Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:AndyTheGrump shows bias favoring sources that he has added to the [Energy Catalyzer] article and is making repeated unsourced personal attacks against myself and others.[edit]

TOPIC BANNED
Insertcleverphrasehere is topic banned for one year from any edits relating to cold fusion, broadly construed. For further information, please see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/terms. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:16, 18 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.

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly supported ([1] [2] [3] [4]) a quote by Ugo Bardi, a Physical Chemist, which was posted on Ugo Bardi’s personal Blog, which he added [[5]] to the article in question. During the course of discussions on the talk page (see archives above), issues regarding the quote’s blog source were brought up by at least 4 other editors (Tmccc, NUMB3RN7NE, POVbrigand, Liftarn) before being brought up most recently by myself [6]. The question of whether the source is a legitimate reliable source is not the purpose of this discussion, the problem is the way that AndyTheGrump attacks other similar sources for being from blogs:

"Sadly blogs, even those run by physicists, aren't considered reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)" [[7]]

This indicates a consistent bias toward his own sources, which is unacceptable from a Wikipedia contributor with his experience. I’d also like to bring up personal attacks, as this is something that has been occurring as well. He has repeatedly accused me of POV pushing, through strawman arguments declaring me as a ‘Rossi Promoter’ and telling me what my own personal opinion is on the subject, each time without referencing what posts of mine he is referring to, which constitutes a personal attack. He seems to be unable to treat anyone on the talk page with different views from his own with good faith, and his hostile attitude is unbecoming of an experienced Wikipedia editor.

If you misunderstood my last sentence as a 'thinly veiled attempt' to accuse you POV pushing, I apologise for not being clearer - and will state outright that it is self-evident that you have repeatedly attempted to use this article to promote Rossi's pseudoscientific nonsense, in direct contravention of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

he later told me to: [8]

Go boil your head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a quick look through the archives of the Energy Catalyzer page, I found other evidence of personal attacks, such as this quote, where he unnecessarily (and without source) insults Domenico Fioravanti (an Italian Engineer) as ‘writing like a ten-year-old’ while reviewing a source another user proposed. [9]

We base article content on published reliable sources. We don't base them on 'original documents'. Particularly ones that appear to have been written by ten-year-olds. If that is any part of a binding legal agreement with a legitimate customer I'll eat my hat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has previously been blocked multiple times for making personal attacks, [10] so this is not a new occurrence. He has also not apologized or provided sources for his accusations.

I make this post with trepidation as he has implied that because I have spent the large amount of my edits on the E-cat Page, that I am a single-purpose-account, and implied [11] that as per WP:Boomerang, accusing him could result in an arbitration case being taken against me. I'll let my edits to the article in question stand for themselves [12], as I feel that I have adhered to WP:NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, both safe and accurate to describe Insertcleverphrasehere as a single-purpose account. Essentially his entire editing history (since June 2014) has been devoted to cold fusion and to Energy Catalyzer (a dubious cold-fusion 'invention'). Altogether he has made perhaps a dozen scattered edits that aren't directly related to those two articles.
Insertcleverphrase here has a long history of tendentiously pushing a very...credulous...POV on these two cold-fusion articles, and I can certainly see why AndyTheGrump would be frustrated by his persistent personal bias. (I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach. See most recently Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims for the sort of point-missing I'm talking about.) This AN/I filing is mostly a way for Insertcleverphrase here to try to take a content dispute which he probably wouldn't win at WP:FTN or WP:RSN, and roll the dice on reframing it as a conduct dispute at AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If you'd like to make a dispute about me, or my POV, do so, this is not the place. single-purpose accounts are not necessarily a bad thing, so long as NPOV is maintained. I believe I have done so. As for Talk:Energy Catalyzer#A brief history of this article's dubious commercial claims, you guys deleted an entire section saying that it was 'unreliable nonsense' without participating in discussion of the 8 sources to be deleted. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that using an ad hominem to dispute the sourced evidence that I have given above is disingenuous, and not overly constructive. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually really appreciate that you noticed my recent efforts to be in cooperation with the rules of WP, as I began making edits to the article. Despite our often disagreement, I actually respect your opinion greatly. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This sort of selective misreading of what other editors write is a common problem. I have noticed no such efforts, and I find your endless argumentation exhausting. If I see a post by you on an article talk page, I now try to make the minimum response necessary to keep you from further slanting our content; I recognize that it is a waste of time to try to engage with you further. Lest there be any confusion, "disingenuous" is not intended to be a complimentary description. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, where anyone can be an SPA and exploit the encyclopedia by polishing their favored topic to suit their agenda, then provoke editors who defend the project and take them to ANI! A topic ban from all topics related to Energy Catalyzer for Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs) is the obvious solution. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
What evidence are you going to give to support this? Is this how people are treated with they bring their concerns to the administration noticeboard? You state that I have an agenda... please back this up, or stop attacking me personally. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I'll be unavailable for a couple hours to participate in this, so if I'm not responding thats why. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the topic ban of Insertcleverphrasehere proposed by Johnuniq. Throw perpetual motion machines into the topic ban as well, for good measure. Thanks to AndyTheGrump for his consistent work to defend the encyclopedia from cranks and POV pushers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) @Johnuniq: I will note that cold fusion and pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator can impose a topic ban (perhaps on "cold fusion-related topics, broadly defined"), as Insertcleverphrasehere was formally notified in June 2014 that DS covered this area. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I told Insertcleverphrasehere to go boil his head - after his repeated attacks on my defence of Wikipedia policy. Which included accusing me of 'disruption' for pointing out the existence of a WP:RSN discussion of the Bardi material. [13] The same material that was previously also discussed on this noticeboard, where likewise no uninvolved contributor raised any issues with it. [14] It should be noted that I avoided edit-warring over the issue, and that Insertcleverphrasehere made no effort whatsoever to ask for uninvolved comment, instead attempting to browbeat other contributors into accepting a position which basically made any criticism of Rossi's dubious claims a supposed 'BLP violation'. Clearly there is a tension between WP:BLP policy and claims of 'scientific' miracles made by individuals - but such a tension cannot legitimately be solved by applying a double standard which effectively excludes all criticism which does not accept the claims that this is 'science'. Personally, I am of the opinion that the appropriate solution for such problems is to exclude articles on magic-teapot-pushers and their implausible contraptions from the encyclopaedia entirely, until such time as their claims are accepted by mainstream science, their products are in verifiable use and working as advertised, and/or pigs fly. Since that is not the case, and since Talk:Energy_Catalyzer has seen a steady stream of the credulous Rossi faithful who's attempts to subvert Wikipedia policy are only exceeded by their assertions that anyone expressing an iota of scepticism is doing likewise, I have on occasions been less than civil. Though frankly, if Insertcleverphrasehere finds being told to go boil his head a 'personal attack' after insisting that I provide evidence for what was self-evident - that he was yet another of the faithful, I have to surmise that he spends little of his time on the internet. As for the proposed topic ban, I'll refrain from offering explicit support since my involvement might make this seem inappropriate, and since I doubt that it will make much difference anyway - the stream of the credulous will no doubt continue either way, at least until they find another miracle of 'science' to believe in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I accused you of disruption for attempting to derail the argument about WP:BLP with the WP:RSN discussion, when this discussion did not discuss BLP violation and was therefore inappropriate as argument. Why do you continue to label me of the 'faithful'? I consider this a great insult, as belief has no place in scientific inquiry. If anyone were to actually look at the edits I've made to said article, you would realise that I am actually highly critical of the 'science' that has been performed regarding testing and demonstrating the device. All I have tried to do is provide reliable sources to the effect, that support the mainstream POV view, where we disagree is that you guys would rather not cover the topic at all. Honestly, pretty much all my edits have been grammatical fixes, tense errors, link fixes, and the citing of experts that are critical of Rossi. And yet you continue to call me one of the crackpot true believers? This is what i mean by strawman attacks. Your assertions that I am a 'true believer' are not supported by the facts. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Certainly belief should not be a factor in science, at least in as much as that is possible - but since we have no evidence from credible mainstream scientific publications that science is being practised this is somewhat of a red herring. A red herring you have been promoting as much as Rossi's teapot itself. I'm tempted to suggest you go boil the one in the other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, a look at the recent history of the E-Cat article [15] might suggest evidence for something of a double standard from Insertcleverphrasehere - who makes unilateral deletions himself, but then insists on 'consensus' before anyone else does the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted 1 link, which I had previously brought up in the talk page and the only response had been about [WP:Parity], when you reverted, I asked for talk and MrX stated that

The content above makes assertions about a living person and WP:BLPSPS is quite clear that self-published sources cannot be used this way.

