Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873

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

Noticeboard archives


User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page[edit]

NAC: IPs blocked, SPI opened, so there would appear to be nothing left for admins to do. If I'm wrong, re-open. BMK (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2015 (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.

Diff [1]

Diff [2]

User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.

Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 :: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Wikipedia, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? BMK (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Last month, the IP tried to post the same material to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and left a similar note on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? BMK (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User: is you as well, I presume. BMK (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
And User: Your edits to John Fogerty and Hoodoo (John Fogerty album) were deleted by a number of editors as being OR, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Didn't stop you from repeatedly restoring, though. That behavior got one article protected, and got one two of your IPs temp blocked. BMK (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That last IP also left disparaging notes to Binksternet on his talk page. There's a pattern here. BMK (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User:‎ joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. BMK (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that would be fair. -- Orduin Discuss 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what's not fair is the situation right now. BMK (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing. (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call Binksternet "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules? Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP? Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need a crash course? You seem to have the mind of a steel trap.- MrX 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
^^^^ Priceless. ―Mandruss  00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha - good one. Funny - tnx for inserting some much needed humor into this. :-) But not really helpful re issue. (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-) (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. I always heed the advice of IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Found smth on it, how to edit WP: +
Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.

Admin assistance requested, please This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. If the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? BMK (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the IP's ignorance of the source of my user ID, I can only say this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC
To answer your question, you might want to try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. When someone asks for help we should direct them to a place where they can learn or ask questions like Wikipedia:Teahouse. Maybe we can point new or unsure editors in this direction? This conversation above seems unhelpful. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. Let me do some cleanup. seicer | talk | contribs 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Sergei Lukyanenko for one year. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In case user MrX's comment was a bit too subtle, it was a user called Steeletrap (talk · contribs) who was calling Binksternet "Binky" in a complaint from last May.[3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I did miss that. Incidentally, all the IPs listed above are from the same region of Norway, most of them from the same city. BMK (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any obvious correlation between Steeletrap's article editing and that of the IPs listed above, and "Binky" is, unfortunately. probably a fairly obvious choice for someone attempting to bug Binksternet, so I'd say offhand that there's probably no connection there. BMK (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. Someone was wondering where they had seen this "Binky" stuff before. I searched the archive for that word, and the Steeletrap item was the first example that came up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
A good retort would be to call the IP "Bunky", as in the late Eddie Lawrence's schtick.[4]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I advise looking a little closer. I found several unambiguous editing similarities.- MrX 05:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hint? Specific enough similarities to justify an SPI? BMK (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This cat from Norway came up on my radar because of one edit continuing a hoax at the Pamela Des Barres biography. It appeared that the Norway IP editor was unwittingly contributing to the hoax, which I saw as an honest mistake, but since the editor had proved somewhat problematic (using poor sources in a BLP), I looked at other contributions and found original research and misrepresentation of sources, which I quickly reverted.[5][6][7] Other respected editors were reverting this person, too, for the same reasons. The Norway guy began to edit war against everybody rather than discuss, and thus got blocked on 8 January as Another block came on 12 January, stopping the same editor from using IP While blocked as, the same person used IP to continue edit warring at the Dominique Strauss-Kahn biography, which I reverted because of block evasion. This person apparently wishes us to ignore his record of block evasion, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and original research. Now we can add trolling my user talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: Yes, I'm pretty sure that the evidence is strong enough for a duck block. Besides the "Binky" comment, I found six other traits shared by both editors. I'm not sure whether the level of disruption justifies the effort though. I don't want to give hints so the sock learns how to avoid detection. If I pursue it, I will email the evidence to Arbcom or an admin.- MrX 13:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll leave it in your hands. BMK (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This community is a joke! Mister X ublicly accuses me of being a liar and creating a fake account. But he refuses to provide any evidence for this charge. And he ignores the obvious counter-evidence: the fact that I edit from America and this gentleman edits from Norway.
I challenge Mister X to publicly state what his "evidence" against me is. I think the charge is pure speculation, based only on the "binky" connection, and that he lied about having additional evidence. Unlike many users here, I am a serious person with a serious reputation. I would never engage in "socking," which is not only dishonest and immature but attacks the basic integrity of WP. A major problem with WP--and its Revenge of the C Students style culture--is that no one abides by basic standards of evidence before making a change. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, I would be interested in your opinion on the charge against me. Having dealt with me and the other guy who called you "binky," do you believe that we are the same person? Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
This community may be a joke, but it's not because of anything I wrote in this thread (which somehow came to your attention in spite of your retirement). What I said was "I found six other traits shared by both editors". I never accused you of being a liar, nor did I accuse you of creating a fake account. I stand by my original statement that if the disruption doesn't continue, I see no reason to expend effort to collect diffs and present evidence. My time is valuable. If someone else familiar with your editing history such as Srich32977 or Sitush decides to file and SPI report, I may add my evidence to it. My preferred outcome would be that, with the IP blocked, we won't see this type of trolling and harassment occur again.- MrX 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Listen up, Perry Mason: I have contacts on WP who emailed me about the allegations. How about you present your alleged "evidence" that I am socking as this Norwegian dude? If you make an allegation of socking--one of the most serious charges one can meet on WP--you should back it up. I get the feeling you know you have a flimsy basis for such charges, and that you wouldn't make the allegation if you weren't hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet. Steeletrap (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no need for name calling. Since you obviously refuse to let this go, I will oblige you by opening up an SPI case.- MrX 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As for the charges against Bink- There is no question that drive-by style of "research" and editing are highly problematic, as is his rude treatment of newcomers. Such conduct has led to a long record of blocks, a record that would be even more extensive and damning if not for the weird friendships Bink has made with "like minded" editors. Still, as a general rule, everyone is entitled to remove what she wants to remove from her talk page. So this action should be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (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.

