Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal attacks, 3RR edit-warring and article ownership by user Tharthan[edit]

Closed per accurate summary by Shirt58. Tangentially, please note modern English contains many entirely legitimate words that are in common use in some, but not all, English-speaking countries. --Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Addendum: Reclosed to incorporate a couple of additional comments. Issue has moved on to some mild edit-warring over other content, which is best resolved through editor interaction and/or Dispute Resolution. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:24, 9 November 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.

Sorry, this was mistakenly entered under the main AN, not ANI.JesseRafe (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The user Tharthan has been edit warring on two articles, violating 3rr, the first being Yo Edit History (which also included a personal attack in an edit summary) and the second is Erewhon Edit History. I stopped after two edits, but this editor seems to be unable or unwilling to let go of his own prose and style, writing in a distracting and overly-indulgent tone and language (just see his User Page for his manifesto on his affected wordchoice (e.g. he insists "whilst" is perfectly normal for North America whereas every single style guide suggests avoiding it, even for British/Commonwealth speakers/writers, including both while and wiktionary:whilst. JesseRafe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, I posted on his Talk Page a formulaic warning about personal attacks (cf. "callow fool") in case he had a history of these and he erased it, which I assume is a user's prerogative to whitewash their bad history. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
P̶a̶r̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶?̶ ̶I have already apologised to you for the personal attack (which I, again, apologise for), explained why I removed the unwarranted template "Welcome to Wikipedia" talk page post, and also attempted to start a discussion with you at your own talk page regarding the issue at hand. However, I was at school when I wrote that post, and now that I come home I see that you have suddenly started a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard of all places over a relatively minor and easily resolvable issue. If you truly thought that it was a bigger problem, it would have been fairer to have started a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard than to so swiftly take your concerns here.
Furthermore, whilst I do apologise for getting a bit heated up earlier, I would appreciate if you did not yourself act so hostilely towards me.
Finally, I was unaware that I broke 3RR. I was almost certain that these edits had taken place over the period of several days. If I am incorrect on this point, then I sincerely apologise.
In addition, the reason I maintained that we keep "whilst" on the page in question was because it was not confusing, it was the wording of the original writer of that (myself) and it had no real reason to be removed other than a dissonance of style.
EDIT: I have also responded to your response to my response on your talk page.
EDIT 2: Also, I never claimed that "whilst" was common across North America, I merely said that it had use in North America, and it has plenty of currency in my local dialect.
Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I post this now after trying to have a civil discussion with user JesseRafe at their talk page, but said person seems to have no wish to discuss things civilly whatsoever. They now are making rude statements ("blowhard" being one that they used that actually borderlines on being a personal attack) about my character and my intentions when such information has no bearing on the discussion being had there. I leave things to your decision, administrators, because it seems as if JesseRafe has no interest in coming to a peaceful agreement on this matter. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Usage note: "whilst" is not used in North America. Those who do not read modem British fiction might not even recognize it as a word. --NellieBly (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Tharthan, my intentions and words were clear, I didn't want your whining and excuses on my Talk Page. If you want to discuss "whilst" do it on the while page (as whilst doesn't have one, hmmm, what does that tell you?) as that discussion doesn't belong on Yo, but what does is your flagrant deletion of cited and sourced material for your own unverified etymological musings. As to Erewhon, again you made a unilateral move when there was zero Talk Page consensus, used horrendously unencyclopedic tone in your prose, and just mindlessly revert without even considering you might be in the wrong. Keep those discussions where they belong, I said "leave off" because I find it annoying to have 8 notifications in 10 minutes because some editor insists on both writing on my Talk Page AND not knowing there's a "preview" function (hint: use it). Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@NellieBly I have been using it since I was a child and have never run into anyone who questioned my using of it (neither as a child, nor now). In addition, I have talked with many a person who also uses the term. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that the exact clarification given to "whilst" by comprehensive and neutral sources is that it is rare in North America, and might be perceived negatively by some. Not that it is not present at all or only as a Briticism. Remember, though, I don't speak for North America or the United States, I only speak for my area. @JesseRafe Frankly, I am tired of this cynicism and name calling. It did initially arise from an already apologised-for (multiple times) personal attack made by me, but now at this point all that's going on here is the uttering of rude comments and hostility for no good reason whatsoever. Choose not to accept my apology if you so wish; I have offered it to you sincerely and as a gesture of goodwill. But if you so choose to think of me as some overzealous editor or haughty dandy or whatnot, please at least stop this incivility.

Switch the pages in question back to your preferred version if that'll satisfy you. I'm not going to fight against your claims. Just please stop this.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I have never, ever heard a fellow American say "whilst" either out loud or in writing. It sounds like something out of Dickens, a Britishism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because you've never heard the term used doesn't mean it is not in use. And whilst while it's accurate to say "whilst" doesn't have a page, it does redirect to "while" so one can hardly say the term doesn't exist or have use. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
When have you heard Americans use it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Both Webster and the American Heritage have it as "Chiefly British". I learned the word right here on Wikipedia, after almost two decades in the US. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
So we've established that it's not common in the United States in general. That's great, but I was never disputing that. I'm not really concerned with the (modern) "United [dubious ] States of America". My priorities are in my homeland, New England. Either way, the "issue" in question with my wording on the page "Yo" has been fixed by someone else, to a completely different word. So that's that.
But I'll tell you, it's funny when people notice a regionalism in my speech (which is only natural, since I don't waste my time artificially filtering my speech to comply with biased "standards" like General American or the like). Some regionalisms in my speech that people from outside of my area often point out are how I call a bubbler a bubbler (though I hear that they also call bubblers bubblers in Wisconsin as well, though I can't confirm this), sodapop sodapop, carriages carriages, (Italian) grinders (Italian) grinders, blinkers blinkers, wicked meaning "very", etc. So, yes folks, I speak a dialect of New England English and not some variation of General American. I'm not sure why this would surprise people, considering I come from New England and have such listed on my user page, but whatever. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean I can change Yo back into standard English (and again, obviously whilst redirects to while (nobody said it didn't Chaheel Riens) but my point is EVERY style guide calls "whilst" BOTH chiefly British AND argues against its use as it is "considered archaic, pedantic or pompous", which is the main reason why I removed it, not because it was a Briticism. JesseRafe (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, bossman, but somebody else changed "whilst" to something completely different already. Probably the best outcome, in my opinion. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid AN/I. Posting here or the other drama-pages pollutes your Precious Bodily Fluids, far as I'm concerned, but I'll make an exception in this case. Tharthandorf apologised above, contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome, maybe we should close this? Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
On the subject of varieties of English: thanks to Wikipedia, in conversation I now refer to five different codes of football as just "football". (I've recently acquired a taste for American football – I had to lean the rules to find out what @Drmies: was talking about, then found I quite liked it.) And confusion ensues.

Additional comments[edit]

I realise the discussion above has been closed, but I see the last post by Shirt58 and have to shake my head in dismay. Shirt58 says "contentious issue probably resolved. If the participants are happy with the outcome" and I see that clearly they are not. After what we all thought was a resolution,[1] JesseRafe decided to change the whole damn thing.[2] Tharthan reverted,[3] and then so did JesseRafe.[4] Perhaps both sides need to go to the naughty corner for a while. --AussieLegend () 18:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On the positive side the conflict is no longer about the word "whilst." On the negative, it remains fairly uncollegiate. Not at the level requiring admin tools, but could do with wider editor input to encourage consensus between the competing versions. -Euryalus (talk) 06:55, 8 November 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.

Days after my return to Wikipedia after months away, cursing editor returns to bait me[edit]

No action necessary. It is clearly agreed on that there was no cussing at a specific person with the intention of baiting them. That is all. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Reclosing to include post-close commentary relevant to the general issue of this thread but not the specifics of this "incident." ANI is set up for incidents rather than wider debates. As I understand it, the broad impact of uncivil discourse on gender engagement is part of the current Arbcom case, for which proposed recommendations are expected shortly. Even were that not the case, there are other noticeboards where this might be (and is) more usefully debated. Suggest the conversation continue there rather than at the tail-end of this thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:45, 9 November 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've been a Wikipedia editor for more than nine years, and generally well-regarded by my peers, if my awards cabinet is even a small indication. I've tried to get help from admin Dennis Brown, but he told me that since people curse in real life it's OK for an editor to tell me "fuck off" and repeatedly use other versions of the f-word at me.

