Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905

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

Noticeboard archives


2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation[edit]

Consensus is firmly in support of the block, nothing else to do here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:07, 15 November 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.

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post here lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Identical behaviour to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder... JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a blocked editor: [13] and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all of the past and current IPs are geolocated in the same area. Undoubtedly the same editor. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about the block-evasion factor? [14] ? Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per WP:BE: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast with "Proposed uncontraversial deletion". Evaluate each page and consider if it's worth the mental investment to shepherd it through a AFD nomination. I do not see a ban proposal with respect to the IP range so it's my understanding that we have to treat these as AGF and can't apply the RBI stick to it. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Why do we have to treat this as AGF there is evidence of a block evasion. The block evasion is what this is looking at now, if it does turn out to be block evasion then the de-prodding can be considered disruptive and reverted. This will also allow us to nip this in the bud if it happens again in the future. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It/they are obviously WP:NOTHERE, are obviously block evading, and are playing a game of silly buggers with us, as Floquenbeam would say. Time to stop the nonsense and disruption per WP:BE and WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE, not to mention multiple accounts. Softlavender (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: @Mcmatter: It would be great, but the problem is that because this is an IP address and therefore isn't officially agreed to ToS, we have to follow the rules with respect to prods If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. There is a reasonable belief that there's an objection to deletion (even if it's they don't want anything deleted) therefore we are bound to follow policy. Don't like it? Round up a consensus to change the policy. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: by that logic all IPs should be unblocked now and given free run of the place because they have not accepted the ToS, but this is not the case, if you look at the text just above the save button it states By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. which means they have agreed to the terms of use and cannot claim freeman rights as you claim. Once again you are missing the major issue of the of block evasion, I have no issues with the PROD issue if the user is not evading a block.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You have to prove that the editor is block evading. Without proof, there is nothing here that is actionable. —Farix (t | c) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@TheFarix: this is why I have brought it here as stated in my initial post. This post was never about discussing the PROD policy or system but the actions of a user which seems to be counter intuitive to the project community. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
So you are asking others to go on a fishing expedition based on unsubstantiated claims of block evasion? —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" ([15], [16], [17] as this user; [18], [19], [20] as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. clpo13(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: It's not the prod policy we're talking about, it's disruptive editing. The IPs are a block evader who is simply rampaging through the list of prods and mass deleting all the tags. This is WP:DE and WP:BE no matter how you look at it. IPs that are block evaders must be blocked per WP:BE. IPs that are intentionally mass disruptive must be blocked per WP:DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
1) Where is the blocked account? Before you can claim that someone is block evading, you have to identify the blocked account. 2) Removing proddes, even en-mass, is not disruptive editing. These articles can easily be sent to AfD using the exact same rational as the prod. It is also far less disruptive to Wikipedia to start an AfD than to argue over the "legitimacy" of a deprod. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Relatedly, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 is also de-PRODing multiple articles.- MrX 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    I had been trying to fight what was obvious vandalism (to me) by this behavior, but if no Admin sees it that way, and it's not considered disruptive, what's a regular editor to do? We have policies and guidelines, and this has been debated multiple times. The PROD process is clearly broken. It IS disruptive, if you force the "obvious" deletions to go through AfD - it takes additional editor time to wade through an AfD. Go ahead, let IP's and sockpuppets steal what actual editing time committed editors have to contribute by forcing it through the AfD process. This is a loophole that any actually allows wholesale vandalism to the project just because we can't add a few words to the PROD process. Say, MUST give a valid reason, or only registered editors can PROD. We limit deletion powers to Admins; why not limit PROD removals to registered editors? Or even Admins? Or Autoreviewers? Or Pending Changes Reviewers? We have some processes that require demonstration of commitment to this project to perform an action. Put deleting PRODs on that list. For that matter, put deleting maintenance tags on that list. ScrpIronIV 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Starting an AfD is not going to "waste" other editors times. Constantly arguing over the legitimacy of prod removals "wastes" far more time than starting an AfD and is much more disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    Fourteen dePRODs by this IP hopping "editor" in less than 15 minutes today (four in the span of on minute! Clearly, in depth analysis is going on) each will involve at least 5 editors, often more, to evaluate and contribute. That is a very fine act of vandalism if I do say so. Where one Admin could evaluate the PROD, now we multiply that by the participants in AfD and add the Admin back in again to close it. Starting "an" AfD is not the issue - forcing a dozen or more without any evaluation IS the issue. Multiply the editing hours for all of them vs. a single ANI/AIV report - the math is clear. This is actually quite clever trolling, with a flawed policy behind it to support it, so nothing can or will be done. And for those who would choose policy over common sense, then I suggest a change to policy or an implementation of the WP:IAR policy to prevent continued damage to the project. Or have we abandondoned WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? ScrpIronIV 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Drop the stick already because nothing is going to happen. Removing prods is specifically not vandalism and is allowed under the deletion policy. If you truly believe that an article should still be deleted, send it to AfD as the next step. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hardblocking 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny to do it...I don't need to know which one to see illegitimate behavior. If you see him anymore then you can revert him because he will be evading a block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. Vrac (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That is an extremely bad block. The editor was acting well within the deletion policy and could dispute whatever and as many prods as he/she chooses. If you want to limit the number of proddes an editor can dispute, either change the policy or take it to WP:ArbCom. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because something is your right doesn't make it right. De-Prodding just because you can when it is clearly disruptive and generating excessive arguments on multiple admin noticeboards makes the de facto argument that it is disruptive editing...but I don't mind my block being reviewed here. We are not an endless pit of labor to be wasted just because someone has an argument. I believe that this editor is avoiding scrutiny. I believe that Wikipedia and its editors fare better with this editor blocked so that they quit being a time sink for those involved. That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy. That editor didn't improve a single article did they? I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block- Mass dePRODS are always just pointy attempts to wreck a useful maintenance mechanism for everyone. Staying technically within the wording of policy while deliberately subverting its intent is called gaming the system and should be prevented. It's also likely that this is some returning banned user or other. Reyk YO! 10:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block "That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy." Precisely. I'm unsure how anyone sees it otherwise. Policy "allows" us to do many things which we should not do. "I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others." I'm glad you don't, and I'm glad you acted. Thank you. Begoontalk 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - disruptive behavior, clearly. GiantSnowman 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - The deprodding was obviously a form of disruption. I agree with the points made by ScrapIronIV and Berean Hunter.- MrX 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - Seems pretty obvious their intention was trolling and disruption. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - Thank you for taking this seriously. ScrpIronIV 14:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - The edits were disruptive and were specifically made in order to undermine the deletion process, creating unnecessary work for reviewers and admins.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block - yes, enough with this dePRODing drama with people who are too into WP:BURO to see that disruption is disruption just because the policy doesn't specifically state that mass-deprodding is not one of the "exceptions". LjL (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block. Simply because a single action is allowed does not mean that a repeated pattern of such actions can't be disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question - First, I agree it was a good block, but I have a question. I came across this editor's actions through an article I had prodded, which they contested. Another editor AfD'd it. I then came across another article where they had contested another editor's prod (I think it was one of Wolfowitz'). After researching, I sent that article to AfD, since it clearly did not meet notability guidelines. After that, I discovered the ip editor had been blocked, and took a look at their edit history. I began to look at each of the article's they had de-prodded. If research showed they did not meet notability criteria, I submitted it to AfD. Sometimes this had already been done by another editor, and if I had an opinion based on guidelines, I !voted at the AfD. However, sometimes the removal of the prod was, in fact, useful. Perfect example was Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a secondary school, so all that is needed is proof of existence (while I may not agree with the guideline, if it is consensus I've agreed to follow it). That particular article had had the prod tag re-inserted. I removed it, as per the WP:PROD policy stated above where if a prod tag is removed, even in bad faith, it cannot be re-added. Then I went to check Casper Radza, where again, the prod had been re-asserted. However, this time the editor had referenced this discussion (hence my presence here). Sorry about my bloviating, but I felt it necessary to show the trail of thought which led there. So, is there an exception to the Prod rule? If so, I should go self-revert a couple of the other prod re-assertions I did. Thanks for any light you can throw my way. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
User:onel5969, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states " This section is not a notability guideline. WP:GNG and WP:ORG are." It's a section of WP:OUTCOMES which is an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block and I also second Doug Weller's comment. Schools are not inherently notable simply for existing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks Doug Weller - and I know that, I used the wrong term (mainly I was trying to wrap up my overlong comment). My point is, that if you AfD an article like that you have 100% chance that it will fail, where there are several editors who quote that essay as being consensus on the topic. No point in wasting editors' time in nominating an article for AfD if it has zero chance of being deleted. And as I said, I disagree with the essence of the essay, was simply attempting to explain why I didn't AfD the article. However, I'm simply trying to learn that if there is ever an exception to the prod rule about not re-applying it? Right now, the guideline seems pretty clear that there isn't. Onel5969 TT me 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
If it makes sense to not restore the prod on a particular article based on the merits of that article, then by all means don't restore it. The modification to the WP:PROD rule is just to prevent a loophole that allows indiscriminate mass de-prods. If a user de-prods 100 hundred articles they are likely to be correct on a couple of them, but correct by luck not design. Vrac (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • GOOD BLOCK - he's busted He was most certainly deprodding at random or based on his dislike of who placed the block. He deprodded an article on a Russian company (Krasnoleninsky Refinery) that DOES NOT EXIST because it is a scam. Not only are there no references to the company in Russian (the name as it's spelled on its logo "красноленинский+очистительный" brings up a whopping ZERO hits), searching for the name in English -wiki brings up only info about it being a scam! He couldn't have even accused the prodder of COI - the article had only about a dozen edits from the creator (SPA with no other article creations) and a few bots/non-content fixes, and had been largely untouched since it was created in January. It was not possible in any way for there to be any valid reason for deprod. МандичкаYO 😜 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • GOOD BLOCK. What would the process be to change the prod rules so that a deprod by a blocked user can be reversed/ Op47 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Something occurred to me the other day when I made this block but since it is my theory (and to a lesser degree because of BEANS) I chose to leave this off but it is perhaps best to lay this out there. There is a good chance that all of this was done as a bit of a smokescreen. I believe that it is quite likely that pet articles of socks had been prodded but rather than simply deprod those and potentially get themselves identified, they created a flurry of deprods to hide behind. I tracked back to different sock cases but it isn't fully clear. I suspect that the articles which prompted this are those of Filipino radio stations.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support block BMK (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Right. So let me get this clear. Someone has been blocked for legitimately removing deletion tags while simultaneously Neelix is let off scot-free? "If this is justice, I'm a banana" AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @AusLondonder: I know that you believe that Neelix should have been blocked -- I do too -- but not every instance of an editor being blocked is directly comparable to the Neelix situation. It's really not terribly effective to keep on in this way, as it's not going to undo the close of the AN/I regarding Neelix and it's clearly not going to influence ArbCom (which seems to be set on what it is going to do). All it's really going to do is get people annoyed - not at Neelix, or ArbCom, but at you'. My advice would be not to drop the issue, necessarily, but to make sure that when you bring it up, it's in an appropriate place at an appropriate time. For instance, the block below for the editor who created inappropriate redirects might have been an object lesson in how a non-admin is handled differently from an admin, were it not for the fact that the editor who made the redirects was being obviously pointy, while Neelix, as far as we know (because he has yet to explain himself) seemed to think that his redirects were in some way helpful. BMK (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - mass dePROD not allowed User:AusLondonder when you say legitimately, there are exceptions for being allowed to dePROD. mass PROD and mass dePROD was discussed, and mass dePROD made explicitly not allowed. [21]. There was concern of WP:CREEP but that was outweighed by the scale of WP:DISRUPTion. Mass dePROD is not allowed, mass PROD was not explicitly excluded (they can be dePRODDed by anyone). (This is a logical inversion of normal things, due to the nature of PROD.) Widefox; talk 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good block for PROD WP:POINT disruption IAR - the only question I have is why the disruption lasted so long? If an admin felt they could have stepped in earlier then possibly we wouldn't feel the need to patch dePROD, but due to the expense of human reviewing the mass dePRODs and difficulty of, essentially, statistical analysis to ascertain a real objection to deletion (rather than an objection to PROD), I'm still on the side of disallowing it (with the caveat of that wording or better). Widefox; talk 11:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Appropiate/good block - The IP massively dePRODded articles without giving appropiate reasons other than citing WP:CONTESTED which is not appliable because that's not related to the articles being PRODded, but rather the PROD itself. DePRODding without a summary is not forbidden normally, but the fact that the dePRODds without summaries were massive, it gives the appearance of being WP:POINTy. --TL22 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this should be closed per WP:SNOW. --TL22 (talk) 01:21, 15 November 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.

