Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Topic bans and the like[edit]

This concerns the closed #IBAN violations by The Rambling Man, further evidence but WP:RESTRICT shows that there is an WP:IBAN for Baseball Bugs, and Medeis, and The Rambling Man, and nothing helpful will happen here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 27 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.

Let's suppose user A (admin) and user P (peon) have an interaction ban. Let's further suppose that user A has frequently violated the interaction ban but no one has taken any action, despite a number of complaints. At what point is it fair to assume that the interaction ban is de facto dissolved, and that user P is thus also entitled to violate the terms of the ban without fear? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Context is needed. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why? A ban is a ban. I just want to know if it's standard practice to cut more slack for an admin than for a plain old editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because your 'violation of interaction ban' could or could not be an actual violation and context is needed to determine that. Tutelary (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Are you discussing an incident? If so, details are required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that the responses make clear is that your intent to stir the pot was recognized for what it was and shut down accordingly. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same thing! 110.92.18.50 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd make a request that it be considered dissolved because my feeling is that any admin could justify punishment based on the interaction ban still being active. It's just a sword of Damocles. There's no set time as if one or both editors aren't that active, a year could be nothing, if very, a month could be significant. It's case by case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would think that if an Admin and an Editor had a twoway interaction ban , that their would be very little (implying that there is some) actions that admin could take on an article that editor is active in without being wp:involved (if they were aware of that editor being active there that is). Being that there is an interaction ban their activities would need to be limited also solely to their administrative capacity. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the ban in any way imposed by ArbCom? If so, there's a fairly direct remedy. P could go to ANI first to get perhaps get a shorter-term block until ArbCom commented? I personally would not violate the ban under any circumstances without a member of ArbCom acknowledging the matter or at minimum discussion at ANI from uninvolved admins. Even then I personally would not cave. Bans of any type are serious business. This world work for a P that was, say, me.
However, this is mostly bureaucratic and potentially moot, as P might not know how to report to ArbCom or ANI. Hopefully they can find an incident board. This would instantly go to AN or ArbCom depending ban source. I'm not familiar on process but I assume there are additional consequences to an admin violating a ban. At no point can "de facto" ever be quantified, but if P was responding to A some leeway should be per not understanding the process. WP:TLDR, sorry. Anyone can contact me on my talk page if you'd like to continue this; I have a lot of thoughts on the matter. Tstorm(talk) 01:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is 100% obvious that this thread is about The Rambling Man. I hope that the irony of someone gaming the system to complain about an alleged gaming of the system is not lost on people. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:20, 27 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.

Please make a judgement whether a Single purpose account[edit]

Nothing to see here, frivolous complaint by apparent sock IP. Fut.Perf. 11:14, 27 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.

It seems every editions from User:Piledhighandeep are about Greco-Byzantine topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Piledhighandeep&offset=&limit=500&target=Piledhighandeep. Some editions in non-Byzantine article are also focused on Greek or Byzantine [1],[2],[3],[4],[5], [6], [7],[8][9],[10], [11] Please check his editions and spa rule to make a judgement.

Speaking of single-purpose accounts, the above IP 64.134.166.90 (talk · contribs) has only posted once. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You should have informed Piledhighandeep of this discussion (which I have now done). As to the accusation of being an SPA, Piledhighandeep surely has a preference for Byzantine and Greek topics but I wouldn't call that an SPA. Some editors like to narrow their edit on a broad topic – like ancient Greece and Byzantium in this case – and also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account states that "if a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA." De728631 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what the problem is if they are an SPA? There is nothing wrong with being a SPA in itself that I can see.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
There is of course nothing wrong with User:Piledhighandeep. To all appearances, he's a perfectly legitimate, good-faith and knowledgeable contributor, and certainly no single-purpose account (there's obviously nothing at all wrong with having a more or less specialized topic area one works in.) The IP who posted this complaint might need to be looked into though. Not sure if Piledhighandeep had the misfortune of having some run-in with some kind of banned sockpuppeter lately or why else he would have upset this IP editor so much. Fut.Perf. 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I upset now banned user User:Why should I have a User Name? with my very first edits to wikipedia (to baklava) when I signed up in July, and he accused me on my Talk page of being a "single purpose account." If I had realized when I signed up how contentious these Balkan topics can be on wikipedia I would not have been so bold as to start with baklava. After a long Talk debate, and my first initiation of an RfC, we reached a consensus in late September, which he did not seem to object to. User:Why should I have a User Name? was not banned until early November. I did not contribute to his banning, but prior to it he seemed to be upset in general with edits I'd make involving historical Greek connections. (His edits were heavily focussed on Turkish issues.) I understand the current nationalistic rivalries in that region, and I think I would agree with him that it is unfortunate that century-old history is still seen by both sides as having nationalistic overtones. Piledhighandeep (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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


copyright allegations[edit]

Can someone please have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cinematic_Orchestra&diff=635642331&oldid=631119375 - clear allegations, no refs, may need oversight etc. Sorry I can't do more than a quick ANI as I am at work. Thanks DBaK (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC) It was reverted by another user already. I researched it and can't find the allegation anywhere else. Can't back up the an edit with the comment "the truth" Should be archived Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 28 .November 2014 (UTC)

trolling account[edit]

Eating Glass Is Bad (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) NE Ent 02:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @NE Ent: Can you provide reason to why you think this is a account just for trolling? LorChat 02:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, you didn't think just listing the account was enough? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the contribs does not bring anything up that may be troll'y in my eyes LorChat 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was kidding/sarcastic. Of course, NE Ent has to provide evidence. He raises brevity to an unheard of level.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
AN/I is for Serious Buisness....Not Monkey Buisness! But in seriousness, he does need proof yes. LorChat 02:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here's the proof: told Secret that his/her sig was inappropriate because of "account" here (Newyorkbrad warned him to stop it with this edit), then went to Ohnoitsjamie's tp and compared Secret to Vladimir Putin here (violated WP:NPA). --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I blocked him for a not insubstantial period of time; if he puts together an unblock request that makes significant sense, I'll lower it quite a bit. His contribs give me the distinct feeling he's either not here to build an encyclopedia, or has WP:CIR issues. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Also note the original username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, this is a sophisticated troll. They make just enough legit edits to argue that they are a constructive editor, meanwhile making edits like this. Note also, like Newyorkbrad already signaled, the pre-adolescent original user name. Editor seems to have a hangup about WP admins and given their knowledge of procedures and the above described behavior, I strongly suspect that this is not the first account of this person. Kevin Gorman's actions seem perfectly justified to me. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The RFA edit you linked makes me think this is a sock for a certain former editor of cosmic importantance. Well, in their own view at least. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry Benedict - Bleen Scammer[edit]

Seems like this user Terry_Benedict has been adding fake content since April 28 this year. All his edits since then have been to try to make it appear that Vladimir Titar, Oleg Kokhan, and other people that work for this fake Bleen company are real and have credible credentials. The Vladimir Titar and Oleg Kokhan were both already deleted but it appears that Oleg Kokhan is back.

Bleen is a Indigogo scam trying to collect $250K for an impossible 3d projector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.146.109 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As I am not able to follow through this this myself, could we please get an admit over to Oleg Kokhan? It's 100% fabricated nonsense. As in literally 100%. None of the claims made or citations mentioned match what's in the article. What CSD category do hoaxes and invented BLP fall under, anyway? Additionally to the IP user posting this, it's not our business here to make ethical decisions about someone and that cannot directly impact how we treat articles. Your main point is taken, however. Tstorm(talk) 08:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm that Oleg Kokhan was previously deleted and why?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok yes it was for being an unsourced BLP it seems.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This individual seems to be real. The editor contacted the individual who deleted to discuss it before they recreated it. They just created it. It needs sourcing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard has now deleted the article as a hoax. De728631 (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note, Serialjoepsycho — it's easy to find out whether an existing title has been deleted before. Go to the page's history tab and click "View logs for this page"; this will show you deletions, protections, pagemoves, and plenty of other things, or you can simply tell the dropdown to give you deletions only. Please note that this reflects the pagename, not necessarily the current page: it returns results for unrelated pages at the same title, and if the current page has been moved, it won't return any results for the current page pre-move. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That is what I did.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Eightball[edit]

The editor behavior issues have been solved for the time being by full protection until 2 December. You can continue to discuss the content matters on the article talk page or in the DRN. If the edit war resumes after protection expires blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 27 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 afternoon, a disagreement ensued over the inclusion of a flag in 2015_Formula_One_season. This quickly developed into a fierce dispute including a violation of WP:3RR. User:Eightball has reverted other users' contributions labeling them vandalism and calling the users making them liars [12], [13], [14]. The user has harassed other users involved on their talk pages [15], [16], has declared their intention not to discuss and to keep reverting despite already being in violation of WP:3RR [17], and declared their intention not to accept consensus [18]. During the discussion process the users has repeatedly issued personal attacks through calling disagreeing users vandals and liars [19], [20]. I consider the attitude Eightball diplayed in the dispute utterly unacceptable. I will not deny that my own behavior was not what it should have been (in particular, I reverted to much which I deeply regret). I've allowed myself to be dragged into this way to deeply. What I would like to see is for this user to learn to collaborate constructively with other users instead of calling them liars and vandals. That they learn to respect other users' opinions and that at that at times the community disagrees with them. I would also like that this user learns to have respect for the Wikipedia policies such as WP:Consensus, WP:3RR,... Tvx1 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this at all? Tvx1 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This has already been to the 3RR noticeboard, and a case is also underway at DRN. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't change the unacceptable behavior the user has displayed. And I wouldn't say the DRN case is underway. A request has been lodged, but it hasn't been accepted yet Tvx1 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In the mean time it is more or less underway. Tvx1 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The article 2015 Formula One season has been fully protected until 2 December by User:Wifione after a lengthy discussion at WP:AN3. If you want to comment further on these issues the best place would be Talk:2015 Formula One season or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2015 Formula One season. There is not much use to keeping this ANI open. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 27 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.