Back in June, the edit-warring Winkelvi got into an edit-war and used inflammatory language that admittedly got me upset. Both of us were blocked temporarily by User:DangerousPanda, who like Dennis Brown said the f-bombs against me were OK. I understand DangerousPanda may have some admin ANI issues of his own now.

Here are four examples of Winkelvi's incivility at the time, that helped lead to our mutual block:

  • "(as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well. Simply because you're starting to really piss me off..." [5]
  • Or this edit summary: "now stay away from my talk page and fuck off" [6] Please note this is a personal attack: It's not the adjective form of "stay off my fucking page" but the verb form "fuck you." Why did an admin let that personal attack slide?
  • When an editor starts an ANI, he is required to let the other editor know. I had no choice but to post the ANI notice on Winkelvi's talk page. Despite this requirement, this is how he responds: "(→‎ANI: stay the fuck off my damn talk page)" [7]
  • We're also required to post 3RR notices. So he falsely accuses me of harassment though according to Wikipedia 3RR reporting policy I had no choice put to post a 3RR warning: "(→‎3RR: already told you to stay the hell off my talk page, this is now harassment)' [8]. Shortly after that, Dangerous Panda blocked him. -

Within days of my return, that editor was back on my talk page to bait me: He could have made his point on the article in question's talk page, but chose instead to come poke me. I responded by pointing to an infobox template that contradicted his assertion and told him to stay off my talk page, explaining I considered communication from him to be harassment. He responded first by bragging about how he told me "stay the fuck off his page" in June, [9] and then began cursing me again with a brand-new "fucking" [10].

An admin who tolerates editors who tell others to "fuck off" is bad for Wikipedia. It engenders an atmosphere palatable only to angry, poorly socialized white guys in their 20s. It's disrespectful and a distinct turnoff to older editors, women, and many ethnic and religious groups, among others. And really: Do we want to create an environment hostile to anyone except guys who like say "fuck off"? To have Wikipedia be a disrespectful, uninviting place except for people like that?