Historical revisionism and use of an unreliable source[edit]

NAC: Looks like admins are done here as well. Re-open if needed. BMK (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (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.

Alesgeriy (talk · contribs), a newly registered user, added a problematic section to Akdamar Island. He cites, a clearly POV website which is devoted to the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. Interestingly, he calls the genocide "1915 incidents", which is a widely used phrase in denialist circles.

Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted image to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".

He twice (1, 2) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --Երևանցի talk 17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs). the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules Եalesgeriy talk
First, and most important, this is not vandalism. Also, the image does not belong on wikipedia. It is already tagged with copyvio speedy deletion. As well, this source does not seem to be reliable. Basically, the whole thing does not belong here. If you believe it does, then please link to why you think it belongs. -- Orduin Discuss 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The image was deleted. -- Orduin Discuss 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) is vandalism. talk

I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by Yerevantsi vandalism. That is harassment on your part. -- Orduin Discuss 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

so you trying to white wash of the act of this users as "editing" ? that is hypocritical on your part, at the same time your behavior harassment me with your baseless claimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talkcontribs) 20:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alesgeriy: whoever's right, it's not vandalism. I won't comment on what it is, but it isn't vandalism. —George8211 / T 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. -- Orduin Discuss 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i indicate the fact which is pretty proper, but your behavior towards this issue is hypocritical and rude which i do not recommend to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talkcontribs) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of harassing you for me indicating that your behavior is verging on harassment. This will get us nowhere. -- Orduin Discuss 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: Can something be already done about this? Is it not clear that this single-purpose user is not here to contribute to Wikipedia? --Երևանցի talk 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

can some one immediately pls stop the vandalismus and harassment of the above member ? thanks regards.. Alesgeriy (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: see this. I recommend a block per WP:NOTHERE and bordering on edit warring.
@Alesgeriy: these removals are cited in wikipedia policy, and are not 'baseless'. Please stop labeling the dispute as vandalism. -- Orduin Discuss 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Orduin: you don't saying the True WP:HERE , and my entry according this policy is appropriate. this removal are not not cited in wikipedia policy and you vandalising my entry. you should stop immediately your vandalism and harassment . i will report you because of your hypocritical behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talkcontribs) 19:49, 8 February 2015‎
There is already a report going on, unless you have missed the discussion we are having now. I will say no more on the subject, because you are not listening to what we are saying. -- Orduin Discuss 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: my sources are reliable, one of them was also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? you acting hypocritical Alesgeriy (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've notified Alesgeriy (talk · contribs) of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. Those sanctions cover "pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or related conflicts". This puts him on notice that he is expected to follow Wikipedia policy from now on. If he is uncertain about the reliable sourcing rules, he could ask for feedback at WP:RSN. If you persist in adding material to Wikipedia that doesn't follow our sourcing rules, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(Strike per above comment)This is in direct violation to a decision from the Arbitration committee. A part of the final decision states: 2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable. These sources are concidered propagandic. Alesgeriy has been warned by an admin over this. Also, you have broken the 3RR.
As well, the sources you have all added, are written completely in Turkish, which means that not everyone on the English wikipedia can verify these sources.
Please consider thoughtful discussion before you call me "hypocrite" again. That is baseless, unlike the comments I have made utilizing wikipedia policy and the article history. When you make an accusation, it must be supported with evidence, or it will be treated as a personal attack. -- Orduin Discuss 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: one of this sources is also a source of Grand National Assembly of Turkey how can you call this source unreliable? but user Yerevantsi (talk · contribs) vandalising my entry with this comment "Turkish government aggressively denies the genocide; whether or not you cite the Grand Assembly means nothing" wut? my entry is not about genocide at all, and how can call this guy the turkish piarlament "means nothing" seriously ? why you don't stop this troll and vandal? Alesgeriy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for someone to be blocked because they disagree with your point of view is a very bad practice. -- Orduin Discuss 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
My point was that Turkish (especially government-affiliated sources) are no less POV than the source you initially provided.
@EdJohnston: Can you please take action? At least two third-party users have explicitly stated their support for blocking this single-purpose account. --Երևանցի talk 21:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: so your point? so that you have proven your hypocritical approach. do you think wikipedia based about your own views and intereses? yes, i was right, you vandalising my entry just because of your own political views and this kind behavior do not contradicted with wiki terms. wikipedia is not your own toy. you should immediately stop your approach about this issue because you are not objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talkcontribs) 22:12, 8 February 2015‎

I have no political views on this matter. I did not even know about this article and events until I looked into this report. Your considering that I have predetermined thoughts on this event is incorrect. I focus on wiki policy. Your comment is harassment to get me out of this discussion, which I find very offensive. I got involved, now there is nothing you can do to get me to stop being involved. You are attacking everyone you have issue with. This will alienate any support you might have gotten. -- Orduin Discuss 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Orduin: pls stop your aggressive attitude towards me, you playing with words and move away from the subject. i'm not agree with you, you don't give an proper answer but furthermore insulting me with such vulgar ascriptions

first, my entry is "not" about genocide etc. "is about the Commemoration in Akdamar Island, and sources proves that.