Binksternet deleted an entire section unilaterally with 8 links in it, without separately discussing any of them. These are not directly comparable. However, in future I will endeavour to make sure that consensus is clear before making significant edits. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump is doing good work. Articles like Energy Catalyzer would benefit from having more attention, to protect against single-purpose POV-warriors. bobrayner (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that there are too many POV-warriors on the article. And I'm finding it incredibly insulting that people are labelling me as one of them. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you seem to think that dragging up old posts for evidence, here's one of yours from last year. [16] A classic example of the 'they persecuted Galileo' argument, as rolled out ad infinitum by the credulous everywhere: " I will post on the [Cold Fusion] Talk page, and I do have a point of view. However I do not hold that wikipedia is at fault for any of this, it is however the fault of the wider scientific community, which its denial of CF has meant that blind skeptics have far more peer reviewed and mainstream sources than do supporters or scientists in the field." A clear admission of an agenda to promote fringe material in full knowledge that it is rejected by the mainstream. So much for science... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You are judging me for one of the posts I made in my first week of editing Wikipedia (not counting my previous account that I used briefly years ago), and my first serious experience in using Talk Pages? Honestly? Theres a learning curve with this stuff. If you'll note I have refrained from making significant edits to articles until I was clear about control of my opinions to NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked, it was 4 months until I made my first edit of the article itself, and not till recently did I begin to make significant edits, as I became more confident with the system, I have been very clear to try to learn wikipedia rules before jumping into fringe editing. I have received no good faith from you, unlike TenOfAllTrades, with who, although we disagree often, can still have rational conversations. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No Support and please block and I hope permanently block AndyTheGrump for glaring conduct violations like the one he just admitted to above and the diffs show it. My experience with Andy is that he will just about say anything, even the marginally untruthful, to get his way on Wikipedia. He is an abusive name caller. He is happy to tell someone to boil their head or call people little shits. He really does not deserve to edit here anymore. The other guy that brought this is right. Block Andy for personal attacks, again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Next time I suggest you at least make some pretence of actually adressing the issues being discussed here before engaging in your usual partisan vitriol... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, Grumpy may often live up to his nickname, but most of the time he gets it right, and for my money that's more important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah I did didn't I though. Partisan vitriol? Mmmm. You make my point perfectly. You did not come here to apologize for your personal attack but seem to relish it. Block permanently. Boil your head. You think you can use that kind of language? Pretty close to Isis talking with that one [[17]]. Sick humor and has no place on a talk page of Wikipedia. Tell people stuff like that in real life and what happens? Why should it be different for you. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
While I think that Andy has certainly contributed a great deal to this encyclopaedia, he seems to feel that he is immune from oversight. Despite admitting to personal attacks, he did not apologise but instead justified his actions because he does not like my opinions. He then continued to make ANOTHER personal attack by calling me one of the 'faithful', something that I expressed I find deeply insulting (wether he finds it an insult should not be withstanding, as he should not be attempting to wilfully antagonise others). Indeed he seems to feel that my (and others) opinions are inherently less valuable than his, if they disagree with him, and that therefore he can insult me as much as he likes. He has made no attempt to apologise, indicating that he does not feel that my feelings are worth anything. The fact that he feels that he is so far above the rules, may be related to his SEVERAL blocks for personal attacks that he managed to escape unscathed.
I'll finish by stating, again if you have any concerns about MY actions, please bring them up to me. I think I have demonstrated that I am willing to learn and follow the rules around here, so if I am out of line, please let me know and I'll review my actions. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Boomerang. It's high time for obviously partisan Insertcleverphrasehere to be topic-banned from cold fusion, which for this editor will be tantamount to a site ban. Insertcleverphrasehere has been the same kind of disruptive for 8 months, and shows no sign of letting up. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked users to refrain from using language like 'obviously partisan' without backing it up. Accusing others needs to be done with references as per WP:No personal attacks:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Even casually acusing me of Sockpuppetry is a serious claim. Have you any evidence? No you don't. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Your very first edit pretty much proves it. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Boomerang topic ban for User:Insertcleverphrasehere. It's far too often that we allow WP:TRUTHers to wear down scientifically minded editors. Civility is more than skin-deep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Andy has plenty of friends that are happy to throw me under the bus without citing any evidence, while simultaneously refusing to comment on Andy's actions. It seems I'm not going to find any help here. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone filing a complaint here opens themself to scrutiny. The filer does not get to drive the agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was under the understanding that users over here would at least pretend to be objective, I can see now that I was baited into coming here by Andy and his 'boil your head' comment. I've just spent 2 hours looking through some of the previous disputes regarding AndyTheGrump and his, how shall we say, colourful descriptions of other users, many of which were far more nasty than what I experienced. Since admins seem fine with Andy being rude and personally attacking other editors due to his many contributions, (might is right, he is valuable enough to put up with), I'll agree with them and say, fuck it, let him say what he wants about me so long as he remains useful for the encyclopaedia. I'm being honest, If Andy is so great an editor that they've ignored all his misconduct and name calling in the past, theres no point in further discussing this. 202.36.179.100 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"Baited"? Your IP hasn't edited in several days. Or did you forget to log in? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, occasionally the internet here at the university unexpectedly results in logging me out. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Boomerang. To claim that Ugo Bardi, a professor researching materials for new energy sources is not worth of mention on an article about an alleged new energy source is stupid. Wikipedia is not here to provide whitewashed adverts for unproven WP:Fringe technology. The E-cat article has regular attempts to remove criticism, and put the item in a good light. Further, Insertcleverphrasehere was warned about the possible consequences of actions such as bringing the matter here. AndyTheGrump usually makes good calls on matters such as this, and he is correct here. Martin451 13:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll note that the quote in question violates WP:BLPSPS, as raised by MrX, as it's a self published work that makes claims about a living person. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Since my name has been invoked here, I wish to clarify my comments. WP:BLPSPS is very clear that we can't use (self-published) blogs "as sources of material about a living person". This is reinforced by WP:FRINGEBLP. The policy can't be changed by a few comments on ANI, or on an article talk page, as it reflects wide community consensus. Whether the blog can be used as a source for commentary or analysis of the invention is a matter of editorial discretion, supported by WP:SPS which states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As to the claims of personal attacks, socking, tendentious editing, and SPAs raised here, I have no further comment but would advise everyone to be mindful of WP:ARBPS and WP:NEWBLPBAN.- MrX 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Some diffs. Insertcleverphrasehere's fifth and sixth edits to wikipedia [18] [19]. Replies to User:Tenofalltrades [20] [21] [22] [23]. Insertcleverphrasehere is clearly a supporter of this device [24], which should in itself not be a problem. However the account seems to be a single purpose account, ~90% of the edits are to Energy Catalyzer or Cold fusion, and the user admits to edit warring [25]. Has gone against consensus to have the word "Tests" as a header[26][27][28] Martin451 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest remediation. I would appreciate andy apologising regarding his comments about me, and I would request that an uninvolved admin examine my edits to the page in question to determine if I am guilty of POV pushing and/or whether I am a valuable contributor. I will accept this verdict, and if s/he has any concerns regarding my behaviour, I am invested in improving my ability to edit with NPOV. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Would those suggesting a topic block or ban for Insertcleverphrasehere please provide some diffs rather than simply referring to an article or noticeboard? It's hard to justify the merits of such a harsh boomerang without actual evidence of disruption. I've seen many editors post incidents here that were dismissed because they didn't supply specific diffs that supported the claim of misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For your convenience and that of others who wish to quote my diffs here is the full list of my edits to the Energy Catalyzer article, which includes 28 edits in total [[29]]. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: In the efforts of full disclosure, one additional diff from the IP of my university, which was made accidentally. [[30]] Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's a bit of a silly way to represent your editing history. It's almost as if you don't want to draw attention to your habit of tendentious, WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages, or the way that your conduct at Energy Catalyzer and its talk page parallels your behavior at cold fusion and its talk page. If you want people to be able to review all your edits related to cold fusion, it's much more straightforward to point them to your entire editing history. Out of 300 or so edits, perhaps a dozen aren't directly related to those two articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given Insertcleverphrasehere's blatant misrepresentations in this thread, I see nothing to apologise for. The thread starts with a quotation from a comment I made about a source in 2011, based on policy as I then understood it. I suggested that the source was unsuitable, as a blog, evidently unaware of the exceptions under WP:USERG (though whether it applies in the case of the source then in question, I'm unsure). Insertcleverphrasehere however choses to represent this as evidence of "a consistent bias". An assertion which a simple examination of the source concerned, as I had already pointed out to Insertcleverphrasehere on Talk:Energy Catalyzer prior to the starting of this thread, [31] is somewhat questionable, given that it expresses extreme scepticism towards the E-Cat, describing it unambiguously as "a scam". What 'bias' is evident here? None that I can see. And no, I'm not going to apologise for suggesting bias from someone who made it clear from the start that their purpose on Wikipedia was to correct the "persecution" of cold fusion researchers by the "blind skeptics" of the scientific mainstream, and who's personal conclusions regarding the "reality" of cold fusion outweigh any responsibility to reflect contemporary consensus on the matter, as reflected in appropriate sources for a responsible encyclopaedia. [32] And with regard to the E-Cat article, Insertcleverphrasehere's protestations of 'neutrality' aren't borne out by his persistent insistence that the sole subject of the article is 'science', and that any source not buying this particular dubious proposition is somehow in violation of policy. Science (or at least physics), to my mind (and I expect to the "blind skeptic" mainstream as well) does not consist of 'demonstrations' and 'tests' carried out by a man in a white coat promulgating self-serving and contradictory buzz-words. It requires disclosure and independent verification, and controlled experiments. And for Wikipedia's purposes, to be recognised as science, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the appropriate sources - reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and the like. Unless and until such recognition occurs, the claims that what Rossi is involved in is 'science' are just that - the unverified claims of a self-serving promoter. Science requires scepticism - and most of all it requires scepticism regarding those who purport to follow its practices, but entirely fail to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that I carefully explained my personal views on CF and Rossi, and how I arrived at them to Arthur Rubin at the time after he sent me a message which, I had interpreted at the time of accusing me of being financially connected to Rossi, I now see that this was not an accusation but a notice that these issues might come up, (see my talk page for the comment, it is still there). While I was definitely too inflammatory in my response, I think this can be reasonably forgiven in good faith as I had only recently begun editing (one week previously) and was not familiar with talk pages, warnings of the type Arthur Rubin sent to me, nor NPOV at the time. There is a large distinction between having an opinion and pushing a POV. Everyone has an opinion, WP:NPOV states that we should put them aside, something you seem unable to do. I withdraw my request for an apology, as I think it is clear that Andy does not really care that he has hurt my feelings and remains, as ever, unapologetic. I still would request an admin to review my actions and diffs for evidence of POV pushing, or any other conduct that should be improved, as I am fairly confident that this isn't the case, and I'm tired of people making such insinuations about me. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Your representation of your views is not at issue. Your tendentious editing is. Clearly the main problem is that you refuse to accept that it is tendentious. Hence I advocate removing you fomr the locus of your disruptive behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, you claim to have only recently started editing (a week before) here. Yet in your reply to Arthur Rubin here[33] you claim to have had a previous account which you have lost the login details for. Which is it? Martin451 19:13, 18 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.