Dennis Brown is OK with that. He told me "many people will occasionally say 'fuck off'," and goes to say that since he uses it in the real world it's OK to do it here. And then he blames me: "If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the Internet. We're talking about Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL is an important guideline. Dennis Brown's contention that anyone who doesn't like being told "fuck off" in a Wikipedia discussion should leave Wikipedia seems remarkable to me. Is that the bar we're setting for Wikipedia behavior? That repeatedly using the f-bomb against another editor is OK? --Tenebrae (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This permalink shows a section on Winkelvi's talk which you started. That was in response to a perfectly civil section from Winkelvi at your talk (permalink). Winkelvi is not a role model for collaborative language, but the response was perfectly in keeping with the style of your comments. It is never useful to hold a grudge, just forget that someone on the Internet was rude to you last June. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you for real? Let's do this - any editor who tells another editor to "fuck off" and stay off their talk page should consider it mutual.--v/r - TP 20:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Roger that, TParis: if another editor has given you offense and you have asked the offending party to stay off your talk page, then you -- at a minimum -- should be prepared to reciprocate and stay off the offending editor's talk page. To do otherwise strikes me as intentionally provocative and an attempt to continue an unnecessary feud. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
[Responding to Johnuniq; there were intervening posts] I see. It's my fault he came unsolicited to my page after a lengthy ANI/3RR battle in June that got us both temporarily blocked from Wikipedia. That's a far, far cry from being "rude to [me] in June."
Perhaps I could ask you to look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. This wasn't "rudeness" ... this was all-our war between two editors that wound up in two blocks.
After all that, he deliberately comes to my page, when he could have gone to the article's talk page. That is baiting, and it was his deliberate choice.
And he's cursing at me again in November. So let's be clear that we're dealing with an angry, foulmouthed, uncivil person who went out of his way to provoke me simply by interacting with me. Why would a person who curses you, fought you, made (and continues to make) false accusations go to your talk page if not delieratey provoke you. And here's the thing: I can't curse at him, because the admin gives his special dispensation to curse at me. If I told Winkelvi the same number of f-words he told me, I'd be blocked in a second. Why is that?--Tenebrae (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You are mischaracterizing what I said, which doesn't serve you well here. The original discussion is here [11]. Let me repeat. He shouldn't have said "fuck off" and was warned as such back in June. When it comes to random use of the word, not in a personal attack: if you can't handle seeing it in type, then yes, the internet is a bad place for you, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a swear free zone. We try to promote a collegiate environment, but that doesn't mean we censor people. We do what we can to limit personal attacks, but we aren't going to start blocking people for occasional swearing. It simply isn't going to happen. It is the context that matters more than the words. Here, the sole reason you would have to complain is that he said "I wasn't fucking baiting you, I was trying to inform you.". You are free to call it crass, or try to encourage better use of language (a reasonable goal), but under no circumstance should we block someone who says "fuck" every now and then. You mentioned about how it offends devout Christians and Muslims on that talk page, but our goal isn't to cater to any religion, it is to provide a reasonable environment for all editors, including accommodating and tolerating whenever possible. Now, if he is edit warring or harassing or doing something else, then yes, blocks are possible, but your singular focus on the f-bomb is bordering on obsession. Dennis - 12:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Concur, it's not a fair witness description of Dennis's statements. NE Ent 13:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's entirely disappointing that both of these reliable editors are involved in such a thing as personal attacks and incivility. I don't think that cursing has any room on Wikipedia and believe me there have been many times that I would have loved to have told someone to fuck off but didn't. There is nothing on Wikipedia that can't be settled with just discussion, even heated, and consensus. I don't know the whole story and there is always 3 sides to every story, yours, theirs and the truth, but I think this just needs to stop. The edit in question of Winkelvi "baiting" Tene was Tene removing an IPs edit saying that Sebastian Stan and Chris Evans were married. Clearly they aren't. Clearly this is someone who is a fan of The Winter Soldier and wanted to make a silly edit. Wink's response on Tene's talk page, no offense Wink, was a little much. It had nothing to do with the LGBT community seeing as how they aren't a couple and pretty sure neither of them are gay, it was just a fan edit and that whole thing was unnecessary. I would just say at this point, try to stay away from each other, if your paths happen to cross, try to discuss the edit in question civilly and if you can't, ask for other neutral editors opinions. I don't want to see anyone leave. LADY LOTUSTALK 12:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis Brown is correct Wikipedia isn't a profanity free zone but considering the past between these two editors, special consideration should be taken when it comes language. They should know that such language only serves to escalate tensions not defuse them. It would also probably be beneficial if these two don't deal directly with each other and instead first seek wider community support for their rationales when it comes to content disputes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's profanity in general, yes, it's fine but when it's directed at someone for the use of nothing other than a personal attack or to escalate things, then profanity has no place here. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If Tenebrae's position is "Any communication from you is harassment," they will need to stay clear of any articles / discussions Winkelvi chooses to participate in. On the hand, a discussion of an edit on Chris Evans (actor) is best made on Talk:Chris_Evans_(actor), and I encourage Winkelvi in the future to use article, not user, talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • If the edit was a legit edit that needed discussing, I would agree, but the fact that it was a fan made edit about two actors being married when clearly they aren't, that does not need to be discussed, just removed. LADY LOTUSTALK 13:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Concur -- didn't mean to imply a discussion was required, just that any discussion is best made on article talk. NE Ent 14:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed, and you make a good point that discussions need to be made on the article talks not the editors. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
          • These cases are always problematic. I agree that swearing should be held to a minimum, but under no circumstances can we take actions for simple, occasional swearing that isn't calling someone a name, unless it part of a disruptive pattern (ie: happening daily or done just to disrupt). Wikipedia is a worldwide thing, a global encyclopedia. It requires we are all a bit more tolerant than perhaps we would like to be. In part, due to our own cultural biases and what we call "normal" isn't "normal" to everyone else. Also because humans are humans, and sometimes they are annoying as hell, including me. Like I told him way back when and again yesterday, telling someone to "fuck off" isn't acceptable, it is a bit too personal and aggressive. If he makes a habit of it, he will be blocked. If it is a rare occurrence, I would simply warn him, the same as I would anyone else. I tolerate all kinds of stuff I don't particularly like here. So must we all. WP:NPA is the line in the sand, and if someone gets too close to that line on a regular basis, then of course we will deal with it as well. I suggest we go edit articles now. I'm at work, so I'm going to go sell glass tubes of electric sunshine, and maybe edit later. Dennis - 14:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
            • "Sell glass tubes of electric sunshine", that sounds lovely. And I agree, warnings should be given, and these two should just go back to editing and try not to interact too much. Cuss in general but keep the "fuck offs" to a minimum. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
              • The reference is to indoor grow lights for medical marijuana. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments from the accused: First, I think it's important to look at the diffs in order of occurance: This edit [12] prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why [13]. The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. I was not hounding his edits or looking for him to create an issue between us as he has implied. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) [14]. He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following [15] and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at that editor's talkpage here [16]. Ironically, he remembered being told to stay off my talkpage and says any communication from will be considered harassment, but he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment [17]. When I went to his talkpage, all I was doing was trying to inform of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it.
I have to admit I am truly perplexed by Tenebrae's choice to come here after he was told by two administrators (Dennis Brown and Drmies) that doing so would be a bad idea and the fuss he was making about this issue was over-the-top. I am also dismayed at his accusation that my only purpose for going to his talk page was to harass him and "stir up trouble" and to bait him. I could understand him feeling that way if I had been brash, "crass", or rude in the comments I left. But none of that happened. I had actually forgotten about our conflict a few months ago and didn't remember what had occurred until he came to my talk page, brought it up, and made baseless accusations and personal attacks there as well as in the edit summary he left when deleting my comments. I had stated on Dangerous Panda's talkpage that even after this episode, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones - to edit in the future with him collegially and peacefully. I further wrote that I hoped he could see his way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting his grudge against me. He read my attempt at an olive-branch, responded nastily with more accusations, and then came here. But he didn't just come here. He then also went on a support canvassing campaign here [18], here [19], here [20], here [21], here [22], and here [23].
In conclusion, I can't see why I should receive any warnings for anything as some here have suggested. My initial contact with Tenebrae was totally in good faith. I did not "brag" about the incident(s) between us back in June as he claims. The negative picture Tenebrae is attempting to paint of me is from six months ago, not now. If anyone should receive a warning it should be Tenebrae for wasting the community's time on this report/complaint as it is more about Tenebrae wanting to see me punished for something I said/did 6 months ago and the fact the he still hasn't gotten over it. Look at the diffs above: Tenebrae is the one who is looking to cause trouble for me, not the other way around. I can't stress more that when I went to Tenebrae's talk page it was completely in good faith. Please note, the tension and drama only started when Tenebrae reacted as he did, not before. That reaction continued for post after post on my talk page and at post after post on the talk pages of others. There, he continued his over-reacting and accusations, doing everything he could to relive our contact 6 months ago (he's doing it here in the initial report, too) as well as his editing block (which was longer than my own, and I think that is what really rankled him and kept him away for months on end). In the future, I will now have no problem remembering what happened between us in June 2014 because of this ridiculous mess happening now. That memory will keep me from interacting with him at all costs. Unless, of course, he can finally accept the olive branch I presented him yesterday and leave his near obsessive and vitriolic grudge against me behind. Holding onto it is not healthy for him or the Wikipedia community. As this report has clearly demonstrated. -- WV 15:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Coming to my page to haughtily claim I'm wrong about something, when he in fact didn't read the relevant Wikipedia template and was wrong himself ... that's not an "olive branch."
"fuck off" [24] is a personal attack and he got away with it. Fine. Dennis Brown says, Well, it's OK to say "fuck off" if you don't make a habit of it. Yet Winkelvi throws the f-bomb gratuitously again in November. [25] He has done so in every series of communication with me. Is that "repeated behavior"? Tell me, please, how it's not.
Baiting someone and then saying, "Oh, look, he's holding a grudge" is classic misdirection. And another lie. I was not, in fact, holding a grudge. I returned to Wikipedia and presumed that with the thousands of editors here we would never have to cross paths again. He chose to be the instigator. I never would have spoken to him again. So clearly, he is the one who is obsessing on me and refuses to let go, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I. Did. Not. Bait. You. You assumed that was what I was doing because the lens through which you were seeing me (and are still seeing me) was clouded by your anger and grudge against me due to what happened six months ago. That is obvious by what you posted here [26] on October 22nd: "I've been off Wikipedia for a few months after some excruciatingly frustrating experience with a bunch of trollish Wikipedians, including an admin who says it's OK for another editor, perhaps his buddy, to curse at me and presumably at other editors". You are holding a grudge, and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. Are you also accusing those who have noted this grudge as also misdirecting?
And, please, stop bringing up the "fuck off" comment as if it happened in the last couple of days. It did not. It happened six months ago. Please let it go and move forward, hopefully by accepting the offer I gave you in all sincerity: to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones, edit together in the future collegially and peacefully as well see your way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting your grudge against me for something that happened quite a while ago. -- WV 17:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You conveniently ignore you threw a "fucking" at me just yesterday. [27] This is a pattern with you, and constant cursing at someone is classic bullying. Oh, and you did brag yesterday about cursing me previously: "And, by the way, I think I said 'stay the fuck off my talkpage', not the version you remember." [28]
Giving an explanation for my absence is holding a grudge? No. If I were to have gone to you or gone to admins to stir things up, that is holding a grudge. And that's exactly the case with you when you came unsolicited to my talk page to claim, erroneously, that I was wrong about something, though Wikipedia template policy does not support you. Coming to me within days of my returning ... that seems like you're obsessing about me, and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"and now you've told another editor on his talk page that you plan on stalking me. There's something quite wrong going on" What? I said I was going to be stalking you, where? Diff, please. -- WV 17:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"I will need to keep tabs on what you post on talk pages to ensure you are not committing incivility and trying to disparage my name" [29]. So you're going to follow me all around my talk-page posts? All of them? Really? That's stalking.
And it is not the place of even a civil editor, let alone one who curses other editors, to follow an editor around to try to catch him being uncivil. And I never even used your name in that post that advised a fellow editor to ask for proof when another editor makes a policy/guideline assertion — a completely non-controversial piece of advice. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I rightfully stated I would have to start watching your talk page comments for you discussing me and making disparaging comments. I said it because it was clear to me at that point that you weren't going to stop your efforts to see me punished for the transgressions you imagine I committed against you six months ago. And, I note you did more of that today on the same editor's talkpage [30]: "Wow, you really are obsessed with me", "now saying you'll stalk me", "misleading other editors by saying your personal preference is the truth is just wrong". Implying that because you didn't mention me by name exonerates you from personal attacks and incivility just doesn't wash.
I'm done trying to communicate with you here. This whole experience has been beyond frustrating, and frankly, just doesn't deserve any more attention that it has already garnered. Trying to work things out with you while you are in this state of upset is clearly not going to do anything productive. If you want to continue, please do. Because, in my opinion, it only further sullies your "cause" to see me punished. Which is what this is all about. -- WV 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

An IBAN would be appropiate, 1-way or 2-way. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