2. the source of the second entry which is about a monument, and is the "original" proposal. and you you call that is POV.? you denying an original source ? how can you do that? you acting just with your personal viewpoint and against the wiki terms this which is unacceptable according to your logic %80 of the comments for Akdamar Island is nonsense , we can not continue in this way at all Alesgeriy (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy, do we have a problem here. One of these sources refer to Armenians as "animals" (Turkish: Hayvanlara). The other source claims that Armenians killed Turks between the years 1915-18. That's a ridiculous statement since all Armenians living in the region were obliterated by the Turkish government by early 1915. Interestingly enough, the claim is made by a senior member of an ultra-nationalist Turkish organization called ASIMDER, which stands for the "International Association to Fight Unfounded Armenian Allegations". This organization had at once targeted Armenian schools, churches, foundations and individuals as part of an anti-Armenian hate campaign (see here for more information). The other source is by the Turkish government, the leading propagator of Armenian Genocide denial in the world. I found no neutral source, meaning non-Turkish or non-Armenian prime sources, that says Armenians raped women or that 50 or so women killed themselves. It appears that that story is entirely fabricated. As for the user's conduct, it just keeps getting worse. He has reverted yet again, well surpassing the 3RR mark. And he continues calls other user's edits vandalism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

what did you think about what Armenian rebels did during the revolt? before genocide or exile? distribute flowers ? btw this incident is happenend on 17 april 1915 and also your debate is off topic, because in my entry i have not mention such "animals" like words. seems you have also your own viewpoints? I repeat, my entry is about memorial and monument in Akdamar Island. with just a little surf on Internet do not be shy, you can also find many article about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesgeriy (talkcontribs) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no "rebellion". It was an act of self-defense by the Armenians. The Armenians, in fear of a massacre by their own government, defended themselves from death marches and genocide. Cevdet Bey, the governor of Van, started a campaign of mass murder against Armenians throughout Van. The reports of Clarence Ussher, Ernest Yarrow, Elizabeth Ussher, Grace Knapp, and others all point to the fact that Cevdet Bey wanted to annihilate all Armenians in Van. The "incident" you refer could not have happened on 17 April 1915 because Russian soldiers did not arrive in Van until late May. There's also no evidence that Russian and Armenian soldiers massacred the Turkish population. No primary source makes such a claim. The only people who make such baseless claims are ultra-nationalist Turks whose sole mission is to deny the genocide. And I never said you called Armenians "animals', but I did say that the sources you provide refer to Armenians as such. By the way, it's absolutely pointless to add any information about the monument since it was never built (see here). Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Etienne your claimes is not to taken seriously you talking nonsense and your behavior is hypocritical you are an political propagandist and you are not neutral. i my self don't deny genocide, but you deny what armenian rebels before 1915 did. there is still survived Turkish/Kurdish victims from this massacre. here is no need to debate about this issue. Alesgeriy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • They're still edit warring. Epic Genius (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Fully protected for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I honestly can't see why. This is one user. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Roscelese is right. Also that one user, Alesgeriy, has now been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, see WP:AN3 report here so the protection really isn't needed. Please consider unprotecting if you're around, Nyttend. If you're not, I guess I'll do it later. Incidentally, Alesgeriy seems surprisingly well acquainted with Wikipedia practice and jargon right from their first edit, if you glance at their edit summaries. Does anybody have a suggestion for a likely sockmaster? Bishonen | talk 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
  • I'll do it momentarily. I didn't see that the other guy had been blocked. Aside from that, protection is reasonable; when we've got an ongoing edit war, either we protect or we block the people involved, and I figured it would be better to protect it than to block three people. Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (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.

Error in your "Composer" article[edit]

This should go at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Eurodyne (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was unable to successfully edit the picture identification (Nicholas Clérambault):00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)PLCraig3 (talk) He is composing at the harpsichord, not the piano.

This should go at the WP:HD not here at ANI. Eurodyne (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Composer page is not protected, so it's hard to know what PLCraig3 (talk · contribs)'s problem is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Possibly inexperience. We were all there once. :) I changed the caption. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Could have been some odd blip or error, but appreciate you helping someone new on this, not blowing them off. Ravensfire (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.[edit]

Discussion is not going anywhere especially productive. Richie bedfellows, please don't accuse others of sockpuppetry without evidence. If repeated, it will likely be seen as harassment. If you do have evidence of sockpuppetry, post it at WP:SPI. Ghmyrtle and Chaheel_Riens, apologies that you have put up with this unsubstantiated claim. All sides - there's a sense of combat on the article talkpage which would be reduced if more editors were involved. If anyone has spare time, please head over to Casual (subculture). Can other admins please also watchlist the page and prevent any personal attacks. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2015 (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.

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[8][9]

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[10], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed.[11][12] Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin Discuss 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be putting this on hold. -- Orduin Discuss 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I removed the comment.
It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. -- Orduin Discuss 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcluding the discussion on my page here. -- Orduin Discuss 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Click for things from my talk page. -- Orduin Discuss

Richie bedfellows[edit]

