no consensus for your edit-warring and you don't make any attempt to establish consensus. Your answer to everything is to edit-war first and talk later. It doesn't work that way. I really can't work out if you're simply incompetent or intentionally trolling to get attention? Stlwart111 04:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I also warned the user about their recent unreferenced additions of religion/ethnicity data to WP:BLP articles. They have replied saying they will rectify the issues. I'll check on that when I can, but I thought a note here was in order, given the general concerns. Begoontalk 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed and reverted a number of their recent edits due to BLP concerns and left a note in addition to yours on Khm010's talk page. The panda has blocked them for 60 hours disruptive editing, so I suppose this can be closed now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate that, and especially the edits you made to clean this up. I didn't want to do that, having commented here. That says something too. I hope the user is able to take proper note of these serious issues. Their history suggests maybe not, but I assume WP:AGF eternally, and hope for the best. Begoontalk 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


This is far more technical than I even can begin to know where to look. Someone has messed with the contents template so on every article now the "Contents" section is coming up lower case and part of text. Trackinfo (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you link an example as I've had a look and cant find one myself. Amortias (T)(C) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
In the half hour since I posted that, the contents menu has changed twice that I have noticed. They are obviously playing with it somewhere. It appears on every article with multiple sections (meaning virtually everywhere). Trackinfo (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Like Amortias, I'm not seeing it. Please link a specific article where you're seeing this phenomenon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain the changes? I went so far as to check the site's CSS, and I still can't find anything. (Plus, that's only been edited once since this section's creation, for a separate thing.) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This likely has to do with which skin the OP is using, and is a matter for WP:Village pump (technical), not ANI. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Cow cleaner 5000[edit]

Weekly Shōnen Jump‎ and Koavf's user pages were hit again by another CC5K sock, Roy Tripp (talk · contribs). This time, they waited until the account was auto-confirmed. Can we get a CU to check for other sleepers and perhaps if it is possible to do a range block. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheFarix: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cow cleaner 5000. I've just reported him at SPI. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd also suggest indefinitely protecting the Articles for deletion/...(3rd nomination) page from creation. If an editor has any legitimate reason to request it be deleted, they should be going thru an admin as long as CC5K is active. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a block[edit]

All parties are REQUIRED to attempt to resolve problems one-on-one before raising an ANI filing. This has not been done in this case. Regardless, based on RetProf's statement, such a block as requested would be punitive, which is never the purpose of a block. There is no "emergency" here the panda ₯’ 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting a block on Ret.Prof for attempting to turn ANI into a WP:SOAPBOX for his personal grievances. See Andrevan admonished. Please note that I don't make such requests lightly. This is the first time in 9 years I have requested a block on anyone. Ignocrates (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am sorry I lost my cool. I really thought we had all worked things out. Then to see you bring a second ANI against Andrevan truly upset me. I have regained my composure. Sorry again! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies are nice after the fact, but the damage has already been done. You caused a major disruption on another thread by bringing in a large amount of off-topic material, which is now part of the record here at ANI. This incident is a close parallel to the frivolous request for arbitration you filed and later withdrew. You apologized later for that too. Something more is required here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. Blocking is not a disciplinary action, or a cudgel for those with whom you disagree, and while this user can be a bit of a loose cannon with his keyboard, verbosity is a pretty common sin here on Wikipedia. I have warned him about his Wikiquette before and he has shown signs of reflection and improvement. His slightly hysterical post above (whose spirit I certainly appreciate) is hardly a blockable offense. See our blocking policy and dispute resolution policies. Andrevan@ 19:41, 10 October 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 needs blocking[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Edit summaries tell the tale. --NeilN talk to me 06:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after being notified of ANI report. --NeilN talk to me 06:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Back as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just revert on sight or am I bound by WP:3RR? --NeilN talk to me 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Instead of an endless loop of reverts and IP-hopping, you could ask for those articles to be semi-protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Rather than clogging up RFPP can an admin look at the contribs above and semi the pages? 5.32. is now resorting to "Arabs are the most racist and evil people and should not be allowed to edit " --NeilN talk to me 12:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You sure it's the same guy? First IP is from India, second is from the UAE. (Second has also been blocked by the Panda.) --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Same edit summaries, same articles, same reverts... --NeilN talk to me 16:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Now blocked two weeks by another admin. According to this website the IP address (talk · contribs) has been reported for spamming on 101 sites. I'm filing it at WP:OP to see if it's an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC) certainly is an open proxy. Any CheckUser will be able to confirm that I am making this edit via the proxy, and to demonstrate to non-CheckUsers I will follow this up by a non-logged-in edit from the proxy, and then I will block it. I shall also block The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Drmies has blocked PC for 48 hours. Appreciate the quick action. LHMask me a question 04:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The above user has been making problematic edits at various Syrian Civil War-related pages--and was notified of general sanctions because of it--has been trying to circumvent that by making problematic edits at List of wars involving the United States. He is adding content that isn't even pertinent to the topic of the article (which is "WARS involving the United States", not "battles", "campaigns within wars", or whatever) and which falls under the "broadly construed" portion of the SCW general sanctions. I'm not certain how to approach this, as I'm unsure how enforcement of such general sanctions is supposed to work. Here is the article history, where you can see that PC's been at it basically since s/he received notice of the general sanctions placed. I don't post much to ANI, so if this notice is in the wrong place, let me know where to put it, and I'll move it there. LHMask me a question 01:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: Well, if this is your first post you are in the right place. Sorry, I am not an admin so the rest is not up to me. :)--Mishae (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to posts here before, but I'm not a regular, and wasn't sure if this was the right spot for this kind of issue. LHMask me a question 02:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Spam by two likely related editors[edit]