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles[edit]

Per Wikipedia:CONEXCEPT:Not subject to consensus. User is banned by WMF. Any editing by them is illegal.Any edits they make must be reverted, everything they add deleted.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:30, 15 November 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'm not sure if here or WP:AN is the best place for this, but since I want as many editors (not just administrators) to weigh in on it, I've brought it here. User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) has left three messages on my talk page, which concern his using Wikipedia to publicize his material, socking, how he can't be deterred, and his war against the anti-child sexual abuse crowd. See User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary for more detail. So I of course was disappointed and frustrated to see that Sadads restored two of his articles -- List of tools used in sex offender forensic psychological evaluations‎ and Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk, stating in the logs, "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." and "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." See this discussion for further detail. I told Sadads, in part, "I recognize in other ways that a WP:Notable topic should perhaps not be deleted. But as Alison, JamesBWatson, NeilN and others can tell you, we are dealing with a very serious sock/banned editor in this case, one who loves to publicize his work on Wikipedia, usually for shameful ulterior motives, and has openly declared a war against Wikipedia editors. [...] And I don't see why it should at all be encouraged. [...] I don't see that these articles or any other articles this editor creates are quality content; this editor's articles are usually based on one or two sources, are often non-notable, WP:POV forks, and/or don't comply with WP:MEDRS. If a topic is WP:Notable, we should leave it up to good editors to create, not editors like this one. I stated on my talk page, in part. "His latest post on my talk page was titled 'I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated'; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well." The third article is Kurt Bumby. I think all the other articles were deleted; I'll check again at some point.

So my questions are this: Should we, under any circumstance, accept an article by this editor, especially given the aforementioned statements he posted on my talk page? For example, when the article is deleted under WP:G5, should it be restored because it's WP:Notable or perceived as WP:Notable by the administrator? Below are options and a discussion section for this matter, to help gauge different views. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to this discussion.

Delete any new article by this editor, WP:G5-type or otherwise[edit]

  • Support, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Partial support I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Anyone restoring needs (a) to take full responsibility for the article and (b) to explain why proxying for a banned editor is a good idea. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per JohnCD. Banned users are not welcome to contribute to this project in any capacity, no matter what quality. If admins don't intend to enforce this ban, then stop pretending that it means anything and lift it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There's no point having a policy if it's going to be ignored. Op47 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete only under certain circumstances[edit]

  • Comment: The article would have to be pretty spectacular, and/or significantly expanded by a different editor for me to be okay with keeping it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The prior discussion involved a GA that people thought could become a FA, as an example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete non-WP:G5-compliant articles by this editor[edit]

Take the discussion elsewhere[edit]

  • Delete them and take them to WP:DRV for separate discussions there. See below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with this but the question remains about what to do in the situation where an admin undeletes a G5 article unilaterally. My feeling is that the admin now takes responsibility for the content and any deficiencies. --NeilN talk to me 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Same situation, different CSD criteria, what's done? If an admin uniltarally undeletes a page speedied deleted under other criteria, say A7, I think that's a fair IAR and wheel warring dispute to bring back to ANI but wouldn't the article be re-deleted and then taken to DRV? I think we need to look at this on an article by article basis rather than a remedy on the editor basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