IP User changing PROD page to AFD without starting an AFD discussion.[edit]

IP User 208.54.90.130 edited a WP:PROD template, [diff 635480403], I put on the Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 15) article and turned it into an WP:AFD page instead, [diff 635592756], and from what I can see did not start an AFD discussion. Subsequent changes by the same user resulted in the page being redirected to the main Dancing with the Stars (Australian TV series) page, [diff 635595484], and the AFD template was removed against policy.

Even if the article is better justified by an AFD proposal rather than a PROD proposal, the AFD entry needs to be made and the AFD discussion needs to be allowed to run its course per policy. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because IP user can't create a new page (and thus can't start the AfD page)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IP has done nothing but wackadoodle edits on Wikipedia. Needs to be warned and then blocked if it continues. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This IP address has been branding contestants from the American version of this show by race. The newest was just announced recently, and they have made 2 edits exact same word, reverted by me. I consider this racism. I've placed a warning on their page (not from the official warning templates). Callmemirela (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated reverting without discussing[edit]

m.o.p has engaged in neutral moderation on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 20:25, 27 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.

User:Roscelese has today repeatedly reverted, while keeping a little shy of the 3RR rule, to her own version of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism from texts by User:Bromley86, User:Padresfan94, and me (twice):

  1. at 17:40 on 26 November 2014
  2. at 05:41 on 27 November 2014
  3. at 07:15 on 27 November 2014
  4. at 18:20 on 27 November 2014

She has ignored appeals made to her both in edit summaries and on the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. See in particular:

  1. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
  2. Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion

Please advise. Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The page has been fully-protected and I've offered to help clear things up on the talk page. m.o.p 19:14, 27 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.

please delete User:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey/Yahoos[edit]

Page deleted, likely sock will be blocked if they continue to edit. Nick (talk) 23:01, 27 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.

trolling page used to link spam and harrass a departed user. please remove the page and lock the talk page. 50.141.70.134 (talk) 18:43, 27 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.

Director[edit]

Very problematic user having long history of personal attacks, harassment, 3RR violation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Director&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=).

As an argument in debate he said following: "(...)

Further note: whatever the case may be regarding the commonname, this nomination is likely connected to the recent upsurge of nationalism in Serbia, what with the Putin visit to Belgrade, the big military parade, Vojislav Seselj being released, etc... POV is not a reason to move from the sourced name, and I'm tempted to oppose this on grounds of it being pretty obvious nationalist POV-pushing, but I still think we can do better than the current name by following the sources more closely. -- Director (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"

that is complete nonsense. What is connection between "the recent upsurge of nationalism in Serbia etc." between actual page content, or that was just another way of insulting me, calling me a nationalist.

I have contacted this user and asked them if they could prove that I was a nationalist and of what use is that fact to that debate, but received no response.

Note: this user has already been reported for 3RR violation on page Split, Croatia. Alex discussion 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) User:Director doesn't appear to be trying to insult you or calling you a Serbian Nationalist. The "recent upsurge of nationalism" does have a connection to the debate though, since the debate is about the naming of an article with what appears to be fairly strong ties to Serbia (judging simply from a cursory look at the debate itself). Those ties mean the motive (or possible motive) behind the move is important to take into consideration so that the article can remain adherent to WP:NPOV. While I personally might disagree with the assertion that the proposed change there is POV-pushing, it is an issue for the editors of that article to consider. demize (t · c) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For the outcome of the 3RR complaint filed by User:Aleksa Lukic about Split, Croatia please see this link to the complaint. User:Director and User:Tzowu were warned, and the article has been protected for a week. I think Aleksa is complaining about a remark that Director made in the move discussion at Talk:Croatian War of Independence#Wrong title. When Balkan nationalist sentiment on Wikipedia exceeds the normal bounds the remedies of WP:ARBMAC are available. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is much hullabaloo currently in Serbia and I merely wanted to point that out for the participants, I did not mean to imply anything about any individual user. In fact, I was among the few users that basically supported Aleksa's move and accepted his POV reasoning as accurate (though not relevant). Nevertheless, if offense was taken, I apologize. I don't know anything about you Aleksa, least of all who you support in the horrible mess that is Serbian politics. Could you, in return, take a break from stalking me now? -- Director (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrible! I can't believe, now when I reported you for obvious violation of 3RR, instead of accepting that you did wrong, you acusse me of stalking. If you're asking me if I'm going to report further violations. Yes, I am. And that's not stalking. Alex discussion 12:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I just apologize?? I did not intend to insult you, I'm not sure I really did, but if that's how you perceive it - I'm sorry. If you recall I supported your initiative - it was not my intention to denigrate you personally in any way. As for whether a continuation of your malicious revenge-seeking for some perceived insult would constitute WP:HOUNDING, that will be left for the community to determine. My advice would be to find a more useful pastime. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Aleksa Lukic: I would recommend you drop the stick here. Director appears to be more than willing to work this out civilly, so I would recommend continuing this discussion on one of your talk pages if you absolutely must. If you continue to escalate it to here, then please be aware that it could easily boomerang on you. Director, it would be advisable to remain civil and avoid further allegations of wikihounding. The best thing to do here is to drop this, and if that can't happen then you should hash it out civilly on your talk pages. Discuss the issues that you have (if any), avoid shouting allegations, and avoid escalating it to ANI again. demize (t · c) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Stalking, and using admin noticeboards to kick an opponent out of the game? Aleksa Lukic, why do you keep doing this? bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner, stop being obsessed with me, and stop stalking me. Alex discussion 23:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Director, such comments are inflammatory and you know you make them intentionally in order to convince others that a certain user is acting in a nationalist way. It is very sneaky and and dirty way you use to (wrongly) discredit editors in other users eyes. You know very well, or at least you should, that there are many Serbs with many ways of thinking, many not even living in Serbia. Don't do that kind of inflamatory remarks to Serbian users, use valid arguments in the discussions, not tricks, OK? It is often you do this and is disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
FkpCascais, your personal attacks only make the problem worse. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with personal attacks[edit]

I am requesting Admin comment on a users actions because my efforts to stop this have failed. Apparently this is the place.

User reverted my edits and started a section header: "arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites by Legacypac:" which is now permanently enshrined in the article diffs for all time. I recall we are not supposed to use user names in section headers (though in frustration I added his name to the same section header and then removed it. Later that edit was restored multiple times, then removed by the editor with a nasty personal attack on my edit history in the comments.

I asked (not as nicely as I should have) for the user to remove his inappropriate comments.

I focused on the content. I sought a 3rd opinion then started an RfC on the talk page about the content where all other comments have supported my edit to the content.

I went to [[21]] for advice, which sadly resulted in another editor restoring the personal attacks against me.

I read all the guidelines on personal attacks, then for the first time ever used the WP:RPA template in a series of edits to remove the PAs while being sure to leave the editors content points in place. This effort was promptly reverted (easiest way to see disputed words). I twice restored the NPA templates and was reverted again, and then again by another user who I have no prior contact with but who's 1stfirst action near me is to insert personal attacks against me.

Next the user started a talk page section called abuse of RPA guideline and proceeds to make comments that have nothing at all to do with the article or its contents. Yes there is a long since expired BLP ban (which I served out, and have never had a BLP issue since) and a "no action" checkuser investigation (I never used a sock puppet). I understand that bringing up unrelated editor history on talk pages is forbidden. One of the latest comments is "I've spent the day researching his user contributions" which begs the question - why???

One of the less obvious things was posting a link to a google search of my user name and impling that I represent a US based Political Action Committee, an false idea that likely comes from a comment on my user page by Beeblebrox (who is not a random editor but I understand a member of the committee that decides on the appropriateness of usernames).

I admit I can get hotheaded at times but I have been focussing on being a good editor who tries to focus on content in the article spaces and restrict comments on user conduct to stuff directly related to specific edits. In the 7 years of editing here I've surely done or said some bad things, but not many of the things I'm publically accused of. Please consider if you would appreciate being on the receiving end of this treatment.