Thammondthuzio has been creating a slew of stub articles about lesser-known athletes, based largely on some questionable sources. (See Special:Contributions/Thammondthuzio for a complete list of the articles in question, as well as User talk:Thammondthuzio for a record of the discussions about this problem.) The underlying problem is that almost all of these athletes have profiles on the website (clearly associated with this editor), a service providing "unique experiences" with former and current athletes (play a round of golf with your favorite retired basketball player, have your favorite ex-water skier phone you for a 10-minute conversation, etc.) which leads to the impression that these Wikipedia articles are being created specifically for the purpose of giving these clients more "heft". I have specifically asked about this issue, but have received no response.

As of 10/6/2014, TaylorWiki18 has begun in the same pattern: stub articles about minor athletes, most of whom are Thuzio clients. (Perhaps the fact that not all of the article creations are clients is intended to legitimize their edits, or perhaps the articles about non-clients just reflect clients they haven't yet signed.)

The articles themselves are not exceptionally promotional, but they are terribly sourced for the most part and the pattern is disturbing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had raised this issue here a few days ago, and the only reply it received was to note that the issue might be better resolved at WP:COIN, so I brought the issue there, and my previous posting here was archived. Given that these editors are still actively spamming the project, and that the WP:COIN has received no replies, and the fact that I believe immediate admin attention is required, I'm reviving the thread here. I have asked Thammondthuzio to stop and discuss, but to no avail. I believe that a temporary block is required to call their attention to the matter and bring about the necessary dialogue. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
a few seem clearly notable though inadequately sourced; others, not; one way of proceeding, which can be done in parallel with anything else, is to nominate the dubious ones for deletion individually, as I did here. Deletion is the clearest message. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Coming over here from the COI board, it's not clear what we could do over there. The editors in question have created about 65 of the stub articles mentioned. Many have been speedy deleted. Neither editor has ever replied on their talk page, despite many warning templates. If they won't talk to you, there's not much we can do at WP:COIN. They've had plenty of warnings. I'd suggest a short block to get their attention and slow down the article creation flood. John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[edit]

IP blocked for one week by Diannaa.  Philg88 talk 09:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone take a look at the recent entries in Special:Contributions/ I assume this is just a hoaxer, but I honestly don't know how this ought to be dealt with. Mogism (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted their last two edits and blocked for a week. Due to the ultra-violent nature of the last edit, I have also reported to the Foundation at the emergency email address. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Mind if I participate, since I am a recipient of a threat from that IP. I tried to reason with the chap, but with no avail.--Mishae (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
So sorry you were subjected to that. The person is editing using a dynamic IP, so please let me know if you see similar activity on a numerically similar IP. Or on any IP for that matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)