One-way IBANs are inherently inequitable. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As a completely impartial observer, I saw Winkelvi leave a civil message (which may or many not have been supported by the infobox MoS), and Tenebrae responded with a bit of a temper. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You would need to see whole backstory: Look here, look here, and look here ... mutual 3RR reports and an ANI. Coming to my talk page at all after that, when he could have used the article's talk page, was a deliberate choice on his part. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I won't read the entire history, because it seems to be just that, history. While he could have used the article talk page, he left a perfectly civil note on your talk page. You could have ignored it, deleted it, or considered having a rational discussion. Instead you confronted him on his talk page, and now this is happening. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: in regards to the "support canvassing campaign", I don't state my opinion in favor of the editor who asked me to voice it unless that's my actual opinion. What I wrote was neutral and not a full advocacy of having you punished. I think that's what Tene wanted was to have people on neutral ground state what they thought. LADY LOTUSTALK 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Tenebrae, you have already been told by myself and an uninvolved editor that you are mischaracterizing my comments, undoubtedly with the goal of making me look bad. My comments are linked, you don't need to twist and misquote them. I was brutally clear. At this point, I'm going to recommend you drop the stick. I wouldn't recommend an interaction ban, as currently Tenenbrae's constant hammering in multiple places (I already closed the thread on DangerousPanda's page) has become disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole than the single utterance of the word "fuck" (keep in mind, the other use was in June and was dealt with then). You keep saying the same thing over and over, and you just don't like the answers you are getting there, so you tried here. We aren't a Magic 8 ball, you don't get to keep shaking until you get an answer you like. Ironically, this started over the use of the word "fuck" two times in five months by a user, yet has been used 49 times in this one ANI posting, just this morning, mainly by Tenebrae. It is the very definition of absurd. At this point, I'm going to strongly recommend both editors disengage and do their best to simply avoid each other, because if this cat fight ANI discussion continues, it will end badly for someone(s). Dennis - 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I never wanted to engage with Winkelvi in the first place, and I will gladly disengage if he will do the same. I will say, however, that since your own actions as an admin are in question, an impartial, uninvolved admin needs to weigh in. That's only fair. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
And it's not canvassing when one doesn't ask for support. A couple of editors are trying to drive me off Wikipedia and my colleagues deserve to be alerted. I asked for no support and said only: "I just wanted to let some of the good and responsible editors here know, and that if they're interested in following what's going on, that's the link." I never asked anyone to comment. In addition, the editors with whom I am collegial are all their own people who would never betray their beliefs, and I certainly don't know what they're going to say. They are hardly puppets, and are outspoken people with a variety of viewpoints. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, he cursed me with "fuck" or "fucking" four times, not two. I've already providing the diffs. Let's be accurate, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins are not classroom monitors, so if someone is merely offended by certain language then I think it is right to dismiss the complaint. However, if Tenebrae is becoming annoyed or distressed at being repeatedly sworn at then maybe Winkelvi could just agree to not swear directly at him, regardless of whether he feels justified. It seems a reasonable request to me, even if you have poor relations with the other editor, and one I would personally strive to respect. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably yours is a response engendered by this? I'm not convinced that Tenebrae has demonstrated Winkelvi has been swearing directly at them recently, so it may not be particularly relevant. Tenebrae is upset and needs to get over it. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is part of the "shaking the Magic 8 ball" I spoke of. And yes Betty, but there is 4-5 months between incidents, and the two events aren't the same. That is the whole point, and why I recommended Tenebrae just walk away. Now his disruption includes trying to canvass you for support. Of course, I don't blame you for that, as he deliberately mislead you in his point on your talk page, and again misquoted me. If this continues, I'm going to simply ask for Tenebrae to be blocked a week for WP:DE via not dropping the stick and intentionally misrepresenting the words of others (deception). Dennis - 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You're threatening to block me when your own actions and statements as an admin are at issue? How is that possibly just? The Noticeboard is where we're supposed to hash things out. It's up to an impartial, third-party admin to close it. Threatening to block me when you are one of the parties involved ... wow.
I didn't misquote or misrepresent you. Here is what you said [31]: "I'm saying that many people will occasionally say 'fuck off.' I don't remember doing it here, but in the real world, yes, I've told someone to fuck off more than once in my life. Probably once every year or two. Granted, in the real world, when I get fed up, I can be crass, I won't deny it. I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem. If it isn't a habit, then it is just a singular rude overreaction."
So it's OK to "occasionally say 'fuck off'" on Wikipedia. So because you use "fuck" occasionally in real life, it's OK for Wikipedians to use it. I'm not misquoting or misrepresenting you.
"I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem." Four times using "fuck" or "fucking" in two consecutive encounters seems a habit to me. (The 4 1/2 month difference is deceptive since I wasn't even here for that time. He instigated unasked-for contact within days of my return.)
"If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you." We're not talking about the whole Internet, but Wikipeda, which has a civility guideline. Being told "fuck" repeatedly is not a small transgression. But you seem to think I should take it as that or else Wikipedia is "a bad place for [me]." I believe WP:CIVIL frowns on an editor using the f-word against another editor repeatedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
He didn't threaten to block you. He asked for a block to be considered, implying he will not be imposing it as he is involved. 4.34.132.146 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, Tenebrae, go have a cup of tea. This is likely to end badly for you if you do not. You have misrepresented, you have canvassed, you are still holding the stick and you have been around long enough now surely to realise that the Civility policy is dead in the water except perhaps for repetitive (as in daily etc) and egregious examples. The "best" outcome for you here seems to be that Wv gets blocked punitively for a few hours by some admin with less than perfect clue, and that won't actually change a thing. Wv has offered a reasonable proposal and you seem not to want to take it. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Tenebrae, you are going on and on and on and on about this. Over and over. Dennis did not say it's ok, just that it's not the worst sin in the world. It just a word, a word many people say when they stub their toe. Logically it should be far less disturbing to "devout Christians and Muslims" than saying, say, GODDAM, which is asking God to consign someone to eternal torment. And yet we generally treat that swearword as trivial. 'Fuck' has no religious meaning at all, so should not affect Christians or Muslims more than anyone else. For the record I think Winkelvi's comment on your talk page was utterly stupid and they should be ashamed of themselves for sanctimoniously insinuating that you were homophobic, un-PC or whatever for removing something so obviously false and silly. Yes, it was provocative bear-poking. But that does not justify you acting as though you are on a mauling rampage and going on and on and on about one semi-meaningless word "repeated" over a space of several months. Working with others is also about letting some things drop to foster useful work. Many times I've decided to let someone else have "the last word" when I've seen a discussion is just degenerating into a pointless tit-for-tat fault-identifying excercise. It's natural to want to "win" or prove yourself "right", but it's not always productive. Paul B (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's hard not to respond to statements like "the Civility policy is dead in the water." That's simply one editor's opinion; that opinion doesn't override policy. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy in effect and I think we're all expected to be civil on Wikipedia.
Sitush is correct in saying Dennis Brown only threatened to ask for a block, not to block me himself. I apologize for misstating. I did not misrepresent any other statement; in fact, I copy-pasted his own words here.
That said, I thank you Paul B for acknowledging the "provocative bear-poking." That acknowledgment and to keep Winkelvi away from ever interacting with me is all I've asked for this entire time. Winkelvi keeps saying I want him "punished." I never said that. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not "culture"; it is verbal abuse. No possible good can come from adding provocative language to a content dispute. Admins should be discouraging this, not making excuses for it. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • And when it is a personal attack or extraordinarily harsh, admin do take action. What admin (and non-admin) SHOULDN'T do is be control freaks that tell everyone which words are ok and which words aren't. Admin aren't nannies, school marms or the PC police, we are here to facilitate solutions to problems, which should be in proportion to the problem itself. Dennis - 02:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, could we have some clarification here?

The editor who is objecting here is a person of long standing who would like to be treated with respect. It doesn't mean they're always right, just that they'd like other people to be respectful; and they're probably open to someone reminding them to be respectful too.
Certainly other people editing this website need the ability to inform us of errors, indicate they are upset, and in some cases tell us to stop communicating with them. We all know that the English language has plenty of ways to do this that don't require swearing at people. And we also all know where we'll be going as a community, if we continue to act like this website is our "Mean and Grouchy Swearing Club" and everyone who doesn't like it should leave.
That said, it can't just be the task of a single administrator alone like User:Dennis Brown to improve the atmosphere here.
We all need to uphold the Aloha Spirit, and find more examples for promoting positive communication styles if we want the site to grow. And if "Aloha" is a little much for some folks, most cultures have some version of "here is how we treat others when we want to show we are friendly and respectful." Pretty often (though not always), you can tell when someone is making a effort to be friendly and respectful with you.
Are the folks in this thread really suggesting that all editors here have to accept people swearing at us, because that's where the community wants to set its social norms? -- Djembayz (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Request from Gender Gap project to reopen thread[edit]