Behaviour of IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128[edit]

User:IrishSpook and 178.216.112.128 are repeatedly removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their own original research. I have tried addressing this with them on their respective talk pages, and on the article talk page. They both respond by reverting messages from their usertalks, and by removing cited content from Army Ranger Wing and replacing it with their original research. All three of us were recently blocked for edit warring on this topic, and I don't particularly feel like going down that road again, but I'm getting absolutely nowhere by talking to them. Any help? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Both IPs blocked for two weeks; both have been blocked before (by Callanecc). I did not block the spook, who's not been involved; however, it seems likely that 178 and Spook are the same. We'll see. I had a quick look at the matter at hand but the issue is for other editors to decide. I closed a malformed RfC on the talk page as well. Eyes are appreciated: article improvement by established and knowledgeable editors is always the way forward. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I put EEng on notice[edit]

Notice removed. That "Herr Doktor" has only a Nazi meaning comes as news to me--as bad luck would have it, I happen to be a doctor (a real one) and have been referred to as one, male appellation and all, in various countries in Western Europe. "News" meaning sorry, this is totally dumb. If you don't like someone to have a bit of innocent fun with your name, then hey, tell them not to. But using the Dutch spelling on an English-language website is just asking for an explanation, or a joke--but rest assured, I think few people will want to engage with you in amusing ways after this thread. And with that I'll close this before a boomerang starts flying for this comment about German authorities. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 18 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.

Apparently, he likes to get his message accross by calling me Herr Doktor. Using a German figure of authority only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany, and I truly am offended by it. I told him to remove it, but it may be prudent for him to hear from others that these kind of personal attacks are not to be tolerated. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You think "Herr Doktor" "only has one connotation, that with Nazi Germany"??!! You need to consult an encyclopaedia. Many people, myself included, would see such a description as a compliment. And since when was Corporal Hitler a doctor? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Calling anyone Herr something only puts me in the mind of 'Allo 'Allo!. Number 57 22:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any other connotation? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely - the equivalent in Dutch would be Heer Dokter ("Lord" or "Sir" Doctor) - certainly appears to be intended to offer respect. Certainly, I would welcome such an honorific. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure Adolf was the only Doctor Germany has ever had, wasn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok I think we can sum this up in three points.
  1. EEng made a comment that could have been interpreted in several ways.
  2. This was interpreted in several ways by several editors one of which (who the edit was refering to) found it distastefull.
  3. An appology for any unintended offence caused may resolve this and we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia (except for me as I have no creative instinct anywhere).
Amortias (T)(C) 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Philistine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Does Edokter also have to apologize, to the entire German nation, for implying that they are still all Nazis? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Only the educated ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── How about this: if an editor objects to the name you refer to him by, for whatever reason (the reason is irrelevant), and says so to you, stop calling him by that name. Period. BMK (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: if this character had said, "I don't like what you said" I'd have happily clarified, and likely struck my wording. But what he actually did [34] was to alter my post to remove certain words, and at the same time insert his own comment mischaracterizing those words (now invisible to everyone else) as implying he's a Nazi, which they certainly didn't. And that's not OK [35]. Period.
Then he went on to imply that all German authorities are Nazis, which as David Eppstein points out above is also not OK, to say the least. EEng (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How about this: you stay away from his talk page. And Edokter: you can remove comments from your talk page, but, in general, you cannot change those posted by others. This is spelled out in WP:TPO. Then how about somebody close this thread in which there's nothing for admins to do, and we all get back to improving the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me, but this all happened on my talk page, which he had visited to lecture me on how a dummy edit "adds unnecessary server load". EEng (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Although the thread above is closed, I wanted to repeat here the apology I posted on EEng's talk page. I clearly misunderstood where his discussion with Edokter took place and drew erroneous conclusions from that -- which was a screw-up on my part. I should have been more aware of the circumstances before I commented. BMK (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
BMK, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng (talk) 20:59, 18 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.

New editor repeatedly inserting copyrighted material[edit]

Thebetedit (talk · contribs) added some copyrighted material from http://webspier.com/essay/315503 to The Bet (short story). I reverted the four edits and warned. Eight hours later the edits were added again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Note - the user has not yet been notified on their user talk page. JZCL 16:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz and JZCL: I've notified the user of this report. -- Orduin Discuss 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I did, although I didn't sign, but now the editor has two notices so the editor should definitely know. And @Diannaa: added another copyvio warning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 repeatedly deleting content and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk page, telling another user to edit war[edit]

User:Uniquark9 has repeatedly deleted content that he doesn't like from the articles Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty, often giving no reason at all or just saying in the edit summary that he is reversing my edits without giving a reason why. He deleted multiple sentences on different issues/topics.

