Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881

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

Noticeboard archives


Incivility by Rtc[edit]

Rtc made 2 edits [1], [2] to Germanwings Flight 9525 changing the summary of the info box to read "murder-suicide", both edits were reverted as unreferenced. Rtc alleges that they provided an appropriate reference [3], which is in German, however the Google translation doesn't seem to back this up [4].

Background aside the reason (as an editor who has chosen to stay out of the dispute for fear making things worse) I bring the issue here, is due to Rtc opening up a discussion on the articles talk page in a very combative frame of mind with what I can only describe as a foul mouthed rant [5]. Their last comment on the talk page was to demand that other editors include their preferred change [6] Rtc was given 5 warnings in a space of 20mins for personal attacks/ incivility [7], mainly by Ahunt with one by Prhartcom. The general tone of their contributions to the discussion seems to be one of an unwillingness to co-operate or to accept that others may disagree and that they are in a minority on issue in question.

It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '' whose first edit was to complain about the blocking of another editor (due to personal attacks) in a previous discussion about the same issue [8], their only edits have been to this article [9]. Their 2 contributions to the talk page include the deletion of one of Rtc's comments and replacing it with on of their own [10], and one in support of Rtc [11] (the only editor to do so).

I am aware that another involved editor has allready expressed their support for the issue to be raised here (albeit qualified by Rtc making the change again) [12].

Rtc will be informed that the issue has been raised here as soon as this case is submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talkcontribs) 04:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have now informed Rtc [13]. --wintonian talk 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If sanctions are preventive not punitive, I think this is premature, per this. Although I sometimes wish sanctions could be punitive, if only for the deterrent value. There would have been a better incivility case a few hours before my comment, sorry about that. ―Mandruss  05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I hear you, but as I understand it sanctions aren't necessary the only option available, and a resolution doesn't require there to be sanctions. Beside it's a pity 'preventative sanctions' would not have prevented the tirade of bad language that the discussion started with. --wintonian talk 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and I think that would have been a viable option then. But people waited a little too long to pull the trigger, and I went and spoiled things by ending the discussion (I think). Unless someone new wants to jump in in support of Rtc's position, I think the discussion is dead. As for non-sanction options, you're referring to the slap on the wrist "stop doing that"? I have yet to see that have any beneficial effect. As far as we know, Rtc has already "stopped doing that" in this case. He has been around long enough to know that that sort of behavior violates policy, that knowledge didn't stop him in this case, and it's pointless to simply refer him to a policy that he's already aware of. If there's another option I'm missing, I'm all ears. ―Mandruss  05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your point Mandruss, as he had stopped (finally) and throughout the whole thing did not attempt to edit war his change. But to be honest, my waiting was more out of laziness (WP:TWINKLE doesn't have an ANI script Face-sad.svg ) Ending the discussion was good, it wasn't going anywhere from the start, he did not seem to have any interest in anything except winning some argument. I would feel more sympathetic, but Rtc is not a new editor. I would expect him to know how important WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS are, regardless of whether he agrees or not. ― Padenton|   06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
That was one of the reasons why I didn't do so earlier as well. The other was that I was waiting for someone more involved to 'pull the trigger'. If this was a new editor then I might of suggested WP:DRN, but in general I don't think issues around editor conduct are appropreat there. --wintonian talk 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment uninvolved, except for attempting to figure out what would be a good short summary in the early days. I've added a comment asking people to discuss on talk before changing the infobox - these lines have often been a point of contention in the early days of a frequently edited article. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment as an editor (with a seven year editing history) who attempted to update the Germanwings 9525 article to no avail, I can understand and empathise with editor Rtc's frustrations. The pompous highhandedness of certain Wikipedia editors can often drive another to incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As an editor with a seven year editing history, you should know this: If you feel you have a valid complaint, bring it in a separate thread; but there is no pompous highhandedness exemption in WP:CIVIL. (I have not interacted previously with you, so it is not my pompous highhandness to which you refer.) ―Mandruss  09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Rtc is an editor with a fairly substantial history of hostile interactions. His/her profanity and personal attacks on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525, even after repeated warnings, in an attempt to get his/her own way on wording in the article made meaningful discussion impossible. This user seems to have a history of this problem and action is warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia... Never done so before. And it amazes me to see that some people seemingly try to push their own agenda when editing it, as if they were Wikipedia's owners. Several other articles name the thing muder-suicide by pilot, but for some reason there are a few editors strongly opposed to it. And despite the many sources clearly pointing to the fact that the pilot committed suicide and thus killed everybody else in the plane, they keep on editing it in a shady way to downplay his role in the tragedy. I'm sorry to say, but I'm really sick of this. I've been a reader of Wikipedia for years, and always thought the info found here to be reliable... But then, when it comes to this article, it doesn't matter that every single news source out there are pointing to murder-suicide, because a handful of editors keep changing it back to "Deliberate flight into terrain" lol! and then they bring this discussion to here... Sounds like censorship to me, sorry to say, guys! (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
and by the way... Maybe he wasn't too civil with his comment, but I'm also kind of mad at the way the editing is taking place. Why are some editors reverting every single change when it comes to murder-suicide if all news and the authorities point to that??? You keep talking about consensus... But it's good to talk about that when the consensus is formed by the same small group of people... RTC probably got mad and posted some "bad words", so what? IMHO the way some editors are working on that article (seemingly trying to conceal the fact that it was murder-suicide) show no respect to the victims. I'm truly disappointed with Wikipedia. (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Now look at this "It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '' " You must be joking if you are trying to imply we are the same people. I have edited the article because I'm disgusted at the way some are trying to conceal the fact it was murder-suicide. I'm from Brazil, and as far as I can tell the guy who complained about the punishment of some other editor is from the UK... Don't come up with false accusations, it only proves the fact that you are being censors here rather than contributors. (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not trying to imply anything and I am quite happy to assume your edits are sincere and of good faith. However it also appeared to me that other editors might find them relevant to the discussion - or they may not. It is always unfortunate when new editors get caught up in things like this, for that I am happy to offer my apologies. Although in my humble opinion, criticizing the block of another user wasn't perhaps the best way to make your first edit. --wintonian talk 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) There is an ongoing investigation into this crash. Wikipedia can't contain original research on what the situation looks like but reports what reliable sources can document. Coverage of recent events usually changes and deepens as time passes and more details emerge from official investigations. Liz Read! Talk! 12:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello! :) That's why I proposed the article to name it "suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot; under investigation", but those editors are clearly opposed to it. Now look at the way they have written it: "deliberate flight into terrain"... Deliberate by who, we should ask. "suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot; under investigation" not only finds its support in several reliable sources mentioning the tragegy/accident, but also makes it clear that the murder-suicide is both suspected and still under investigation. The editors involved are fighting over something pretty obvious: all current evidence points to the fact that it was indeed a murder-suicide by the mentally weak co-pilot, and the guy planned it in advance, so he clearly had the intention of killing himself and everybody else inside the ill-fated plane. I really hope that someone with a more neutral stand than those editors above take over and prevent them from edit-warring and reverting every single part of the article that does not comply with their personal info. since they accused me of being those two other guys... Let me accuse them as well: I think they are working for Lufthansa and are trying to conceal the fact that the company neglected that one of their pilots had a history of suicidal thoughts!!! lol - (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As Liz said, we don't debate what we "think" or what we believe "is obvious" we wait for reliable sources and we summarise what those sources say. Rtc could do with some time away from editing to read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:CIVIL Flat Out let's discuss it 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We also do not come to this page to resolve content disputes, which is what you're talking about. ―Mandruss  12:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I THINK the same is true for those other editors involved. They should start by reading the five pillars of Wikipedia. Instead of pointing their fingers at someone, they should look at themselves first, because the way the are acting is no less offending than RTC's - - (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This is completely the wrong venue for debating content changes to the article, that should be discussed on the talk page. This discussion is about one editor's abusive behaviour and whether action needs to be taken on that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. Well, my opinion is that he shouldn't be punished. If he's to be punished, then let's punish all other editors involved as well. He may have sounded harsh, but that was probably a reaction out of his frustration, which was caused in the first place because of the way those editors are pushing their own agendas in that article, as if they were owners of Wikipedia or something. - (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There was only one editor using profanity and being uncivil. WP:CIVIL is a requirement and you should not be making excuses for his/her bad behaviour and blaming it on other editors who were trying to have a polite debate. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC), if you think that there has been misconduct by editors that violates Wikipedia standards, you need to provide evidence (diffs) that support your claim. Otherwise, your words, if directed at specific editors, could be seen as personal attacks. If you need help creating diffs, see Help:Diff for guidance but you might consider opening up a new case rather than adding more information on to this one. Also know that if you post a new discussion thread at AN/I (or really any noticeboard), your own behavior might be examined at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and your reply. I don't know how all of that works, and I have little energy to waste arguing with them... That's why I didn't even bother using an account to post here. This environment looks way too hostile to newcomers, and sadly I have no interest in joining it, because those arguments are extremely frustrating, and so is the way those people behave. - (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an obvious attempt to get me blocked merely because I am arguing against the outlandish views of a small group of editors that attempt to censor from the article the fact that the case is highly suspected to be murder-suicide, enforcing the completely unsourced (and unsourceable) phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" instead. The editors do not even deny that many reliable sources say so, for example:

  • "A European official government official with detailed knowledge of the investigation said that Lubitz's actions amount to 'premeditated murder.'" CNN
  • "The pilot is suspected of intentionally flying a Germanwings plane into the French Alps in an apparent murder-suicide."telegraph
  • "this appears to be a case of murder-suicide"BBC
  • "Murder-suicide by plane: What drove Lubitz to do it?"Washington Post
  • "Andreas Lubitz: Co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 'wanted to destroy plane in suicide and mass murder mission'"independent
  • "murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz"mirror
  • "The Germanwings Mass Murder–Suicide Shows the Importance of Depression Intervention"new republic
  • "German murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz" NY Post

(There are many more.)

However, the group of editors claim that the fact that an overwhelming number of reliable sources highly suspect this to be a case of murder-suicide is insignificant, because of supposedly "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" (19:23, 2 April 2015) and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that", with User:Padenton pointing to his personal, apparently more reliable "knowledge" that "The difference between deliberate flight and 'mass murder' is because 'murder' has a specific definiton, requiring malicious intent towards the victims". When I clearly refute this claim (as well as several others), he falls silent and User:Mandruss begins a meta-discussion (00:17, 3 April 2015). After he has lost that discussion, too, it seems now they are trying to get me blocked, using WP:CIVIL as a pretext to silence a well-argued criticism of their views. Concerning this pretext, I can only repeat what I already said during the discussion: "Learn to distinguish between attacks on your person and attacks on your arguments" --rtc (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is an attempt at censorship. The fact you are asserting might be shown to be accurate. What editors are saying is that currently, this matter is the subject of an official investigation and until their results are published, any comments about issues like the motivation of the copilot are speculation, even if these speculation from anonymous officials appears in sources that are viewed as reliable (though I would question the reliability of the NY Post about anything). Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not speculation to state the simple fact that this is highly suspected to be murder-suicide in an ongoing investigation. And the suspicion is obviously not speculation either, since this is an evidence-based investigation. Both flight recorders, personell records, medical records, the contents of the co-pilots search history, a video apparently filmed by one of the passenger all very clearly point towards this conclusion, so it is obviously a completely reasonable suspicion and I do not see why Wikipedia should not mention that it exists, despite the abundance of reliable sources. And, even assuming you were right, I cannot see how using the phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" defended by the other editors, for which no source exists, could possibly be any less problematic in this respect. And btw, "murder-suicide" has nothing whatsoever to do with "motivation". In fact, a deliberate flight into terrain by itself already IS murder-suicide. It is the well-sourced term of murder-suicide disguisded in an unsourced phrase. --rtc (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rtc: I like how you keep claiming I "fell silent" as if that supports your case.
  1. I don't live on Wikipedia. I have other stuff I need to do with my time, such as go to class and study, as well as go outside (especially on the first nice day of the year where I live).
  2. You demonstrated from the beginning of the discussion that you had no interest in even reading anyone else's opinion. Several times you pretended to think we wanted completely different changes than our arguments indicated in order to provide a source confirming something we already acknowledged. Why should I waste my time in a content discussion with you? ― Padenton|   17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how your life could possibly be relevant here, let alone support your case. And of course I have read, and replied to, all significant opinions that were voiced. --rtc (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The only clear personal attack I found was bullshitty editors like you, but WP:CIVIL is about more than personal attacks. Have you read any of it? Do you claim that you have not violated it? Or do you claim an exemption because you're right as to the content? If the latter, can you point to that exemption in the policy? If not, exactly what leg do you have to stand on in this case? Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for guidance on resolving content disputes. ―Mandruss  17:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to the view of but will say it's normal in Wikipedia to use understated phrasing and be very conservative about using charged terms like "murder-suicide". The best argument for using that description in the article would be a solid source that uses the exact same phrase. The reference[14] whose removal Rtc objected to[15] doesn't use that term, and in fact I don't think it even calls the incident a suicide. Someone who reads German could check, but I think it only says the co-pilot was found to have looked for information about suicide with a search engine.

    "Deliberate flight into terrain" does appear to be a neologism, but it's based on the standard aviation term controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), which normally means a pilot flew an airworthy plane into a mountain by accident (typically a combination of poor visibility and navigation mistakes, as opposed to something like mechanical failure). "Deliberate" just emphasizes that in this case it happened on purpose so I'm ok with that phrasing. An alternative might be something like "intentional CFIT" if that works better for you.

    Anyway my suggestion re the content dispute is for and Rtc to temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable; if "murder-suicide" is better then sourcing using it should appear within a few weeks. Our saying is there is no deadline (given that this is just a quibble over phrasing rather than about a factual error). If no such sourcing appears then DFIT is ok after all. I'd advise to relax, using sedate language is in the Wikipedia style and it's fairly typical (unfortunately) for the processes to be a bit bureaucratic. You'll get used to it after a while (welcome to Wikipedia by the way).

    I'd urge Rtc to dial back the hostility which I think has gone past what most of us would consider to be collegial. I won't support administrative intervention at the moment since I think it's best to first just ask the person to take the advice on board, which is what I'm doing now. (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

    You are falling for the spin of the other editors. Those editors do not dispute that the exact term "murder-suicide" is used by many solid sources. They claim "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that". They justify this opinion with their own "knowledge" which I have clearly shown to be false. See above. No, I will not "temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable". That I am even asked for this proves my point that this is not about an alleged WP:CIVIL violation, but about trying to block an editor because he disagrees with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You were not brought here for disagreeing with consensus, you were brought here for flagrant incivility. If you would stop defecting, just apologize and promise to stop all the profanity that might be sufficient to close this case. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure I was brought here for disagreeing with consensus. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. You are inventing WP:CIVIL violations as a pretext to get me blocked because my arguments are convincingly refuting the "consensus" opinion. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to disagree with the "consensus". In fact, WP:CIVIL warns that "editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged" --rtc (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I raised the issue here as I thought; 1, the language (mainly in the beginning) was unnecessary and was almost a foul mouthed wall of abuse containing little constructive value. 2, What appeared to me to be a generally hostile and combative attitude. 3, An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others, unless the change you were demanding was implemented. -- I think the advice above given by is particularly sound, and their wider comments re; content are also most welcome by me. Finaly it was not my intention to open up a content dispute (e.g. the WP:3RR has not been broken, so this remains a difference of opinion) and in any case this isn't the correct noticeboard in order to do so. --wintonian talk 22:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
"An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others" proves that the rest of your allegations is only pretext and that the true reason for trying to get me blocked is that you want me to agree with the "consensus", to change my point of view to be in line with the "consensus" view. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to have a point of view different from the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
1, I have nor mentioned or even suggested anything with regards to a block. If I have then please provide diffs, I'm sorry to say but you do come across as a little paranoid on this point. 2, You are of course perfectly entailed to your point of view as are other people, the caveat is that when doing so editors must express them in a civilised manner that is in the spirit of collaboration. --wintonian talk 22:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This page is for requesting blocks against users, and whether you do that explicitely or not, your opening comment will be understood and acted upon as such a request against me. This is not a page for general discussion. I think you know that pretty clearly. And I do not believe you for a second when you say "I was not trying to imply anything" after you pointed so intensely at the "interesting history of the IP editor ''". If you did not want to imply anything, why did you even mention it? If you do not want me to get blocked, why are you posting here? --rtc (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying that you can't disagree with the consensus view. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement among all editors. But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE and WP:TE for guidance on how consensus is handled on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean with "But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view"? Nobody has to agree to some specific percentage or at all with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, no single editor has to agree with the consensus point of view. But if there is a difference of opinion on issues like sources or weight of points of view, the issues are decided by the consensus of editors working on the article in talk page discussions. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Continually insisting against consensus that the article has to include a specific edit, phrase, word or source, is WP:TE and can be a blockable offense. That, along with PA and civility, is the basis of the case brought against you here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming again and again that the true purpose of this is to get me blocked because I disagree with the consensus. No, it's not a blockable offense. You are taking essays like WP:TE too serious, which try to advance exactly this collectivist point of view that one has a duty to conform to the consensus. You should try to be more critical about them. --rtc (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)The blurb at the top of this page says;This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Where does it say that this noticeboard can only be used to request user blocks? I have already offered my apologies to for involving them here, but I genuinely wasn't sure if their involvement would be of interest (or not) [16], something I am happy to reiterate here. However I do consider it relevant (and supportive your to you) to mention that you did have the support of another editor, even if it would be better done in a different context. --wintonian talk 23:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, user block requests are not the only requests that require intervention of administrators, others occasions might be requests to delete something form history, to delete an article, or block or semi-block a page. However, since you are bringing up me as an user, your request is automatically interpreted as a user blocking request, for there is no other way in which it could be understood as "requiring the intervention of administrators". If you do not want to request a user block against me, this is definitely the wrong page and you should take back your request. --rtc (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

break 1[edit]

─────────────────────────(edit conflict) Ok, I see now that this is about the infobox. Is anyone objecting to putting "murder-suicide" in the article text? I agree there is enough RS for that, especially with WP:INTEXT attribution. Putting it in the infobox is another matter and normally only the blandest and most neutral description should go there. "Murder-suicide" is sourced (it should go in the article) but (by consensus) appears insufficiently neutral for the infobox. Neutrality is a much higher standard than merely being sourced, and there's no way to establish it other than by consensus. Imagine an aviation agency (ICAO maybe) official report with a table of all of 2015's plane crashes. It would say things like "pilot error", "engine malfunction", or other such neutral terms for the causes. That's the style the infobox should use. What would that table say for the Germanwings crash? Probably not "murder-suicide", which among other things is not an aviation term. Even American Airlines Flight 11 (one of the planes in the 9/11 attack) doesn't say "murder-suicide" (it says "terrorist hijacking").

Regarding disagreeing with consensus, it's perfectly fine to do that; just keep it civil, and move on from the disagreement (drop the stick) once it's clear that consensus has formed and is stable, whether in your favor or not. Yes, the ANI is genuinely about civility. The matter wouldn't have come here (at least this quickly) if discussion had stayed civil.

Rtc, there are many insane and infuriating things in Wikipedia and this issue is tiny by comparison. It's best to save your outrage for issues where it matters more. If you want to get a wider set of viewpoints about the content question, try a request for comment. (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no NPOV issue here. NPOV issues can only arise if reliable sources disagree on the matter. But that is not the case here. No reliable source I know of has disputed that this is murder-suicide. murder-suicide is a standard phrase used in wikipedia infoboxes about such plane crashes, and used in cases with a lot less evidence and RS. The alternative proposed would be "suicide by co-pilot". However, the "consensus" is unwilling to accept either version, they want to stick to their WP:OR phrase of "deliberate flight into terrain". --rtc (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There's only a disagreement between sources if one source says murder-suicide and another says the opposite. If out of 50 sources, 10 say murder-suicide and the other 40 are silent on the topic, there is no disagreement between the sources, but murder-suicide is in only 25% of them, so you can't really say it's NPOV. By comparison, basically 100% of the sources about the 9/11 flights said terrorism. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you have some examples of other plane crash infoboxes that say murder-suicide? I know Craig D. Button's A-10 crash was ruled a pilot suicide by the USAF, so maybe that phrasing can work (nobody else was killed in that crash though).

If you think you might find a different consensus with wider participation, by all means start an RFC and make your case. One more observation: basic reality about guiding consensus formation is that diplomacy and persuasion work a lot better than shouting, no matter how many sources there are to shout about. So that is an area where you might focus on doing a better job (you've done poorly at it so far). If you accept that the other editors aren't idiots, and you think the sources you've given were enough to support your proposal, you have to look towards diplomacy failure as an explanation of why the "wrong" consensus emerged. If you run an RFC with good sources and good diplomacy and both fail to persuade, chances are the others are right and you're the one who is wrong. (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"If out of 50 sources, 10 say murder-suicide and the other 40 are silent on the topic, there is no disagreement between the sources, but murder-suicide is in only 25% of them, so you can't really say it's NPOV." I disagree, this would not be a NPOV issue. And 0% of the sources say "deliberate flight into terrain". That argument is thus obviously invalid, it's like claiming "25 is lesser than 0 because it is lesser than 100". I am here to improve encyclopedia articles, not to play complicated diplomacy games. If editors fail to submit to the rule of argument and want to be emotionally pampered, want to be swayed by feelings of friendship and compassion rather than be convinced by rational argument, I think Wikipedia is the wrong place for them to be. --rtc (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that murder-suicide is emotionally charged or marked while DFIT is bland and sounds like aviation lingo. It will take much more convincing to get people to decide that the charged term (that imputes big drama on the actions of the co-pilot) is more neutral than the bland one that only says what happened to the plane. Another way to describe the disagreement: you want the infobox parameter to be about the co-pilot and passengers, while the others want it to be about the status of the airplane itself. That's a consensus decision and it seems to have settled having it be the fate of the plane. I'm open to persuasion but that seems like a reasonable choice to me, given the article's title and overall content. (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"murder-suicide" is commonly used: Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 (by passenger), SilkAir Flight 185 (by captain), Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 (by passenger), LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 (by pilot). Other commonly used phrase seems to be "deliberate crash": Japan Airlines Flight 350, EgyptAir Flight 990, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630. I don't think that the infobox summary is a status report about plane or crew+passengers, but rather about the cause of the incident. While I see your point that "murder-suicide" may be emotionally charged, I still think that "deliberate flight into terrain" is a grotesque, unsourcable phrase. Given its use in the other articles, I would be fine with "deliberate crash", however (which is sourcable[17]). There is also an article on the subject, Suicide by pilot, and I have repeatedly said that I would be fine with that phrase, too. --rtc (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, those sound like reasonable proposals. The main thing is to present them in the context of a calm discussion like the one we're having now (as opposed to earlier). You wrote "[i]f editors ... want to be emotionally pampered, want to be swayed by feelings of friendship and compassion rather than be convinced by rational argument, I think Wikipedia is the wrong place for them to be." But really, I did see emotions overpowering the rational argument on that talk page, and the emotions were of anger and hostility, and you were mostly the one bringing them. I don't think anyone here is looking to be stroked or flattered, but just treated with basic respect and understanding, while the argumentative part should consist mostly of presenting facts and logic in a neutral manner instead of snarling.

Anyway, as Mandruss says, this has turned into a content discussion, though it's calmer than earlier, which is a good thing. Can we say that the ANI civility issue is now resolved, and further content discussion should go back to the article talk page, where it can stay WP:COOL and dispassionate going forward? A lot of staying cool amounts to avoiding getting too emotionally engaged with the topic. If you find yourself too wound up in it, it's best to stay away for a while, or switch to another article. I can understand DFIT sounding grotesque if you weren't used to the existing, very similar term CFIT which it's a slight modification of (so it's not really a giant leap into OR either, though maybe it's a tiny one). (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - This thread has been allowed to devolve into a content discussion, which (as we all know but few seem to care about) is not what this board is for. The thread is now essentially an informal RfC, in the wrong venue, 28 hours after Rtc ignored a suggestion that he start an RfC. Is it just me, or is everything way out of whack here? ―Mandruss  04:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, it's dispute resolution. I hope the content discussion that's entered into it has been helpful in bringing out the participants' perspectives and letting them step back a little. Understanding the other person's perspective is an important ingredient of collaboration, so anything we can do here to foster that is useful as DR. Since things are calmer now, I agree further content discussion can go back to the article talk page. (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @, whoever you are ;), you have wise counsel. I wish we had a few hundred more like you, who could serve as informal mediators in the situations like this that occur on a daily basis. I just like order, and I think things were set up as they are for good reasons. As you said, it's dispute resolution, and WP:DR says nothing about this noticeboard. ―Mandruss  05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree's input has been hugely valuable and I too am happy for the discussion to back as long as we can all engage in more cordial way.--wintonian talk 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another great example of my longstanding belief that we shouldn't even have articles on breaking events until they're been off the front page for at 7 days straight. EEng (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
This whole thread has been hijacked into a very disingenuous content discussion by the editor whom the complaint was filed against, merely as a means to avoid sanctions for his repeated foul-mouthed tirades against anyone who disagreed with him. Can we please have an admin assess the original issue from the talk page, decide on a course of action and then close this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Hijacked" might not have been the best choice of words given the article at issue here. EEng (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes we haven't really addressed the issue that should have been discussed here perhaps an admin should give the issue the once over and provide their opinion. However that may just be to concur with taking the content discussion back. But yes it would be useful for an admin to let us know they are happy and to stop clogging up their board or whether they would like to consider the range of options available in their toolkit. --wintonian talk 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind hearing a short statement from Rtc as to what he plans to do differently on that talk page, if anything. At a minimum, I think some sort of weak mea culpa is in order. If he can't bring himself to do that, that's a strong indication we'll be back here in a few days. ―Mandruss  12:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps Rtc could give us an idea of how they would like to take this forward and if they now have any reflections of how they engaged in the previous discussion? Does Rtc think this process has been beneficial? - Might be nice to get their thoughts before an admin come in with theirs. :-) --wintonian talk 12:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's need to sanction anybody since the problem is not currently ongoing. There was a content dispute over an IMHO almost trivial matter, discussion got heated and we landed here. It happens. With luck, a good night's sleep has restored people's perspectives and things can proceed more smoothly going forward. (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
My solution: Everyone calm down, take no action against anyone, and call it "homicide-suicide" to avoid the legal implications of "murder". The co-pilot killed the other passengers, no matter what the investigation turns up. Even if it's just a neglect of duty (like falling asleep and taking actions in his sleep), it's still a homicide. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that anyone should be sanctioned,but I don't think I am qualified to make that decision. Anyway I do have 1 or 2 suggestions if someone fancies restarting the discussion, now that we are all happy bunnies rather than hot cross buns- (did I hear a grone somewhere at the back?) . --wintonian talk 22:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The thread has not been closed by an admin; that would be the point where I think further discussion would be inappropriate. If you have something to add, add it. No one is obligated to reply. ―Mandruss  00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I am sending out mixed messages and jumping the gun aren't I? What I mean is I have a couple of ideas for when (if?) we reconvene discussions, which is where it seems we are heading after we are done here. Apologies for not being clear. --wintonian talk 01:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I understand you now. Well here's my take, for what it's worth. Absent the above-requested comment from Rtc, I'd be inclined to let the issue remain dormant as long as possible. But that's just me, and it may not be possible very long anyway. ―Mandruss  02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
In which case I suggest giving Rtc another day or so assuming they have a more interesting life outside and occasionally require sleep, plus it is Easter with lot of bank hols here, so people like to go out with family etc. If not by sometime Mon daytime GMT/ UTC (for example) then perhaps an admin could close. Mind you eventually when a report is released (sometime before the next scheduled apocalypse) the issue will in all likelihood be revisited anyway. --wintonian talk 03:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I think people editing this article should just accept the fact that the actions (suicide) of the co-pilot caused the death of all crew members and passengers. Then, for the sake of using a better term than "deliberate flight into terrain" (as someone else pointed above, the term is GROTESQUE!!!), and use a more consistent one with this type of incident: murder-suicide. IMHO coming up with the argument that murder is defined by X or Y in Germany is a dubious and somewhat opportunistic way of discussing the topic because, apparently, the crash didn't happen in Germany but in France... Anyway, I seriously hope you put your personal issues aside and solve this problem. I'm really disappointed at the way some people are behaving in that article... Reminds me of articles involved conflicts in the Middle East. There is always someone trying to push their own agenda there, to "ease" things or defend the undefensable. - (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Time to consider closing I think, as it seems like everyone (including me) has lost interest and moved on. Doubtless the content issue will raise it's head again at some point, but perhaps a different group will be willing to take it on. --wintonian talk 02:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic fighting at Solapur?[edit]

For the time being, the edit warring calmed down, please file a WP:RFPP request if it resumes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 7 April 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.

It looks like a bit of an ethnic dispute might be breaking out at Solapur, an article about an Indian city. If you have a look at the history over the past few days you'll see some back-and-forth, including:

  • This replacement of the contents with "This page is a place for showing resentment towards Non-Marathi People By ProMarathi People".
  • This CSD nomination with the reason "All the information placed is obtained from very unverified source like website pdf on Solapur Municipal Website Instead of Informing people it is used as a resentment batleground for Kanad and Hindi speaking community. No credible reference available" (I reverted that).

It also doesn't help that the entire "Etymology and history" section, which seems to be the focus of the dispute, is unsourced. I don't know what if anything should be done right now, but I think it would help if an admin or two could watch it and head off any further fighting that might erupt. Squinge (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) I would suggest filing a request at WP:RPP, for starters. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:22, 6 April 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.

SamuelTheGhost - "silly bugger" ES[edit]

SamuelTheGhost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was in danger of edit-warring so I templated him. He subsequently removed the template with the ES "remove empty threat from silly bugger"[18]. Could an admin warn this user? I personally don't mind this kind of WP:PA, but others well might. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

He's been here almost as long as you have. Templating an established user as if he were a newbie is often considered insulting, and he insulted you back. And he can remove anything he wants from his talk page. Check out Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) To be fair though, established users don't automatically get a pass. That's why I think that essay will never be a guideline. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Templating the regulars is its own kind of personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I fully disagree. This assumes that before templating someone for doing something you're going to check if they're a regular. Templating is just an impersonal way of saying "I saw this and it seems a little off" and if anyone feels insulted by it they should grow a thicker skin. SPACKlick (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Phil A. Fry[edit]

Phil A. Fry has exhibited a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. I myself was not aware of this until last year when I examined the edits he has made.

Here is a list of the transgressions he has made:

He also goes to "list of programs broadcast by" pages and simplifies dates to simply a year range for no apparent reason. If we use years only, people will think a show started airing or stopped airing at the start or end of a year. We should only be using a year range if exact dates are not known.

So, should Phil A. Fry be blocked for all this? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just found a strange edit he made to CBS, where he added a nonexistent template. Rather odd. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 04:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like vandalism, but I think Phil should start using more edit summaries and adding sources to support his edits, or else be blocked for competence. Epic Genius (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

IP accusation of disruptive behavior[edit]

Jayron RGloucester I thought that the existence of the title was unfair and so changed it. GregKaye 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

honest mistakes are honest, and since no one first attempted to bring the matter to the attention of RGloucester before dragging them before the dramah boardz, there's no need to keep this open any longer. In the future, first ask someone on their user talk page, in a friendly tone, if they made a mistake as the proper course of action. Don't see something you don't understand and then think "MUST GO TO ANI!" as the opening salvo. Entirely unnecessary and avoidable thread. --Jayron32 01:42, 2 April 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.

RGloucester has begun to behave destructively in the article Second Battle of Donetsk Airport (WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR). At first, RGloucester removed a constructive edit (wikilink to the Donetsk bus shelling article) of one user together with a vandal edit of another user. The constructive edit was made in the article after the vandal edit, so, at first glance, it was looked as a coincidence, that RGloucester removed the constructive edit too. Therefore, RGloucester was warned on his/her user talk page to not involve other users with their constructive edits in his/her edit war with vandal users, that he/she could use removal of vandal edits as an excuse for hidden removal of others' constructive edits. However, RGloucester ignored the warning, and waited a vandal edit to appear, then he/she removed the vandal edit together with the constructive edit again. As you can see, the constructive edit was made before the vandal edit, so it was not a coincidence. RGloucester has purposely removed the constructive edit even after the warning. Because I am not going to start an edit war with RGloucester, I am sincerely ask the administrators to warn RGloucester for his/her destructive behavor, admit that the edit is constructive (wikilink to to the Donetsk bus shelling article) and return it back in the article.-- (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is very odd. I wasn't trying to revert the link, merely to get rid of the same rubbish blanking that I've been forced to revert for weeks. The link has already been restored. By the way, IP, who are you? RGloucester 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right to ask, RG; it's a very procedurally detailed post for an inaugural edit (not counting one from seven years ago...) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume you want a comma after "ask". As to the IP, there is a Moscow-based IP-hopper editing the article, which would account for things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
He is not the only one edit warring, there are more than just 1 editor. Someone protect the page? SamuelDay1 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring has now stopped. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:21, 1 April 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.[edit]

Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 7 April 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.

Series of 9 racial page vandalisms in the space of an hour swapping Indian and Pakistani around. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),_Berkshire&diff=prev&oldid=655267814,_Lancashire&diff=prev&oldid=655267682 &nbsp,

WatcherZero (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please take these to AIV. Thanks, Nakon 03:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@WatcherZero: They made anothersimilar edit, so I reverted it and blocked them. Graham87 07:27, 7 April 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.

LTA vandal targeting me[edit]

Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently wrote up a long-term vandal case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal, and now I have a special opponent at, which is a recently reported spam IP from China, just the type of compromised IP address this person likes to use (open proxies, colocation sites, etc.) This person keeps reverting my good faith work at Halestorm, where I think it would be wise to get some temporary protection added.

Perhaps it is pertinent to this case that I recently had a visit from which is also a recently reported spam IP, this time from the Netherlands. The Netherlands IP issued me a legal threat with regard to another LTA case page I drew up.

I get the sense that the Velenje vandal is targeting me for tracking down his behavior and making it easier for people to revert his work. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

All my reverts have been explained in my edit summaries. What Binksternet calls "reverting my good faith work" is actually reverting of his disruptive edits, just see what changes he had actually made before I have reverted them. (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you think you explained in the summaries, but your last summary, written in your third revert and after the final warning, calls the edits of your opponent "vandalism". Please read WP:VANDALISM, since one more instance of calling this vandalism will get your IP blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I called my last revert vandalism because Binksternet kept removing content with his only first edit summary being that he only removed tags. Compare the edits before you accuse me. (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I did compare the edits before writing this warning, and you apparently failed to read WP:VANDALISM as I suggested.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Doing unexplained changes whith completely different explanation in edit summary is what I called vandalism, which it clearly is. (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
IP blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So, Mr. IP editor, you have nothing to say about your IP being a recently reported spam site from China,[19] nothing to say about your unusual interest in the Salem TV show[20] which is one of the few articles targeted by the Velenje vandal, and you have nothing to say about your edit summary comment about me, "typical of this editor",[21] which was only the second interaction that your IP had with me, making it look very much like you have a previous history with me, that you somehow resolved to oppose me. Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Your main accusation makes no sense, here is why. Can you prove that it is not you using this "spam IP"? (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the stupidest rebuttals I have ever seen. Can we get it memorialized somewhere as grounds for CIR blocks? Could we extend the block since the IP is static and a "Recently reported forum spam source"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It's quite breathtaking, Ian.thomson, but perhaps too unique for its own essay. Block extended to 3 months, as nothing constructive is to be expected from this spam site. Compare the first block in December 2014 which was for 60 days.[22] I've semi'd Halestorm for a couple of weeks. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 7 April 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.


Blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 16:29, 7 April 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.

User:Buckleburyman continues to add material on someone called Sylvia Park to the notable people section of the Koreans in the United Kingdom article, despite the deletion of the article on her because of her lack of notability. I have explained (see here and here) to Buckleburyman that if he wants to contest the deletion, the place to do so is Wikipedia:Deletion review, but instead he insists on recreating the article, posting the material at Koreans in the United Kingdom, and has now launched a botched attempt to have James Morrison (golfer) deleted (presumably in retaliation, as I created that article). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Nthep and NeilN for dealing with the incomplete AFD and the repeated addition of the material on Sylvia Park. I could have done this myself, but wasn't completely sure about how to deal with the AFD notice, and don't want to get into an escalating personal dispute with Buckleburyman. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've warned the user strongly against any further recreation of the deleted article as well as further retaliation against you, Larry. Blocking might have been appropriate, but I'm strenuously assuming good faith that they didn't realize the same deleted article with a different title wouldn't do either. And that they thought anybody could appropriately AfD anything. Well... yeah, that's assuming a lot of good faith. Still, there it is. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. I'll report back if any more disruptive behaviour occurs. It may be that some sort of conflict of interest exists (see this), which would explain the repeated attempts to introduce the material on Park. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest seems highly likely. I sometimes think we're too polite about this stuff. "Oh, oh, who could it possibly be?" Feel free to report directly on my page if I'm around. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
An IP now appears to have taken up the addition of material on Park. Could you take a look, Bishonen? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
IP blocked, account warned, again, but I'm kind of getting tired of them. The next time they figure out yet another policy to violate, they won't get yet another warning. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
And now Buckleburyman is back reverting. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're kidding. No, you're not. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 April 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.

Justin Beiber page vandalized, but it's protected so I can't revert[edit]

Dealt with by Drmies. Amortias (T)(C) 16:30, 7 April 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.

As you can see, the most recent two edits contain only vandalism. jag426 (talk) 15:34, 07 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The Story of the Three Bears[edit]

I've sent the article The Story of the Three Bears to FA review. However one editor is making a point about the uncited material I"ve removed. This guy appears to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else. I need him to back off. At this point, he has effectively destroyed any chance for the article to attain FA status. This article is FA worthy but it will not reach that status with this busy bee making a fuss over uncited material. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure whose edits we're meant to be addresing here without the other editors name. Amortias (T)(C) 18:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
His user name is Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). His busy bee-ness is found on the article's talk page. He's also threatening me. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Where,exactly, is he threatening you? (Mind you, if I were on the receiving end of this sort of crap, I'd be tempted to get a bit threatening, myself.) Having nommed an article for FA does not make all your work on the article immune from criticism, nor does it make the article untouchable by anyone other than you. Deor (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I think they may have been referring to this threat to revert. [23]. Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(non-admin response) That's my assumption as well -- which means that by going for the even-more-generous-than-being WP:BRD order of BDR, the complaining editor claims to have been threatened. Complaining editor has also been engaging in personal attacks, making unsourced statements about what Wikipedia "wants", denying the free use status of an image published in 1890 drawn by an artist who has been dead for more than 80 years. If said editor is concerned with someone "appear[ing] to be a stubborn high schooler intent on proving he knows more than anyone else", they may wish to consider their own actions. This appears to be trying to drag someone to the Admin board over a simple content disagreement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • SeeSpot Run While not implying any immediate comment on the validity or otherwise of your case, as a procedural note I object to your raising the case here without pinging or otherwise notifying the person that you accuse; not presenting references to alleged wrong doing (comparatively small point) and your presenting unsubstantiated perspectives ("His busy bee-ness.." not even with citation of related guideline content) as fact. GregKaye 08:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

An user is very aggressively redirecting articles about economics that he doesn't like[edit]

User warned. May be blocked if this resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This may be in the wrong place but please see Special:Contributions/Hendrick_99, he has been on a rampage recently redirecting vast swathes of articles like Liability (financial accounting) and Wage labour to highly general articles like Economics and Capitalism apparently because they have quality issues or he's offended by Marxian economics. It is out of all proportion and seems to be doing a great deal of damage. Some of the redirects make absolutely no sense like "wage labour" to "capitalism." He is then in some cases dumping the article text into the redirect target, where of course it gets removed because nobody wants to fuck up a good article by adding a massive tangent of much lower quality. So effectively he's just deleting Wikipedia's entire coverage of some pretty important concepts. TiC (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. In three days, March 24-25th, Hendrick_99 (talk · contribs) made over 500 edits, rewriting chunks of major articles about economic subjects. All those articles now need to be looked at: Assets, Private property, Academic perspectives on capitalism, Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory), Oligarchy, Society, History of propaganda, Human rights in Singapore, Capitalism , Wage labour, Binary economics, The Capitalist Manifesto, Finance. That's just from the last 50 edits. The edits aren't individually bad, although there may be a political agenda. The editor seems to have stopped for now, and some of the overly bold merges have been undone. A bit of gentle persuasion to get the editor to back off a bit might be indicated, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics should be notified. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of some work, I'll take a look and patch up whatever I can. --QEDKTC 10:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for keeping tabs:
--QEDKTC 10:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted these, since i did not think they were improvements. If you want to roll me back, please feel free... Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
--QEDKTC 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hendrick 99 still needs a notice on his talk page about this discussion and I think a warning is called for although I'm unsure what is called for. I think these edits were in error but done in good faith. Liz Read! Talk! 14:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I've notified him. --QEDKTC 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fast Block — Anybody blanking labour theory of value and converting into a redirect is a vandal, plain and simple. If I had tools I'd be riding the block button. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They did not edit since March 25, but I agree that if they reappear and continue they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    In addition, they have copypasted content and seem to have little understanding of the concept of copyright.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I second the motion that the editor be blocked if they come back and resume doing this stuff. Now closing this discussion because it's obvious what will happen if he starts up again. He has made no further edits since 25 March. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 7 April 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.

Nary a source to be found[edit]

Sock blocked. Amortias (T)(C) 21:19, 7 April 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.

JetsAndYankees4Life (talk · contribs)

Many of the account's numerous edits appear credible, but their enthusiasm is such that, despite several notices, there's no concern with providing sources. It's designed to leave other editors the chore of mopping up and finding cites in their wake. Recent edits also include multiple additions of major league players' performances in the first game of the new season, very WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that WP encouraged sagas? Otherwise, what would you rather confront, the wakes of flotsam or the tidal waves? (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Warning issued. There's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to a final warning for vandalism: repeatedly failing to cite sources is indeed a good reason for blocking. Especially in this case; Jets-etc. requested protection because unsourced content was being added to articles. This is not someone who's clueless about our policies. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
AN/I for this is ridiculously excessive. This is a new and zealous editor who we should be reaching out to directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Their choosing to ignore Muboshgu's notice last week, and response to my posting yesterday [24], coupled with a persistence in adding unsourced and sometimes trivial content, suggested a user who is as yet uninterested in editing with respect to policy. Five or ten such edits, prior to engagement with other editors, is not unusual. This looked to be more problematic. (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess an ANI is a good place to state that it seems pretty obvious to me that is user is almost certainly a sock of PrivateMasterHD/EternalFloette.--Yankees10 16:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yankees10. I'm not familiar enough with the histories of sports articles to have sussed out a possible sock, but I did suspect this was not a new editor. (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Admins, before you take action, I would like to formally explain that I've been adding what's been happening on various sports articles but these guys over here claim that it's unsourced despite me being correct over the current events. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what's sourced or what's unsourced and I don't know if it has to do with adding references. No ones trying to have a fit here, but I just want to explain this situation immediately so we can clear things out here. Thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you add information to an article it needs to be backed up by a reliable source if you are unable to confirm what you plan on adding then it should not be included as we are required to back up our edits. If you are unsure if a source is reliable you should take it to this page to discuss. If you are unsure how to use references see this page. Amortias (T)(C) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Amortias. Now I'm starting to learn from my miscues and I'm starting to insert references that cite sources for the articles that I went too early on. But the only thing that I feel concerned about is these guys making complaints about me. I think everything looks clear now, so once again, thanks for your support. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Methinks the editor is much smarter and a lot more experienced in Wikipedia than the above posting lets on. This is not the footprint of a newbie, as they not only posted a request for multiple page protections, but appear to have been familiar with the need for sources: [25]. (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You and Yankees10 do have a good point there about this being a potential sock. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
User found religion, and has begun adding sources, after the subject of sockpuppets came up. User:Yankees10, if you're pretty certain about this, an SPI might be in order. (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on a combination of technical and behavioural evidence I've blocked JetsAndYankees4Life as a sock of PrivateMasterHD.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The constant violation of NPOV[edit]

I have blocked Crovata for a short time for 3RR violations at J-pop and elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 7 April 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.

According the several user talk page discussions, and the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The inclusion of group Momoiro Clover Z in the Music of Japan and J-pop article, the users Anosola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and lately especially Moscow Connection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) constantly support the violation of the NPOV principles, ignore my warnings about the NPOV principles violation, intentionally avoid to discuss the main issue and the NPOV violation. I lost my patience and wasted my time to make them understand how Wikipedia works. I can not anymore.--Crovata (talk) 20:41, 7 April 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.

Requesting topic ban from all Wikipedia-related pages for Chealer[edit]

Moving to WP:AN, since this belongs over there. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dorothy Comingore[edit]

User blocked as a confirmed sock by Ponyo, and article had already been semi-protected due to EW threats and suspected sockpuppetry. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am unsure of what to do with this, but Dorothy Comingore has placed a an "Ad" for "Citizens Against Revenge Porn (CARP)"(References: 1, 2) on I did not believe that it fit on the article, and did tell them I support their cause but I did believe it didn't fit on the article properly. Unfortunately it didn't result in just a revert, but a written threat of a edit war [Reference]. One user has already been blocked for posting this on the article in question, and I supposed it wasn't allowed, but I do know edit warring is not allowed. As of for right now, I am not editing the page, just to be on the safe side.
Side note: I am unsure how to use the {{Pagelinks}} and {{Userlinks}} templates, but have provided possible substitution for them. If this is still not acceptable, please let me know on my talk page and I will fix it ASAP. Félix Wolf (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted a warning about edit warring to their talk page; but based on behavioral evidence, this appears to either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Susan Alexander Kane (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked Mar 26th for the same behavior. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: the user has opened a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to address the article and link. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A Facebook page with just 42 "likes", no link to a website, no stated data protection policy... Definitely WP:NOTHOWTO and not a suitable EL. Keri (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked Dorothy Comingore as a  Confirmed sock of Susan Alexander Kane.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:02, 7 April 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.

Liza Maza[edit]

Public figure has threatened to sue Wikipedia if nationality is misrepresented: [26]. (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ive added some advice to their talkpage regarding contacting OTRS for assistance with what they see as incorrect information. Ive also advised they need to retract their legal threat and pointed them at the appropriate page as to why they need to do so. Hopefully they can get in touch and will retract the threat, just have to wait and see. Amortias (T)(C) 22:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Another user has since warned her as well. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
CombatWombat42 has removed the unsourced blp information. Its also been put up for AFD. Still no retraction of the legal threat though. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Amortias:, appreciate the sympathetic yet informative message. It's really disappointing to see article subjects, who are clearly emotional about perceived misinformation in their articles, getting templated with threatening bold text and big red hand images for their legal threats, rather than having the system explained to them in a friendly and caring manner. Not just this example, but there seems to be a situation that occurs every week or two where people go in all guns blazing. Makes things even more difficult at the other end when they eventually reach out to us at OTRS. Just my $0.02... Daniel (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem, templates have their place (and I'm a frequent template user) but sometimes it just needs something different. Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
She's made one edit and may never return to edit Wikipedia. Should her article really be AfD'd? It seems a bit retaliatory. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I did not nominate it as retaliatory. If you believe she is WP:notable and and can prove it please say so on the nomination. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If CombatWombat42 felt it was not suitable for the article to remain (no matter what drew them to it) afd seemes the appropriate outcome, if they had tagged it with speedy that would have been something else. It appears (to me at least) that they had a concern and they have sent it to the appropriate place to address it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I didn't see the AFD as retaliatory, it seemed to me an action motivated by a desire to protect the project, nothing more. WCMemail 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
My mistake then. My apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have communicated with this editor at OTRS and explained our position on legal threats. The editor is engaged over some content they were unhappy about and I don't think the threat will be repeated. I suggest we let this one go through to the keeper. Also, the editor hasn't been notified of the discussion Flat Out let's discuss it 03:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • That is, first and foremost, an oversight on my part; mea culpa. (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment - there still wasn't one, so I have just added it for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've elaborated at the editor's talk page. Bold facing the lack of notification above made a point; simply asking me to follow through would have been even better. (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I boldfaced it since it is a separate important point that shouldn't be missed and I note that after you acknowledged the oversight you still didn't inform the editor. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm just plain incompetent. Politely requesting that I, or any editor notify them, would have been great. Thank you again. (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────User:LizaMaza has asked for directions at OTRS as to how she can withdraw her legal threat, which I have given her. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible WP:DONTLIKEIT issues with SchroCat[edit]

Closed as non-actionable. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 23:59, 7 April 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.

See also WP:AN3#User:SchroCat reported by User:Agnosticaphid (Result: ) and Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Edit warring. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness (talkcontributions) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. DONTLIKEIT Is a guideline that could be applied to pretty much everyone at one point or other. Seeing the substantive issue here is under discussion at 3RR, this is looking increasingly like harassment and forum shopping. - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:DONTLIKEIT isn't even a guideline; it's a WP:Essay and therefore cannot be enforced except for when explained in terms of WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 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.

How is archiving of ANI done now?[edit]

And, never mind! Lowercase sigmabot III is back to archiving! Even here!! (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:21, 8 April 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.

Hey, we have 73 ANI threads, some of which were closed weeks ago. It doesn't seem like the bot is archiving anymore. What happened? Admittedly, the bot was often too quick on the trigger, but that could have been easily adjusted with parameters. Now it seems that archiving is strictly manual, optional, voluntary, and random/haphazard. Is there not a happy medium that can be achieved? it's a bit hard to peruse or navigate the page when there are so many (lengthy) closed threads on it. (By the way, I'd post this on the ANI Talk page, but -- oops! -- ANI doesn't even have a talk page. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt look like the bots archived successfully since 30 March. Might be worth reporting to bot owner. Nothing obvious sticks out maybe the archive size limit or something but I'm not familiar enough with the details to start button pushing. Amortias (T)(C) 21:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There are two sets of the archiving codes at the top of the page, one for MiszaBot and one for ClueBot III. Could that be messing things up? Ivanvector (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Lowercase sigmabot III (fka/aka MiszaBot) has been this page's archiver for as long as I can remember. Currently Malik Shabazz and possibly others are having the same problem with the bot: no archiving since March 31 – see User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III. The owner of the bot has not been on Wikipedia since February 26. Perhaps someone should email him? Could someone do that? Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK I've sent User talk:Σ an e-mail. I could try some manual archiving I suppose in the meantime. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the ClueBot III set should be removed, that might of been a forgotten attempt to fix the no archiving issue.