Hi Orduin, I left you a message this morning on my talk page as requested, though I'm unsure as to whether you will receive it there. Just to say I will gladly adhere to your request at some point this afternoon. If you could just let me know how we go about this, would you like me to give the full picture for clarification or just the specific reasons leading to the allegation, would be much appreciated. thanks. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: Generally, sockpuppet accusations are filed at Sockpuppet investigations, however, since there is an open ANI discussion open about this, I think it is better to post your evidence there. However, even if you post it to ANI, you should still handle it as if you are filing an SPI (Sockpuppet investigation). It is my suggestion then, that no matter where you put your evidence, you first read the sock puppetry policy, and Help:Diff on how to properly support your claims. Also, if you need help identifying evidence, this essay should help.
If you post your evidence to ANI, and it is:
  • sufficient, I will take the evidence and put it in the SPI.
  • not sufficient, no actions but a harassment, or personal attack, warning (against you) are likely to be taken.
If you post the evidence to SPI, please leave a notice at the ANI discussion, and follow other actions necessary from SPI, and your claims will be handled as any other SPI. If you need any other help, please feel free to ask! -- Orduin Discuss 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Orduin, thank you for the response. I have just had a quick look through the SPI page as well as the DIFFS page as advised. I have no problems submitting the behavioural evidence but the conversations with Ghmyrtle were between edits and coming through 'Msg left in template', with intermittent msgs coming through the Chaheel Riens page at around the same time. The edits shown from the Chaheel Riens page are the only edits evident on the DIFFS page, while the conversations (but not the edits) are only evident on the Article's 'view history' page. Could you advise,please? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 21:39, 31 January 2015

@Richie bedfellows: Can you give me the timestamp of the comments and their locations, and I will see what I can do with that. -- Orduin Discuss 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay Orduin, will do and thanks. I will be busy from this afternoon for the next couple of days so I'll gather together what i can in-between then construct the whole thing as i see it in the week if that's okay. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really ok at all is it? If you're so het up about a sock puppetry charge, you should surely be able to make time for it? To paraphrase - "Don't wait for the weekend to end, my friend".
I tell you what - seeing as this is such a stupid accusation, I'll do all the work for you, which shouldn't take long as there's nothing to pull out of the ether in the first place...
Firstly, assess the similarity between editors:
Here are the last 5,000 edits made by GHMyrtle[13]
Here are the last 5,000 edits made by yours truly - Chaheel Riens[14]
Is there any similarity in pages edited, and edit summaries made in either case? In fact, with the sole esception of the contested page - Casual (subculture) - are there in fact any shared pages?
No, there aren't. "Ah ha!" you say, "That's evidence of sock-puppetry - obviously this criminal mastermind has an alias he uses for each area of interest - and never the twain shall meet!" Well, ok - tenuous - but possible. Let's look at other areas then. How about userpages and talkpages?
Chaheel's userpage:[15]
Chaheel's talkpage:[16]
GHMyrtle's userpage:[17]
GHMyrtle's talkpage:[18]
(While we're looking at talkpages, let's not forget to point out that the accuser has no concept of grammar - insisting that "they wasn't poor" is correct and acceptable use of English. However, I'm sure that bears no reflection on their competency in any way, shape, or form.)
Hm, also note that Chaheel has a habit of blanking his talkpage every new year,[19] rather than archiving, which is a bit unusual - nothing like GHMyrtle, who makes extensive use of archives.[20]
Not much similarity there, is there? Oh - the same argument applies?
Right! Now we're really got the rogue(s) on the ropes. Let's look at the actual article in question, and blow that ruffian out of the water!
So, here's the history page of Casual (subculture) right here.[21]
Now, let's look for the apaprent minute-by-minute changes? According to the accusation here there is "the strange 'coincidence' of two contributors seemingly making the exact same irrelevant, nonsensical argument about something that made perfect sense" - ah, suddenly the above comment that the editor in question knows little of grammar comes into play. Let's discount the rather more obvious possibility that two different editors recognised that a change to an article made no sense.
What else? Ah - " just 'coincidentally' responding under this [GHMyrtle] username within moments of me responding in the the second username's [Chaheel Riens'] talk page" (My emphasis to aid understanding of context.)
Well, there are five edits to my (Chaheel's) talkpage,[22][23][24][25][26] and all but the very first can be instantly discounted, as they took place after the timestamp of the accusatory edit - 16:43, 29 January 2015.
So that must be this[27] edit then - with a timestamp of 14:43, 29 January 2015? Except the only edit GHMyrtle made around then is this[28] one with a timestamp of 15:01, 29 January 2015 - and that's hardly "within moments". In fact, in this edit range here[29] you and GHMyrtle between you made 5 edits within 20 minutes - by your argument that makes you a potential sock puppet of the two of us as well.
Look, Richie, just accept the fact that you're wrong, and have made a grave error by accusing two editors 5 times of being sock puppets. You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. I gave you the chance to redact your comments, and you not only refused, but chose to make the accusation again. I apologise to Orduin for hijacking his talkpage like this, but you've pissed me off with your baseless accusations, and not providing any kind of evidence to back them up.
You asked me to do my worst. I'm not there yet, but if you carry on, this will only get worse for you - at the very least humiliation, at the worst, a block. Admit your error. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
[Redacted by -- Orduin Discuss]