Uniquark9 Philg88 Nlu

[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

[42] [43] [44] [45]

Note that User:Uniquark9 is not actually disputing the content itself. He isn't challenging it or its factual veracity (I provided sources for the content on the talk page at Talk:Yuan_dynasty#Content_deletion. He just doesn't like it so he blatantly deletes it repeatedly. Most of the time on these two articles he gave no edit summaries or no explanation for his deletions. He just says things like "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits."

User:Uniquark9 instead of discussing the content deletion, went to another Mongolian user and told him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. In other words he is telling another editor to help him engage in an edit war with me based on ethnicity.

After I opened on the discussion on the talk page, Uniquark9 only addressed one of the sentences he deleted, provided no source for his claim, and then totally disappeared from the discussion. [46] He totally ignored the other sentences he deleted and refused to talk about them. He hasn't addressed anything else he deleted or justified the deletions, he didn't address any of the sources I provided on the talk page which justified keeping the content.

He also has issues with civility and uses words like "bullshit" and "bullshitting" like on Talk:Genghis_Khan.

He is refusing to engage in discussion and reach a consensus and instead is resorting to edit warring and trying to promote an ethnic nationalist based edit war to get what he wants. This is not about a content dispute, this is a behavioral issue. I am trying to get him to address the content dispute on the talk page and he is ignoring it. We need a third party admin to make all the relevant users engage in the discussion on the talk page and make sure it proceeds in a civil manner.Rajmaan (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 has repeatedly engaged in edit wars at Genghis Khan and Mongol Empire. He was blocked in December for edit warring and using a sock in an edit war. He frequently blanks his talk page to hide all the warnings and complaints about his disruptive editing.
A friend of Uniquark9, User:Ceithe, engages in similar behavior. They also communicate in a foreign language, possibly coordinating edit wars. Ceithe has been in an extended edit war recently at Genghis Khan. He also blanks his talk page to remove complaints and warnings, though some are still present there. Ceithe has openly stated his anti-Chinese attitude. He repeatedly calls other users "vandals," currently because they are adding sourced content that he doesn't like (see here and here). He has been repeatedly asked to cease his disruptive editing and to familiarize himself with WP norms and practices, yet he continues with edit warring and abusive comments towards other editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the merits of the textual edits, but I do concur on the Uniquark9 as being uncivil based on ethnic origin, as well as unwilling to discuss and/or consider any other views. I did not personally take action because I want clearly-uninvolved administrator(s) to look at the situation (given that I've collaborated with Rajmaan on a number of articles). --Nlu (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In my interactions with Uniquark9 on Genghis Khan, and also List of Turkic dynasties and countries, I've found that they can do excellent research, and are willing to compromise up to a point. However, I agree that they also are frequently are disruptive and prone to edit warring. I do want to make it clear that one series of reverts exchanged between myself and Uniqark9 just barely went over 3RR, but I consider myself as edit warring since I could have defused things earlier before racking up reverts. Finally, as Laszlo Panaflex brings up, editor Ceithe, a frequent collaborator with Uniquark9, is also disruptive. I've found them more difficult to work with and very inflexible, and they take a much more hostile, insulting, and patronizing tone to those who disagree with them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this in my comment: Rajmaan above has confirmed what I thought, which is that there is some collusion between Uniquark9 and Ceithe to enforce a certain point of view here on Wikipedia. Evecurid I think is part of this as well, though I've found them to be far more reasonable and easier to collaborate with.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't researched whether Uniquark9 or Ceithe do excellent research. I do see that Uniquark9 is communicating with some other editors in a foreign language, and is frequently blanking English content, both templates and reasoned discussion, from his or her talk page. Since the warnings have been going on and have been repeatedly deleted, I have to Support a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Um... could you explain how those comments about a retired editor are applicable here? Is the preventive/punitive comment what you are referring to? There have clearly been 3RR violations here, as well as repeated disruptive behavior. Whether a block is preventive/punitive is inapposite as well. Not seeing the connection. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Laszlo Panaflex: Sorry about that—it's an unrelated matter that I inadvertently confused with this one.  Philg88 talk 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I also bring up Toguchar on this report as well? Their behavior and attitude is very similar to that of Uniquark9 and Ceithe (edit warring, disruptive and abrasive attitude, communicating in a foreign language, blanking warnings and notices from their talk page, etc.).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9 deleted the ANI notification I left on his talk page. I also summoned him here using the User Link template at the beginning and he hasn't responded to any of itRajmaan (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
He/she's not required to respond, although I tend to think it's in his/her interest to do so. But he/she doesn't have to. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest adding user:Alicewond to the list of possible sockpuppets being used to edit war a particular POV. Alicewond has 1 edit, at the moment, had never edited anything, but jumps right into an edit war on the Xiongnu article and coincidentally reverts to the version being pushed by Uniquark9/Khorichar.[47] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban[edit]

What Kansas Bear describes is a common pattern for Uniquark9 (see Mongol Empire, Genghis Khan, Yuan articles, and others now). Wherever he goes he is soon embroiled in edit wars with multiple editors. Soon compatriots arrive to argue and edit war on his side, always with newly created accounts. Uniquark9 was blocked in December for using a sock account. He was investigated again in January, but it appears that Ceithe and Evecurid are separate users. Rajmann shows, however, that there is collusion between these editors and others. Some of them have stopped editing, so these new arrivals could be socks of them. At any rate, Uniquark9 and his compatriots engage in disruptive editing on every page they contribute to. He stopped editing for a spell after this complaint was lodged, but now that he has returned, it is the same pattern all over. Ignoring his conduct simply invites more disruption and frustration of the good faith of others. I'm not familiar with the sanction process here, but a block has been issued once against Uniquark9. A topic ban for Mongolia-related articles seems to be the next logical step. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As much as I wish that myself and other editors could work with Uniquark9 and Company, those editors seemed determined to engage in disruptive behavior. If a topic ban is invoked, I would extend a topic ban to any articles that involve Mongolia or Mongols, including pages such as the List of Turkic dynasties and countries where states that included Mongols are listed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
On the basis of the recent history at Xiongnu (an early steppe empire whose territory included modern Mongolia), I'd add Khorichar to the list and I would suggest a topic ban on any article where Mongolia might be mentioned. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Both sides in the debate (Turkish vs Mongol) are engaging in this kind of behavior, with coordinated edit wars. The Turkish users pop up with newly created accounts and start supporting each other in reverting the Mongol users. They are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets and edit warring on the same articles. People on both sides need to be topic banned if they try this kind of ethnic nationalist edit warring. See User_talk:Bishonen#To_answer_your_question and [48] and [49]Rajmaan (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So nothing is to be done about this, it is simply archived and forgotten? Unbelievable. And for good measure, Uniquark9 has now been reported for another edit war. Thanks for taking no action and letting this problem fester. I've become discouraged from editing over this sort of behavior. You let editors like this run good editors away because they get tired of the endless fighting. Well done. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Remenu and the Aromanian flag[edit]