Any assistance or advice is welcome. I'd ignore this all but it seems that these users tend to feed off each other , researching users history and throwing up everything anyone else has ever said against a user plus whatever other garbage they can invent, so I'd like to clean this mess up and understand what tools I can use to deal with future situations. Thank-you in advance.Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I did revert Legacypac's refactoring of Skookum1's comments on the talk page. I do not believe they are blatant personal attacks that require refactoring. Since then Legacypac has stated that because I restored what he is calling personal attacks, I am just as guilty of making them as the editor who initially added them. -- GB fan 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#a_threat_from_colleague_Legacypac in anyway?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
His disavowel/denial following aside, there is common context which you will discover if you go through his usercontributions and a stream of contentious editing and actions and talkpage b.s. for nearly all of his wiki-career, you will also find his attempt to CANVASS for more support against me on the edit warring noticeboard a few days ago. A pattern of conduct including abuse of boards such as this one is very clear in his history, and "gaming the system" seems evident, including dragging this to ANI, or even launching edit wars in the first place as he has done re this matter, and the other. I'll be back later with various diffs but I'm tired of having this time-wasting nonsense and source-abusing/conflating ways take up my days.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all -Serialjoepsycho- Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the title has been changed to say "arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites". The prior title did seem inappropriate. The content issue seems to have been moved to the an RFC. I think it would be a good suggestion to ask everyone to discuss the content and not other editors. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@GB fan: In my experience, you shouldn't restore a {{rpa}}-refactored comment if a user has indicated that they take it personally. Individual interpretations of personal attacks can vary, and this just fuels the fire more often than not (i.e. this thread). And Legacypac is right - if you restore a comment you bear the same moral responsibility as if you had made the comment yourself. That being said, I agree that Skookum's ad hominems were not that serious in the spectrum of abuse we come across here.
@Legacypac: My advice is if you are focusing on quality editing, you should continue to do so. If another editor is attacking you and getting under your skin, often you can defuse the situation by responding calmly, and if you find that you can't, you should step away for a bit. I admit that it's not great advice, but responding with your own attacks just escalates the situation and causes more trouble. Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: an ad hominem "attack" is a groundless one, my criticisms were based in his ongoing conduct on the talkpage and re the article itself (and others). They were not ad hominem...they were justified.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, an ad hominem is attacking your opponent's character instead of attacking your opponent's argument. It needn't be groundless, and very rarely is it justified, especially here. You did a fine job of discrediting the editor's argument - you did not need to resort to discrediting the editor. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And if the person who originally added the comments indicates that they take it personally that they are accused of personal attacks? Which side in your experience do you go with? The one who was not attacked or the one who has been accused of personal attacks? I chose to restore it to the most unoffending version available, the one without the attacks. If I had restored actual personal attacks, I do bear responsibility but as I did not restore any personal attacks I do not bear any responsibility. -- GB fan 19:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully GB fan the only thing your edit did was reinsert the statements I consider personal attacks by reverting every use of the RPA template on the page. Maybe you thought you were doing something else but 100% of your contribution was actually inserting personal attacks. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You are the only person that has said there are any personal attacks in there. Every other person who has commented has said they are not personal attacks. -- GB fan 20:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Only two uninvolved editors have commented -Serialjoepsycho- and User:Ivanvector and I'd suggest rereading carefully their comments. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
But you restored it to a version with the attacks, at least the ones that Legacypac interpreted as attacks. A better question is do those bits of text (whether they are attacks or not) serve any purpose in furthering the discussion? In my opinion, clearly not. YMMV. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

(now way out of sequence after a bunch of insertions above) I appreciate the enlightening input from everyone. Here is my Request
1. Allow me to revert GB's reinsertion of all the personal attacks and if required, continue to let my use of the NPA template so far to stand without fear of being sanctioned for 3RR.

2. That an Admin close or preferably delete [this inappropriate thread] which additionally accuses me of lying about my citizenship - something that has been on my user page since April 2013 and other absurd things that have nothing to do with the Parliament Hill shootings article.

Note I have never asked for sanctions against either editor here. Thank you for your consideration. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That section, should be removed as it does not discuss article improvement, but it does not accuse you of lying about your citizenship. Skookum1 comments that he is not sure you are Canadian. He does not say you aren't Canadian just that he isn't sure if you are. You are reading things into comments that are not there. -- GB fan 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about we scrub that thread and then drop the stick? Talk about the content and not the people? That thread is inappropriate and does seem kind of WP:POINTy as a TLDR off topic rant about censorship to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Conflation/distortion of what others say is an observable repeat behaviour if you look deep into his usercontributions, as I did yesterday; conflation/distortion of what sources say is also a "habit". I never challenged his citizenship, I just find it strange that claiming being a Canadian is why he's never heard of American Legacy PAC, as we are regularly indundated with American political news and familiar with many such orgs....that he doesn't write on Canadian articles other than this one (other than the two mentioned re minor edits) and is bulk en masse working on American-oriented edits in Middle East articles also makes that claim harder to give any credence to. How is it that someone who doesn't know about US electoral politics is so versed in American foreign policy as to spend nearly his whole wiki-time working on that? He also said re that username challenge that he had different accounts on other wikis and wanted to combine them here, apparently as User:JadeDragon....but that name is available so, like so much else he says, that just doesn't make sense...this ANI is a "nuisance procedure" like so many of his others; and here he's conflating what I said, just as he has on the talkpage, and yet he misquotes and misuses sources all the time in his arguments/obfuscations. he's done it lots before; again, I invite you to look at his usercontributions and the many confrontational and disruptive matters you will discover there.Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was User:GB fan and User:Skookum1 not notified about this thread? It's been over 9 hours since this was opened and nobody noticed? GB fan already knows and I notified Skookum1. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Need to get my eyes checked. It was there and I missed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • You missed it, as did I, because he did not give it a section header as per normal procedure. As for the TLDR jab, that essay (not a guideline) is meant to be invoked only about articles and is not to be invoked on discussion pages (though it all too often is). What I see here is LP while claiming "I have never asked for sanctions here before" he has come to the edit-warring board repeatedly, or been brought there, and seem to file nuisance-procedures willy-nilly when confronted about page blankings/moves and disrupting discussions and more. Why else come to an ANI board if not looking for sanctions? Here's he's asking someone else to silence me since his own self-appointed censorship didn't work, but implicitly per that statement he does want sanctions against me i.e. to block/ban me so I'm not "in his way" or challenging his "agenda", the subject of which is easy enough to find by a review of his usercontributions. I'll be back later with diffs of the disruptive edits and false/misleading and POV edit comments on this article, and samples of his other "work" which show a too-consistent pattern.
I was already contemplating an ANI about "terror POV" editing at large, of which he has been an obvious and persistent part, but his own fondness for procedural gambits means he filed this against me first; for daring to challenge his one-sided interpretation of my criticism of his conduct about the page as "personal attacks", which they are not. Not the first time NPA has been mis-applied/claimed because of criticisms of editing behaviour and no doubt the last; but his heavy-handed editing of my post, followed by an edit war over it (after just having had a dress-down for edit warring in his previous ANI about me), is far beyond the pale of talkpage behaviour and mores. IMO he should have a topic ban on terrorism/ISIS/US military campaigns and what-not (see his usercontributions); he'd already had a BLP topic ban for a year. It seems that he's very much a one-trick pony kind of "contributor", but has been disruptive and hard to deal with since day one. This like his other ANI against me is a "nuisance procedure" and IMO meant to use up time and energy on the one hand, and to seek someone else to do what he cannot (censor me). The farce of his account of my conduct above I won't bother commenting on; and it's "TLDR" too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
another post about me in the article space. To clarify my statement above, I mean I have not sought sanctions against anyone in this thread - I came for advice and to clarify what procedures are available to me including use of the NPA template as reflected in my first post. I guess we should wait for the rest of the presentation. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
then you should wait, and not unilaterally remove material that you claim is "personal attack"; as per GBFan's comment, what you claim warranted the "NPA template" was not valid as such. Your behaviour continues to be disruptive, and IMO it's you who should be sanctioned for your ongoing actions on that article and talkpage and on many other articles and talkpages per your user contributions where edit warring and spurious complaints are rife; your claim that you're not seeking sanctions by coming here is disingenuous IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[22] with negative comments on the general edit history of User:ShulMaven and Inthefastlane and open mocking of my comments.
From WP:WIAPA "some types of comments are never acceptable:: ...Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. ...These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
the evidence is there, on the article talkpage, I just haven't taken time to transfer those diffs here, or others I've found in your usercontributions. A very good example of your very questionable behaviour and obvious "POV agenda" follows, and it's one of many. Many many many. Instead of bitching about being confronted about your misconduct and illicit use of sources and pushing your OR/SYNTH/POV, and saying "talk about the article not the editor" there wouldn't be any need for having to talk about you if you were an honest editor and behaving responsibly - but you're not.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a very good example of the kind of POV fabrication/conflation/extemporization regularly done on that and other articles by my accuser. This is the Globe and Mail article cited for that addition - the content of which is already stated elsewhere above on the page - and nowhere in that source is the analysis "provided" by LP in his addition is anything similar to what he tried to add; and while he added mention of ISIL and the Governor-General and more none of that is in the source. This is such a regular and consistent pattern in his behaviour, and not just re this article but throughout his wiki-career, and also a habit/tactic of other "terror campaigners" in Wikipedia (ok, let's call them "terror specialists" but "pushers" is more like it), is why I had been planning a POV board discussion on the whole subject of Wikipedia being used as a platform to "push" newspeak like this. I have a life outside of Wikipedia so haven't taken a half-day to transfer all the false/misleading edit comments and OR and abuse of sources that I know of and have remarked upon already on the talkpage, but seeing this one - so blatantly complete SYNTH and mis-use of sources, pushing the "terror attack" mantra again even though it's already in the article....was so rank and so hypocritical given all the posturing by him above.Skookum1 (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • To those monitoring this discussion, you may already be aware of this other ANI against LP farther up this page; the observations made by DocumentError and Corriebertus testify and bear witness to the ongoing disruptiveness of LP, whether on articles, talkpages, or his endless visits to "not seek sanction" but seemingly CANVASS for support at ANI and other boards.Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Could we try to follow policy please? Could we try to confine this to one ANi thread? Don't we have a policy about trying to right great wrongs? I put the editor to strict proof that I am not an honest editor, as that is a serious allegation. Otherwise I suggest this editor leave me alone now. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You're quite the one to talk about "policy" or whine about there being two ANI threads given that it was you who launched this one against me while one was underway about you. And "strict proof" of your dishonesty was my last post here, about your abuse of the Globe and Mail article used for a cite for your analysis/claims/speculations, none of which were in the source that you provided. You've done similar before, and not just on that article. That the other ANI is full of similar complaints about your disruptiveness and misbehaviour and contentiousness and, like this one, is full of "who, me?" pretense, is not incidental, and your abuse-of-source attempt to include yet more "terror hype" with complete fabrication was relevant to the other ANI. It was you who violated policy, as you put it, by launching this ANI against me while you were already the subject of one. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.....but you have a history of coming to ANI boards or being dragged before them for the same kind of conduct as being raised in the other thread, and t hat I am confronting here; you tried to silence/censor me on the talkpage, deleting other peoples' comments in addition to my own, and that is also "against policy".Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jewelpet Vandalism, it's getting out of hand[edit]