Just to note, an attempt was made by a member of the Gender Gap group to reopen the discussion to allow further participation in the context of their project, where a notification had just been posted. The original closure by Drmies was reverted by Sitush. Both Sitush and Drmies are *involved* in the current Arbcom Gender Gap Task Force case, as is Dennis Brown, who made extensive comments in the discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I reclosed (reverting a bold re-opening) because this was a blatant attempt to hijack yet another drama board thread with what would be yet more of the same arguments. The above discussion related to a specific set of circumstances and neither needed nor should have been subjected to generalised debate about wider issues. My opinion seems to have been confirmed by the fact that I was not reverted and by various people (including regular GGTF participants) who commented in the subsequent point-y thread at WT:GGTF. Neotarf, you are just needling again. Please don't. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion Sitush refers to is titled ANI thread involving respect for women reopened, than reverted back to closed, and the "various people" besides himself are Djembayz, Robert McClenon, GRuban, Drmies, Carolmooredc, Rich Farmbrough, and Eric Corbett. Two of the eight (including Sitush) are women, and apparently, Corbett joined in just to ask, "What's the basis for [the] argument that calling someone a cunt is childish?" How he or anyone else can not see how off-putting this kind of language is to many people - especially women - who would like to edit on Wikipedia... it boggles the mind. That some editors here continue to discount how offensive that language ("cunt," "fuck," and so on) is - is equally unsettling. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't claim that it wasn't offensive to some people, I merely questioned the claim that it was childish. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not the language of chidren. It's the language of low-lifes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who might disagree with you. Eric Corbett 17:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying it is the language of children??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
If you take off your blinkers you will be able to see clearly that I was questioning the assertion made by another editor that it was childish. Eric Corbett 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • More evidence that the so-called "Gender Gap Task Force" is little more than a wannabe civility police and a drama magnet. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    Quite. Eric Corbett 17:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
To this observer, the remarks of SitushCarrite - so-called task force, wannabe civility police, drama magnet - provide evidence only about his prejudices. And Corbett's "Quite" says that he shares those prejudices. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
When did opinions become prejudices? And for the sake of clarity, Sitush didn't say what you claim he did. Now who's displaying their prejudices? Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [32]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that RT is generally fairly trustworthy, and is most trustworthy where it reports on things that are not directly connected to Russia, and most useful when those trustworthy reports concern news stories that are deliberately under reported (or not reported at all) by media sources in the US (or, in Britain, by the BBC). It quite clearly delights in pointing out the biases and untrustworthy nature of some US and European reporting on some issues, which sometimes means it misses the point in its reporting, emphasizes the wrong things, and gives that reporting an unprofessional and rather amateurish tone. I think the idea that a blanket "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy" label can be given to a major media source that reports on many different subject areas in many different countries is always going to be unsustainable, which is why that particular discussion was called "a giant waste of time". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
People are arguing about what information they want to include, so the argument is not about the source itself. Time magazine is reliable, but there's an entire argument about what the article actually says. Any advice about what to do when editors cherry pick information to support one side of the story and ignore the other side? USchick (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Here is the official advice. You are obviously uncomfortable with editing these subjects. Edit something else ("may wish to restrict their editing to other topics"). My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, if I wanted to have a personal conversation with you, I would have it on your talk page. Since this is an admin page, I was hoping for admin advice. Still hoping. USchick (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually this page isn't intended solely for admins, the header itself says that. There's no real way to get the advice of admins only, since there's no real reason. Admin have an extra set of tools, but their opinion doesn't count more than that of an ordinary editor. And an admin not acting in accordance with the communities wishes (as expressed by our policies, guidelines and ultimately consensus) will find their actions reversed and themselves possibly even desysoped. And editor who asks for action which is clearly supported by such will generally find an admin willing to take whatever admin only action may be needed, sometimes even if the admin themselves isn't happy about it (although often it's best if the admin has no set opinion). In fact, if you are demanding admin attention when there's no reason, it wouldn't surprise me if some admins are more likely to ignore you because they don't think it's healthy to encourage such behaviour which goes against sensible and expected editing practice. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. Actually, the article doesn't look as bad as it used to. USchick (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by User:The Banner[edit]

It's been about a week now, since I've questioned his undiscussed move from Karavostasi to Gemikonagi and had it reverted, that User:The Banner has been trying to disparage me, ignoring calls to substantiate any of his claims.

  • He accused me of bias for having an IP in south Cyprus (1)
  • He reinstated his move and tried to have his favourite version move-protected (2)
  • He accused me of having a 'severe preference [for] Greek names', and called for me to be topic banned, ignores requests for diffs of my oh-so egregious offences that'd warrant it (3)
  • He's today called for 'my friends' to be topic-banned as well, while continuing to ignore my and User:Dr.K.'s requests for diffs (4)
  • He accused me of something-something about emotions, claims I said the move was uncontroversial, once again does not apologise for being caught red-handed (5)

There's more, but this isn't a court of law. I wouldn't ask for him to be blocked, 'cause he's obviously otherwise productive, but can someone bring him back to his senses? This has become very tiring. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone. You clearly refuse that. I consider your behaviour as harassment. The Banner talk 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Really now? Who said you had to get involved above? Nobody called your name, and I can't exactly leave you alone when you keep claiming things about me that are not true. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you just have to read this. The Banner talk 13:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban and interaction ban for 213.7.147.34[edit]

I have enough of IP's 213.7.147.34 continuing attacks and refusal to accept opinions that do not fit his opinions. I think a topic ban of all articles related to Cyprus and a interaction ban towards me are suitable. I want to work in peace and have enough of this guy stirring up the pot. The Banner talk 12:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • See, this isn't how it works. You can't just say things; you'd need to be able to make a case for it. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • See here how mr. IP attacked me in a discussion where I was not involved and after I had stated that the emotions were running too high and that I baled out of the Cyprus mess. The Banner talk 13:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is neverproper to be party to a dispute and ask for an interaction or a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not even remotely true. What may be inappropriate is implementing a restriction when you're involved, but asking for a restriction is not necessarily disruptive. Honestly, Banner's placement of this request in a separate subsection is probably the most proper way of starting a discussion about sanctioning 213'; it at least blunts accusation that Banner is trying to derail discussion about his behavior. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I desperately wants to get out of it, even as this means that I have to accept the same topic ban and interaction ban. I accidentally strayed it that mine field, noticed how high the emotions were running and made a runner... The Banner talk 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You're not gonna be able to have a topic ban implemented, unless you can provide evidence that such a topic ban is needed. The only one's emotions who were running high were yours; stop retelling this fairy tale. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't <ugly word> care and I don't <ugly word> care about you. Just leave me alone. Go way. The Banner talk 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I might've done so, if it weren't for the fact that you 'bailed out' thrice before, only to thrice return to smear me (and others). Stop pretending you're somehow the victim here. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Just read the example above, in which I had to defend myself against an attack by you, after no prior involvement in that discussion. What I want, is that you just leave me alone. You can have that whole cyprus, left and right, north and south, east and west. But leave me alone. The Banner talk 20:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This makes me genuinely sad. Life's too short to be making enemies out of other people. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
True! And the only thing you have to do to avoid that, is leaving me alone. The Banner talk 00:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If you felt threatened by me, then I apologise. Out of (mounting) frustration, I might've been more forceful or combative in my manner than I -- myself -- would've liked. I do feel that I've been wronged by you, but you don't seem to want to make amends. This is the third time you've said to leave you alone, so I won't be replying to you again out of respect -- respect that you've not shown me. I'll reflect on what has happened and I hope you do too. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A topic ban on Cyprus for IP213.7.147.34 would clearly be completely counterproductive for Wikipedia. The editor has been doing a tremendous work on Cyprus-related articles lately: cleaning up after POV-editing, correcting errors, giving consistency to articles, providing more balanced presentations (yes, that too!) and generally improving the whole field. The Banner has repeatedly been asked to provide diffs for the accusastions against the IP editor. Surely a topic ban cannot be given without a foundation being made? --T*U (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support interaction ban, no comment on topic ban. Banner has asked the IP to leave him out of it and IP continues to WP:HOUND him. IBAN is warranted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It's the exact opposite. The Banner, in all instances, joined a discussion that either I started or I'd previously participated in. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban I see no indication that 213.7.147.34 is a POV warrior; he's participating quite civilly in the discussion at Talk:Karavostasi, and while he has certainly been critical of The Banner, that's hardly surprising given the diffs cited above. It doesn't look as if he has crossed the line to personal attacks, and the observation that The Banner's emotions are running a lot higher than 213.7.147.34's appears entirely accurate.
    I would say it's too early for an interaction ban as well, but certainly at this point not much good is coming out of these two editors interacting. I'd encourage both The Banner and 213.7.147.34 to leave the other alone for a while, calm down and concentrate on building an encyclopedia; they're both very capable of being productive editors.
    The Banner, if you feel there's a pro-Greek bias in Cyprus-related articles, by all means do your best to counter it... but use reliable sources and calmly reasoned arguments rather than claims of bias or POV-pushing. You'll probably find that the editors on the other side will be less critical of you then, and actually respect your point of view - and if the opposite happens, then you'll have grounds for requesting a topic ban. Sideways713 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Unless you are up against a team, then making a runner is the best option. And that is just what I did. The Banner talk 19:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban Per TU-nor and Sideways713. That would be completely unjustified and unjustifiable for the IP editor, who as T*U noted, has performed stellar and tedious work in the field of Cypriot municipal onomatology to the point that Future Perfect at Sunrise has told him that it is a lot of work at the talkpage of the Greek naming discussion. I find the vague allegations by The Banner, about POV-pushing without providing diffs, and the request for a topic ban for the IP editor to be pointy and indicative of the dismissal on The Banner's part, of the IP editor's remarkable and expert contributions in cleaning up this topic area both onomatologically and POV-wise. As far as IBan, I think that it is premature, but ultimately it wouldn't harm either of them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't hunted around to check this out so if there is something clear to support a topic ban please show it, but I have looked at a couple of the links above and nothing stands out as justification. The IP's comments here and at a couple of the pages I saw are a model of good conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my comments above, just to state it explicitly. --T*U (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bilal Jamal Eddine[edit]

RESOLVED
All cleared up by FreeRangeFrog.  Philg88 talk 08:54, 9 November 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.