When the last G5 issue came up, I stated that I did not believe that ANI is the proper location for these G5 arguments (whether or not it was an appropriate IAR to restore G5 articles). Same here again. G5 falls under the other CSD criteria and we have a system for discussing restoration following a CSD-based deletion, namely WP:Deletion review. This is the wrong venue and we need to come up with a more systematic way of handling these than just ANI arguments. It's too complicated for here. There is no reason why people should be using ANI discussions to formulate a consensus around G5 discussions when we have a much better place that already deals with restorations following A7, A1, and many other CSD deletions (including I believe wholesale deletions for copyright violations). It would also be a better place for someone to bring a new draft if they want to argue for restoration based on not using the G5 problem editor's work, much better than arguing it here at ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you. I understand what you mean, even though I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Would Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion be a good start? There is already Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Why_use_G5_for_useful_pictures.3F about images with G5. The issue is whether we want to change the wording for G5 (then WPT:CSD works) or just IAR to get around the literal meaning of G5 (at which point there's no real discussion place other than ANI for whether the IAR is appropriate). Let's see if anyone else cares about my point as no one seemed to last time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply; I was waiting to see what others had to state about all of this. Not much, it seems. So far anyway. Given that I alerted that talk page and the WP:Sockpuppet talk page to this discussion, and there has yet to be substantial commentary from those two pages on this issue, and since WP:ANI has many more eyes than those talk pages, I don't see how taking the discussion directly to the criteria for speedy deletion talk page would help. Also, for this discussion, my main focus is on this editor; there is not quite another like him. While there are editors who do not mind if content comes from a WP:Sock, especially if the content improves Wikipedia, I think they should mind when the content comes from an editor like this one. His WP:ArbCom ban is serious, and I can't go into all the details here, but I will state that I can't support a person like this (unless he reverted vandalism, or removed some other very problematic edit). He is not so much concerned with Wikipedia, as he is concerned with his own ego and promoting himself and his views. And, as far as I'm concerned, his poor articles are not an improvement, especially when they are WP:POV forks. That stated, I very much understand what you mean about issues like this needing a broader focus, especially so that we can perhaps get some changes made to our guidelines and/or policies on these matters.
Davidwr, regarding this, I appreciated the comment. Do you mind explaining why you removed it? I take it that you are reevaluating this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Davidwr responded to me via email, and I asked him before noting this here (if he was okay with me doing so). Also note that Tisane has replied again on my talk page. I've added it to User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary. It's the fourth reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have written an essay elsewhere about the counterproductive effects of deleting some good content by some banned users, where the work is unrelated to the reasons for the ban, and I can see both sides of that argument in some situations. But this individual is globally banned by the WMF Office, and from what I have seen, that is for very serious reasons. His current posts need to be brought to the attention of the Legal Department, which I will do, and people need to stop re-posting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I know that I thanked you via WP:Echo days ago for your post, but thanks again. The more editors who care about this matter instead of ignoring it (I don't understand how they can validly ignore it, other than being uncomfortable with matters relating to the topic of child sexual abuse), the more I appreciate Wikipedia. And, believe me, that appreciation is seriously low these days. One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster reminded me via email that he is WP:WMF-banned in addition to being WP:ArbCom-banned. I was going to note that here before I saw your post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
For clarification, I don't mean Davidwr by "One of the editors very familiar with this sockmaster"; I'm speaking of someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore (not usually anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad, I agree with the premise of your essay but as long as we continue with the "the only rationale to undelete is IAR", we'll never formulate a proper policy and actually change G5 to reflect what should be done. IAR just gives us an out so we have a strict G5 in writing but not in reality. Here, we are now debating this but what will the result be? Will an admin who closes this restore the content? If it's not restored, is that proper? Can another admin restore it if they want? Again, it shouldn't be IAR and a wholesale individual admin by admin approach but a policy that the content is deleted per G5 unilaterally and a mechanism for individual pages to be restored. The problem is the repeated conflating of the editor versus the pages and the content which is how this should be evaluated. Basically I'd treat it like an old copyright violation: if it can be recreated and restored, let's do so but if the content can't or it isn't valuable enough to bother, let's not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ricky81682: et al.: Users who are banned by WMF office action are a special situation in which any flexibility that the community might otherwise decide to show in these situations is much less applicable. Thus, I don't think this is a good situation from which to try to extrapolate a general policy. Beyond that, there are a lot of other factors also requiring balancing, so I don't know that a broad general policy is really achievable in any event, although I agree we could discuss that somewhere else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, this matter isn't about crafting a policy or guideline, though; it's about an administrator restoring two poor articles by this editor after the articles were deleted per WP:G5 and giving a pitiful explanation for having restored them. He has not even participated in this thread. I mean, why exactly should we keep articles by this ArbCom-banned/WMF-banned editor? That's the point of this thread. I also notice that at 02:27 (a little after your "02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)" post above), you deleted User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary, stating, "declarations of intent by Office-banned user to unlawfully access the site in breach of the terms of use." I don't understand the problem with having re-posted commentary by this editor (other than giving him a platform to rant), especially since one of the messages can be seen in my archives because I'd responded to him before it was archived, and considering the messages were used as evidence here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, as pointed out above by JohnCD, we already have Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Why the heck should we be enabling Leucosticte? That is what I want to know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should not be enabling this WMF-banned editor. However, reposting his personal commentary and opinions about his intention to defy the ban is even more problematic than reposting his actual content. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, considering that I've seen how problematic Leucosticte's edits and articles can be, and considering that I only reposted his personal commentary as evidence for this thread, I'm going to have to disagree that these repostings are more problematic than "reposting his actual content." If his personal commentary was something I felt was too distasteful to repost, I'd feel differently. The postings are distasteful (considering the sickening message and/or intent behind them), but not to the point where I feel they should be censored at all costs. Not even in the case of legal implications. Either way, I want to reiterate that I appreciate your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies and NeilN. We can close this thread now, or wait to see if anyone else has something to state in it. But given the few votes above, it seems weak to have some official close judging that there is consensus to delete any article by this editor. We can let the thread die on its own, give it a generic close, or whatever else is suitable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Just posting to confirm that I too agree with these deletions. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And I'm posting to agree with NYB. Personally, just speaking as someone who still like to try to rescue articles sometimes, I think G5 is somewhat counterproductive, despite its obvious usefulness in many situations. (My own standard for rewriting is now to a/ do it only if the subject is actually famous, not just notable and b/wait 6 months , But this particular individual and articles is not the one to use as an example for modifying the rule, because if the strict use of the rule is applicable anywhere, it's here. The foundation has gotten more involved with global bans because of global login, which otherwise creates some additional means of evasion. They've also taken child protection over from arb com, to the great relief of all us arbs, who have been asking them to do it for years. I would now treat a global ban more or less as I would treat OFFICE, & at some point we may want to say so specifically. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a choice here. They are office banned and everything must be nuked --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:15, 13 November 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.


Aryanprince was topic banned for six months; no further action warranted. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user (one user, does not sign himself) continues, despite warning, to restore an older unstable revision to the article Serbs. Compare revisions. On 20 September the IP restored a section on the ethnonym of Serbs, which includes various theories (see Names of the Serbs and Serbia), a section on DNA results (see Genetic studies on Serbs), a section on "identity" but which does not include such information (I have since created National identity of Serbia), in place of the summarized "ethnology"-section (from March) which includes interlinks to each article for further information, as the unstable revision included claims and data which has no academic concensus, but is still included in the respective articles. In my subsequent reverts, I used the summary and commented "unconstructive", "disruptive".

I reverted when I noticed it on 7 October. The user reverts it on 13 October, I then revert on 19 October, welcome and noticed, without a word from him, he then contacts me today 23.20, reverts 23.22, I message him 23.25, then revert 23.25, awaiting to initiate a discussion, he contacts me in 23.31.

Here comes the incident. In Serbo-Croatian, specifically Montenegrin, he says "I am telling you (more like English "You, listen to me", an order, which marks his language), the Genetics must be at Serbs as it always has. That links exist does not matter, many things have their own pages then they exist in specified size in other articles. That which is linked there nobody reads, only that which stands in the main article. And don't you tell me nothing for the last time because Wikipedia was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother (insult) so that you may establish order here. Don't in any event undo me once more that which is nicely referenced because I will make you a "party" here have you understood me? (threat)

He then reverted again in 23.32 (2RR). After this, I started tracing him. Apart from this "conflict", the user (IP) has earlier made uncivil comments, such as:

So to summarize, as I've understood it, the user has a nationalistic agenda, trying to use the unstable revision (the theories on ethnonym and DNA results) as "proof" that the neighbouring peoples are Serbs, and that the Serbs are an antique people. That is why he insists on the unstable revision. He is simply WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote many times you translated wrong and you didn't translated it correctly only to accuse me for what I didn't wrote. But to make it easier for you I will write it on English here and now. Yes, Wikipedia is propaganda when it comes to Serbs. A simple example is the two you mentioned. Novak Djokovic is the sole article which name is not written on native language (special characters). A sole tennis player, sole human being whose name you didn't wrote with the special characters. And guess what, he is a Serb. Another thing is Serbian genetics. 95% nations on Wikipedia, in their articles they have Genetics sub theme where their Genetics is written. Serbs had them too until few months ago. Then someone came and in two clicks removed Serbian genetics in their main article. I have to tell you that this genetics research was done by European Union, it is on their Official Website. Everything was referenced, written correctly (not by me, by someone other, long time ago). Then one day I saw someone removed it, and I undone the removal. Since then this started. And I will tell you why that happened. The research proves that the Serbs have the most Haplogroupe I2 (Illyrian genetics) in Europe. Variating from minimum 30% to maximum of 60% in Herzegovina. Someone does not like this fact. That is why they delete it. Things like this are standalone proofs that Wikipedia is Serbian antipropaganda. In addition I have to tel you that I don't expect nothing from this what I wrote. The decision has already been premade. My account is going to be banned because I am Serbian. But I couldn't care less, only thing that matters to me is my pride and arrogance. You see, I am arrogant even in this situation. This is what you will never feel. My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aryanprince, do I understand you correctly? If you are banned you will return using other accounts or editing from an IP address? Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
It certainly sounds like a declaration of intent to me. The comments about Novak Đoković appear spurious, as there's no attempt to whitewash either Djokovic's Serbian nationality or the native spelling of his name; Novak Djokovic is the common English-language spelling of his name, and he uses that spelling of his name in his professional life, see [22] -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Common English spelling is also Bjorn Borg but on Wikipedia you still use special characters as Björn Borg, for him and another 100 000 articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

He continues at Serbs.--Zoupan 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And again.--Zoupan 02:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

First I thought that this was a simple Serbian nationalist. Now I see that it is an illusionist. Here are some edits from (talk · contribs) with strikingly similar patterns (nationalism, unsigned), though with an opposite stance and sloppy with punctuations, in 2012: Here he changes Nemanjić dynasty from "Serbs" to "Montenegrins". Here he comments to an user: "Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail". Here he comments about Duklja: "[...] Somehow Serbs(It is obvious that Serb wrote this article,like so many other articles about history of Montenegro)conclude that this means that Duklja was Serbian land???Needless to say that majority of the Duklja population were Roman Catholics unlike Eastern Ortodox Serbs.Why are you doing this?". With Aryanprince (talk · contribs), the person acts like a Serbian ultra-nationalist (strangely, with a Nazi username), trying indeed, to play on the West vs. Serbia card. The person, with other IPs, identifies as "Montenegrin", and not "Serb". This is a SPA.--Zoupan 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User Zoupan (talk · contribs) is mentioning me as some IP adress but i dont know why. I never talked about Duklja on this wikipedia, and never changed anything on Nemanjic Dinasty. The IP adress he is writing here is not mine, and I also have to tell you that in Serbia and Montenegro we still have dynamic IP adresses, so what is my IP adress today is someone's else IP adress tomorow within our Internet provider. So only what I write as Aryanprince or Alliance is mine edits, nothing else. I use Aryanprince nick because when wikipedia merged they changed my old Alliance nick and told me I need to use new nick because someone from english wikipedia has the Alliance nick. I see he also charged me for Nazi nick but my real name is Arijan, when I write it on english j=>y and I write Aryan. I don't know how he connected me with Nazi Germany. I want him to apologise to me now cos insults, because combined first and second word war Nazi Germany with its satelites killed billions of my people. I really cant stand this insults anymore.--Aryanprince (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of intent to provoke, exaggerate, and quote out of context here. As "insults" go, the supposed insults as translated are mild indeed. When does saying "you do not own Wikipedia" (as in "Wikipedia was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother") become an insult worthy of ANI? Aryanprince has also stated that he is not and the content of the edits made by that IP address backs that up. The outrage that Aryanprince has expressed against Zoupan's "Nazi username" claim is completely justified. Anyone who knows the history of the region concerned will know how truly offensive such an accusation would be. Aryanprince is obviously not a native English speaker, so some leeway in his use of English should be allowed, and the attempt by Doug Weller, backed by The Anome, to trick or manipulate Aryanprince into saying he would ignore any block leaves a bad taste. What I think we actually have here is mostly just a content issue and an inexperienced editor who has difficulty expressing his reasoning. Aryanprince needs to be advised that the proper place for content discussion after a bold edit is reverted is not more reverts with edit summaries or angry postings on other editors pages, but careful reasoning presented on the article talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
NB, Zoupan's National identity of Serbia seems like a pov fork to me. It contains minimal content, content that could easily be incorporated into the parent article. We have no "National identity of Germany" or "National identity of France" articles, countries with far more complex and long-lasting issues of identity and formation and purpose that that of Serbia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
One does not mention others grandmothers in the Balkans. Calling it "mild" is still acknowledging that it is insulting, although if you think I have exaggerated, I ask you to copy the original text (which is hidden with the translation) and ask a Serbo-Croatian speaker to translate it and tell you how it sounds. The tone is obvious in that language. The ANI is not based on a sentence alone, but on the behaviour of the user (duh). The old account that Aryanprince claims to have used, Alliance~enwiki (talk · contribs), has no contributions. I think that his name is as clear as it gets, and his try to "write it in English" is just funny — remember that he got crazy about the name of Novak Djokovic (see quotes), and note that Arijan is pronounced A-ree-yan, which would become "Ariyanprince" or "Areyan", and not Aer-yan (as in Aryanprince). It is obvious that he is (or plays) a nationalist. The "attempt to trick" was in fact a good faith second chance; Aryanprince already said "My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles". National identity of Serbia is not a POV-fork.--Zoupan 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Another Zoupan created article, Genetic studies on Serbs is not a pov fork and seems to have legitimate reasons to exist. However, it seems to have been created to remove content from the Serbs article. Zoupan has been using its existence to claim that it is appropriate to remove ALL the generic studies content that Aryanprince wants to add into the Serbs article. This is not a reasonable position to take. The amount of content that Aryanprince wants to add is excessive given the existence of the more specialized article, but there has to be a middle ground compromise. There is also History of the Serbs - it seems like a duplicate article, given that almost exactly the same ground is covered by Serbs - one of them has to go, I think. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this clear as water: "When someone says 50% black OR very brown hair, the truth can also be 49% brown and 1% black, but the way it is written it forces the state "50% black", it is game of words. Does this source have detailed information about this? Also, does this source mention the skin color?" The user's name fits, doesn't it?--Zoupan 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean here? Both you and Aryanprince see to be happy having that "50% black OR very brown hair" wording [23] (it's in both versions). This is clearly personal abuse [24]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
He is not quoting the source... The source says: "45 per cent with pure brown eyes and only 20 per cent with light; 10 per cent have light hair while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair." Now, Aryanprince claims with that source that: "the most of Serbs generally have brown eyes and hair but significant part of them has light eyes and hair. There is also a smaller part which has red or even green hair. The skin is white, brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total.". How long is this going to take..?--Zoupan 22:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
He is doing that now, but he wasn't doing it when I made my post above - the diff I cited contained exactly the same text regarding hair colour. The content you are both arguing about seems to have no significance to me - and no significance is stated or explained in the article. So what if 45% have "pure brown eyes". Why is it significant enough to be mentionable? Why is it significant enough to be argued over? 15% might wear socks with sandals, but so what? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This is getting silly.--Zoupan 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted what Zoupan (talk · contribs) wrote in article because this reason. He referenced the statement with the source (Joel Martin Halpern) who wrote: "...while more than 50 per cent have either black or very dark brown hair...". But Halpern is actually citing the Carleton S. Coon and his book The races of Europe, page 590 where Coon wrote: "...Over 50 per cent have black or dark brown hair...". The difference is this word "very", which was added ether by Zoupan or by Halpern. If it was Halpern this is the sign of making harm to Serbian people, why would he change the citation? And if it was Zoupan then I don't know what to say... Next thing is skin color. Carleton S. Coon wrote about it, and not me. This is the citation, from the same book: "...The skin is brunet-white or light-brown in at least a third of the total...". So, to summerize. When Zoupan's source (Halpern) wrongly cites "The races of europe" than nothing happens, but when I correctly cite it then I am racist? This is shame...--Aryanprince (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Plausible. Not by me. Here you go. I linked this 22.56, prior to Aryan's above comment, he then answered in 23.09, then still calls me a liar here 23.18? WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If the earlier source does not use the word "very", but the later source does and cites that earlier source as its only source for that particular data, then the earlier source is the one whose wording should be used to decide on article content. Halpern is citing only Coon for that data, Coon does not say "very", Halpern has added the word "very" for unknown reasons. What Aryanprince has been saying above regarding that content and its sources is correct, but he has only been saying it very recently on the article talk page, earlier arguments were about other content. At its heart this is just a content issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
So if that was not you then Halpern added it when he wrongly cited original book. He made harm to Serbs, his citation is not correct. That makes him unreliable source so I would ask you nicely to remove that from article or I would have to remove it, again.--Aryanprince (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is not the content, but Aryanprince's attitude, and his edit-warring. I undid his removal, and, as a response Aryanprince:
  1. edit warred me (he has already edit-warred other editors), see article's history;
  2. he told me to go edit about the genetics of my own nation.
  3. On top of that he called me a liar,
  4. He called me a cheater,
  5. Unhappy, he called me again a liar (three times).
  6. He is not happy again and called me squiptar, using it as a derogatory for Albanians when used by South Slavic (Shqiptar#Use_in_South_Slavic_languages.)
In an only day, I received more insult than what I would receive in a year in my normal life. Thank you Wikipedia! Not only I find his style rude, but I notice that they are not trying to find consensus in a peaceful manner, and I feel like they are not calm enough to be able to edit Wikipedia. Someone please stop this editor: they are creating a hate atmosphere and that's the least we need in Balkan related topics. The guy is unstoppable. Please help! --MorenaReka (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Balkan related topics seem to need thick skins! Despite all Aryanprince's insults (and he has been at the receiving end of some severe ones too) I think he has been trying to raise legitimate content points (though taking things far to personally while doing it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
User MorenaReka (talk · contribs) I will call you lier 10 000 times because you deserve it, and you are proven lier. You lied again in last post. I never told you to go at your nation's article to write genetics, instead I told you this: "... I suggest you first to go and describe your own nation on its article...". So I never said genetics, i said description, lier.--Aryanprince (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Aryanprince has now made six reverts on Serbs within the past 24h, but had unfortunately not been given a 3RR-warning until I gave him one a few minutes ago... Thomas.W talk 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Aryanprince has now been topic banned by Future Perfect for six months from all articles relating to Serbs and Serbia, which should cool things down a bit (suspected socking, i.e. using multiple accounts/IPs, as hinted at in this thread, should be reported at WP:SPI BTW, not here). Thomas.W talk 19:51, 12 November 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]

Two IPs blocked for personal attacks. Harrias talk 15:41, 15 November 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 IP is repeatedly calling me a "son of a whore" on my user page for no apparent reason. His contribs. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

He has since moved on to others. See contribs again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked both IPs, feel free to ping me direct if there are any more, or if you want a temporary semi-protect on your user. Harrias talk 15:41, 15 November 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 by Fut.Perf. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a user who pretents to be me --> User:Zwærg Nase, posting in Formula One related talk pages which I often frequent. I bring this to admin attention here since none of the above examples seemed to fit my case. How is this usually dealt with? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thank you, that was a lot quicker than I expected! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 15 November 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:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS[edit]

Topic ban issued in other thread. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 16 November 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.

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[25] I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is.[26] Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: [27],[28],[29],[30]. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above example is just another example of this persons actions. They have recently tried to start a edit war on the D. B. Cooper article and on my Talk page, claiming that You Tube/ABC is a reliable source, whilst slating ABC (and the BBC) on there user page. I believe an admin warning is the least that should be applied. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
What a complete load of bullocks! Not even going to waste my time replying to this. If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Wikipedia becomes a better encyclopedia. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Jonas, please do not tell others to "GO SUCK IT". Highly inappropriate remark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool it Jonas. This is not the board to freak out on. Strike it mate. Quickly. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
While I don't want to make this a content issue, I will comment that (probably) most historians would disagree with the added content that Barbarossa was a "preventative surprise attack" on the USSR. This has actually been the source of some controversy -- in other words, if Stalin intended to strike first. In my (worthless) opinion, Jodl is perhaps not the best source to comment on whether this was the case. While I'm certainly no expert on the SS, I will add that the links provided don't necessarily show a positive light towards the organization -- calling them ruthless, fanatical, and so on is hardly positive. Regarding the forced labour edit, I'm not sure what the exact diff is in that case. Jonas, please, don't inadvertently bolster their case. GABHello! 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This case is not about the use of a single word "preventative" originating from the Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW) Alfred Jodl, which may or may not be accurate (and can easily be redacted) even though any reference to a singular author David M. Glantz about the quote-unquote "most historians" allegedly disagreeing with it is ridiculous. This case is about bullying, and about removal of major source of judicial data about the SS history as well as not properly acknowledging the fact that Schutzstaffel committed massacres in Soviet occupied Poland... long before they reached Russia in Operation Barbarossa. I spoke about it in talk, but the evasive and incomprehensible reply from Jonas Vinther was for me the first sign of something more troubling going on. Poeticbent talk 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In using "preventative", Jodl was simply repeating what Hitler told the generals, but there's not a shred of evidence that Stalin planned to attack Germany at that time, which is confirmed by Stalin's refusal to listen to Churchill, Sorel and other sources who told him that Hitler was going to attack, and even gave the date. Stalin's personal response also confirms that he was totally blindsided. Hitler's claim that the attack was "preventative" was designed to provide a rationale for what he had wanted to do from the beginning, back to the time of writing Mein Kampf. No reputable historian believes anything else. Whether Jodl actually believe it was "preventative" or not, I don't know. BMK (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Knowing Stalin's "intentions" would be "mind reading" on Wikipedia's part. What we know for sure is that there was a continuing build up of the Soviet military presence along the Curzon Line before Barbarossa in spite of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty signed several months earlier. However, these facts have nothing to do with the actual AN/I report. This report is about the removal (and the troubling absence) of all references leading to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which is unexplainable without suspicion of promoting a desired point of view. Poeticbent talk 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
There was an issue two weeks ago regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:TX6785_appears_obsessed. Related? John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so, as this has nothing to do with redirects. GABHello! 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Jonas Vinther has retired. GABHello! 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering the reality of how things work on Wikipedia, I suggest that in the future we always use scare quotes when indicating that an editor has announced that they've walked away from editing, i.e. Jonas Vinther has "retired". BMK (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Jonas Vinther often retires.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A few comments. First, Jonas is not the sock:User:TX6785. Secondly, he has at times been cavalier in his edits and taken things very personally, that is true. With that said, he has done some good work in reviewing articles for GA, and in bringing articles up to GA. I do think that bringing the latest disagreement here was premature and the matter should have been discussed in greater detail on the talk page and if necessary a RfC could have been done. And it is true that he has "retired before". At any rate, the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
When I finish the book I'm currently reading, I plan to read Anatomy of the SS State next, and may well re-read The SS: The Alibi of a Nation after that. If I follow through on this plan, I'll probably be doing some editing of the article, as that's my normal pattern of behavior. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The article still needs work so have a look, BMK. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment Apparently Jonas Vinther retires very frequently. A few months ago he "retired" because he found Wikipedia to be "anti-fascist and pro-democratic I refuse to further help build up a site that both directly and indirectly glorifies leaders like Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt" [31], but there are several other "retirements" before that. His user page two days ago before "retiring" stated that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap" [32]. This in combination with coming here just to shout "GO SUCK IT" leads me to conclude we're dealing with someone who is here to right great wrongs. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the pov involved I would suggest rather to wrong great rights.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I've decided to withdraw my statement of retirement. I can also point out my retirement had nothing to do with this noticeboard. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean a wikidiva surely? Blackmane (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
OMG, don't you know how politically incorrect you're being? We don't call Wikidivas "WP:DIVAs" anymore, we ask them as polite as pie on Sunday to try "not to be high maintenance". (Soon, problem editors won't be "blocked", they'll be "temporarily redirected", and sockpuppets will merely be "differently personified editors".) BMK (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
My goodness, please accept my most effusive apologies. When will this be redirected to this I wonder? Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 13 November 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.

COI and NOTHERE[edit]

This discussion failed to produce any result, really, except for the statement I saw somewhere that Rick Alan Ross, an SPA and subject of a BLP, is to stay out of his article and limit himself to talk (and other) space. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 16 November 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.

Since July 2015, article subject Rick Alan Ross has been using various editors to mold said article to his liking. I brought my concerns about this happening to WP:COIN back in early October where the report was essentially dismissed [33]. Apparently, this is not the first time he has come to Wikipedia to work on the article and skew the content. He was brought to COIN back in 2008 [34], as well. Starting in June 2015, Ross started trying to control content in and out of the article as an IP by going to the article talk page and various noticeboards as well as editor talk pages: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. His own talk page his laden with editors spending time and energy discussing the article [47]. His continuous complaints and requests at the article talk page has been quite a time-sink, as well: [48]. On at least one occasion, he was dissatisfied with the consensus reached at the article talk page and the closing of the discussion (while continuing to exhibit WP:IDHT behavior) and then went forum shopping at WP:BLPN [49]. If look through the article talk page, you can see there are several editors in agreement that Ross' involvement is related to self-promotion and his continual requests and direction on how he would like the article to appear have taken up way too much time of editors attempting to answer his questions and assist him. Add to this his refusal to go with consensus and a persistence with WP:IDHT and there has been an enormous amount of time given freely to this one individual. That said, he never seems pleased with how the article portrays his public image and I, personally, don't see an end in sight with his requests and complaints. There is a strong amount of WP:COI going on, but WP:SPA and WP:NOTTHERE as well. He has not edited any other articles or done anything in Wikipedia other than what is connected to the article on him. That says to me he's not interested in building the encyclopedia, just building the Rick Alan Ross article as a means of self-promotion. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a resume service or promotional website host. My purpose in coming here is not to see him blocked, however, I think at this point, at the very least, a topic ban in regard to editing or requesting edits at the article on him would be appropriate. Something has to get him to stop, in my opinion. -- WV 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been dealing with Rick Alan Ross for several months. He has spent the entire time trying to mold the article to fit his vision. I have tried to get him to address only maters of factual accuracy and violations of WP:BLP. A review of Talk:Rick Alan Ross will show what a time sink this has become. Rick Alan Ross is here to guard and mold his BLP and for no other reason. He has been brought to COIN several times to address his behavior. He was required to identify his account to ArbCom but continued to edit his article as an IP until the page was semi-protected, forcing him to register and identify an account. His behavior indicates to me an intention to minimally comply with our policies and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants.

He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and, in my opinion, should be topic banned from all maters relating to Rick Alan Ross and cults/Scientology broadly construed or simply blocked since I seriously doubt he would edit anything else if banned from subjects that relate to himself. Pinging other editors involved with the saga @JzG, Jytdog, Govindaharihari, and Francis Schonken: @Collect, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, Elmmapleoakpine, and Cwobeel: JbhTalk 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To back up what Jbhunley noted above "and to attempt to wear down volunteers to get what he wants", I think it's worth noting that wearing down others to get the result he wants is precisely what being a cult deprogrammer (Ross' profession) is about. -- WV 22:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please lay off the pop psychology. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please lay off the personal attacks. -- WV 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding this sanction note from 2009 ([50]): "...instructed to not edit using anonymous IP addresses...Passed 10 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)" Unless I'm reading the preceding wrong, it would seem RAR violated this 2009 sanction when he edited as an IP earlier this year. -- WV 23:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RAR has had some quite legitimate complaints in the past, and I fear that his attitude reflects that of some prior editors who seemed intent on accenting the negative about the living person. I note that since the BLP is directly connected with the famed Scientology arbitration case (it appears on the best interest of Scientology proponents to diss Mr. Ross by making sure we know he was a used car dealer, and that he lost a huge lawsuit where a lawyer associated possibly with the CoS was involved, etc.). Ignoring the original problems here would certainly let us bar Ross now - but when the Scientology issues are included, I think he is entitled to a little leeway - we can keep some of the SPS sourcing out without too much effort as he now knows better than to edit the BLP (or play at being an anonymous IP), and thus I am disinclined to join this fray now. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Final_decision. Collect (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Related ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rick_Alan_Ross_.28consultant.29. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Already noted in the long list of links above ^^^. -- WV 22:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I find none of the above has the traction purported. I find the subject of the biography being vilified for having the temerity to use the Talk page to steer the article in a direction that represents improvement. At present he wants a book which he has written mentioned in the article in such a way likely to allow a reader to avail themselves of it. The book is not necessarily self-published as it is published in more than one market. The subject has more than one time posed an interesting question. He wants to know why in what seems to be a parallel example—Steven Hassan—we find a similarly authored book highlighted in that article. Predictably enough we find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counterargument. More substantial policies such as undue weight are being invoked; I don't think they are especially applicable. The subject of the biography obviously has an overriding message which motivates his life's work which one can assume is articulated in his latest book. As long as this book is squarely on the subject for which he is notable I think it is a far stretch to call highlighting his book an example of "undue weight". Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that Ross likely keeps bringing up Hassan's article as a parallel because of the feud between the two of them that's been going on for a few years. The following link is to an archive of the Rick Ross website forum: [51]. Not trying to dig up and post dirt on anyone, but it's somewhat obvious that the animosity between Ross and Hassan is feeding his desire to see equal treatment between the articles. And while we're on the topic of paralleling articles, let's not forget about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- WV 23:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
How can you "guess" what motivates a person? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia editors "guess" continually (especially in the drama boards such as this one) as to what someone's motivation is when their behavior has come under scrutiny at a noticeboard. -- WV 23:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: You have the 'book' issue completely wrong. He was complaining about [52] this version, where his book is in its own 'Sources' section so it is still a 'reference' and wanted the text simply moved down two lines so it would be part of the 'Further reading' section. He seems to have wanted his book recommended as further reading in the article rather than 'merely' a source. That is purely using Wikipedia for promotion - that was the point I lost all AGF with him. He felt strongly enough to start a BLPN discusion to force the issue when the talk page consensus was against him. I think that is what got all of the people over there a couple days ago doing clean up. I do not know because he did not notify me, the other editors or post a notice on the talk page about the matter He was asked repeatedly to do so when he brings issues up at noticeboards. JbhTalk 00:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
If the book was used as a source for writing the article, it belongs in a "Source" or "Bibliography" section. "Further reading" should only be for additional resources that haven't as yet been used in writing the article. BMK (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we realize that. It's one of the things the article subject has been unhappy about (and part of what Jbh is referring to above). Ross has refused to accept exactly what you pointed out, BMK. That's part of the reason why - as Jbh states above - it's pretty obvious that Ross is more interested in promoting himself, his services, and his book(s) than building an encyclopedia. Hence, the reason why I have titled this discussion COI and NOTHERE. -- WV 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I made it sound as if my comment was contradicting something Jbhunley said, I was merely confirming what I believe to be the standard practice, which is in agreement with what you and Jbh are saying. BMK (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah, you didn't. I just wanted to make sure you got that we already had that covered. Part of the issue here is Ross' tendentious behavior that included going forum shopping at BLP/N after being told what policy was in regard to referencing/further reading. -- WV 02:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's really out of line to try to tell the subject of a BLP that he is topic-banned from the talk page of that BLP. RAR is doing exactly what our COI policy says: use the talk page. If editors disagree with what he wants, then fine -- except that it's not at all inappropriate for him to go to BLPN. This is not forum-shopping -- again it's entirely in line with COI. If other editors find it frustrating, perhaps their efforts are best directed elsewhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Going to BLPN is appropriate. This is a job for the BLP noticeboard. It's a common situation - subject of a biographical article doesn't like what's being said about them, tries to change their own article, and runs into Wikipedia's rules and bureaucracy. Then they end up at COIN, where anything that looks like self-promotion gets taken out and they get a bare-facts article, or AN/I, where they get blocked. WP:BLPN, though, is more oriented towards dealing with the problems of a bio article subject being unhappy with their bio. John Nagle (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nagle: This issue was raised at COIN a bit over a month ago. "what seems to be a manner of dictation on how the article about him should be edited." JbhTalk 00:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm annoyed out of my wits by Rick Alan Ross every now and again. That being said, I think that, for the time being, Mr. Ross is essential for improving the Rick Alan Ross article, which still has many flaws. I know this noticeboard is not always very suitable to try and explain nuances – nonetheless:
    1. @Rick Alan Ross: you definitely should shape up. For instance, when the topic Cults Inside Out has been closed until "third party reliable sources with non-trivial reports about Ross' book can be given as reference" (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading) it is not up to you to reopen that topic without providing such references (Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines) – Maybe a short block (one or a few days) can get this point accross to Mr. Ross. If you don't understand what "references" means in this context, please see WP:V, WP:RS and/or Wikipedia:Citing sources. For an explanation of "non-trivial" in this sentence, see WP:GNG. Maybe a day or two would suffise for you to get a grip on these Wikipedia rules, all other methods to draw your attention to this having apparently failed.
    2. To my colleagues Wikipedia-editors who try, like me, to get the mainspace article on the subject in shape: I think closing talk page topics like I did at Talk:Rick Alan Ross#Further Reading is maybe the way to go more often. When all has been said about a topic, close it. When the subject reopens (without apparently taking notice of the reasons why it was closed), close it again, like I'll probably do now for Talk:Rick Alan Ross#My book "Cults Inside Out" and consistent editing rules and guidelines. That's my method of trying to avoid this becomes a time-sink for me.
    3. On the content of the article: someone suggested Mr. Ross' notability ended after the Scott case. As far as I've been looking at reliable sources, this seems far from the case. The Institute he started after that (first under his own name, later renamed to Cult Education Institute) gets quite some coverage in reliable sources. For that reason I think Mr. Ross' presence essential to keep the article in balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I might agree with you on some of these points if RAR hadn't been here previously and hadn't been sanctioned previously and hadn't been told very recently that he needs to follow policy, accept consensus, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I might agree with you if he were truly interested in building the encyclopedia rather than building his "online resume" and promoting his book(s) and business. The man is definitely a single purpose account, not here to build and encyclopedia, and frequently behaving in a tendentious manner. That's not "balance" of any kind. That's a general net negative as a waste of the community's time, patience, and energy. We have a plethora of articles that become GA and FA without the "assistance" of the article subject. In fact, I'm certain most of them have no input from the article subject whatsoever. To use that as a selling point in keeping him from being blocked or topic banned is just silly. -- WV 10:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi—at the BLP/N you say "What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory." How would it constitute undue weight to include the book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" in the "Further Reading" section of the Rick Alan Ross biography? Aren't we trying to explicate the work of the subject of this biography? Doesn't he (presumably) explain his stance on the subject for which he is notable in the latest volume which he has authored? There is no undue weight issue involved at all. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Please discuss that either at BLPN or on the article talk page. There is less than no reason to talk about the merits of inclusion in a third forum. Also, the back and forth between editors already familiar with the matter, about side issues, only serves to derail the ANI discussion. This is not a problem unique to this thread but rather a general problem at noticeboards. Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. JbhTalk 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Jbh, it seems to me that Bus stop has a long history of stirring shit and going on unrelated tangents at articles and talk pages related to Judaism or Jewish-related BLPs. [53], [54],[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Based on him previously being banned and very narrowly avoiding a formal topic ban/sanction (less than a year ago) as well as his promise at the following AN/I report and the closing editor's comments, Bus stop shouldn't even be here commenting or at the article in question at all: "Bus stop has agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention" [61]. -- WV 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi—I have already asked you, at the BLP/N, how your charge of "undue weight" applies to the placement of a book in a "Further Reading" section, but you did not respond. Do you understand the meaning of WP:UNDUE? It is a part of our policy on WP:Neutral Point of View. Are you arguing that the placement of a book by the subject of the biography in the "Further Reading" section somehow compromises the neutrality of the article? Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


This one failed to gain consensus. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 16 November 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.

Rick Alan Ross is topic banned from Rick Alan Ross except to bring up violations of WP:BLP policy or to point out specific factual errors. The reason for this is the continued attempts to micro-manage his own biography and persistent WP:IDHT behavior on Talk:Rick Alan Ross.

  • Support at proposer. Wikipedia has a policy to help subjects of biographies manage violations of WP:BLP it does not and should not encourage the subject of a biography continuously tweak their own biography to their liking - whether by editing the article itself of through persistent talk page threads. It is hard enough to manage an WP:NPOV article but it is nearly impossible when you have the subject constantly advocating their position. JbhTalk 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, just because it's a BLP shouldn't cause reasonable WP:COI provisions to stop applying. --LjL (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject of the biography in this instance has raised eminently valid concerns. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- this is an absurd proposal, the editor has acted entirely in line with WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support Individual has ignored his previous sanction for staying away from his bio and cult related articles, tries to force issues his direction, and has not once demonstrated in several years' time that he's interested in building the encyclopedia, just micro-managing his BLP. So far, his presence has been a net-negative for the 'pedia and a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Let him prove he's here for more than his online image and self promotion. -- WV 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Pardon me, but can you please point to the sanction you say he has violated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as being a solution in search of a problem. Ross should not edit the BLP proper, but I have no problem with his positions on the talk page. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as formulated this seems a counterproductive measure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rick Alan Ross appears to be following COI guidelines. He discusses the edits he thinks should be made to the article. Not once has this account edited the article itself, only the talk page. He also uses BLPN to discuss the article. He does do a lot of talking but there is nothing wrong with that. -- GB fan 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based upon my own personal experience. He is acting in (fairly) good-faith, and surely declared COI and editing talk pages is what we want to encourage, not drive editors underground? Mdann52 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support For all the reasons brought up at the top of this section. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - user has not edited the article, and "except to bring up violations of WP:BLP policy or to point out specific factual errors" is too vague (anything can be construed as a factual error). People can ignore his comments on the talk page if so desired. МандичкаYO 😜 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic banning the person who is the subject of an article from having anything to do with the article, bar a few vague exceptions, is unreasonable. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 13 November 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.

Proposal II[edit]

This one did too. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 16 November 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.

Rick Alan Ross is blocked for three days. Reason: talk page disruption, and for refusal to inform themselves on Wikipedia core content policy.

  • I've upped my initial proposal of one or two days to three days per this, which was a completely inappropriate talk page post given the circumstances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe it will help but I doubt it. He has too strong of an investment in the page and waiting three days or really any number of days to continue his WP:COI will not change that. He is WP:NOTHERE to build the encylcopedia he is here to promote himself and manage his biography. He will always be willing to put in more effort than anyone else at the page to get the version he wants. JbhTalk 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose To me it looks like he is reading policy and trying to comply with it. If a block would be appropriate it should not be increased because he commented that people are trying to stop him from even commenting on the article about him, especially when people want to stop him from commenting on the article about him. -- GB fan 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I, too, think it will do nothing to block him for three days. Unless, if the behavior continues, and he will be blocked for a longer period of time? But, really, what is blocking going to do except piss him off? He says he's not here for his BLP, but for Wikipedia. I say let him prove that by showing a vested interest in editing articles not related to him or cults. So far, he's been here just for his own interests in regard to his public online image and promoting his business and his books. Unless he's forced to have a reason to be here beyond that, blocking for a few days will accomplish nothing productive. Indeed, I predict it will cause more problems. -- WV £
  • Support Block him. He won't stay away, he won't keep his word to stay away. A block will keep him from disrupting further. I'd also like to point out that he has yet to edit anything in Wikipedia that has nothing to do with him, further strengthening the fact that WP:NOTHERE definitely applies. -- WV 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this effort to drive off a BLP subject who is abiding by WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Abiding by the rules should not be so blatantly punished. Collect (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GB fan and Collect МандичкаYO 😜 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blocks are preventative not punitive. Also, I am in agreement with GB Fan and Collect. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 13 November 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.

Further discussion[edit]

Excuse me. Does this mean that I am now censored from commenting at my bio about the editing process? Given the history of my bio here, which has been edited by cult members and cult apologists, it seems that allowing me to comment is reasonable. I apologize for not knowing every detail of Wikipedia policy, but I am willing to be reasonable and work with people at Wikipedia. I don't think it is somehow self-promotion for me to be concerned about how some people may be improperly editing my bio. I don't think doing volunteer work for Wikipedia should be a requirement to comment about the editing at my bio Talk page. I have been working in the field of cultic studies since 1982 and building a database since 1996. My work is notable and has been reported about by the media around the world. I do interviews with one media outlet or another almost every month (e.g. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, CBC, Nippon, Asai, etc.). My book is notable and represents about three years work and is a synthesis of history and research with more than 1,200 footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and is 582 pages in length. It is now self-published in English and published in Chinese. I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness and testified in about 20 court proceedings, including 10 states and US Federal Court after a Daubert Hearing. I have been included in 18 documentaries, invited to and lectured at more than 30 colleges and universities and have done 500 cult interventions. Only about a dozen were involuntary interventions with adults. The Jason Scott case effectively marked the end of my involuntary intervention work more than 20 years ago. I have worked with the FBI several times and received an accommodation signed by Director Mueller in 2011. I have also worked with the Israeli Ministry of Social Welfare and attended international conferences in Canada, China and Thailand. I have had papers published in academic peer-reviewed journals and contributed to a number of published books. I say all this because I have worked hard to establish my reputation and of course I am concerned how some people think they can come in an anonymously manipulate the editing process at my Wikipedia bio page or the purpose of retaliation over the Cult Education Institute database, to malign me and/or impugn my integrity. There has been good editing done at my bio and bad editing. I would like to be engaged in a reasonable process to sort this out so that facts and reliable sources are used rather than biased claims from narrow questionable sources. Getting it right and accurate is good for Wikipedia, it's good policy, good for the public and yes good for me too. I am not used to your incredible labyrinth of rules and culture, but I am willing to learn. It seems though that some editors may at times use Wikipedia rules and culture to obscure issues, block meaningful dialog and obstruct needed editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean this. Someone proposed it, and it's obvious that the proposal will not pass. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
RAR, I don't know how, for all the years you've been in Wikipedia, being told the same things over again, being sanctioned, etc., you can seriously claim ignorance of policy and claim you are being censored. I call B.S. on what you are saying. None of this is new to you - you're just dealing with a largely unfamiliar audience who hasn't truly looked into your editing past. You were told to never again edit with an IP address, but you did it anyway starting at the end of June this year. Can you explain why you started back here trying to disguise who you were? Because for me, doing so after promising you wouldn't, is just the beginning of the dishonesty in what you say vs. what you do. -- WV 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
He has been editing from multiple accounts since 2009: Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) who also edits as Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) and also seemingly from anonymous IPs" [62]. There was, recently, a lot of discussion to get him to identify to ArbCom and stop editing from IPs. Much of the discussion was on his talk page but once he identified the account RickRoss1954, or some such, was renamed to Rick Alan Ross I do not know what happened to the history of the prior Rick Alan Ross. JbhTalk 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia. Please understand that you have many rules and customs within your culture online here that I don't know and many people don't know. What happened with my IP address was explained. I lost my password to my old account and my email address changed after was sold and became my new email domain address. I posted under my name, so there was no attempt at deception. I now have an account attached to my correct email address. I never disguised who I am, don't do anything anonymous and always use my name when posting on the Web.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop editing for three days, and use the time to familiarize yourself with the rules. If three days aren't sufficient: use five days. If five days aren't sufficient: use ten days – etc. Anyway, don't return before a serious effort on your part to familiarize yourself with the rules. You've been given links to the rules you should concentrate on first, I wonder whether thus far you've clicked such links and looked at what editors were referring to. I proposed you edited in other areas which you are less involved in, to get familiar with the rules by editing, the way most of us got familiar with them – this you declined thus far, which you are allowed to, but then I see no other possibility than you taking a step back and take as much time as needed to get familiar with Wikipedia guidance by reading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. I will continue reading the rules linked. At times there seems to be conflict between the rules and how the editing is being done at my bio. I will stop and ask questions about this at the Talk page again as I have done in the past to clear the air regarding any inconsistencies or ambiguities. Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross—you have to use double brackets to send a piped-link to Daubert standard. When are you ever going to learn?Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You will be held to your "OK", RAR. It should be noted here that you've said "OK" before several times, and then almost immediately reneged on it. Take three days to read the rules and understand them. If that's not enough time, take longer (as Francis suggested). But, if you continue to do the same things you've been doing whilst claiming you don't know "the rules" and "the culture" of Wikipedia, it could happen that you do end up being forced to stay away (via a block) until you understand policy and guidelines. After all, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Here's a start for you regarding policies and guidelines: WP:PG. I hope you take these warnings and suggestions seriously because they are given in all seriousness. -- WV 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────*NOTE: Just as I suspected, because of similar incidents where RAR has not followed through on promises he has made in Wikipedia, he added comments at the AfD on the BLP in question here. He did this a half hour after saying he would go away for at least three days to bone up on policy and guidelines. I am just not seeing how he is going to do what he says he will do, nor do I think he takes things here seriously. -- WV 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm reposting here what I just posted at the AfD for the Ross BLP as a response to RAR's comments. The comments are here: Excuse me, but it is not whiny, demanding, or self-promotion to expect accuracy and fair unbiased editing. It is not a solution to either censor me or delete the bio because it isn't exactly as some editors prefer it to be. I have raised questions at the Talk page about the consistent application of Wikipedia rules and fairness. That is not disruption, but rather constructive criticism. It is troublesome to see the way that some people periodically pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash me. But recently the bio has become more stable. My fingers in the pie is necessary to offer some balance to what has been a very messy and often nasty process of editing. I certainly don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but rather a check and meaningful frame of reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)"

RAR, you said you'd go away for at least three days and not post or edit in order to get a handle on policy and guidelines. And, as I expected, you reneged on that promise just as you have previously with similar promises. Do you think we're kidding here? Please don't answer. Just fulfil your promise. -- WV 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about some of your comments some more, I'm struck by the outright and sheer arrogance of them. First of all, BLPs in Wikipedia are written quite well and without the assistance of the article subject all the time. It's been that way since the first Wikipedia BLP was created. We don't need you or any article subject to help us write such bios. As far as balance, Wikipedia editors (especially those of us who have been here a while and have thousands and thousands of edits to our credit) know how to create the appropriate balance in an article based on Wikipedia guidelines. And if we ever get flummoxed, we have each other to work with in order to get it right. We don't need you be "a check" or a frame of reference, because we have reliable references available to us. That's the way it works for all BLPs, in fact. Do you honestly think we are all so inept that we can't get it right? Do you seriously think that you, someone who has said over and over again that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, can better edit or edit by proxy than those of us who already know policy and guidelines? If people truly do "pop in to use the bio as a punitive place to bash" you, it's taken care of. Those of us who have been answering your questions and have taken inordinate amounts of time trying to explain things to you have the article on our Watchlists, so we know when an edit occurs and will correct it if it's outside the bounds of policy. You really don't need to be here for the article to be done right nor do you need to keep a guard on the article. We're not idiots and we're not new to this. You, on the other hand, keep telling us how you don't get Wikipedia. Well, if you really don't get how things work, please stay out of the way of those who do. -- WV 02:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I never called anyone an idiot. I think that my knowledge of the facts and reliable sources about my own life and work is meaningful and probably more informed and in-depth than most Wikipedia editors. Also, given the sorry history of my bio and all the sock puppets posting there it isn't meaningful or constructive to insult me. I will continue to read the Wikipedia links offered. I will take a break to do this and appreciate the constructive criticism and helpful suggestions offered. If you will please stop posting misleading negative rants about me there would be no need for me to respond. Let's cool off and take a break. We both have better things to do.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh for fucks sake -- can someone please close this -- there isn't going to be any admin action here and it's descending into farce. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This is really a BLP problem. The article subject isn't editing their own article, which would be grounds for a block; they're just commenting on the talk page and on noticeboards. That's not grounds for blocking. If Mr. Ross wants changes to his own article, the best way to get them would be to make very specific, short, edit requests. See WP:COMPETENCE, section on "Inability to talk about incremental changes". Wikipedia is a one step at a time system, especially on controversial subjects. I suggest that Mr. Ross prioritize his issues with the article, and request his top priority change on the article talk page, per