First of all I am almost going to Dementia due to serious problems arising but the matter is this, there are an endless influx of vandalism in every single pages related to the Jewelpet franchise. All of them are done by a lot of anons (User talk:103.14.60.18, User talk:71.110.121.200, User talk:103.14.60.77, User talk:103.14.60.13, 203.215.116.130, User talk:125.212.121.126, 108.180.169.162) trying to do what, just insult a wikipedia article and make it look bad?? I am doing a lot of reverting but this is getting out of hand because they keep coming back and always, always add things that aren't accepted to Wikipedia policy. Please do something about this, I don't want to kill a puppy from all of this chaos!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blackgaia02:You can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. This will stop anons from editing. see below That being said, I took a quick look at the edits made since September to Jewelpet (anime), which is the page you seem to be talking about here (based on your recent edit summaries). Some of it seems a bit careless, for example the person that made these edits should have used the show preview button, but none of it stands out to me as vandalism. Would you please elaborate on what edits in particular you consider vandalism, and why? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that this is coming from a person who's never heard of the franchise in question. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that you've requested full protection for the article. You are of course aware that full protection will stop you from editing the article? --Richard Yin (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of this, thought I really need those vandals to stop ruining the article itself, especially if I suspect that the vandal edits are coming from one banned user. Some anon edits are ok, I just despise vandal edits adding nonsense categories and entries.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, does this considered not vandalism? No, even new users know this.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are you requesting full protection and not semi-protection if all the problem users are IPs?
(And some of the IPs you list as "vandals" appear to be good-faith editors. In particular, 71.110.121.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks awfully like a constructive contributor.) Sideways713 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because someone is compromising their IPs just because there's one butt-hurt user who is banned here in wikipedia causing chaos. Even thought they were in good faith, vandals are still vandals. Well no, the much better term is someone is using a vpn or proxy to do bad edits. This has been going on SINCE JULY.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No, good-faith editors are not vandals, and shouldn't be called such. And not only is 71.110.121.200 not a vandal, they're not even editing disruptively.
Both 71.110.121.200 and 108.180.169.162 seem to be completely unconnected to the user behind the other IPs. Even if they all were the same user and all vandals, though, that still wouldn't explain why semi-protecting the article(s) – which only stops IP edits, and is the normal response to persistent IP vandalism – wouldn't be a sufficient solution here.
Can you tell us what the original account of 103.14.60.xx/203.215.116.130/125.212.121.126 was, and where and when was he banned (or blocked, which is not the same thing)? If he's evading a block or ban, it would probably be more effective to block his IPs (the other normal response to persistent IP vandalism) than to semi-protect the pages; he doesn't hop from IP to IP that much. Sideways713 (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to figure out, what is his real IP address so to stop all of this mess. I can't even pinpoint the real one in all of the dummy IP's he's using at this point so it's hopeless. I'm very sorry, I'm rather frustrated on all of this.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement/PR[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin please review the edit history of Denuvo? There is an ongoing dispute and the company or someone close to them has been whitewashing the page. S/he seems to be hopping IPs. There are also some other editors there. Some semi protection an blocks are in order. KonveyorBelt 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Still going on, though more subtly. KonveyorBelt 05:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate (again)[edit]

The article Gamergate_controversy has been unprotected for less than an hour. Edit warring began within minutes in order to restore the allegation that Zoe Quinn exchanged sexual favors for favorable reviews. These allegations are unsupported by reliable sources, and indeed have been frequently refuted. Nevertheless, editors insist that the longstanding heading language must report the Allegations without qualifier, or with only the qualifier "unproven".

This page needs eyes (and IMHO protection) urgently. Obviously, Wikipedia’s repeating an untrue allegation about a game developer's sexual history involves BLP, and given the prominence of the issue. Note that I believe I may have violated 3RR under the BLP exemption and hope this was done appropriately. I'd appreciate it if the authorities could take over now. [[23]] MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering how long this nonsense has been going on, protecting it for only ten days was Pollyannish at best. It should be re-protected for a lengthier time, like say a year or two, and then reverted back to the last non-BLP-violating version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And mybe MarkBernstein should assume good faith before making such accusations because I made it clear that that wasn't my intentions Avono (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel's already full protected it again. NE Ent 17:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Bugs, I've extended protection. Chaos seems to erupt whenever protection expires or is downgraded, so we ought not let it expire again so soon. For a while, full protection was set to expire in late April, so I've put it back to that; other admins are welcome to downgrade it if they believe it necessary (no need to ask me or notify me; I don't care about the topic), although I'd advise against it. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure protection was necessary. User Avono seems to concede the issue to MarkBernstein's suggestion.--v/r - TP 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it was necessary because of this specific incident, but that wasn't the reason for the extension of protection; I did it because of the longer-term trends, and I would have believed protection necessary even without this specific incident. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Plus, long term protection violates WP:PILLAR as this is supposed to be the Wikipedia that everybody can edit, not the encyclopedia that any admin can protect a page for a long amount of time just because it has 'problems'. A lot of page have freakin' editing problems. NPOV, biased content, tendendious editors. The solution to those problems is to discuss on the talk page, (and maybe file for enforcement for the more conduct related) not shut down all editing for literally 5 months because you think 'it'll calm down after that'. That's a fool's errand, and just delays the problem. You should absolutely use full protection for short periods of time, but not for this longer period since it happily negates any meaningful discussion on the talk page. I urge to you restore the full protection original date. This I also believe is unprecedented. Tutelary (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, no one is being oppressed. If you have a particular edit suggestion, propose it on the talk page, get consensus, and then sit back and enjoy the improved product. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not worth worrying about here and now. Twenty four hours after this [24] vote, the criteria was met for the opening of an arbcom case. (The actual declaration depends on the availability of an arbcom clerk, who are volunteers like the rest of us.) NE Ent 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to see the page receive long-term protection. If anything resembling a consensus can be established on the talk page, then it can go into main article space. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should not be removed to a semi-permanent draft version that will serve like an admin-only Pending Changes article. Such a concept goes against our core policies. I will recognize that there is a major effort by parties to advance an agenda, but semi-protection and the sanctions on the page are tools enough to control the matter without becoming draconian. Wikipedia is a neutral party, but compromising our standards and processes sets a bad precedent and it indicates that Wikipedia is helpless to regulate, control and maintain high-visibility articles. Full protection only projects vulnerability and shame in our self-regulation because when we pride ourselves on the notion that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The sanctions did not prevent (false) allegations about a young woman’s sexual history from being posted to article space within five minutes of the end of protection. The sanctions have not prevented Ryulong's doxxing and the shameful anti-semitic rants against him offsite, nor have they yet taken effective measures against relentless speculation about other unsourced claims [[25]], nor an admin’s repeated talk-page assertion that two reliable sources that refer to an image as a "rape joke" must be wrong because no static image can depict rape. This page needs an extended time-out, and related pages need watchful eyes. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Uh, we can only deal with the vandalistic edit after the fact, and that's an oversight that has happened to other articles before. (Not restoring semi protection after full protection and a vandalistic edit gets through) To try to say that the article should be protected for 5 months because of a single vandalistic edit is absolutely crazy. And we don't control what happens off site, and linking to a general enforcement page in which the user is warned is not productive. Also commenting on deal dispute matters which you don't like the reply of an admin is also not exactly relevant to the topic. Also please don't insult or personally attack other editors, per WP:NPA. Tutelary (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The accusations against Quinn was the focal point for all of Gamergate, and discussed many many times in reliable sources, and considered refuted by most of those reliable sources. It has been long since accepted in talk page discussion that in discussing those allegations as the starting point and the fact they've been pretty much disproven is not a violation of BLP. Further, you need to stop misquoting me and making veiled personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting real tired of the harassment I'm getting. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Draconian Proposal[edit]

On the one hand, I agree with the comment that putting the article under several months of full page protection, which amounts to Pending Changes by admins, and gives too much power to admins, is contrary to Wikipedia policy that anyone can edit as long as they do not edit disruptively. On the other hand, it does appear that every time page protection expires, someone re-inserts the sexual allegations against Zoe Quinn, and the sexual allegations are an intolerable biographies of living persons violation, and potentially libelous, and Wikipedia has a legal and moral responsibility to remove them again summarily. Therefore, I propose the remedy that we establish that anyone who re-inserts the allegations with any wording other than “false” should immediately (without further warning) be topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator, and may be immediately blocked in order to allow time for the topic-ban to be posted. It should be understood that any wording of the allegations short of ‘false’ (and ‘unproven’ is short of ‘false’) is an attempt to weasel around the ban on re-inserting the allegations and so not permitted. With this specific definition of sanctionable conduct, perhaps we can go back to short-term rather than long-term page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no need for this; this is what the general sanctions are supposed to handle. The editors that edit warred (both ways) over long-established phrasing should be warned and/or have sanctions enforced to mitigation the issue. Doing this type of solution, having admin actions on specific details, I can see grow way too fast out of control. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the sanctions would cover this and, if things were to change in the future, would preempt the ability of the article to change with time. Terrible suggestion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as necessary (extended page protection is also necessary). Also -- and knowing that I am walking directly up to the line of WP:CIVIL here, both MASEM and Thargor Orlando, opposing above, fought long and hard today to make the sexual allegations as visible as possible, and their discussion as protracted as possible,MarkBernstein (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sanctions cover this sort of stuff. Redundant and unnecessary. Tutelary (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As this was never the issue. Avono (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unnecessary per above. ansh666 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current sanctions are sufficient and because we should never impose an requirement that certain wording is not allowed here. The evidence of the current consensus is clear, is here and it's disruptive to change it but consensus can still change. The solution is for those editors to propose a more neutral wording and see if that is permissible. Their BLP attacks are not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Follow-Up Reply, and Alternate Suggestion[edit]

I see that consensus is running against my draconian proposal. I can understand that. I also see that it is said that the sanctions should cover the issue of the deletion of the word "False", which has been done several times today (along with other stuff) before full page protection was imposed. Is there a noticeboard for requesting that actual sanctions, such as topic-bans, be imposed under the general sanctions? If these were Arbcom discretionary sanctions, I would know how to request action. Is this the proper noticeboard? If so, is it in order to request that the editors who changed "False Allegations" to "Allegations", aware of the general sanctions, be topic-banned from the article? It appears that the general sanctions are not being used effectively to deal with disruptive editing that violates BLP guidelines. Is that because full page-protection is easier for admins to impose, or why? Are the general sanctions not being used effectively, or are they not suitable for being used effectively? Can the editors who removed "False" be topic-banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions page is [26]. Other than the initial flurry, and today's topic ban of DSA (after a at least one previous request and two or more trips here), enforcement has been glacial and, in my view, ineffective. Not only was the False allegations edit warred, but a subsequent edit war broke out on the talk page over whether discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life could be hatted or whether the five pillars require that the BLP violations remain prominently visible on the talk page. Yesterday's rape discussion was, in my view, beyond belief and also deserves close scrutiny, which I have been inviting just as I felt I had to open this discussion with my own 3RR violation. That this should be necessary to gather attention to the matter is unfortunate, but if attention is being paid otherwise, its effects are not evident to attentive onlookers. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to slander me, at least ping me. I don't sit around all day looking through contribs, so I'd prefer i know who is slandering my name, and where and when. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As your conduct was not under discussion here, and as it's not clear that you could contribute to this discussion (having been topic banned), it didn't occur to me. I'm regret the omission, @DungeonSiegeAddict510.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just changing "false allegations" to "allegations" one time is in no way a violation of the general sanctions though trout-worthy due to the fact the issue has been discussed much per talk archives (and while using "false" is still controversial, is generally considered a stable solution at the present time), but edit warring over that would be. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. Telstar introduced the issue [[27]], reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Telstar restated the BLP violation again [[28]], was stepped on by Avono introducing the draft revision wholesale, and again reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Avono immediately reverted to plain "Allegations" [[29]], reverted by me. Avono tries to replace "Allegations" with "Unproven allegations", reverted by me. As I'm reporting myself to ANI for that revert (head of this discussion), Gamaliel protects the page.
MASEM knows this. MASEM can, presumably, read view history just as well as I can. I know people hate drama here, but in the post above, MASEM can only be intentionally misleading his colleagues -- what other explanation can we offer for the edit immediately above. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For further reference, MASEM's talk page edits today insisting on fuller exposure of Zoe Quinn's sex life, and attempting to argue that the allegations concerning her alleged exchange of sexual favors for editorial coverage were not false, in the teeth of (as far as I am aware) unanimous reliable sources: [[30]], [[31]] (page is protected at this point), [32], [33],[[34]] (worrying that new editors might not be familiar with Zoe Quinn's sex life), [[35]] (alluding to 'more sexual accusations which we will not discuss because they're not true either, except we have to mention again and again that they were alleged), [[36]], plus five subsequent diffs that interested readers can pursue as easily as I through View History. All of this, mind you, was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned. But, after a whole day parsing whether or not "sodomy" is a good euphemism for rape and asserting that a static image cannot n any case refer to rape -- again in the teeth of the sources and defiance of art history and semiotics and common sense -- if this is, on a page already subject to sanctions and already at ArbCom -- if this is not misconduct, then let's just turn out the lights right now. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Please stop personally attacking me. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect MASEM, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which (a) have consistently ignored WP:BLP in favor of prurient inquiry into the sexual history of a game developer whom the sources and you yourself agree is blameless, (b) bitterly contested efforts to at least hat the BLP violations on the talk page which you could easily have ended, (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset, and where (d) these tactics are openly discussed. I confess that WP:CIVILity in the teeth of facilitating threats of rape against my colleagues, which you spend yesterday defending, was difficult. But you assert above that one edit was made, when all can plainly see -- and you very clearly knew -- that many edits had been made and that you spend hours -- literally -- defending them personally. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are attacking me. "have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset" is an outright attack without proof and I can tell you is 100% false - I have purposely avoided any discussion of the GG article with anyone outside of the discussions on Wikipedia (save for what I've already documented at ArbCom as one private discussion with a person that wanted to know how reliable sources work on WP). I'm well aware my name comes up in several conversations on outside sources, but that's why I have fully avoiding interaction (and in part I am not proGG, I'm only fighting for an impartial article per NPOV). So that's an outright fabrication and a personal attack. Additionally, it is not BLP to discuss an accusation that has been the center of discussion of numerous mainstream reliable sources and central to the entire debate, which has also been generally debunked. BLP says we should be using the best sources if we have to discuss it (which we are) and we just have to establish how the allegations came and how they were refuted. You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. I'm trying to argue from the proper accurate and neutral wording to how to present the nature of the accusations. And I am only contesting hatting when involved editors are doing so, because of the talk page being under sanctions - if a discussion needs hatting, grab an uninvolved admin and do it themselves.--MASEM (t) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I urge careful attention to the paragraph above, notably the phrase I know other other allegations [[concerning Zoe Quinn's sex life that] exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. That's breathtaking -- and so generous of you to not wish to discuss prurient details in a matter in which this software developer is blameless at the current time! Please: someone. Take this to sanctions or wherever it needs to go. It has to be done, and I can't face another long day of being dragged through innuendo about a colleague's sex life for the amusement of Wikipedia process. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say "sex life"? There are other allegations about her life, but not about her sex life. You are misquoting me left and right. Please stop immediately. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(And to be clear, these are allegations I am aware the proGG has made, but no RS has covered in any detail we can even start to use, and hence why I won't bring the specifics up at all) --MASEM (t) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's breathtaking Masem. If you're not willing to drop the topic for a couple of months I think sanctions will be necessary. Meanwhile, readers here can thnk about what bad things Zoe Quinn might have done—that is, bad things apart from her sex life. Perhaps the allegations are that she has committed fraud or blackmail? Or that she threatened to kill or rape someone? Can't you see how utterly inappropriate it is for editors to use any page on Wikipedia to promote such nonsense? Please stop immediately. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I am absolutely not promoting those. I am saying, as editors of an article that has received an inordinate amount of outside interest, that we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people that want to come to WP to ask us to add them, and to respond best to them it is better not to be ignorant of these other claims and broadly what they involve (as it tells us what other articles might be subject to outside influence because of the connection). I am absolutely not promoting adding anything more regarding Quinn. --MASEM (t) 11:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
How much longer should the community tolerate these repeated attacks from MarkBernstein? Is there a reason his continued attacks and posts are tolerated? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Thargor Orlando: Apparently the enforcement page would be the revenue to have such issues dealt with as previously unfounded accusations were hatted by dreadstar [37]. Avono (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I am hatting this because it was becoming too offtopic. This was probably a cultural misunderstanding because as a German I correlate right wing to Fascism Avono (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