A new user, Remenu (talk · contribs) is only engaged in articles on the Aromanians. While most of his changes are harmless, he insists on presenting a very specific flag ([50]) as "the" Aromanian "National" Flag. I have reverted him several times and explained in his talk page why this claim is dubious at best. In short, the flag features the Vergina Sun, a symbol that became prominent thanks to the Macedonia naming dispute, and which has absolutely nothing to do with Aromanian history or culture. Apparently, however, it has been adopted by some groups in recent years within the Aromanian communities in Albania, the Republic of Macedonia and Romania, due to the fact that the Aromanians hail from the wider area of Macedonia. I have repeatedly challenged the user, in English and in German, to provide even half-way decent sources to back up his insistence that the flag is generally recognized as representative of all Aromanians (a community spread among several Balkan countries, with approx. half residing in Greece), but the "sources" he came up with were Facebook posts, a DVD cover (!) and fantasy flags from DeviantArt (!!), to the point I am not sure whether he is deliberately trolling or whether he is truly clueless. The photos in Facebook do attest to the flag's use in semi-official capacity in some countries, so I re-added it with a modified caption, but they certainly do not bear out any claim as to being the undisputed one and only Aromanian flag as he wants to present it. Indeed, in a Facebook discussion in Aromanian he linked, several Greek Aromanians protested the use of this flag as totally ahistorical, and given the history of this symbol, any unqualified claim linking it to a specific ethnicity should better be backed up by strong sources. But that doesn't seem to bother him; his response to Greek Aromanians being ignorant of this flag and opposing it is "time they should learn about it". Despite repeated warnings not to tamper with the modified description while discussion is under way at his talk page, in true WP:IDHT fashion he simply waits a few hours and re-inserts his own WP:FRINGE WP:POV ([51], [52]). Constantine 21:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The user just blew by the 3RR Rule; perhaps reporting him there would lend some stability to the article. I have noticed he is added dozens of repeat Wikilinks, and those will need to be removed, too. The rate at which things are changing, and the number of minor edits which need to be corrected, will require some work. This is a very contentious issue for some, and needs to be dealt with. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on this article in Greek, by the former mayor of Metsovo (the Aromanian "capital" of Greece) I. Averoff (scion of Greece's probably most distinguished Aromanian family), the POV this user supports is a relatively recent phenomenon (post-2004), with partial backing from the Romanian state. They claim such absurdities as that the Aromanians being the sole descendants of the ancient Macedonians, and the usual Balkan ethnic posturing. According to Averoff at least, their claims are rejected even by other Aromanian groups within Romania. Given that this is obviously an editor with a cause, and the utter failure of engaging in a meaningful discussion with him, I am not sure 3RR is sufficient. Constantine 22:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Rather than revert him on the flag text, I provided the official Aromanian flag image as exists in Wikipedia Commons and on other Aromanian articles. Perhaps I am not being helpful, but the flag that was being claimed is not reliably sourced, where this one is. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And... it's been reverted. I am done for the day, but I hope an administrator will step up to the plate and handle things before it gets completely out of hand. ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to my world over the past few days of dealing with this guy... BTW, that flag too is a bit dubious, it seems to originate solely within eurominority.org, and is a bit lacking in sources. Constantine 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked: Remenu (talk · contribs) blocked by CambridgeBayWeather. 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FIFO disambiguation page chaos[edit]

Yesterday I created fit in or fuck off which is also known by the FIFO acronym. I noticed that there were three other articles using the same acronym, yet FIFO went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFO_%28computing_and_electronics%29&oldid=644966399 (since then renamed from "FIFO" to "FIFO (computing and electronics)"). It already had redirects to 2 other FIFO articles in the header and I had now added a 4th one "fit in or fuck off". It was crying out for a proper disambig page for FIFO. This I set up and I also included a link to the Wiktionary page witch gives a general definition as well.

However User:BD2412 has just moved "FIFO (computing)" to "FIFO" which creates quite a mess and obviously obliterates the disambig page.

Doing a popularity analysis of the 4 "FIFO articles:

It looks to me like blatant favoritism for "FIFO" to go to a technical article on computing and electronics when the term has several other more everyday uses including the Wiktionary definition.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 reverted a boLd mover per WP:BRD and advised in their edit summary that because of the number of links involved a discussion needed to be held per WP:RFD thats your best place to go. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that we can all agree that there needs to be a disambiguation page. What has now happened, bizarrely, is that FIFO (disambiguation) has been redirected to one of the articles, so that there is no disambiguation list. The question should be whether the primary use is Computing or whether the primary use is the disambiguation. What has happened now is that disambiguation has been defeated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO but really I think this is primarily about disambig policy. You would have thought anything with 4 possible Wikipedia meanings (plus Wiktionary meaning) would have a disambiguation page. Even on popularity, which shouldnt be a factor, FIFO_and_LIFO_accounting is almost as popular as FIFO_(computing).--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I was bold and have created a place-holder for the disambiguation at FIFO (disambiguation). I know it needs work, but it at least now exists. The RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. I don't own the disambiguation page and I know that it also needs work to add entries. I assume that the defeating of disambiguation was an accident and that everyone was trying in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I set up "FIFO" as the disambig which is now obliterated. I dont think FIFO (disambiguation) was ever set up unless User:Niceguyedc created it when he was tidying up the links. --Penbat (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have again set up FIFO (disambiguation). It needs improvement, but it is now there. RFD can discuss which should be the primary title. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I created FIFO (disambiguation) for intentional links to FIFO (per WP:INTDABLINK). Now that FIFO is not a disambiguation page, FIFO (disambiguation) can be the disambiguation page. I make no comment on the WP:PRIMARY topic issue related to this. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really the place for this discussion, but in terms of popularity, the fact that computing was the default page would suggest some people were actually looking for some other FIFO page. On the other hand, you're right that popularity is usually only given minimal attention. For example, after several discussions, it's generally accepted that the island home to 143 million people is should be at Java. Java (programming language) gets mention in the header, as does Java (disambiguation). It doesn't matter that Java got 67710 hits and some of those were likely looking for something else, whereas got Java (programming language) got 151683. (Although there is something weird in the history, and some discussion of this in the last move request. I wonder if there were bots hitting the article for some reason.) This probably doesn't hold much for this case (if anything it may strengthen the case for a disambig), but I think it's useful to remember. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point, quite a few ppl hitting the computing article probably just got there cos they typed in FIFO not necessarily wanting the computing sense. --Penbat (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yo. Wouldn't it make sense for there to be one disambiguation page FIFO with a list of links to all the various articles? That way there wouldn't have to be one "primary" article for people to fight over... :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I set up.--Penbat (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Rock and roll. Thanks! :D Goldenshimmer (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like with the new FIFO (disambiguation) page setup, and {{redirect|FIFO}} added to FIFO (computing and electronics), everything should be fine! -- Orduin Discuss 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BD2412 has thrown in the towel at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#FIFO so will someone please reinstate FIFO as the disambig page ? Thanks.--Penbat (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Please do not take the wrong lesson from this process. Your initial move was properly reversed because it created substantial disruption without prior discussion. That discussion has now occurred. This is not a license for future moves of this nature being undertaken without discussion. bd2412 T 02:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - FIFO is now FIFO (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Penbat's intent was the opposite, but really it's no different. ansh666 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
yes i think previously FIFO (disambiguation) went to FIFO - cant see that it makes any practical difference tho.--Penbat (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Penbat, BD2412, and Robert McClenon: I found this mess because I have Fly-in fly-out on my watchlist, and wthout being aware of the discussion above, I made this series of edits. Graham87 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--Penbat (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

sock[edit]

One sock put back into the drawer. De728631 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justina Sh*t Biebergas (talk · contribs) is a sock of Gabucho181 (talk · contribs) (duck evidence = User:Justina F*ck Biebergas), if someone wants to show him/her the door. APK whisper in my ear 06:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Callanecc. APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 19 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.

User:FreeSpeechDude[edit]

New account with username "TheGreatPoopMan". Account blocked per WP:USERNAME. User complained but complied. Username changed to FreeSpeechDude. User left further complaint here, on initial reporters talk page. Edit reverted by another user. User:FreeSpeechDude is now attacking 3 other users as seen here. User appears to exist only to harass/troll. Deunanknute (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Courcelles. APK whisper in my ear 06:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like his original user ID was on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228[edit]

Blocked for 3 months by Materialscientist. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:124.180.167.228 has just returned from a 72-hour block and has immediately started edit warring and foul abuse [53]. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 19 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.