Hi Orduin, you cant take the evidence from what Chaheel has kindly submitted above if you wish. I do genuinely appreciate his efforts, if I'm honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 09:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks please - they can also get you blocked. And could you clarify your grammar and typing - when you say "you cant take the evidence", do you really mean "you can take the evidence"? The context is quite important. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh - and with regard to "do your worst"-type threats, seeing as you're the one who invited me to do so, it seems somewhat duplicitous of you to then knock any response regarding them. Still, you did ask, after all. And you've yet to respond over at the ANI noticeboard - it would probably help your case if you did so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well Orduin gave me the choice of either responding on the ANI noticeboard or this talk page. I would've gladly responded on the ANI noticeboard once the whole thing had been submitted by myself, but to be honest, once you decide to come a long and hijack Orduin's response with a lot of semi-relevant self posturing, I'm afraid i understandably, become pretty nonplussed when it comes to following any quasi official guidelines. Yes, I can confirm Orduin can take the evidence from your submission. I can also confirm I will gladly retract any allegation and will edit any post mentioning the allegation appropriately. I can even confirm I'll be doing it with a big smile on my face If and when Orduin deems it necessary after reviewing the evidence. Now, regarding YOUR reference to MY "do your worst" type threats. I think you will find 'do your worst' isn't a threat, it's a statement. The actual threat is documented as "If you carry on, this "will" only get worse for you"... Now i think you'll find this threat was actually was made by yourself. Hence the reason why apparently, I'm still waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 09:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find that ""If you carry on, this "will" only get worse for you"" is also just a statement, pretty much the same as yours, based around your baseless and incorrect accusations. Things generally get worse for those who are not only in the wrong, but fly in the face of admitting it, all the while telling the other party to stick their head up their bum. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the statement reads "this "will" only get worse" and clearly I'm still waiting, aren't i? I'm sitting here waiting for you to 'make things worse' yet all you seem to have is the tangential last bastion of the big mouth when failing to make their point, more commonly known as the 'grammatical error'. Bearing in mind your laughable attempts at hijacking a seemingly legitimate investigation into a legitimate accusation in favour of some embarrassingly bizarre self-posturing, some equally risible threat to humiliate me and a perception that myself laughing at you doing it would then be deemed 'uncivil' ...Surely you can see the 'seriousness' of the allegation disappeared along with any credibility you seemingly like to think Wikipedia ever had. So again, what is it you could possible do to either humiliate or even make things worse??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can prove you wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Richie bedfellows:
You must:
Make clear how multiple accounts are being abused, explaining how the users are a) the same and b) disruptive.
Avoid all other discussion that is not evidence of sockpuppetry or other multiple account abuse.
You must use diffs, page histories, log entries or other information to support your position; patrolling admins, clerks and CheckUsers are not expected to establish your argument for you.
Basically, until you open your argument, I cannot do anything to support your case, if I support your case. You must open your case using your thinking, not mine. Requesting that I open a SPI about incidents that I was not involved in is close to WP:CANVASSING.
Also, @Chaheel Riens and please take this discussion off of my page, and to the ANI report where it belongs. -- Orduin Discuss 21:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well proving a legitimate accusation to be unfounded is hardly making things worse, is it? Especially bearing in mind the weird and wonderful, laughingly overwhelming urge you seem to have in performing to a perceived audience, obviously undermining any credibility towards the seriousness of any allegation or any subsequent investigation thereafter. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, As already stated, I have no qualms about presenting the evidence leading to my suspicions. In fact i could and would have done this three days ago and would have presented it on the ANI page had he not done me the favour of 'doing it for me' on this. I'll be back with you in a few days. Cheers for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be backtracking rather. You've had your week, now you need more time. And if the evidence you were going to present was the same as mine, then that's hardly going to work in your favour. Still, I'm interested to see what you come up with, provided it's something other than posture and the casting of aspersions that is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens and Richie bedfellows: I've transcluded this discussion to ANI (for the whole world to see).

Please make sure all new comments are within the onlyinclude tag. Thank you. (I will move any comment as needed.) -- Orduin Discuss 21:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Wikipedia's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.

Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested. The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle:

In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here:

This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here.

This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before. I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, my comment here that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment here that "They [RB's wording] made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes but neither arguments made sense. Both separate pages were posting at myself simultaneously with both pages paraphrasing each others sentiment, with both of you coming from the exact same miss-informed angle because neither of you could understand the full context of the whole piece. I explained to you about the two separate aspects, which had you understood, would have seen my edit did actually make sense, but you simply refused to acknowledge. You just simply said 'your wording now makes sense', then proceeded to argue CR'S contradictory point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 08:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem was simply that (1) you failed to see that the wording you used was illogical, and (2) two different editors saw the same thing at the same time, and responded to you the same way. You really should have dropped this argument a long time ago, to save yourself embarrassment and stop wasting others' time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "both of you" suggests that the editor now accepts that he has been dealing with two editors, not one editor and a sockpuppet. So can we expect a clear apology to both of the editors who have been falsely accused? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it. If someone is going backwards and forwards on talk page 'A', with 'A' generally failing to grasp the context and specifically passing comment about 'pissing off other editors', anyone would begin to have suspicions If suddenly, right on cue talk 'B' intervenes to seemingly 'shore up' the sentiment on what appears to be a new non archived userpage using the exact same one specific, out of context argument as user 'A'. Still, 'good will' obviously would always be shown but those suspicions would always re-surface when 'A' then clams up about 'pissing other editors off' when the irony of a fourth contributor turning up on the talkpage asking 'A' for an explanation fails to be acknowledged, but then resurfaces when B starts expressing the same sentiment about other editors over on his page. Still suspicions would be unsubstantiated, but when i then go across to respond on B's talkpage, only to find 'A' addressing that response back on his own talkpage just moments later, those suspicions would obviously become more and more prominent for anyone. Add to that 'A' seemingly allowing the accusations to then take their course while 'B' spends the next five days purposely disrupting and undermining the very process he claims takes such accusations so seriously...Then as i say, anyone would legitimately have those very same suspicions. Anyway, and again as previously stated. I'll simply wait for Orduin's decision and take it from there, for now. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's already been pointed out that "moments later" wasn't in fact moments later, but a good 20 minutes or so. And it's entirely reasonable for two editors - who were watching and actively involved in the page - to find the term "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well under way elsewhere at around the same time" to be a logical fallacy (how can a trend start in location "A", when it's already underway in location "B"?) and take you to task over it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that such "suspicions" are wholly unreasonable. Many editors will raise similar objections over new additions. That doesn't make them sockpuppets. Editors are under no obligation to space their edits so many minutes or hours apart. Edit conflicts happen all the time. You should face up to the fact you were wrong and apologise unreservedly. I'm really not sure what you are waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know either. I told that supporting his accusations is his own problem. He has to get, and provide the evidence. Just because Chaheel Riens put 'evidence' on my talk page does not mean it is supportive of the accusations. Richie has to support his case by himself. I can only guide him, not think for him. And trust me, I've shown him to several pages that should help him file an SPI. If there is going to be an SPI, it should have already happened. Either open one soon, or apologise now. -- Orduin Discuss 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording doesn't make sense because there are two separate aspects to the whole article. The first aspect being Liverpool fans were the first to wear designer continental labels, the second aspect being the precursor to that 'look'. It is separately referenced within the article that Liverpool fans were involved in both aspects. Both the designer clothing aspect and the precursor. If someone writes 'it is acknowledged that Liverpool fans started the CONTINENTAL DESIGNER ASPECT but it was already well underway elsewhere',..Then that's misleading. It gives the casual reader the false impression they were involved in one but not the other. Adding 'as well as in Liverpool' redresses that misrepresentation. "Although the start of the trend beginning in Liverpool is well documented, it was already well underway elsewhere at around the same time" is just a better worded variation that was agreed with by 'G', wrongly reverted by 'CR' then strangely argued against by 'G' just '20 minutes' after his initial agreement. The original suspicions were legitimate as far as I'm concerned, Not just for editors raising similar objection, because sometimes that's to be expected. The overall suspicions being present were simply down to the overall, general pattern of events, sentiment and timings outlined above. That said, it has now become obvious to me that these two contributors are two separate people and not one and the same, as i alleged. For this i have absolutely no qualms in retracting the allegation and issuing an apology as appropriate. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Orduin, no-one was asking you to think for me, least of all myself. The reason it took so long was because CR found it appropriate to disrupt and undermine the whole process, and you seemingly found it appropriate to let him. For my part, i simply waited until he stopped thinking he was centre stage, performing to a live audience. Just to confirm they will be no SPI submission as an apology has already been issued. Cheers. Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't issue accusations, refuse to back them up, then act surprised and affronted when the accused party decides to defend himself prior to your own efforts. Moreover, considering you were directly accusing me of being a sock puppet, I rather think that I was centre stage - wasn't that the point of your accusation? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What apology? Removing a few words from an old talk page post isn't an "apology". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you should apologise to each of the editors personally. You don't seem to realise the distressing effect that such accusations have for some editors. But I'd not be surprised if you were sanctioned for wasting so much of people's time. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2015 (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.

Vandalism and BLP-vio[edit]

Blocked for 259200 seconds. seicer | talk | contribs 03:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an Admin please look at this IP: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

With a history of only 6 edits, s/he has already vandalized an article twice (inserting Banana!!!?) and edit warred on another article to the point of exceeding WP:3RR (at 4 reverts in under 24 hours now). (The most recent 2 edits have re-inserted unsourced defamatory information about a living person into an article — an accusation that a professional journalist has "falsified references").

I haven't crossed the 3RR bright line yet, although I believe I am allowed to if only to remove the BLP-violating material. But there has to be a better solution to this situation. Advice, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 259200 seconds. seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 10 February 2015 (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.

I don't know, I already spent 3 days working on this, for the benefit of humanity - 259200 seconds = 72 hours = 3 days. :3 --QEDKTC 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dolheguymckenzie (talk · contribs)[edit]

This new user has been creating a string of non notable album articles which when Prodded he de-prods. A lot now sitting at AfD. Can we block him for a few days? I will suggest he understands what makes a notable album on his talk page Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

PROD tags can be removed by anyone in this world for absolutely any reason in the world. If at AfD, we'll just await the decisions and then I guess we'll recommend him to Teahouse. Blocking is definitely not for editor retention. --QEDKTC 12:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a block is necessary unless they continue after the warnings from myself and Gbawden. And as QEDK says, they're allowed to remove PROD tags. Sam Walton (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant disruptive editing / Wikihounding by user:Hmei7[edit]

Blocked 60 hours. This should hold off disruption at least until the SPI case is tended to. MusikAnimal talk 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Can someone do sth to make Hmei7 (talk · contribs) refraining from vandalizing WP pages?

To keep it brief:

Anyways, his contribs' history clearly shows that it is a case of Wikihounding. While awaiting for the RCU case to be accepted, please do sth to prevent this user's vandalism.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop or continue (berberism, sionism and vandalism) ? Good. My contributions does not bother anyone, but you. You contribute anyhow, and you impose wherever you go. For starters, we're on the English Wikipedia and not French. While contributing in harmony with us, and do not bring your habits here lol. [31] is [32] in English. This is your contribution. I did that back! Stop hiding behind your fine words, we know you now. Out ! --Hmei7 (North Africa is Arab) 17:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmei7 you appear to be following Omar-toons around and spamming the same message on any pafge he has edited and this is past the point of being disruptive. You do not not to comment the same block of text at SPI's here and half a dozen other pages. Make your comments about this here and please stop ebing disruptive elsewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Diffs for above [33][34]
Accusations of Zionism. [35].
The rest of contributions seem to speak towards hounding. The last 50 edits by this user are all reverts of Omar-toons with quite unhelpful edit summaries. Amortias (T)(C) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (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.