And this [38] could possibly constitute slander, I would advise MarkBernstein to immediately retract that statement Avono (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In [39], a topic-banned editor is found editing [Christina_Hoff_Sommers]. Now, many people might not know who Christina_Hoff_Sommers is, so I explain that she is "a prominent, right-wing GamerGate supporter." I repeat this deliberately, which Avono calls "slander". That she is prominent is clear: she has a Wikipedia page. That she is "right-wing" lacks nuance but is broadly descriptive of our lede and of her affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute. That she is a GamerGate supporter is evidenced by her picture and passage on the page we are discussing -- a picture and passage I believe to be unnecessary and undesirable but which GamerGate supporters have defended fiercely and which, in my view, does no urgent harm (unlike the repeated insinuations regarding Zoe Quinn’s sex life). If anyone believes this is slander, you know what to do. If anyone believes this characterization rises to the level of sanctionable or, indeed, less than commendable, the door to sanctions is that away -->. If anyone has a spare trout, Avono needs a fish dinner for this; I think it is sanctionable but I really would rather watch football than spend a couple of days helping Avono catch a fish. If anyone would like to offer some help to the project, the GamerGate pages need protection and their talk pages need scrutiny, and I need useful advice. Email always welcome. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Right-wing politics states that

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable

so please tell how a feminist can be right wing Avono (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers works for the American Enterprise Institute, a noted right wing think tank. They don't hire left-wing individuals (Well, not as contributors at any rate. Possibly as janitors). Ergo, CSH is right wing. She also claims to be a feminist, so it would be up to her to explain how she reconciles these seemingly contradictory affiliations. Most people say she does it by simply defining "feminist" in a way that does not match anyone else's definition of the word, much in the same way that Gamergaters use the word "ethics" in a wholly de novo fashion. But for a sourced answer as to how one can be demonstrably right wing and still claim to be a feminist, you would have to apply directly to Christina Hoff Sommers herself. ReynTime (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely useless exhortation[edit]

Gamergate is a tawdry, toxic mess of gossipy juvenile personalities worrying about crap they don't need to be worrying about, and I'm not talking about Gamergate-the-Wikipedia-article. While I'm fairly "iar brave" around here, I took a glance a couple weeks ago and immediately recalled the wise words of Monty Python: Run away! Run away!! I'd like to do nothing more than Afd the thing because it's not really worth the angst; unfortunately a quick Google search made it disappointingly clear it was too notable for an Afd. Given the nature of the source material, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for Wikipedia to write a proper NPOV article which does not trip into BLP territory. Seeing too many regulars at each other's throats over this makes me sad. Please just try to dial it down a notch and remember most editors are here for the same reason (singing Kumbaya is optional, but if helps and you can carry a tune...) NE Ent 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is fine and I agree in principle. Would you agree so readily, NE Ent, if we'd spent six hours yesterday discussing whom you, or your daughter, had slept with? If an edit war was conducted, as it was conducted yesterday, to change a section heading of the article from "FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUTNE Ent" followed by a paragraph on your sexual history, and replacing the heading with "ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent" or, as a compromise, ""UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ABOUT NE Ent]"?
More to the point, beyond being a tawdry toxic mess, Gamergate does involve sending countless threats of beatings, rape, and murder to numerous female software developers. Suppose, heaven forfend, the least-sensible follower of this tawdry, toxic mess decides to follow through. If that were to happen today, could you stand on Wikipedia's talk page and say, "we did an excellent job and demonstrated how sensibly we can handle a difficult situation?" If so, do you imagine that the New York Times or Der Spiegel would agree? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
NE Ent, the precise problem is that there are a great many editors who are not here to build a source-based encyclopedia article about this issue, but are here to portray Gamergate as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes while presenting a wide array of Gamergate's "tawdry, toxic, gossipy, juvenile" allegations against living people as something other than specious, disproven, ill-founded and frankly-nonsensical — which has been and is the clear and unambiguous conclusion of mainstream reliable sources. I would like nothing so much as to "run away," but it is my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor — and my responsibility as a humane person — to work to ensure that our project does not serve to perpetuate and propagate a series of anonymous, vicious and violent harassment campaigns targeting living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At least in my opinion we should be TRYING to get gamergate back to being at least semi-protected. A very long term protect would be bad. Impose 1RR if needed, and then unprotect it (back to semi), if people start edit warring, temporary protect the page long enough to sort out who is edit warring (like 24 hours at most) and get them topic banned, and then unprotect again. Rinse and repeat until all those disrupting the page are topic banned. (and by edit warring I mean more then just propose removing false, and then someone reverts that and says take it to the talk page) --Obsidi (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Gamergate article is suffering from serious recentism and bloat due to it being a current event with a small but persistent group coordinating efforts offsite to keep the mess front and center at WP, all out of proportion to its actual importance. Keeping the page locked for a significant length of time will give a chance for things to die down and for the actual cultural impact -- IF ANY -- to be properly assessed and the article appropriately trimmed. Frankly, it seems unlikely that in six months anyone is going to care about the minutiae of Gamergate. It'll be remembered as just another nasty, ugly little crapstorm drummed up to try to drive women out of "men's spaces". There's no real reason to keep wasting the time of editors who right now have to keep a hawk's eye on it to prevent BLP violations and material "sourced" on Youtube personalities from sprouting in it like dandelions after a spring rain. Keep it protected. ReynTime (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also it seem arbcom will take the case (6 supporting and 1 recuse with 12 active arbcom members seems likely to take the case at this point). So whatever we do now may be moot, arbcom is likely to have some kind of preliminary injunction. --Obsidi (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO the best solution here would be to delete and salt the article, then start again in six to twelve months when the drama has died down and the RS (not just news websites) have had a chance to get into gear. The world would not be a worse place for Wikipedia not having an article on GamerGate for a year. That's my 2p; unfortunately, I can't see it flying. GoldenRing (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    That suggestion gets thrown around a lot on a particular reddit forum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    Er, right. Do you have a point to make here? GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm guessing he means that removing the page is what the GGers want, except I disagree -- what the GGers actually want is to have a lengthy WP article that legitimizes their BS "movement." I tend to think that getting rid of the GG article entirely or at least paring it down to the two or so short paragraphs it may, possibly, deserve (due only to the extremes of harassment of women in the industry that occurred via the use of social media) would go further to indicate how meaningless, petty, and nasty the whole thing is than to have an insanely long entry going into every last little detail of the GGers terrible behavior. With a long and detailed WP article GG can run around claiming that (A) GG is REALLY IMPORTANT! and (B) WP is full of "SJW shills!" and other such tripe, which leads them to engage in coordinated offsite harassment of editors they don't like, and to try to drag in tangentially involved figures like Christina Hoff Sommers and David Auerbach (of Slate) to push their agenda for them via harassing Jimbo on Twitter and on his talk page, because they expect him to step in and personally "fix" things to their liking. (Not that JW can't handle it since this is by far not his first rodeo, but it's still really, really stupid.) Removing or severely trimming the article would reduce the potential for such behavior substantially, although WP would of course then have to deal with the shrieks of "CENSORSHIP!!" that would follow. As it is, I'm betting that the GG group has more SPAs and zombies they can bring in than WP has genuine editors willing to police the article properly until the GGers get tired of messing with it, and the GGers have more patience because they simply care much more about it. While WP:NOTPAPER holds, of course, having this crazy long and detailed article about GG gives it far, far more legitimacy than it deserves. (150 citations?! Seriously?!)ReynTime (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Just so. Reading the current article, it seems insanely long for such a storm in a tea-cup. So by suggesting that we delete the article and leave it alone for a year, I was trying to say that I think some historical perspective will pare this down to, as you suggest, a few paragraphs dispassionately describing the controversy. But we are getting into a content discussion here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone point to another precedent of a fully protected article just because the article has problems without being fixed? I don't believe such an article exists. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm 100% uninvolved but I looked to see what all the fuss is about. It looks like wikipedia is one of the battlegrounds for a real life war over nonsense. Native advertising for money is far more dangerous to journalism than someone bonking (or not) someone for a favor. A heck of a long article, poorly organized , which is just a tool for pro and con to engage in battle. Lock it down and control the flow of edits. Legacypac (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Navin Raheja and Raheja Developers Limited[edit]

I was going to take this to WP:3O but while writing the synopsis I came to the conclusion that it was a little much for 3O since it started turning into a large paragraph. I'd been requesting assistance from BLP/N, but nobody else seems to be willing to enter into this. OK, here's the story:

User:Bhaskargupta269 came on to BLP/N to complain about negative material added to the page by User:Leoaugust. The additions to the page were written in a way that came across as having a bias against Raheja and some allegations that were recently levied against his company. However at the same time I also noted that the page was written in an extremely positive, promotional manner. ([40]) I noticed that Bhaskargupta269 had tried to remove the content but retain the promotional material and that Leoaugust had re-added the material. ([41]) I edited the article and removed the overly promotional content and edited the allegations to be more neutral in tone. I did notice that there wasn't an awful lot of coverage for Raheja outside of the company, as the majority of the sources were trivial mentions where he was being quoted in a paper- not the sort of thing that can give notability. His position with NAREDCO doesn't seem to be of any particular importance, which I'm noting because I've been asked by Bhaskargupta269 on my talk page to remove the negative material from the article by Bhaskargupta269. Removing the negative material would result in the article being a short stub that mentions that he runs a successful company and that he is the chairman for NAREDCO.

Why I'm bringing this here is because I'm concerned about conflicts of interests on both sides (although Leoaugust does seem more willing to compromise, as he did not argue that I changed the tone of the negative material) and I can't really seem to get anyone to step in and help with this article. I have just asked WP:INDIA for assistance looking for sources, but they're already overloaded with a lot of various articles getting nominated for deletion and this is mostly an issue of potential BLP violations and COI editing on both sides. What doesn't help matters is that shortly after leaving a note on my page, Bhaskargupta269 made this edit to the company page adding very unambiguous promotional material. (Which I have since removed.) I need more people to step in with this, as I just need some sort of backup for this. This whole thing is just at a level where it's not overwhelmingly at ANI level, but it's something that would require some other admins and experienced editors to come in and help out. I can't help but get the feeling that at the pace it's at (where I'm the only person who is involved with this), it's going to turn into an instance where ANI would become inevitable. I almost didn't request this, but I'd like to get people stepping in now before it gets that bad. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Since the edits by Bhaskargupta269 have been so consistently promotional, I have asked him if he is being paid to edit the page. I would like to ideally avoid any blocks, but I'd also like more people in on this so it doesn't seem like it's me agreeing with one specific person. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks User:Tokyogirl79 for your editing guidance. I am a real estate expert in India, and have personally dealt with Raheja Developers in addition to many others over the last 9 years. If any bias showed up, I now realize it was not in the true spirit of Wikipedia. I hope to contribute to more articles on Indian Real Estate and started with Rahejas. All the 3 pages Navin Raheja, Nayan_Raheja and Raheja Developers Limited till last week were not only promotional, but gave a very false image of the builder, potentially misleading many including buyers & investors. Rahejas have been again in the news yesterday for laundering money, and robbing the exchequer in a sting operation conducted by Cobrapost. The specific story is here [1] and the relevant sting video is here [2]. A quick search in Google will show that this story of Cobrapost sting on developers has been covered in major papers like Times of India, Business Standard Business Today, etc. My aim is not to write a negative article on the Rahejas but to ensure that it is balanced (maybe neutral) and does not become another tool for them to attract more business by appearing in super glowing terms in Wikipedia. There is much more to the Raheja story that we at the grass roots know, and maybe why my bias showed. Am glad you edited out the bias. Leoaugust (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {{cite web|title=OPERATION BLACK NINJA: PRESS RELEASE|website=http://cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=7290&cid=23%7Cpublisher=Cobrapost%7C}
  2. ^ {{cite web|title=Cobrapost Sting Video of Raheja Developers|website=http://cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=7292&cid=23%7Cpublisher=Cobrapost%7C}

Threatening statement by blocked user[edit]

Talkpage revoked. Amortias (T)(C) 15:40, 28 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.

The blocked user Thetoolkitbrah has posted a threatening statement on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked User:Jac16888. Amortias (T)(C) 15:40, 28 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.

Kenneth Stern (rugby player)[edit]

Blocked by m.o.p. Amortias (T)(C) 17:08, 28 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.

Hello.

An editor at Kenneth Stern (rugby player) is inserting content which appears possibly libellous, which I had reverted after being unable to verify the source. The editor continues to reinsert. Please advise. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1F19:518F:91C8:654D:E10A (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

2601:c:6000:72f:541a:e213:6398:a696 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) LorChat 02:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 (Non-administrator comment) Note: Not enough warnings to be worth blocking over. I have warned them though for the first (And only) Revert. LorChat 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked - if this were a good-faith addition and we were dealing with an editor who wasn't familiar with Wikipedia policies, I'd agree with going through a full course of warnings. However, given that this person added libelous content repeatedly using a source completely unrelated to their claim means they likely weren't trying to make good-faith contributions. m.o.p 02:59, 28 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.

New user able to create account for others[edit]

No action required. Amortias (T)(C) 17:10, 28 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.

New User:IQBAL KHAN Director appears to be able to create users without the account creator permission nor access to the interface. New user log revealed the following:

09:08, 28 November 2014 User account Aryan Iqbal Director (talk | contribs) was created by IQBAL KHAN Director (talk | contribs) and password was sent by email ((Redacted))

RegistryKey(RegEdit) 10:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RegistryKeyThis is normal, it may need to be questioned why he even created the account in the first place. But all users can create more than one account technically speaking. The account creator permission just lets them create more than a certain amount in a certain amount of time. LorChat 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are emails showing up in the log? --NE2 10:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The part in brackets at the end of an account creation log entry is the 'Reason' field on the signup page - the user must have written the email there. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 28 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.

Blanking content with misleading edit summaries[edit]

User:Bigbadbass has been repeatedly blanking sourced content from the article about parody British politician Lord Toby Jug, all of it with deliberately misleading edit summaries of "fixed typo" and "fixed grammar". I gave a warning template about the false edit summaries, and the editor has cranked up to a level 4 warning for blanking sourced content this afternoon, but they've ignored all of it. AIV declined to block when I reported the editor there because "some of the edits appear to be OK" and suggested I raise this at ANI. So here we are.

It seems that the editor objects to the article mentioning Jug's real name (which is sourced to press coverage and does not appear to be secret) or describing him as being "expelled" from his party (which is what all the sources say). The editor seems to be a fan of Jug's work and to dislike his critics. But when all of this is being blanked and reverted for being "typos", it's hard to know what the problem actually is. --McGeddon (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Chillum while I was in the process of moving this report from WP:AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Given the edit warring, deceptive edit summaries and continuation of the same behavior after warning I have given a 72 hour block. I have also told them that if there are urgent concerns about the article they can mention it on their talk page, otherwise they should take it to the article talk page after the block has expired.
If this continues after the block the duration will escalate. I have the page on my watch list. Chillum 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

COI editor edit warring page where they have received money[edit]

frivolous, baseless and misplaced/forum-shopped request. Fut.Perf. 10:28, 27 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.

Hello. User:Ryulong decided to go on a self imposed topic ban due to his WP:COI on November 19th, having been taken funds from http://www.reddit.com/r/gamerghazi and as a result, giving him said WP:COI. However, recently, he has begun edit warring on Draft:Gamergate_controversy, a violation of his self imposed topic ban and WP:COI. Proof of the former: https://archive.today/PEKH2 Proof of the latter: [42], [43], [44]. This is in direct conflict of WP:COI and as a result, I am requesting that the user be community topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Claiming they were paid to edit something on WP is a somewhat extraordinary claim, where is your evidence for that? (the being paid money part) --Obsidi (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
They have received money from one side obviously affiliated with GamerGate, took a self imposed topic ban due to WP:COI, and then broke that self imposed topic ban. See WP:EXTERNALREL, I do not claim they are a paid editor, but a WP:COI editor. Tutelary (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
'Received money' from who? Where is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Archive links because some of the information has been deleted in order to cover tracks. Firstly is the thread Tutelary linked: https://archive.today/PEKH2 wherein the moderator mentions talking with Ryulong about the latter's stepping away from the article "admitting that they may not be able to continue to approach a subject objectively" (the moderator's words). The linked GoFundMe campaign http://www.gofundme.com/hhqw0c/ (https://archive.today/hF8c8). A subsequent thread was launched dedicated to the gofundme here: https://archive.today/PbN6M. Here is a later archive of the same thread including Ryulong's reply thanking them: https://archive.today/7jXsq. Weedwacker (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do you gamergate people constantly rely on archive.today? And isn't this blacklisted sitewide or is that just in the article space?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Archive today saves pages that may have been changed, so "evidence" can be kept even if the source refactors/deletes their comments. It is also used to deny ad revenueRetartist (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why it's been used to archive pages on Wikipedia when Wikipedia does not use advertising and has existing permanent links to pages so long as they haven't been deleted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion as none of those links are archives of wikipedia pages. Weedwacker (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not all that important Ry-san, but just remember some of us didn't use wikis before this. They aren't understanding that wikias and wikipedia don't need archiving. I typically only correct typos on fan wikis, so I'm still pretty inexperienced myself, which is why I didn't do any editing here.Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, article.is is blacklisted, and possibly on in article spaces, I have no knowledge of archive.today's status on wikipedia. It is useful in providing snapshots of webpages where changes can be made. Weedwacker (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Aren't archive.is and archive.today the same thing? And I recall trying to add the phrase "archive.today" to the Gamergate page weeks ago but got hit by the spam blacklist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong made edits to a draft page, not a live article, and his edits reverted a brand-new WP:SPA who leaped into an edit war against longstanding consensus that the lede does not need inline citations, per WP:LEDE. The edits in question were clearly tendentious (a "citation needed" template on every sentence? Please.) Would it have been better for someone else to make the edits? Probably. But don't pretend it's not obvious who's feeding the flames here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I really don't believe there's a difference here. A self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI is a self imposed topic ban and a WP:COI whether it's a live article or not. And do tell me where it says in WP:COI where one of the exemptions is edit warring against a SPA. Tutelary (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So basically you're admitting that Ryulong is guilty of nothing more than taking the bait from tendentious single-purpose editors with a demonstrated vendetta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ryulong is guilty of violating WP:COI by editing GamerGate topics after receiving money from one side affiliated with GamerGate. He edit warred with one of these topics. Also read your own essay. WP:BAIT is about making uncivil comments. It's not my doing that Ryulong violated WP:COI. Tutelary (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Either provide evidence to support that claim, or withdraw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already provided it within my opening post. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I can see nothing in your post that supports a claim that Ryulong has received money for anything. Pleas make clear exactly what it is you are suggesting is evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the claim at least is based off this: [45] a crowd sourced request for money. and on some reddit posts by someone with the name on reddit of "ryulong67" thanking them for donating ([46]. However 1) I don't see how you prove that this ryulong is the same one as the WP user 2) I have not seen a request by this ryulong asking people to donate money in any way related to gamergate (or promising anything related to gamergate). (I would also support the move of this to WP:COIN) --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidence has been provided above by myself as wellWeedwacker (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Reverting a single purpose account on a draft space page that in no way will ever necessarily be a live article and the edits (reverts) I made that will be overwritten by any sort of subsequent edits to the page (do you really want {{fact}} tags on things that are suitably cited?) does not really weigh much in the end. I should not have taken the bait today but I did and thats all I'm really guilty of in the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not what this is about. You took money from /r/gamerghazi, a party affiliated with GamerGate via a GoFundMe and your defense is that it was an WP:SPA and therefore, it was justified? I don't believe so, and it's a heavy violation of WP:COI to be commenting verbosely on GamerGate topics here and at WP:AN given your COI and self imposed topic ban. (This one is an exception per WP:BANEX.) Tutelary (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware that individual members of a message board forum can be considered "a party affiliated with" anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's funny coming from a guy who claimed 8chan doxxed him and blamed GamerGate for it. Are we really getting into playing dumb here?
I posted a link on my personal blog to the gofundme page and never once personally posted any link to it on Reddit in any way. When I did so, I posted to the arbitration case page saying I would now have a conflict of interest and I would voluntarily step away from the Gamergate page and other topics. I would not know who necessarily donated to the page and where their affiliations lay. I was however notified that it was to be posted to both GamerGhazi and apparently some other unnamed pro-GG forum. I have the email to back that up. But saying that my conflict of interest extends to an unofficial sandbox version of the article being proxy edit warred over is ridiculous. All I've done is breach a self-imposed topic ban and for that I'm sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming this goes on I'd like to toss out a generic recommendation that this could be moved to WP:COIN to avoid further cluttering up on ANI. It's been shown that sanctions have not been broken thus this is exclusively a COI matter. Tstorm(talk) 22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Following OP's logic, Ryulong has imposed a topic ban on himself thus we have no need to impose one from the community. Ivanvector (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then he's fragrantly violated it. If they can't be enforced, then why even have the ability to apply one for lesser sanctions? Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1) If you can prove this is the same Ryulong and 2) if he had actually made an edit to mainspace or say voted in an RFC about gamergate, I would agree, but this wasn't that. --Obsidi (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Proof that ryulong67 is the same Ryulong: Reddit AMA [47] (archived [48]) which includes this proof shot [49]. Specifically this comment chain [50] (archive [51] which asks him to make an edit with the thread's url code, which he does here: [52]. Weedwacker (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I take [53] that as sufficient proof when combined with [54] that it is the same ryulong (although its possible that the reddit post was done after ryulong posted, I don't have time to track down exact timestamps, so I will presume it to be accurate unless ryulong objects and then ill go examine the timestamps closely). --Obsidi (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If the only supposed 'evidence' that Ryūlóng have been engaged in paid editing is that provided so far, there is no COI involved as far as I can see. And given the fact that the 'evidence' singularly fails to support the assertion, I have to suggest that Tutelary be sanctioned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said Ryulong was a paid editor. He's not (as far that I can tell). He's a WP:COI editor who was rewarded money from /r/gamerghazi, a subreddit affiliated with GamerGate, not necessarily being paid by /r/gamerghazi to edit Wikipedia. He took a self imposed topic ban which he violated (not just on the draft, but on WP:AN and WP:ANI, this thread is the exception) and so far has only apologized for taking the bait, not for anything else. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. You started this thread by stating that Ryūlóng had a conflict of interest due to having "taken funds". How can that mean anything other than paid editing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
His placement of editing GamerGate after he had taken funds is called into question. And WP:COI does not mean paid editing. It means biased editing based on certain factors in a situation, Per WP:EXTERNALREL Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. That he received funds from a GamerGate affiliated site for his living expenses makes me question his ability to be neutral in the GamerGate topic. The self imposed topic ban which was not followed is another issue. All I'm asking is to upgrade the self imposed topic ban to a community based one, one that has actual teeth if broken, unlike the self imposed one. Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
So you have no evidence that any funds he may possibly have received are in any way connected with his Wikipedia editing? Just as I thought. A 'COI' based on nothing but insinuation. As for Ryūlóng 'breaking' a self-imposed voluntary topic ban, since he 'self-banned' himself, he can self-unban himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Lets say you worked for company X, wouldn't you say it is a violation of COI to say nice things about company X in their WP page? Now Company X may not have paid you to say those things at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't a COI. As the WP:COI page says "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". But that said it also says "COI editors causing disruption may be blocked" and in this case, it is at least arguable that he was not causing disruption. --Obsidi (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No lets no 'say' anything. Let's stick with the facts - that a claim of paid editing was made, and no proof of this has been provided. Hypothetical digressions that assume things we have seen no evidence of are irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No accusation of paid editing was made only editing with a COI, WP:COI:"Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing". Proof has been provided sufficient to show that he has accepted money from a source which is clearly biased as to the articles content. Now that may not mean Ryūlóng should be topic banned, but it is well within saying that this isn't just worthy of WP:BOOMERANG for lack of evidence (as to the WP:POINT problems discussed below about posting here rather then talking about it on the DS page, that might be a much stronger argument). --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with first principles here. User:Ryūlóng, do you think that there is the possibility of a COI if you edits on the topic at this point or not? I don't care about what other think at the moment. If not, then we can argue about whether other can or should as a separate point. That's two different issues. It sounds like Tutelary is assuming the first as an argument for the second when I don't know if that true. AndyTheGrump seems to disagree on the second even if the first was true but we don't know if Ryūlóng has another basis for believing it that Tutelary hasn't mentioned. Ryūlóng, if so, then I think it's fair to say that live or not and versus SPA or not, if that'd be violating the COI on the topic and so actually voluntarily withdraw. A voluntarily imposed ban that only a ban as long as it's kept is meaningless. And if it's acknowledged, then whatever, why not state that we agree to a three-month imposed one here for now and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I separately politely inquire as to why this was posted here when it has not been posted at the appropriate enforcement forum, and can I request that a proper filing be made there? Ivanvector (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I'd rather this be seen by more than 55 people watchlisting that section, and for the basis of a community based topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The community has authorized community sanctions for this topic area under WP:GS/GG, thus any sanction imposed there is pre-authorized by the community. The appropriate place to request such a sanction is WP:GS/GG/E. You may be aware that there is already a thread there about this editor, and I think about this specific incident (I'd rather crush my nuts in a bench vise than delve into the details), why don't you add your comments to that request? Ivanvector (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, respectfully, if you were aware of that thread (I guess that you were because you know how many people are watching the page) and you decided to post here anyway, you may be disrupting this noticeboard to make a point. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish for it to be there. Per WP:BUREAUCRACY. Tutelary (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears the topic has been posted there Weedwacker (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There's also the issue that the sanctions don't work for certain editors who have a certain point of view. Regardless, of all of Ryulong's problems in this topic space, this is a bit of a reach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

His self-imposed topic-banned, if at all seemed to be taken to avoid getting banned, this isn't the only time he's edited GamerGate related topics, he has added a notability tag and a neutrality tag to the 8chan article, twice. After getting reverted, he vented on his personal talk page about it. I ask admins to see this for what it is, it's paid editing, even if unintentional. The subreddit GamerGhazi is a self-admitted forum in opposition to the subject in question. He has recieved $350