Tendentious editing, removal of well-sourced material, etc., at Sam Harris[edit]

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), LM2000 (talk · contribs), Jonotrain (talk · contribs)
WP:GAMING, WP:TE, WP:IDLI, WP:IDHT
I have to sleep after posting this, so won't be back until tomorrow, so take your time.
I add material to Criticisms section[54]
Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead [55]
Xenophrenic deletes criticism from lead[56]
I restore.[57]
Deletes again, with untrue edit summary (i.e., “no summary”). There was a summary of the Al Jazeera and Salon pieces before sentence was added to lead.[58]
I revert and tell him “take it to Talk”[59]
And again[60]
Deletes it again even after I remove “racism” as compromise.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Harris_(author)&diff=646784582&oldid=646775831]
Jonotrain restores my version[61]
Xenophrenic makesdubious claim of “copyvio”[62]
Then he deletes Criticisms section including Chomsky quote as well as sentence from lead, adds one paragraph to the portions of the Criticism section and retitles it “On Islam” under umbrella category of Views. [63]
Created “Political” section under Views, reinserted Chomsky quote, with support from two secondary news article sources, one from the Independent, as well as academic sources taken directly from the New Atheism article.[64] Jonotrain (who originally posted it, seemingly an SPA with too much Wiki knowledge) re-adds sentence to lead.[65]
A new editor to the page (LM2000) starts with a delete and claims UNDUE out of the blue [66]
Same editor, following Xenophrenic’s pattern, deletes Political section and merges some of it under “On Islam”, again deleting Chomsky quote, Lean, etc., and then self-reverts, claiming that he saw Talk and didn’t want to fight for the changes [67]
SPA reverts LM2000 self-revert (as well as his own edits, contradicting himself), and suddenly expresses a change of faith that he agrees (i.e., declaring that his own edits were wrong, basically), including Mondoweiss quote he inserted (from piece linked to and praised in Guardian piece by Greenwald)[68]
After reverting, I integrate quote that Jonotrain “signed” and posted in an exaggerated manner, apparently with the aim of having it declared UNDUE later. [69]
After I move Mondoweiss quote to Political section, Collect deletes it, dismissing the source as “very editorial”, then he removes categories (four of the five) under which Harris is categorized as Jewish.[70] Collect had directly edited the categories (Harris was categorized as a Jew four or five times) in his second of only two minor edits to the article before 2/16.[71]
As shown by this BLP/N thread, his apparent aim was solely the removal of the Mondoweiss quote, claiming I violated BLPCAT with it.
I continue to build the article. [72]
Xenophrenic continues to tendentiously revert[73]
After which LM2000 rejoins with a revert, and I expand the Political section further, after addressing Xenophrenic’s unfounded dismissal of sources on the Talk page as well as misrepresentation of HP piece[74] , and he reverts again, claiming my edits are problematic.[75] Regarding sourcing, etc., see this Talk page thread[76], such as this comment dismissing Chomsky and two other sources on false grounds[77].
Collect also started a bogus RfC.[78]
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. I do not see btw what is bogus about the RfC. It identifies specific text and asks if it should be included. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that Xenophrenic should not have necessarily flat removed this material, I do agree that the material was not an accurate summary of the citations at all.
Xenophrenic was right to tell you to take it to the talk page, per WP:BRD (which is not BRRD, or BRRRRD). Per WP:BRD, after the material was removed, you should have gone to the talk page seek consensus for its restoration. That is the spirit of the policy on edit warring, even if the letter defines it as more than three reverts.
Removing "racism" as a compromise was the wrong issue entirely. The articles cited (especially the Aljazeera piece) totally did support including the word "racism" in there somewhere, they just didn't support the notion of "widespread," and needed more exacting summaries (such as "Aljazeera, the Guardian, and Nathan Lean have accused Harris of racism.") Which is pretty close to what Xenophrenic did here. I would be happier if he then summarized the new section in the intro as well, but otherwise the edit was doing your work for you.
The copyvio claim is hardly dubious. This edit removes outright plagiarism from the Salon article cited. Your original addition was a quote (not plagiarism), but it was eventually turned into plagiarism by removing the blockquote tags.
Harris represents a great deal of what I'm personally opposed to, (such that an article that represented only my personal views would portray him as just the pretentious, upper-class, and better-spoken version of the sort of redneck that beat up Hindus after 9/11, combined with the grown version of a teenager who becomes an atheist after finding flaws in his own misconceptions about religion) -- but I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope you got a good night's sleep. I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. AtsmeConsult 20:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I could imagine that this edit goes against WP:GEVAL in the intro, but I'd have to study the article in fuller detail to make a solid decision one way or the other.
As for LM2000, I'm seeing edits to WrestleMania 32, List of WWE personnel, Garett Bischoff, and lots of other wrestling articles, going all the way back to Extreme Championship Wrestling. I'm also seeing edits relating to movies, and other forms of entertainment. Is he editing outside of his usual area? Maybe. Is he a single purpose account? Hardly. Does calling him a single purpose account border on a personal attack? Possibly.
Collect's RfC looks to me to be a separate issue, and I do have to ask why OP want to classify a well-known New Atheist proponent he doesn't like as Jewish. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The salient facts are at Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC, and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Harris_.28author. The desire of some to label an outspoken atheist as "Jewish" even to the extent of using a non-notable person's opinion from a non-notable blog to stress their Jewish tribal attitudes seems to be to run directly counter to both letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Clue: When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Count is now seven - looks like "trying one more forum" failed. Collect (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what administrative action the Original Poster wants taken against multiple editors. (Ban them all on the request of the OP? Block them all on the request of the OP?) I also don't have a clue what the OP thinks is "bogus" about the RFC. Non-neutral, maybe. Bogus? Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: I wasn't married to the "widespread" term by any means, and did not insert it myself. Xenophrenic removed the entire "Criticisms" section because he wanted to exclude other sources I'd added, while adding very little content in creating entire new subsections on "Views" from that section. When I started a section on "Political" views, which is well-supported, Xenophrenic tendentiously attempts to dismiss the sources on different grounds. He particularly dislikes the Chomsky source apparently because it is not directly related to Islam.
I simply removed racism from the lead, as Greenwald focused on that Islamophobia instead even though his point of departure was the Hussain piece, but Xenophrenic has warred to remove the entire statement, even after another rewrite, without collaborating. The sentence in the lead seemed DUE in some form, and my focus was not primarily on that. Granted, I should have removed "widespread" in restoring the text, not doing so was an oversight.
If there was a copyvio due to quotation marks being inadvertently removed, that would seem to be a formatting issue, and does not merit removal of the text. Another sign of a refusal to collaborate in good faith. In this case, however, it was in fact Xenophrenic that removed the quoation marks in the first palce with this edit, because he wanted to call the Nathan Lean Salon article a "polemic", as it is referred to in the Independent news article on the controversy. That is gaming the system. He has also accused me of "blatant BLP violations without grounds, which is a personal attack.
@Robert McClenon: OK, point taken, as I don't know whether topic bans are needed, but I would like people to be warned against dismissing sources on illegitimate grounds, such as Xeno calling three RS “jokers”, and while admitting that Harris has “responded to them extensively”, seeks to exclude their statements.[79]
I'm not here trying to make mountains out of mole hills, etc., but trying to create a little content in such an editing environment is extremely time consuming and counterproductive. What does one do when a "content dispute" does not work out in accordance with the "content policies" due to tendentiousness, refusal to edit collaboratively in good faith, etc. Things like civil POV pushing are not easy to deal with, and I have had academic sources culled directly from a related WP article dismissed offhandedly because a group of editors are trying to keep well-sourced critical content they don't like out of the article.
@Atsme: Thanks, got a little sleep.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:12, 09:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
One other point that should be examined follows.
With this edit, Xeno goes from this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of fostering an intolerance towards Islam, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism that he opposes. Blind Faith: "Sam Harris Attacks Islam.""Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

To this

Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has cautioned Harris, "in your zeal to end the harms caused by religion, don't be driven by blind faith down a course of intolerance."

quote mining and misrepresenting the import of the source, which is plainly evident from the title, both when originally published in 2006 and when re-posted on the site in 2011.
I mention that to him on the Talk page, and with this edit paraphrase the source and reword the first passage as

“Fellow contributor at The Huffington Post, R. J. Eskow, has accused Harris of presenting misleading analyses and making unfounded inflammatory statements, and cautioned him against following a course of intolerance toward Islam.”

And add a direct quote to the Political section

“R. J. Eskow, has stated, "Coincidentally (or not), Harris echoes the statements of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives who have singled Islam out for special censure"."Reject Arguments For Intolerance–Even From Atheists."

that parallels and supports Greenwald’s preceding statement regarding neocon political views

Greenwald states that Harris shares the same basic right-wing worldview of Muslims as his neoconservative supporter David Frum.