POV pushing on Betfair[edit]

Betfair has been targeted since October by a string of SPA's focused on adding every bit of material they can find that casts the subject in a negative light, the latest being Petefox1. A few were blocked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betfairmole/Archive, but new ones keep popping up. They are particularly fond of the "Tennis courtsiding" section of the article, a large block of NOTNEWS with violations of UNDUE, NPOV, and sprinklings of BLP. I've tried to replace it with a short neutral description of the relevant facts, but am always reverted. I would suggest that Petefox1 be blocked and the page be semi-protected for at least 3 months. Toohool (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"?[edit]

When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Wikipedia's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Remainder of Wikipedia's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --QEDKTC 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --QEDKTC 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is dynamic (vs static) rather than shared - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. Squinge (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --QEDKTC 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he did mean "shared" (and yep, I know what it means, thanks), but I think the difference between dynamic and static is also relevant here, especially when people are suggesting IP address are indef blocked (they should almost never be), and it's really only static IPs (shared or not) that get long blocks. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well guys, I don't mean "blocked" necessarily, but even just being suspected of sockpuppetry. How long must an IP user hold the "suspected of sockpuppetry" label as slapped on by an assuming admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Template:IPsock or another template like it can be removed by anyone at any time (assuming it is not checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry, which for an IP is unlikely). That is, they are not listed at WP:UP#CMT as needing to remain on the user talk page so removal is only subject to the edit warring and blocking (edits by blocked users) policies.
@QEDK: just to clarify something you said SPI clerks are just like any other user except they are trained and trusted by the checkusers to keep SPI functioning. Blocks (and other actions) by SPI clerks can be appealed and overturned by any administrator. Blocks made by checkusers (and marked as a checkuser block - see WP:CUBL) can only be overturned by another checkuser or the Arbitration Committee because they rely on private evidence. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, @Callanecc:. Only a few SPI clerks have the CU right and coincidentally all CUs are admins AFAIK, right? --QEDKTC 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, QEDK, then why is it that when I have once had another IP address and I went to remove that stupid notice from IP editors I know, those admins think it's their duty to keep replacing that notice and also add me as one of the sock suspects? When does that stupid practice die, and after how long do those addresses get to go back to normal (they'll stop insisting that those are permanently marked)? Do we have to have admins that just keep adding those back as well as adding new ones indefinitely? Do they not have better things to do than maintain those indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Would I be considered too impatient if reasked now if anyone has an update to my latest paragraph here now? Autosigned by (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
If you are on a suspected sockmaster's shared IP, your recourse would be to make an account and file an appeal to BASC citing that your IP is shared. And well, your account and IP will be either freed from the sockpuppet trademark or you'll gain IPBlockExempt status. But then, you seem to be on a static and clean IP till now. What's the problem? --QEDKTC 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My IP address hasn't changed for now. But I bet if I use it to go remove those accusations again, they will just replace them again and then add this address to their stupid list.

I'm just annoyed that if I go remove the accusation from my old IP addresses, those admins think they have to return it to those addresses and then add the one I was using to that, too. I just wonder how long they think they'd have to keep that up even if someone keeps removing those things. I wonder how long until they will just let those things stay removed and not add each new IP address of someone who removes them. That's why I asked here. It's really lame, ya know? (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My respectful suggestion to someone who was blocked and then evaded their block by editing as an IP is to stop evading the block - request an unblock and move on. The reason for tagging is simply to keep track of a user's continued block evasion, which will be considered when an unblock is requested. Keeping the old IPs tagged helps accumulate these block evasions, as the category is maintained. However, WP's history function works well enough. Regardless, the focus for such a user should be to stop block evading. User:IDriveAStickShift is one example that springs to mind, who used IPs not only to blank tags from IPs used for WP:DE, but also vandalized - just two examples are [36], [37]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Joe, for the example you gave, even if that main user was never unblocked (let's say if he or she were to request unblock and the admins declined--well, I assume you are one because of how you knew of that example), but then a non-admin (where you just assume that every new address is a sock too just because they were trying to help those other IPs not stay marked, although you don't know that) kept clearing those tags from the new IPs that you assume are that same blocked person, how much longer would you replace the tags? Let's say you're an admin. You'd never get tired of returning them and then adding the new one for the rest of the time you were an admin here (probably the rest of your working life or longer)? (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should delete the whole "suspected sockpuppets" categories. We don't allow speculation elsewhere but if people suspect that others are sockpuppets, they should file an SPI and have it confirmed (the WP:DUCK exception and how admins deal with them with another matter). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Ricky, I agree. Thanks. Too bad this went into archive before the other guys finished responding to it though. (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Orchestrated sock-attacks[edit]

Yesterday, following a discussion at ANI [38], user Dr. Feldinger was indefinitely blocked after a serious of personal attacks. Since then, the user has returned with a never-ending number of socks, both registered socks and IP-socks

Could something more effective be done rather than just continue to block the socks one by one as they appear?Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page has been semi-protected. I like trolling when it's funny, but I'm not keen on being called anti-Semitic in a serious context (my Jewish mother and grandma wouldn't approve) and I doubt the other users, Jewish and gentile, like it either when they're just trying to fix an article that is the target of constant fighting and politically-motivated nonsense. He seems to be on the war-path right now, but hopefully it'll taper off. Also, I think this might belong on WP:SPI if I'm not mistaken. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20 Shevat 5775 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe that someone actually bothered with all that IP-changing and registering. What's even more awkward is that he's cloaked himself with some really nice proxy/VPN because his primary subnet's different so we can't issue a rangeblock. Still a geotrace won't hurt (given respectively):
  • Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
  • Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
  • Israel Tel Aviv Bezeq International-ltd
  • Israel Petah Tikva Bezeq International-ltd
  • Finland Tampere Sl Cgn
  • Portugal Lisbon Pt Comunicacoes S.a.
  • Finland Helsinki Elisa Oyj
  • Finland Helsinki Broadband Access Pool
  • Malta Luqa Melita Plc
Seems like a VPN. Multiple login changes the server everytime. Or, maybe, maybe, a new Tor exit node. --QEDKTC 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately it just continues, the latest IP sock ( was just blocked but there will soon be other ones.Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And yet another sock ( The user seem determined to continue.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You do realize he just bans Israeli IP's which all share the same patterns? Are all Israelis to be blamed because of one? That's a discrimination against the rules of Wikipedia. Let Israelis comment and express their thoughts on Talk:Israel. (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Israelis are perfectly free to express their thoughts, and all Israeli users who have commented are fed up with you. You are not allowed to, as you're blocked. You could have appealed the block instead of just creating sock after sock, but you chose to be disruptive. That's your issue, it has nothing to do with Israelis, and we have loads of great Israeli contributors.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gaming the outcome of a requested move[edit]

I have just closed the requested move at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes. RGloucester (talk · contribs) was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by removing all article content at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I reverted his edit to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he immediately reverted back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. RGloucester 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho and Anthony Appleyard: Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes article was moved to 2014 Odessa clashes as the result of an RM now located at Talk:2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 30 December 2014. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. Number 57 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. RGloucester 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I told RGloucester that, if he can't create a separate "May 2014 Odessa clashes" soon, I'll re-propose a page move on the same article with only one name, and that's final. George Ho (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • What a mess! Where is the move discussion? I can't find it in the links above... Cavarrone 22:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz doesn't let Israelis add comments on Talk:Israel[edit]

NAC:Disruptive sockpuppet of blocked user blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (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 user Jeppiza doesn't let Israeli posters express and comment freely on the Talk page of Israel. He blames all Israelis to be the same person and bans them one by one, removing their comments and ideas. Please take care of him. That's simply bad. (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The above comment by one of DrFeldinger's many socks is related this issuer [50]. Since being blocked less than 48 hours ago, DrFeldinger has created at least 15 socks, the IP above being the latest. We really need a way to deal with this highly disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And apparently same accusation goes for NeilN who just reverted all my legit work and additions. What's their problem? Are all Israelis banned from Wikipedia for life? I don't know who is banned or not and I've seen a list of Finnish people so maybe he isn't Israeli and just made you ban Israelis on purpose? (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You are indefinitely blocked, no matter how many accounts you use. That has nothing to do with Israelis (or Finns, or Koreans, or Brazilians or whatever).Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (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.

Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing[edit]

Blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing) by TParis (see: User talk:Dahnshaulis#February 2015) --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[This brought back from the archive. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)]

I request some additional eyes on edits by Dahnshaulis (talk · contribs).

I initially encountered the user at ITT Technical Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates[51]. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies"[52] where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.

The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted on my talk page arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles.[53][54][55][56] I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party reliable sources and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: due and undue weight, was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as WP:OWN and WP:SOAPBOXING. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Barek, the problem is bigger than that. This is For-profit higher education in the United States before Dahnshaulis really got to work; this is the "after" version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Wikipedia should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like this and this. The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but not inside Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" [57] for removing this [58] uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". Paul B (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and WP:NOTHERE seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by Bahooka and ElKevbo (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, yeah, El "Whitewasher" Kevbo, that's who I meant: User_talk:ElKevbo#Colorado_Tech_Whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per WP:NOTHERE with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you put me in the Wikipedia "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dahnshaulis we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. Paul B (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the USA Today article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?

That's why I am politely asking you to undo your edit.Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best thing to do is to follow established Wikipedia policies as well as and content guidelines.
As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of original research - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?

Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? link Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Wikipedia is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that "Wikipedia editors considering a ban on my activities for presenting too much information". Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Wikipedia was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have improved these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.

    I am this close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE, so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). Drmies (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dahnshaulis: You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Wikipedia?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Wikipedia policy on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently this entire thread was archived--a bit too quickly for my taste, considering, for instance, this edit by Dahnshaulis on my talk page: "The people I named with close ties to for-profit colleges is well documented. Yet you decided to remove all the information. Is this how you work?" It exemplifies, pretty clearly, everything that's wrong here: it's a personal attack, it shows a lack of good faith, it exhibits the fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia this editor suffers from, and we can throw in WP:IDHT as well. Barek, Paul Barlow, Bahooka, and really everyone else: give me one good reason not to block this editor indefinitely, summarizing it as WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding; I was off-line over the weekend.
From what I can see in Dahnshaulis' continued behavior, including the post you reference on your talk page, the user's primary motivator seems to be their attempt to address WP:GREATWRONGS. The WP:IDHT issues are a direct result, as site policies and guidelines that block that goal seems to be ignored.
At this point, I believe the only thing being accomplished by not blocking the user indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE is to provide them with more WP:ROPE. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think WP:ROPE is a good philosophy when confusion and competency at editing on Wikipedia are an issue rather than vandalism. One of the editor's problems was the inability to cite his sources appropriately and his talk page reflects that ignorance. I provided links to referencing and citation help pages and, hopefully, he will take the opportunity to read up on what is expected from all editors. Liz Read! Talk! 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Simply formatting a ref correctly is the least of the issues here. The much more serious conc