For some reason the user has decided to move his user page into a project page. As it seems like he is using it as a webhost, I am not sure what deletion criteria apply. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted as obvious G11, talk page moved back to his account, softblocked and COI-warned. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:23, 8 November 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.

Sanjay at iac[edit]

BLOCKED
Sanjay at iac indef blocked by Dianaa, talk page access revoked.  Philg88 talk 08:56, 9 November 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.

Please can someone indef User:Sanjay at iac. The usual IAC sock/meat farm making legal threats. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's nice to see mop deployment speeding up in this area ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably could do with removing talk page access, as we often have been doing for this lot. They're ranting now. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of those diffs in the talk history could do with a revdel. Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Access now revoked. For a supposedly anti-corruption body, they're remarkably adept at lying. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Another admin has rev-deleted most of their talk page posts, so we are done for now. Next time I will remove talk page access right from the get-go and save us some work :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you and, yes, a speedy block that include talk page revocation is the way to go. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kevgood777[edit]

Blocked indefinitely by John. Discussion now underway on usertalk page, which might lead to a better understanding of neutral points of view and the need for reliable sources. - Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 9 November 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.

A new contributor, User:Kevgood777, seems to think that the Ronald Reagan article is an appropriate forum for his personal opinions, rather than encyclopaedic content. [33] Earlier edits to the Levi Johnston [34] and John Hinckley, Jr. [35] articles aren't exactly encouraging either. In my opinion this 'contributor' shows no evidence of being here for any legitimate purpose, and merits an indefinite block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that this is not likely to be a productive editor and should be blocked.-gadfium 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking into this further, the edits to the Levi Johnston article appear to be a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - contrary to the 'Crystal Meth Lab' heading, Sherry Johnston appears as far as I can ascertain to have only been convicted of "one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin." [36] Though it is questionable whether even that merits mention in an article on her son. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here.

I am willing to discuss the edits I have made. The edits are informative. The Reagan page is not supposed to be a puff piece like Tea Party campaign literature, and that is what it has become. Most of the blurb is plagiarized from the Heritage Foundation website. The edits I have made are factual.

It is not in keeping with the spirit of intellectual discourse to do as the Angry guy wishes, by bullying me into removing edits threatening to block me if I post factual edits that do not advance his fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency.

Like I said, I am willing to discuss. I want to be a positive contributor here. I look forward to working with the Angry guy to come to a reasonable solution. The Reagan puff piece as it stands is not an accurate representation of what happened during the Reagan years. I would like to help revise the Reagan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevgood777 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you actually think I have a "fluffy, nostalgic view of the Reagan presidency" you clearly don't know the slightest thing about me. Wikipedia is not however a forum for our personal opinions however, and contributors are expected to use neutral encyclopaedic language, and to base content on verifiable sources. Your evident inability to do so speaks for itself, and I see nothing in your response to suggest that my initial impression was incorrect. This is an encyclopaedia, not your personal blog, and if you see problems with articles, you don't 'fix' them by adding hyperbolic sub-tabloid waffle about Reagan having "paraded around the globe bellowing anti-communist slogans worldwide in an attempt to steal the thunder of the already nearly dead so-called Soviet Empire" and the rest. And you certainly don't add headings about 'Crystal Meth Labs' to articles without a source ever, under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Kevgood777 here again.

If you dislike the edits I made to the Reagan page based on opinion, then you must also dislike much of the rest of the page, which is mostly yanked straight from the Heritage Foundation website. Educated as you are, you must already know that the Heritage Foundation is a source of highly charged right wing political opinion. Educated as you are, Angry guy, you must also understand that upon reading that page the way it was written before my edits, I have very good cause to assume it is very much OK to post facts in a political slant. The Reagan article before the edits is terribly politically slanted. And that is most certainly why I question your objectivity.

I am willing to discuss.Kevgood777 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Some pretty awful edits there from Kevgood777. Everybody has to start somewhere, and I will discuss some detailed suggestions for improvement at the user's talk page. If this continues, certainly he should be blocked. --John (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Kevgood777, I'm not the slightest bit interested in your utterly clueless opinions regarding my objectivity (though anyone who actually knew my background would find them hilarious) - if you see problems with an article, the correct way to resolve them is via discussion on the talk page, not by adding your own oppositional rant. And you have still to explain why you referred to a 'Crystal Meth Lab' on the Levi Johnston article. Are you under the impression that libel laws don't extend to the internet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Rampant BLP violations and unsourced editorializing. If he's concerned about copyright violations, he can take it to the talk page. Otherwise, one more edit like any of those and he needs to be sent away. And before he asks, NO, I was not then, and remain not now, a Reagan supporter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidently Kevgood777 has failed to get the message here - continuing with questionable edits to the Reagan page: "More than anything, Reagan is famous for out-of-control reckless military and nuclear weapons spending programs after the collapse of the Soviet Union was imminent." [37]. No source for this curiously-worded 'fame' (which seems to imply that Reagan knew about the collapse of the Soviet Union in advance, something that not even his staunchest admirers seem to assert...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:50, 9 November 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.

IAC block evasion[edit]

Might I suggest that we keep this section open because we're experiencing a lot of block evasion at the moment per WP:LTA/IAC. Perhaps just add a {{done}} for each report, as they are blocked and have their talk page access revoked? Probably best to disable their email also as they have now begun to use that to harass people.

  •  Done by Future Perfect at Sunrise - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IPs in 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis[edit]

In the past few months, a user (very likely the same person) has been making repetitive disruptive reverts on the pages 2013-14 Thai Political Crisis and People's Democratic Reform Committee on the same contents, which are the following:

The edits that have been reverted by the IPs were reasoned, and have achieved general consensus among us editors of that page. The editor has not specified the reasons for his or her edits. Warnings have been issued to the editor, I have also suggested the editor to use the talk page. The links are listed below:

Around 5 or more reverts have been made in 2 months, which makes it not fit as an edit war. Another problem is that the IPs change over time, so I am unable to block the editor. The IPs are:

  • 180.183.129.73
  • 180.183.129.161
  • 180.183.130.167
  • 185.56.163.164
  • 180.183.245.59

As you can see, the IPs have a very similar number pattern, and also do the same thing. It is most likely the action of one editor.

If you require more information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you in advance.

525th MI Brigade[edit]

Fixed. Amortias (T)(C) 17:28, 9 November 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.

Yesterday, a user manually moved an article, and in the process inadvertently severed the article's edit history. Would an administrator please fix this by re-moving 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade to 525th Military Intelligence Brigade (United States) over the re-direct? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done In the future, you can use {{histmerge}} to tag a page for this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Duly noted and thanks! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:52, 7 November 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.

Abusive posts on user talk by IP 58.106.19.68[edit]

Blocked by Acroterion. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 9 November 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.

58.106.19.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Abusive posts diff1 diff2.

Not sure if this is better handled here of AVI, but I have posted here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Presumably not a newcomer to Wikipedia, judging by their last comment. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 8 November 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.

Socks editing Mamie Van Doren[edit]

Sock blocked, page protected. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 9 November 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.

Mamie Van Doren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just woke up long enough to let my dogs out and made the mistake of checking WP. There have been ongoing problems with the Mamie Van Doren article by a sock. Today they created another account (well, two actually but one has been dealt with already) and this most recent one is adding the same material to the page. Could some admin please deal with this new sock and possibly protect the page? I'd dot all the Is and cross the Ts myself with all the right protection/investigation desks but I just want to get back to sleep. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The sock blocked, te article protected for 3 weeks (given that the current disruption continued after expiration of the previous protection)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Dismas|(talk) 21:56, 8 November 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.

Deletion of talk page comment portion without notification[edit]

In this diff, User:Alexbrn deleted a portion of my talk page comment, ostensibly to remove a link which he considered to be a copyright violation, without any kind of notification to me or anyone else. WP:TALK#Others' comments says, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it.... Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but.... If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: .... Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright."

Because there was no explanatory note or any other notification, and because the courtesy link is needed to help resolve a difficult content dispute, and because we have no way to know whether the link in question is a copyright violation or a legitimate e.g. preprint or licensed author copy, I consider this to be a WP:TALK violation by a user with whom I was recently in a heated dispute. Therefore this seems to me to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING harassment, and so I ask for an administrator to please tell Alexbrn to refrain from such harassment, or at the very least leave a clear notification whenever he might delete others' talk page comments in the future. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Though there was apparently no notification that the comment was modified, the link does indeed look like copyright violation. {{Redacted}} can be used to show that an comment has been modified, and there probably should have been some kind of notification or alert. But I don't think removing a link to an apparent copyright violation is actionable. Wiley-Blackwell charges $6 for temporary access to this content, and I doubt they would let random websites host it for free. Editors interested in academic journals can get free access to some of them through The Wikipedia Library. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
How does a copyright violation look any different from a licensed author's copy or preprint? I always hand edit my publication contracts to retain a perpetual, worldwide, transferable right to distribute anything I publish commercially, and most if not all of my colleagues do too. The assumption that a link to external content is any sort of copyright violation without concrete evidence is mere paranoia. But more importantly, the lack of a notification of any sort is most certainly contrary to WP:TALK and the fact it was done by someone with whom I was in a heated dispute a month ago is infuriating. EllenCT (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This is commercial content not available under an open license. I routinely remove such links from WP as they violate policy ("Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to") and have legal implications. Apologies for not notifying EllenCT however this change made no substantive alteration to her comment. If a user thinks it's okay to link to copyright infringements from WP because they hand-modify their contracts, and that we can assume something's okay unless there is "concrete evidence" otherwise, then I would suggest we've got a problem here.

Add: I see Ellen has now put the infringing link back. Someone should look at this. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I consider it a substantive alteration, as I wrote above. Courtesy links to sources are included when they are available, with the assumption that they are not copyright violations when they are available, just as we make them available to editors at WP:RX several times a day on fair use assumptions. The deletion silently denied the aritcle's editors who have the same fair use right to view the original source the opportunity to read what it says, disrupting their ability to make informed decisions about how best to improve the encyclopedia. I consider the refusal to take responsibility for this willful and silent disruption to be a serious problem indeed. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
IANAL so I'm not going to debate the law. I will however quote you our policy: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...". It is possible (but unlikely) there is a negotiated permission between tobonline.com and Wiley. However the material in question is generally only available under commercial terms and carries a copyright statement. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think this is a case of anyone "knowingly and intentionally" doing anything. The study is linked from this article, which doesn't give any indication that they have permission to host that content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is made by the policy that this is not just made somehow okay by hand-waving at "fair use". In WP policy terms, EllenCT did re-link the copyrighted content after you had commented that it was unlikely to be free. She had, therefore, grounds for reasonable suspicion of it, and chose not to heed them. The link's there now. That's a problem. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── sure Alexbrn could have left something like (Redacted) in EllenCT's comment, but to me that would be further messing with someone else's comment which we should do as minimally as possible. He noted what he was doing in his edit note "redact copyvio link" I would note that it was EllenCT who violated our policy, WP:COPYVIO by posting the link and then reposting the link. It is a good thing Alexbrn fixed it the first time. Suggest an admin remove the link, close, and warn EllenCT not to violate COPYVIO policy again. Could take that a step further and make a 24 hour block for EllenCT to reinforce the importance of the policy. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That "further messing with someone else's comment" is exactly what is recommended by the WP:TALK policy, for which Alexbrn has apologized for neglecting, and which would have made it perfectly acceptable because interested parties could still find the link in the edit history. If the courtesy link is a policy violation, then so is every courtesy link in references to author preprints, and so is every response at WP:RX. That Jytdog, with whom I have also recently been in heated disputes, has chosen to jump in to this with such specious arguments just proves my point that this is WP:HOUNDING harassment. EllenCT (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, I came her a few minutes ago, before I saw Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on, to say that after getting a good night's sleep I feel like life is too short for citing misdemeanors, and I no longer want to pursue this. I'm ashamed that I was goaded into further outrage and I refuse to let the hounders get me down. So please close this. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just re-removed the link and notified EllenCT. I hope this was OK. If I'm in the wrong I'll be happy to self-revert. Ca2james (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
@EllenCT: "Jytdog's specious tag-team pile on" ← could you explain what you meant by this please? An accusation of WP:TAGTEAMING is pretty heavy, is that what you meant? If so, kindly strike or substantiate. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
His trying to justify what you had already apologized for, especially in this context when I've seen him include courtesy links to copyrighted content in his own sourcing. EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

There is an edit war ongoing at the moment involving the following users:

The issues include alleged 3RR violations, alleged admin abuse, alleged blocking evasion, and alleged POV pushing. Would someone please look into this and sort it out? It would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I should note here that this is largely an edit war over actions already taken, it appears at this time that the war is contained. That having been said, if anyone wants to weigh in on the actions taken thus far and advise on what more should be done I'd be happy to listen to the advise. I feel that this may be a sock, but I've no proof of that at the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Some background. 50.121.125.51 decided to redirect a series of TV character articles. These have previously been discussed with one article being kept at AfD with another AfD closing as no consensus. As well, the articles have been discussed at the main series article talk page, when it was suggested that if there was a desire to delete these articles they should go to AfD. For these reasons I reverted the changes. Several hours later I discovered an edit war had broken out on several articles, with the IP redirecting articles and/or restoring contested PROD notices, even on the articles that had been at AfD. Fortunately, C.Fred stepped in gave the IP some sorely needed advice and direction, but it didn't seem to help. The IP had made 3 reverts in just over an hour at Midge and Bob Pinciotti so I left a warning on his talk page.[38] The IP made a few botched attempts at AfD nominations and then created DeletespagesthatfailGNG for the sole purpose of creating an AfD page. This done, DeletespagesthatfailGNG started edit warring and breached 3RR at Kitty Forman so I left a warning on the account's talk page, only to find that he had already been blocked by TomStar81. After being blocked, TomStar81 revoked his talk page access after this personal attack. Since then, DeletespagesthatfailGNG has resorted to using IPs to evade the block.[39][40]] However, for the time being, the IPs seem to have gone quiet. --AussieLegend () 11:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TheNewSaadia, incivility, POV-pushing, and general inability to cooperate[edit]

3RR block, and further sanctions will come if WP:NPA continues to be violated, but the filer is reminded that articles must adopt a neutral point of view in disputed situations.
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.

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

Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TL;DR: He has called for the article to place religious interpretation and secular academic history next to each other as alternatives "without necessarily casting judgement," and then replaced, neutered, or removed material that clashes with non-critical traditions. He intentionally tried to use language that he admitted could mislead people into thinking that the prophecies in Daniel were written before the Maccabean era. If he's not pushing a non-critical POV, he's doing a terrible job of it. His changes and proposed changes have yet to find any support beyond him, and yet he seeks to unilaterally carry them out. When others have tried to help him by explaining how things are done here, he either ignores it or responds with insults and bullying pretentiousness. Evidence to follow:

His edits include:

To date, this is the closest to a substantially positive edit I've seen from them. Still, it still fits within an overall agenda to advocate on behalf of the text's historical authenticity, and it's undue weight using a source that fails to discuss how accepted or rejected the idea is.

Multiple editors have explained politely, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways that we do not engage in original research, that we discuss reverted changes before restoring them, that we handle non-critical religious claims and secular academic findings separately or otherwise give more prominence to secular academia, etc. Since this doesn't work with his agenda, he rarely responds with civility, and shows no indication that he'll cooperate except for when it will get him his way. He's demonstrated he might make his POV-pushing more subtle to avoid trouble, but also that he'll still keep seeing what he can get away with and will not become any more civil. I've done my best to be nice to him, but (at least for this topic) he simply is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate, he is here to 'right great wrongs'.

Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring, and giving a stern reminder on NPA as well. However, let me remind you that we have a policy called "neutral point of view", to which presenting the secular perspective as true and the religious perspective as false is fundamentally incompatible. Do not attempt to POV-push either way. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Conduct Complaint against User:Moxy[edit]

I would like to make a user conduct complaint against User:Moxy. I would like to refer you to the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&oldid=633177451 . That diff describes six messages I have had with him on his talk page, 3 messages from myself and 3 messages from him.

In summary:

1. Moxy in the past week has made eight reversals of good faith edits by myself, without any talk page discussions. This was mostly to different pages, but they were all in the Help: and Wikipedia: namespaces. This includes 4 reversals in the space of 28 minutes. The four reversals in the space of 28 mnutes especially seemed to me to be inflammatory.

2. I asked him various questions. I was suspious because they were all pages which he had previously edited, in some cases recently. He confirmed what I had suspected in the following exchange: “Would you prefer it if I didn't edit pages you've already edited? - Yes I happen to be the guy that writes and organizes many of the help pages.” This more or less confirmed to me has was unhappy with me editing on pages he considered to be his turf; and it was a campaign of intimidation to persuade me to stop.

3. I informed him I was willing to not take this further if he undid the changes he had made. he refused to do this. Owing to the complexity of all the changes I decided that to go through all the changes in an individual basis would be pointless, since he would merely disagree with me.

4. I infomed him that he had more or less confirmed to me that he had broken two WP policies, namely WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:OWN. I believe I was justified in saying this under WP:DUCK. I was civil throughout the exchanges.

The diffs in question:

00:09 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:11 9 November 2014 (reverting good faith edits - best we don't keep sending people in circles to basiclly that same information right of the bat. See aslo are best at bottom Will be reverting this in a few places)

00:25 9 November 2014 (Add link to a more appropriate spot)

00:37 9 November 2014 (lets keep the top simple .....no need for a mini search bar that is lined on ever page. |Fixup bit... We need to minimizes the size of this a per the discussion at the help project. Many of this templates are simply overwhelming and dont help new editors)

Earlier in the week:

01:16, 7 November 2014 (short at bottom as per previous talks...they have zero value for new editors looking for help..and trim as there is more then one search box now ...both have info on how to beside them)

18:28, 3 November 2014 (fix coding so it does not cause all to have to side scroll)

Later:

15:29, 9 November 2014 (more to more appropriate)

15:25, 9 November 2014 (ce)

I am willing to supply any other diffs in evidence that you require. Also, if you want confirmation that the 8 edits undid changes that I had made I will also supply them for you. And any other questions please ask me.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I see from your description above and the discussions on Moxy's and your talk page, Moxy did not do anything wrong. You made similar bold edits on a few different pages, Moxy reverted them with explanatory edit summaries. Then went to your talk page and explained further why he reverted. You then go to his talk page and ask for further explanation. Moxy gives more of an explanation, but that does not satisfy you, so you threaten to report him unless he reverts to your preferred version. That is where we are at. Moxy followed standard procedure, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, he reverted and the two of you discussed it. If you don't like the outcome of that discussion, the next part of it is not to threaten to get your way, it is to use one of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not it. GB fan 12:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The evidence speaks for its self.-- Moxy (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@GB fan: OK in that case what would you say is my best course of action? You quoted WP:DR, this is a part of DR, could you be a little more specific please? I felt he had broken policy, but if you disagree I will accept that. By the way, the only "threat" I made was "I may well go take this further", and you're suggesting DR, how is that different? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
While you didn't say where you would take it further, it was fairly obvious since everything you were talking about was your perceived policy infractions. Your actions confirmed that taking it further was trying to get admins to step in. A threat is not a civil way to resolve a disagreement. From your very first post you assumed bad faith on Moxy's part, all 5 of your points are assumptions of bad faith, that also is not a civil way to resolve a dispute. Rather than taking Moxy at his word that he isn't against changes to these pages, just that he believes these specific edits are not helpful, you assumed that his purpose is to drive you away from the pages. Moxy told you that you have made good changes to at least one of the same pages that you believe he does not want you to edit. That does not appear to be someone that is harassing you or has ownership issues. Someone who is intent on harassing would not be encouraging the person they are harassing to edit the pages. I can be very specific where I think you should go from here. You should go to the first step of trying to resolve any dispute, good faith discussion. So far the discussion has been you asking for answers and Moxy giving you those answers. What you have not done, as far as I have been able to find, is explain why you believe the edits should stand. You need to explain how your edits improve the page. You should assume until proven other wise that Moxy is only trying to make the pages as good as possible. Moxy should be assuming your edits are trying to improve the page also. After a good faith discussion the two of you can not come to an agreement then you go onto other forms of dispute resolution. If it is still just the two of you discussing then a good next step is to ask for a third opinion. Also, you do not have to ping me, I am watching this page and this section in particular. GB fan 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@GB fan. Thanks for explaining that to me. While I don't really agree, I shall accept your judgement. But I really believe all this could have been avoided if he had discussed some of theses reversions beforehand. Afterwards is not so good. And while it is true I have been bold, I have not been bold with reversions. But anyway, it is valuable for me to have your insights and opinions, and I shall bear them in mind in the future. Thank you for suggestions on my future course of actions, and for dealing with these matters. --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 has returned as 107.220.86.220[edit]

Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 10 November 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.

64.183.48.206 was blocked for abusive editing. It was thought that he/she was using a second account, 107.220.86.220. The latter account has started to edit two pages that I have been watching with the same crappy and unsourced edits as under the other user name. 64.183.48.206 was blocked for one month this time. He/she has been blocked in the past 107.220.86.220 has been warned before but never blocked. If anyone would just take a look at the two contributions pages, it would be clear that one person is using two accounts to do abusive work. Both accounts need the death penalty, in my opinion. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, user IDs of the form 123.45.231.54 are IP addresses. Generally IP addresses are not indefinitely blocked because it's very possible for IP addresses to change hands or be used by multiple people (such as in an organization or school). If you already knew this, feel free to ignore me. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was the case, Richard Yin. In the case of 64.183.48.206, he/she was warned repeatedly and blocked on a couple of occasions. A comparison of the two accounts (work/home computers?) will show pretty clearly that it's the same person. Hiding behind an IP address should not shield an abusive user from being blocked. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked 107.220.86.220 for a month as its clearly the IP 64.183.48.206 avoiding the month long block i gave them a week or so ago. Mfield (Oi!) 16:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you once again, good sir. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:59, 10 November 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.

James T. Struck[edit]

There are at least two anons, 75.145.144.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.165.0.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have been inserting nonsense material about "James T Struck" into at least three articles: List of prolific inventors and Poincaré conjecture (these past few days), and Newspapers of the Chicago metropolitan area, last spring. These edits weren't the "obvious" vandalism that get handled by WP:AIV, so I'm reporting here. My guess is this is some known problem. Choor monster (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Indeed, same editor, same ineptitude, same interest. Hard to do something about it; I can block the IPs, but it's a bit soon for that and I can't easily say what block length would be appropriate. I suggest you warn them if you haven't already, along the lines of "the game is up; stop this nonsense". If it happens again we can be sure that the IPs are either static or their regular hangouts, or both, and we can block. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The style was of the sort of inept blocked users, so I was wondering if "Struck" seemed familiar. I'll keep on an eye on these IPs. If they strike again, I'll warn. I assume he/she/it has noticed the reversions. Thank you. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Block request, Aschell10[edit]

Moved to a more appropriate venue. Amortias (T)(C) 19:30, 10 November 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, Aschell10, has persistently been vandalizing articles over the last several weeks as shown in their Contributions list. For example, [41][42][43]. This User has also been warned repeatedly on their Talk page. Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 11:22 am, Today (UTC−8)

For future refernence the place to report vandalism is thataway. I've moved the report there as turn around time is faster. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, many thanks. I was not aware of that Noticeboard. Much appreciated! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:31, 10 November 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.

Tropical Biology Association[edit]

 Done by Nyttend. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 10 November 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 axed this article awhile back on copyright grounds (the material was copied verbatim from [44]), however the article's been recreated by @Maddy193: and it look similar enough to the old version that I am concerned. Can someone take a second look and advise on what to do from here? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Not instantly obvious that it was a copyvio, but that's because of typos such as 1,800 biologists versus 1,500 biologists. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 10 November 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.

Closure review[