Then Xeno removes the entire Political section yet again.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Summarized:

  • If any editors are edit-warring, then take it to the edit-warring noticeboard. Otherwise all I see is a content dispute. ... This discussion thread should be closed. — TFD
  • I agree with TFD - this is a content dispute. Try working it out on the TP. — Atsme
  • I have to find Xenophrenics edits and behavior were within site policies and guidelines. — Ian.Thomson
  • When four editors not particularly known for agreeing on much, but agree that one editor is wrong, there is a slight chance that the person posting here is the one who is wrong. Cheers. — Collect
  • Recommend Closure of this thread with a strong warning to the OP about what appears to be a tantrum. — Robert McClenon
  • Ubikwit, I appealed to you on your Talk page to collaborate with me and the other editors. Instead, you came here? — Xenophrenic

I understand this is a touchy subject right now. Over the past few weeks, there have been high-profile news events involving shootings, deaths and Muslims. Ubikwit began editing the BLP of an outspoken critic of religions, including Islam, and immediately started inserting "opinions" of him as a racist, islamophobe, bigot and hater of Islam because of Jewish tribalism, while simultaneously trying to remove descriptions and categories of his fields of study, declaring "(categories gotta go, too - the guy is nothing more than a PUNDIT)". And you wonder why editors are reverting your edits, or moving your contentious content proposals to the Talk page for discussion? We're only asking that you edit in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

update[edit]

For the record, personal attacks have been made against me by Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)[80], and I replied with a warning[81].
Furthermore, there are obvious competence issues, and those have been raised.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit's behavior is really getting absurd. I have responded to his spurious warning about personal attacks on my talk page. His claim of "obvious" competence issues on my part is ridiculous. If that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is. The subject matter in question, Sam Harris's views on religion and politics, is not rocket science. It can be broached by any intelligent person who can read a newspaper. It's almost like he's pulling Wikipedia guidelines and policies at random out of frustration, like when he claimed I "engaged in WP:OR" in response to my talk page comment; see here. Huh? Perhaps it's time for an administrator step in and put a stop to this nonsense? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of projection going on here. Ubikwit has previously accused anybody who opposes his edits of having a whitewashing agenda.[82][83] In another edit, he called Jonotrain and I "jokes" and called our edits "stupid", while also threatening to bring us to AN/I for reasons which I still don't entirely understand.[84] He has also called me incompetent.[85] Personally I can look the other way when it comes to petty insults like this, but for him to behave in such a manner while also playing the victim is unacceptable. He has taken to the encyclopedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with absolutely no regard to BLP standards and has done so without an ounce of civility or good faith along the way.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You and Jonotrain both contradicted yourselves, making it difficult to take your statements at face value, to say the least.
Jonotrain is a decoy, and as described above, you appeared out of nowhere to make your first edits to this article; furthermore, according to the account above, the article is outside your normal scope of content, which I gather focuses primarily on Pro Wrestling. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Jonotrain came to a compromise once he realized his concerns were met. There was no contradiction on my part, I said that I wasn't interested in fighting a battle over my edits (assuming that I would be battling alone) but that I would give my support if others thought my edits were an improvement; as it happens others thought my edits were an improvement and I subsequently gave them my support. How my reverting of vandals on wrestling articles has to do with any of this I'll never know, this account is five years old and has ventured out into a number of subjects. What any of this has to do with you frivolously accusing others of personal attacks while grossly misinterpreting basic policy is another wonder because it certainly doesn't justify any of the personal attacks.LM2000 (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And if you thought that Jonotrain was a sock of me, or somebody else, you should have gone through the proper channels, in this case WP:SPI. Of course such allegations are baseless, Jonotrain spent much of the discussion on your side unlike everybody else you dragged here. Jonotrain, a new account, has gone stale since you resorted to the personal attacks (violating WP:BITE in the process). As everybody above said in agreement, this was simply a content dispute and should have never ended up here at AN/I. Even after being given a stern warning for the "tantrum" you threw by bringing us here, this thread is yet to be closed because of additional concerns about your behavior.LM2000 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


WP:BOOMERANG time, I fear -- Ubikwit seems anxious to call everyone else but himself a Wikilawyer or sock master - The RfC he calls "bogus" is clear, and the result is clear - quoting a non-notable person's blog entry is not proper -- meanwhile he seeks to re=add hundreds of words of quotes to the already-bloated BLP.

  1. [86] 12:35 19 Feb shows a blatant edit war push to re-introduce material which no one else supports.
  2. [87] shows gross incivility I suppose you have a minor point in that it wasn't until this edit that you actually outright started deleting material instead of simply obfuscating and rendering it unintelligible. I've modified my statement accordingly.,
  3. [88] accuses an editor of seeking to degrade and obfuscate viewpoints expressed in reliably sourced material that he didn't like.,
  4. [89] warns yet another editor against touching the BLP Please refer to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE before editing the lead of an article. I see that you were correct about the citation being in error, but the material itself is well-sourced, as per the main body of the article, and the refcite was a minor error that should just have been deleted, because it is not necessary in the lead. and seems to simply ignore the precept that claims in a BLP must be strongly cited.
  5. [90] he simultaneously maintains the same "I am the only one who counts - attitude" with :Daveler16 (talk · contribs) There is no need for a B&P rewrite, but of course you are free to sandbox all you like. That doesn't mean anyone is going to join you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC), :#:#[91] As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink,
  6. [92] accused editors of being sock masters sans any evidence at all,and without recognizing that WP:SPI is the locus involved. You and Jonotrain both contradicted yourselves, making it difficult to take your statements at face value, to say the least. Jonotrain is a decoy, and as described above, you appeared out of nowhere to make your first edits to this article; furthermore, according to the account above, the article is outside your normal scope of content, which I gather focuses primarily on Pro Wrestling. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC) All in well under two days - and this behaviour has gone on for months. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Atumpan article needs fixing[edit]

I am not sure if this is the correct noticeboard (this is mostly a page-related maintenance request), but this article has several connected problems. Maybe an admin can help sorting them out, some of them like move reverting and the possible copyvio need an admin anyway:
  • The article seems to be a copyvio of [93], see report, even if it's only a few sentences.

But there are several other minor problems (or I would have simply tagged it):

  • Atumpan (singer) was moved away from its original name, Atumpan, without evidence for being the primary topic (could use discussion imo).
  • The connected talkpage wasn't moved, so Talk:Atumpan still points to the singer article.
  • Several Wiki-articles (f.e. List of Live Lounge cover versions) previously pointing to the singer article haven't been changed after the move and now point to the wrong article.
  • Atumpan (disambiguation) was created and may need maintenance, depending on the first points.

Maybe a hard revert would be the easiest solution, but with 3 pages involved I don't dare to do that myself. Thanks for your help, I have notified User:Dkusic1 about those problems. GermanJoe (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation (after removing the copyvio material from the article, there really wouldn't be much left, imo; in addition, the instrument isn't mentioned anywhere in either the talking drum or the Ashanti people article). As far as the move, the info about the singer should be able to be moved back the original title afterwards. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Done @Erpert: Thanks for your help. As there was no clear primary topic, I kept the disambiguation at Atumpan (after the article was deleted), it points to the singer and a possible drum article (redlink). The drum seems notable - there are a few hits via Google search. I also cleaned up 2-3 wrong links from other Wiki-articles in "what links here" (f.e. Timpani). GermanJoe (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've modified it slightly to remove the link to Akan, because an entry should only have one bluelink and the Ghana article mentions the atumpan so that looks like the one to go for. (Also, the Akan link was to another disambig page). Squinge (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

help with an edit warrior who seems to have taken things personally[edit]

  1. List of online chess playing programs nominated for deletion
  2. Closed as redirect to list of chess software
  3. Creator of list of online chess playing programs, IQ125, copy/pastes it into list of chess software.
  4. I go through the list, seeing if there's anything to merge (I had done this when I weighed in at AfD too), and found that the 8 listed comprise: 2 already on the list, 3 redlinks citing external links to their own websites (links repeatedly added to chess lists in the past), 1 link to a disambig page with no relevant hit, 1 magazine (not software), and 1 website (not software). Accordingly I remove them with edit summaries explaining why I removed each.
  5. I leave a couple messages at User talk:IQ125 regarding this and a WP:COMMONSENSE change of redirect target (a matter which, although I find it silly to redirect anything "online" to a list of software when there's a perfectly reasonable list of Internet chess servers/sites, is not something I find important enough to continue to pursue as the name of the redirecting article, "list of online chess playing programs" is imprecise and strange enough that the redirect will likely never be used)
  6. IQ125 creates an WP:SPI investigation about me, based on the other accounts I say I have on my user page
  7. Bbb23 promptly deletes the SPI
  8. IQ125 continues to edit war. Most recent edit summary: The afd consensus and instructions are to place the information in this article. So stop reverting or your account will be blocked! (afd was to redirect, not to merge, and even if it were to merge, that itself wouldn't even be a viable argument to restore copy/paste with duplicates, etc.)

At this point I would rather not continue edit warring by myself against someone who seems like he/she may have taken this personally. 3RR has not yet been breached. Given that, and since IQ125 is removing any messages I leave on his/her talk page, I oh so reluctantly bring this to ANI with what is probably too long an explanation for a relatively straightforward issue. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • No comment on the content issue (the exact nature of the items on the article titled list of chess software should be discussed on the article talk page, and WP:DR can be applied if a cordial agreement cannot be reached) however there's a major problem with the vexatious SPI report. Users should not file frivolous charges against others simply to get them to back off in a content dispute. That shouldn't ever happen. --Jayron32 02:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The content issue is not a content issue. An article that went through AfD with result to redirect, not merge, is being copy/pasted wholesale. Before we even get to things like selection criteria, that's a problem. But even if this weren't after an AfD, DR still wouldn't really make sense because the situation is a block of content (at least partially obviously problematic, e.g. duplicates, unrelated) to a list, that material is being challenged, and no rationale is being offered to include it -- only edit warring and refusal to discuss it beyond the false statement that "this is what the afd said". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue was discussed during the afd, the article should be redirected and the contents moved to List of chess software. IQ125 (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
For the Nth time, if that were the case, it would've been closed as "merge" not "redirect". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct. IQ125, I believe you are confusing "redirect" with "merge". Redirect does not mean "copy/paste everything from the article into the redirect target". That's not even necessarily what you do when "merging". You can't use that as a blanket reason to keep everything. Please go to the talk page and discuss the individual merits of each item. It can be up for discussion, though honestly, in deciding what items should be on a list, its pretty common to trim off the items that don't even have their own articles, which is the case with a few of them. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated 3RR Violations & Disruptive editing, Disrupting the Project, Civility: User:Tetra quark[edit]

I am issuing a direct complaint regarding the continuing unacceptable behaviour and ongoing edit warring and vandalism by this user Tetra quark.

1) Tetra quark has now been given five violations of WP:3RR, of which he has been blocked by John for WP:EDITWAR I've already counted more than a dozen times (or more) advising of the real consequences of violating 3RR, but never shows even a hint of remorse. His attitude changes immediately when actually sanctioned are evoked, as Tetra quark states "... but I'm not here to discuss the edits themselves and the reason I got blocked."[94] This user is also not prepared to find out what is wrong or correct it, but is quite happy to respond bluntly ignoring WP:CIV.[95] [96] [97] His continued responses are both insulting and unnecessary, which he refuses to retract towards Arianewiki1 Isambard Kingdom .[98]. Tetra quark gave weak apologies to John for [99], but such responses, especially to an Admin warrants more serious sanctions.
Behaviour like that unacceptable, not retracting poor behaviour like that is equally unacceptable. It is clearly avoiding WP:GF and is actionable.
2) Discussion on Administrator User: John Talk Page User_talk:John#User:Tetra_quark, discusses further serious violations like 99of9 notice of replaced, where the lead image on Jesus with substituted with pornography on Commons, in what seems like a revenge attack on en-wiki via its usage while the editor was blocked, causing an the necessary indef-blocked on Commons.[100]
As 99of9 states in this thread; "I agree that the action stems from being upset and angry about some kind of issue on en-wiki, but it was also a "deliberate act". It takes quite some deliberation to go to another project to locate the lead image of a highly significant religious figure, locate some hardcore pornography, and go through the overwriting upload steps to replace one with the other. This was no accident." [101]
There is clear evidence, as stated in WP:BLOCK, "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project". Evidence suggesting the User:Tetra quark is unacceptably disrupting the project. This action needs to be properly investigated.
3) Administrator John has given the option of a 'Last Chance' [102], but shows evidence he is avoiding this advice " Thanks but I'm not quite sure what's the offer here."[103], when the statement is clearly given.
4) There is evidence of Tetra quark suspected sock puppetry while this user was being blocked for edit warring, as inferred by OccultZone.[104]
Given evidence suggests further sanctions are now warranted against this user.
I am unable to discuss or solve these issues with the Tetra quark as he continues refactoring / deleting my posts. I.e. [105] [106]
In priority here, is the first point. I, or anyone else, should be able to edit without being disrespected, humiliated, intimidated or have unacceptable language spoken towards me (or any other user.) If I was spoken to, as highlighted in the first point, like this by my boss, for example, I'd instantly lose my job.
Thank you for your considerations into these matters. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand item 2, but it's late. Plus I can't see the picture, though I'm sure it's exciting. How about waiting for John to comment here? He's a big boy and has no problem dropping the block hammer, esp. after the warning. How about it, John? That was not a kind thing that Tetra quark said. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Item 2 occured on Commons (replacing a picture of a stained glass window depicting Jesus with pornography). This has been revision deleted and Tetra_quark has been indef blocked. The reason I think this also deserved sanction on en-wiki is because the specific image was IMO specifically chosen to disrupt this project, where it is used as the lead image on Jesus (and in many other less significant places). --99of9 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify number 2 further, Tetra uploaded over several high-profile Commons pics (not just the stained glass) on February 10th, resulting in the indef and this thoughtful comment. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I hadn't noticed that he also did it to the lead image of a BLP which gets a pageview every 4 seconds, Taylor Swift. Commons admins took only 13 minutes to catch this, but all up that leaves >500 readers presumably including many children, with a severely affected view of Wikipedia. --99of9 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Been following the situation. Amidst the conflicts, Tetra has done some good work so far, and I hope that continues, so I'm glad that John offered a last chance for Tetra to improve - but unfortunately I don't have much confidence left at this point. I don't think an indef would be out of the question at this very moment, but I also trust John's judgement and his offer of one more chance - so I'll leave it at that. Tetra simply needs to come to terms with the fact that his edits are not always "the right way," and that he needs to slow down and actually take advice from fellow editors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the idea of giving Tetra Quark a last chance. This discussion was already had somewhere before, and the user was already blocked, so just wait to see what happens when the block finishes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett The post here is AFTER the block not before it. To take such WP:ANI action would be unfair on any the user being investigated. Previous actions sanctioned against Tetra quark were in that block. These additional issues placed here have not been addressed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My main concern was to avoid disruption from Universe. I believe that Tetra Quark should be left alone for sometime, he shall realize what others want from him. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I endorse leaving TQ alone to see how he gets on. After so many blocks for edit-warring, socking, inter-project vandalism and personal attacks (the last being the least significant in context), I have warned TQ that their next block will be indefinite. Maybe I have been too lenient. --John (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • TQ's first two article space edits after his block expired were reverting uncontroversial edits (one of them is mine) with misleading-by-incompleteness edit summaries using Twinkle. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supernova&diff=prev&oldid=647612988][107] I certainly wouldn't complain about either of those particular reversions in isolation, but given the editor's history, it's not an encouraging pattern. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tetra quark:. I've just received a request on my talk page by SkyFlubbler regarding Tetra quark deletion of the required ANI notification to TQ and the perception that I have power to have him blocked [108] or sanctioned. I wish to note at no time have suggested this, but only present evidence for possible further sanction. My own response towards this one and another post by SkyFlubbler appears on TQ's Talk Page. [109] The deletion of the ANI notification on TQ's Talk Page, which I requested that Tetra quark not remove [110]. This is further evidence that Tetra quark is avoid WP:GF. Undoing the ANI post, TQ says; "leave me alone." [111]. This could be construed as a reaction to me using WP:HARASSMENT, but from evidence of previous behaviours, it is more likely direct avoidance of facing TQs own actions for which he is solely responsible. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Really? I read the ANI warning, came to this page, and then deleted the warning. Why would I leave it there. Also, don't tell me how to use my talk page and please refrain from pinging me all the time. I had 9 notifications today when I woke upTetra quark (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, 3RR and PoV-pushing by possible sock: user:M.Bitton[edit]

Hello,

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) (suspected to be a SP of Historian Student (talk · contribs)) keeps pushing his PoV and edit-warring on many articles, despite being reverted by many users (examples: reverting 3 users (respectively Marek69, Omar-toons (myself) and Blaue Max) on Sand War after they reverted his controversial edits [112][113][114]). Same behavior on Algerian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |