위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive818

아우스고트

메밀스

사용자:알레모스 문제

나는 언제든지 사용자 알 레모스의 부분/편향/나쁜 신앙판을 감지하고 있다.내가 목록을 만들게:

• Partido da Imprensa Golpista - 이 기사는 "브라질 정치적 지배권을 돕는 것"을 목표로 하는 존재하지 않는 정당에 대해 이야기하는 것으로, 순수 POV에 의해 결성되었으며, 이 사용자에 의해 광범위한 COI가 실행되었다.나는 그가 의도적으로 숨기거나 무시했던 정보, 악명 높은 정보를 삽입하고 블로그, 부분적인 것으로 알려진 사이트, 사이트라고 환상을 품는 블로그 등 출처가 신뢰할 수 없는 정보를 철수시켰다.결과:유저는 내가 쓴 글을 읽지 않고 내가 편집한 모든 내용을 완전히 번복했고, 편집을 위해 나와 기사를 차단하려고 했다.문제가 토론 페이지와 관리자로 이어진 뒤 알 레모스는 대화까지 시도했지만, 대신 내가 그의 부하인 것처럼 용서를 구걸하게 하려고 했다.그 페이지는 3일 동안 차단되었고, 그는 나의 편집에 이의를 제기하지 않았다.

• 로드리고 콘스탄티노와 밀레니움 연구소에서도 같은 내용이 나왔으며, 브라질의 정치적 권리와 관계가 있는 두 페이지였다.나는 이 사용자가 정치 페이지를 편집할 때 항상 같은 행동을 한다는 것을 알아차리기 시작했다: 올바른 브라질 정치에 대한 페이지를 만들지만, 정보는 거의 없다.그러나 논쟁 부분은 언제나 그가 할 수 있는 한 길며, 젊은 학생들이 만든 블로그나 대학 이론과 같은 부분적이고 순수한 의견의 출처들로 가득 차 있다.

• 그 직후, 포르투갈어로 된 위키피디아를 편집하지 않고 10개월 된 이 사용자가 돌아와서 여기서 만든 것과 같은 기사를 만들기 시작했지만, 나의 편집 없이 그의 부분적인 내용만 집어넣었다.그것은 순수한 도발로 나타난다.

• 알 레모스가 주로 편집한 Mailson da Nobrega 기사를 관찰하면서 나는 브라질 일반 대중에게 전혀 알려지지 않은 잡지 "브라질 잡지"를 포함하여 신뢰할 수 없는 출처가 있는 또 하나의 거대한 부분을 발견했다.나는 카피 편집자 협회의 출처를 반대했는데, 알 레모스가 이 글을 만든 후, 바로 브라질리어스(마거진)이다.이 기사를 만든 것은 나에 대한 보복이며, Mailson da Nobrega 페이지와 다른 페이지에 이 잡지의 출처를 사용하는 것을 정당화하려고 노력한다.잡지에 대해 이야기하려는 시도는 아니다.이것은 정말 사실이라, 그 기사는 전혀 아무 말도 하지 않는다.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma%C3%ADlson_da_N%C3%B3brega&diff=580007363&oldid=573830938 - 블로그 원본

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ma%C3%ADlson_da_N%C3%B3brega&diff=580008755&oldid=580007766 - 전혀 알려지지 않은 사이트/사이트, 이 잡지는 대중에게 판매되지 않는다.

나는 불규칙한 소스를 넣는 그의 판을 몇 개 열거할 수 있다.이것들은 단지 몇 개일 뿐이다.이 사용자는 관점을 증명하려고 한다.나는 그의 차단을 요청한다. 왜냐하면 그는 심각한 문제를 만들 의도가 없고 단지 위키피디아에서의 정치적 박해만을 의도하고 있기 때문이다.그는 브라질에서 어떤 출처가 믿을 만한지 모른다는 사실을 이용하고, 무엇이든 출처로 삼고 있다.라우자루쿠 (대화) 18:10, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

매우 이상하다.2006년부터 위키피디아를 편집하고 있다.나는 포르투갈어 위키백과의 부분적이고 악의적인 편집자인 브루노 레너드와 심각한 문제에 직면했다.관리자들의 행동이 부족해서 나는 2009년에 포르투갈어로 편집을 중단하고 영어로 더 자주 편집할 수 있게 되었다.2012년 사용자 브루노 레너드(악명 높은 인형술사)는 결국 포르투갈어 위키백과 관리자가 아닌 무한정 차단됐다.그는 메타에게 막혔다.모든 위키백과에서.극단적인 경우고, 드문 경우다.

난 전쟁을 편집할 시간이 없어.나는 심지어 위키백과논쟁에 시간을 낭비할 영어에 대한 대단한 숙달도 없다.내가 아는 것은 기사를 만들고 편집하고 확장하는 것이다.나는 우리나라와 관련된 정치적 사안에 대해 의견을 가지고 있다.하지만 나는 장난도 아니고 악의도 없어.내가 사용하는 출처는 쉽게 검증할 수 있고 거의 항상 널리 인정받는 출처다(적어도 우리나라에서).그러므로 나를 놀라게 하는 것은 이 사용자가 라우자루쿠라고 부르는 모욕적이고 집요하고 통제 불능의 캠페인이 나에게 지시하고 있는 모욕적이고 끈질긴 캠페인이며, 또한 라우자루쿠에 의해 야기된 사이버 스토킹과 사이버 왕따로부터 나를 방어하기 위해 문제의 페이지를 보호하기 위해 관리자도 돕지 않고 있다.

'브라질리아이로스' 잡지를 출처로 부적격하려는 시도는 어처구니없다.ISSN을 참조하고 웹 사이트를 입력하여 실제 게시물인지 확인하십시오.나는 이런 태도를 이 인물이 나에게 느끼는 절대적인 증오로 여긴다.그것이 어디서 왔는지 모르는 것이 싫어서, 우리는 전에 (적어도 그를 '라우자루쿠'라고 부른 적이 없었기 때문이다.The changes he made in articles edited by me (stables in the case of "Partido da Imprensa Golpista" and "Maílson da Nóbrega," and newly created, like "Rodrigo Constantino" and "Instituto Millenium") are typical of someone with a world view driven by the more mundane right-wing extremism, something that in the United States would be defined as "Tea파티 애호가."

마지막으로, 나는 이 같은 사용자 라우자루쿠가 10월 23일 포르투갈어 위키백과에서 "관점을 증명하기 위한 위키백과의 남용" 때문에 차단되었다는 사실을 관리자들에게 경고해야 한다.블록을 할 만한 사람을 결정할 때, 이것을 반드시 고려하길 바란다. - 알 레모스 (대화) 22:20, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

Demétrio Magnoli와 Mailson da Novrega 조항에 편집 전쟁을 일으키려는 시도를 추가했다.그는 블로그를 출처로 많이 삽입하고, 그 이후에는 R3R로 나를 차단하도록 노력한다.라우자루쿠 (대화) 22:36, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 토론 없이 강제로 기사를 받아보고 싶은 고객: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partido_da_Imprensa_Golpista&diff=580069108&oldid=580021583.나는 이 엄청난 학대가 끝나기를 바라고 있다.라우자루쿠 (대화) 22:40, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자 역할에 대한 당혹감 - 조언 요청

어제 두 개의 관련 없는 기사를 읽으면서 나는 전자 그래피티에 지나지 않는 두 명의 편집자가 산발적으로 편집하고 있다는 것을 알아챘다.두 사람 모두 상당한 기간 동안 9년 동안 한 건씩 수많은 기사에 글을 올렸다.어느 쪽도 원격으로 건설적인 것으로 해석될 수 있는 편집은 하지 않았다.그들의 편집은 무작위로 보였으며, 종종 총체적인 저속함, 명예훼손적인 자료의 삽입을 포함했으며, 때로는 합법적이고 유용한 내용의 실질적인 삭제를 포함하기도 했다.두 편집자 모두 내가 이전에 편집자로 참여한 어떤 자료와도 관련이 없었다.나는 어제 기사의 주제에 대한 잘못된 정보를 삭제했다.두 편집자는 모두 IPN 주소만 사용했다.어느 순간 익명의 한 사용자가 자신을 성악가 "켈리 클락슨"이라고 잘못 인식했다.나는 정신질환자들과 함께 일한 상당한 과거 경험을 가지고 있고 그것이 두 사람이 이런 편집을 하도록 추진한 과정이라고 생각한다.나는 양자가 편집한 이력을 객관적으로 관찰하면 같은 결론으로 이끌 것이라고 생각한다.나는 두 편집자가 영구적으로 차단되는 것이 최선의 해결책이라고 생각한다.하지만, 나는 개인적으로 어느 편집자와도 거리 모퉁이에서 소리를 지르는 정신병자에게 접근하고 싶을 만큼 연락을 취하지는 않을 것이다.그렇게 하는 것의 위험은, 내 생각에, 건전한 정신이 아닐 수도 있는 사람의 분노를 사는 것이고, 만약 내가 어떤 용어를 사용할 수 있다면, 그러한 개입은 사이버 스토킹을 야기할 수도 있다.그래서 제 질문은, 이러한 게시물에 책임이 있는 편집자(또는 이와 유사한 위치에 있는 다른 편집자)와 직접 접촉하지 않고, 관리자가 평가와 가능한 행동을 장려하고 발생시킬 수 있는 대안이 무엇이냐는 겁니다.나는 이 딜레마를 쉽게 해결할 수 있도록, 문제의 편집자를 식별하지 않고 둘 중 하나 또는 둘 다에 의해 만들어진 가장 불쾌한 편집의 일부를 묘사하고 싶다.관심 있는 관리자가 후자의 옵션에 액세스할 수 있다면 각 편집기의 IPN을 내 TOKK 페이지나 샌드박스에 게시할 용의가 있다.나는 또한 "oversignt-en-wp" 주소로 이메일로 문제의 수정사항의 세부사항이나 예를 게시하면 좋겠다.이 상황에 대해 관리자 중 누구라도 어떻게 생각하는가?활동가 (토크) 21:57, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 장기적인 공공 기물 파손에 문제가 있다고 생각하지만 위키백과에서 이 문제를 피하고 싶다면, 기사, IP 및 기타 관련 정보를 언급하면서 이메일을 보내주십시오.당신의 의사소통은 비밀로 유지될 것이다.

하지만, 특히 이것이 당신의 전문 분야가 아니라 단지 일반인의 관찰이라면, 원격진단을 시도하지 않도록 주의하겠다.위키피디아의 세계적 범위와 편집자의 동등한 폭넓은 배경을 고려할 때, 상황을 잘못 읽을 위험을 과소평가해서는 안 된다.MLauba^(Talk) 22:12, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

조언해줘서 고마워.내가 먼저 가서 그렇게 할게.두 편집자 모두(그리고 내가 같은 일을 하는 것을 발견한 1/3은) 엄청난 양의 공격적인 편집과 반달리즘을 한 것 같지는 않지만, 그들의 편집의 상당수는 산포적인 등이며, 때로는 본질적으로 그래피티인 것으로 대체될 실질적인 합법적인 내용을 삭제하는 것을 수반하기도 한다.모두 분명히 "스팸플릿"이다.두 편집자 모두 수년에 걸쳐 글을 올렸으나, 전혀 유용한 정보를 올리지 못했다.한 명은 네바다 주와 관련된 기사와 관련된 많은 글을 올렸으나 공통된 주제는 없었다.활동가(토크) 03:47, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 아주 오랜 기간(예: 9년) 동안 수많은 편집을 한 미등록 IP 주소에 대해 논의하고 있는 것으로 보이는데, 그 중 많은 IP 주소들은 공공 기물 파손이나 기타 비파괴적인 것이었다.각 개별 IP 주소가 몇 년 동안 같은 (정신적으로 문제가 있는) 개인이 사용했을 가능성보다 훨씬 더 높을수록, 각 IP 주소가 다수의 개인(예: 학교, 대학, 대규모 고용주, 사이버 카페, 인터넷 서비스 제공자)에 의해 공유될 가능성이 훨씬 더 높다.er) 동적 IP, 또는 유사한 IP를 사용하는 것, 그러므로 당신이 보고 있는 것은 단지 이질적인 사람들이 이것이 누구나 편집할 수 있는 백과사전이라는 것을 발견하기 위해 어떻게 반응하는지에 대한 집단적인 바보짓일 뿐이다.아서는 쇼핑하러 간다 (토크) 12:57, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

네 - "둘 다 상당한 기간 동안 9년 동안 한 건씩 수많은 기사에 글을 올렸었다. 어느 쪽도 원격으로 건설적인 것으로 해석될 수 있는 편집은 하지 않았다. 그들의 편집은 무작위로 보였으며, 종종 총체적인 저속한 것, 명예훼손적인 자료의 삽입이 포함되었고, 때로는 합법적이고 유용한 내용의 실질적인 삭제도 포함되었다."는 많은 학교 IP들의 편집 패턴을 거의 완벽하게 묘사하고 있다.만약 네가 IP주소를 이메일로 알려주고 싶다면, 내가 더 자세히 알아볼 수 있어.고마워, 블랙 카이트 (대화) 13:47, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자로부터의 AGF 고장:레요

다중 IP 사용자로부터의 비활용성

IP 72.86.145.77을 사용하는 편집자는 증거도 없이 양말 인형뽑기로 나를 거짓으로 고발한 이 편집 요약을 만들었다.그런 다음 그는 내 토크 페이지에 이 서명되지 않은 메시지를 남겼는데, 이 메시지에서 그는 나를 "바보"라고 불렀다.

내가 이 편집자에게 경고한 후에 이것은 WP를 위반하는 것이었다.CIV/WP:NPA/WP:AGF는 초기 정책 위반은 제쳐두고 기사토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작해 콘텐츠에 대한 다른 편집자의 의견을 구하겠다고 말해 앞으로도 계속 이런 식으로 나를 비롯한 편집자들을 공격하게 할 것임을 알렸다.토크 페이지 메시지도 서명해 달라고 했다.나는 토크 페이지 토론을 시작하고 다른 편집자들을 초청한 후, 추가적인 정책 위반이 계속되지 않을 것으로 가정하여 72.86.145.77에 이 사실을 알렸다.

그 후, 이 메시지는 IP 72.86.138.10(아마도 동일한 내용과 톤을 감안할 때, 그리고 IP가 약 4마일 떨어져 있는 펜실베이니아주 매컹지와 펜실베이니아주 엠마우스까지 추적된다는 사실)의 나의 토크 페이지에 남겨졌다.대담한 체하는 내 것이다.

하하, 너는 다른 사람에게 코멘트를 하지만 하늘은 누가 대답하든지 다 같은 대답을 할 것을 예고한다.넌 전형적인 위키 관리자 트롤이야당신네 광대들은 주제에 대해 파고들며, 단지 당신 자신이 중요하다고 느끼도록 하기 위해 분명히 필요한 변화를 허락하기를 거부한다.베일리 페이지의 이전 편집된 내용을 복습하는 건 정말 재밌어.누군가 베일리가 72년 스탠리컵 결승전에서 결승골을 넣었다는 관련 정보를 추가했는데, 즉시 삭제해. 왜?왜냐하면 편집자가 이 쉽게 검증된 사실에 대한 인용문을 제공하지 않았기 때문이다.방금 다른 사용자가 크라스네에 대한 모욕의 분명히 부정확한 원본을 삭제한 것에 대해 질책했던 당신은 사실적인 것을 삭제하기 보다는 오류를 수정하는 것이라고 주장했다.말했듯이, 이기적인 트롤은 당신 자신이다.

같은 IP가 기사토크 페이지 토론에서 다음과 같은 댓글을 달았다.

그렇게 말하면 "나는 내 방식대로 하고 싶다"는 말은 아주 먼데...위키피디아 불꽃의 주례적이고 자칭된 수호자들.

또한, 기사의 일부 사소한 수정 작업을 하면서, 실수로 삭제된 자료를 복구했는데, 그것은 내 의도가 아니었다. 72.86.138.10은 편집 요약에서 "임의의 선풍기를 부풀리는 사소한 것을 삭제하는 것에 반대한다. 나이트크림은 전형적인 위키 행정가 트롤로, 분명히 필요한 개선을 막기 위해 파고든다. 왕들은 승리 후 희생자들을 기렸다. 왜 그게 초점이 아닌가?"

이 편집자는 위키피디아에서는 이와 같은 공격이 허용되지 않는다는 것을 알아야 한다.이곳의 다른 관리자의 훈계에도 긍정적으로 대응하지 않는다면(그가 동의하지 않는 관리자에 대한 그의 언급은 그렇게 가능성이 낮지는 않지만), 그가 사용하는 모든 IP를 차단해야 한다.나이트스크림 (토크) 22:45, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

어제(11월 2일)부터 시작된 이슈다.이러한 상황에서 사용할 수 있는 유용한 템플릿 메시지 집합이 있다.위키백과:템플릿 메시지/사용자 대화 네임스페이스.일반적인 가이드로는 레벨 1 템플릿부터 시작하여 레벨 4까지 점차 빌드하여 읽어볼 수 있는 기회를 주도록 한다.{{subst:welcome}}메시지에는 새로운 사용자에게 도움이 되는 안내문을 제공하고, 사용자의 기여에 대한 링크도 자신의 토크 페이지에 올려놓기 때문에 상당히 도움이 된다.

내 생각에 너는 여기에 너무 일찍 오는 것 같아.--토디1 (대화) 22:57, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

해당 사용자는 처음 두 번 이후 경고를 무시한 채 최소 세 번 공격을 했다.따라서 "프리미엄"이 아니며, 사용한 템플릿이 어리석다면 이 사람이 어떻게든 더 순응할 수 있을 것이라고 주장하는 것은 아니다.나이트스크림 (토크) 15:22, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

이란 민족

점점 더 지장을 초래하고 있다.

사용자 간의 편집 충돌:ChrisGualtieri 및 사용자:률롱은 Anime와 Manga Wikipedia 주제에서 문제가 되고 있는데, 가장 최근에는 Chris가 Blacch (anime)를 분리하고 류의 AfD를 여기 위키백과 기사에 포함시켰다.삭제/삭제(애니메이션).이 사용자들은 이전에 여기서 언급된 적이 없으며, 내가 보고 싶은 것은 해결책이다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 16:48, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

Chris는 Talk에서 형성된 합의에 대해 고의로 행동하고 있다.표백제 (애니임)#제안된 블리치(망가)와 위키백과 대화:분열은 좋은 생각이 아니라고 판단한 모삼#블라크는 기사 편집을 더 이상 피한 이유와 드래곤볼(애니메이션) AFD의 불협화음 종결은 결별 결정을 뒷받침한다.공동체가 나와 크리스 게얼티에리가 항상 싸우는 것에 진저리가 나는 만큼 이 허튼소리에 대처해야 하는 것에 진절머리가 난다.—율롱 (琉竜) 16:54, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 드래곤볼 애니메이션을 위한 병합 논의는 지금까지 병합토크:드래곤_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime에 크게 반대된다.29일 률롱이 유일하게 합병을 원하고 5명이 반대했다.토론에 더 많은 사람이 참여하면 결과가 달라진다.여기에 관련된 모든 기사들은 망가 기사에 맞지 않는 많은 정보, 망가 내용에 근거하지 않고 만들어진 것들을 포함하여, 그 존재에 대한 타당한 이유를 가지고 있다. 드림 포커스 17:17, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

  만화로서의 드래곤볼과 애니메이션으로서의 드래곤볼에 대한 논의가 분리되어야 한다고 지역사회가 믿는다면 나는 그 결정을 받아들일 수 있을 것이다.누가 갑자기 드래곤볼이 '프랜치즈 페이지'가 되어 따로 드래곤볼(망가)을 제작해야 한다고 마음먹으면 정말 짜증이 나겠지만 말이다.그러나 나는 WP에 가지 않아도 된다.AFD는 ChrisGualtieri가 WP를 계속 인용하고 있기 때문이다.BLAR은 마치 그것이 끝이고 모든 것이 언제 기사가 궁극적으로 리디렉션으로 끝나는지에 대한 정책인 것처럼, 이것은 보통 병합 중에 일어나는 일이다.—율롱 (琉竜) 17:20, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

류룽은 몇 달 동안 AFD에 동의하지 않는 기사를 토론하거나 가져오기를 거부해 왔다.간단히 말해서, 40개 이상의 인용구가 있는 페이지와 공모된 공백과 리디렉션은 WP:BLAR에 따라 AFD로 가야 한다.중재가 통하기를 바랐지만 류룽은 그것이 달리는 동안 논쟁을 계속하고 싶어서 그것을 끊었다.[5][6] 률롱은 조정 중에 드래곤볼(애니메)을 반복적으로 블랭킹하고 리디렉션하는 것을 선택했다.[7] [8] 그리고 그는 마침내 그것이 합의되지 않은 AFD로 가져와 보관하고 있었다.[9] 중재를 계속하기보다는 이후 이 페이지에서 병합 논의를 시작했는데, 이 논의는 계속 유지될 가능성이 높다.간단히 말해서, 경쟁 페이지를 반복해서 공백으로 만들고 리디렉션하는 것은 그러한 크기의 페이지보다 훨씬 더 도움이 되지 않는다.블리치(애니메이션) 페이지는 다르지 않았지만 조정을 위해 보류된 상태였고 솔직히 빈칸과 리디렉션은 건설적이지 않고 많은 양의 내용을 삭제했다.[10] 나는 수개월 동안 AFD를 요청해 왔으며, 그들이 동의하지 않는 경우, 그리고 각각의 경우에, 그것은 보관되어 왔다.60개 이상의 출처를 가지고 있고 률롱에 의해 반복적으로 블랭킹되고 리디렉션된 드래곤볼 Z에 관한 3개월호를 포함했다.조정이나 토론을 무시한 것은 내가 아니라 류룽의 신념이 공동체보다 낫다고 믿었고, 그래서 그의 MOSAM 사유의 2개의 RFC가 만들어졌고 둘 다 MOSAM이 블랭크와 리디렉션 적응에 대한 자체의 신뢰도 기준을 제정할 수 없다는 것을 보여주었고, 지역사회는 그것을 결코 공식적인 스타일의 매뉴얼로 만들지 않았다.[11][12] Knowledkid87, 당신은 9월 9일에 MOSAM을 바꿨다.[13] 그런데도 편집본으로는 이 일을 전혀 기억하지 못하는 것 같다.[14] 솔직히 률롱이 토론하지 못하고 롤백과 백지, 리디렉션 기사를 끊임없이 남용하는 것은 파괴적이고 파괴적이다.내가 이 편집으로 이 기사에 대한 그의 리디렉션을 풀었지만 류룽은 이전에 두 번이나 리디렉션한 적이 있었고 다른 편집자들의 도전을 받았다.[15][16] 출처가 존재하여 지금은 보관되고 있으나 류룽은 WP를 피했다.BLAR과 그의 행동으로 불필요하게 어려운 일을 만들었다.나는 위키피디아를 개선하고 그와 토론하려고 노력하고 있지만 논쟁의 여지가 있는 공백과 리디렉션은 AFD보다 먼저 진행되어야 한다.그리고 내가 그것을 Arb Com 앞에 가져오고 싶지 않지만, 조정에서 류룽의 행동을 보고 난 후에 그것에 대해 물어본 적이 있다.이 '싸움'은 류룽이 '팬덤'에 문제가 있고, 가능하다면 기사를 내장을 지르겠다고 밝혔기 때문에 일방적으로 자신의 의지를 관철하고 커버리지를 파괴할 수 있느냐 여부다.[17] 원래의 ArbCom 사례의 일부였고 더 많은 문제의 주제였던 반복된 롤백 문제는 말할 것도 없다.[18][19] 률롱이 토론할 수 있으면 좋겠지만, 만일 그가 토론 전에 방대한 양의 내용을 계속 비워두고 방향을 바꾸어서 토론하기를 거부한다면 - 률롱의 존재하지 않는 공동체에 대한 해석으로 수백 개의 기사를 잃어버렸기 때문에 나는 파괴적인 행동에 맞설 수밖에 없다.MOSAM에서 y 거부된 라인.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

단지 나의 2센트지만 나는 어떤 공식적인 RFC나 그 지역사회가 MOSAM을 거절한 것을 보지 못한다.그 토론은 아무 것도 하지 않고 자연사했다.나의 편집이 변경되어 다시 가이드라인이 되었고, 오늘 당신이 편집하기 전까지는 변함이 없었다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 17:25, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

공식적이었고 커뮤니티에서는 이슈를 표현했고, 토크 페이지만큼의 게시물 없이 A&M에서 바로 가져간 후 가이드라인 상태로 페이지를 만들어 토론에 부쳐지지 않았다.또한 RFC에 이어 더 많은 논의가 이루어졌다.그것은 그때 또 다른 논의의 일부였다.이제 당신은 당신의 귀환이 변하지 않았다고 말하지만, 그것은 여전히 해결된 채로 남아 있지 않았다.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][28] 분명히 논쟁의 여지가 있고 그것은 나 대 률롱이 아니며 그것을 둘러싼 장시간의 논의는 아마도 관여할 관리자나 다른 RFC가 필요할지도 모르지만 RFC가 가까이 하지 않고 끝났는지 여부와 그 증거와 논쟁은 분명히 반대였다.반년 넘게 논란이 된 적이 없고 시행과 용도에 문제가 반복돼온 상황에서 '오 5년 동안 상장했다'고 슬쩍 넘기는 것은 도움이 되지 않는다.미안하지만, 나는 처음에 반대했던 그리고 변화를 만든 당신들이 그것의 자연적인 해상도를 나타내는 것이라고 믿었다.미안하지만, 나는 그것이 지금까지 반복적으로 RFC 포스트에 경쟁되어 온 것을 알아차리지 못했다.A&M이 지역사회가 MOSAM의 운명을 좌지우지하는 것을 원치 않는 상황과 방식을 고려할 때 당신이 제시한 당초의 결의는 만족스러웠다고 생각한다.ChrisGualtieri (대화) 17:52, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

@ChrisGualtieri:몇 년 전만 해도 내 잘못이야ANIME이 모여서 완전히 비위생적이고 지저분하게 형성된 벽의 정원을 피하기로 결정했는데, 건담 기사에서는 여전히 볼 수 있다.그리고 당신은 내 의견을 맥락을 완전히 벗어난 것으로 받아들이고 있다.나는 믿을 수 없을 정도로 부족한 소싱, 소싱의 부족, 철자에 대한 공식적인 철자 사용에 대한 소리높은 반대, 애니메이션과 망가와 관련된 기사가 아닌 기사들에 대해 매일 불법 팬덤에 의해 "더 정확하다"고 결정되는 것을 다루어야 한다.맙소사, 내가 팬 사이트에 올라오는 증오의 양은 내가 영어 위키피디아가 영어로 TV 프로그램의 불법 복제본을 영어권자들에게 배포하는 세 명의 이름보다 박스에 쓰여 있는 영어 이름을 아주 선명하게 보이는 이름으로 불러야 한다고 말했기 때문이다.그리고 대부분의 경우 내가 가지고 있는 기사들은 불필요한 줄거리 요약과 벽-정원-ness가 없다는 것을 확실히 알고 있다.나는 새로운 주제에 대한 기사가 적어도 애니메이션이나 만화 기사에 필적할 수 있도록 그것들을 조정하는 방법을 바꾸려고 적극적으로 노력해왔지만 매번 반대한다.너무 많은 개별 캐릭터와 등장인물 그룹에 관한 기사들이 너무 많은데, 이 기사들은 너무나 열악한 조건이고 불필요한 줄거리 요약과 거의 실세계적인 맥락으로 가득 차 있다.그 물건들은 내가 줄이고 없애버리고 싶은 물건들이야.그리고 성가신 소여, 당신은 내가 당신을 아주 혐오스럽게 편집한 것을 보고 WP와 맞지 않는 것에 링크를 추가하기 위해 나를 되돌린 것을 보았을 때 우리의 논쟁을 당신의 삶에서 결코 건드리지 않았던 주제 영역으로 확대하기로 결정했소.RS. WP를 따르지 말았어야 했다.BLAR은 당신이 나에게 그 주가 WP:N을 만난다고 생각하지 않는 기사를 위해 하라고 요구해 왔기 때문이다.너를 끊임없이 어떻게 대해야 한다는 것이 너무 답답해서 나는 한 번도 너를 대할 필요가 없었고 지역사회는 우리를 감시해야 하는 것에 분명히 지쳤다.—율롱 (琉竜) 17:54, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 너의 좌절감을 이해하지만, 너는 그것을 동료 편집자들에게 공개해서는 안 되고 너는 그 웹사이트가 인용되고 RS인 Anime News Network에 의해 사용된다는 것을 잊은 것 같다.나는 단지 ANN의 뉴스 인용문을 대신 인용했을 뿐인데 기사가 출처되어 N을 만난다는 사실은 그것을 블랭킹하고 여러 번 리디렉션하는 것이 최선의 관행이 아니었음을 보여준다.첫 번째 공백과 리디렉션에 대해 이의를 제기한 후 당신은 심판, 배심원, 집행자가 아니다. 당신은 적절히 행동했어야 했다.당신은 모든 것을 개인적인 것으로 받아들이고 행동의 이면에 있는 이유를 듣지도 않고 단지 모든 사람을 닫아버린다.위키피디아는 자원 봉사 프로젝트지만 어떤 상황에서도 우리는 비참해져서는 안 된다.나는 그 지역에서 편집도 많이 하지 않지만, 분명히 위키백과에서 가장 불쾌하고 적대적인 영역 중 하나이다.너는 지치고 좌절할지도 모른다. 하지만 네가 옳을 때 내가 너를 지지한다는 것을 너는 알고 있다.나는 단지 네가 그 문제를 그만 두고 토론하기를 바랄 뿐이다. 네가 그렇게 할 수 있다면 우리는 여전히 중재자일 것이다.적어도 그렇게 하면 서너 사람 외에 더 넓은 지역사회의 의견을 얻기 위한 투쟁은 아닐 것이다.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:10, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

HJU의 현수막은 너에게 잘 알려줬어야 했어.그리고 그 기사는 당시 제작사 홈페이지에만 소스가 되어 있었다.방금 발표된 내용일 뿐 제3자 정보원이 논의하지 않았기 때문에 리디렉션으로 전환했다.이제 있다.일주일 후 WP:N에 따라 유효하게 될 기사에 대해 AFD를 거치지 않아도 되는 것을 원하지 않았다.그리고 솔직히, 내 포스트의 대부분은 분출하고 있다. 왜냐하면 나는 분명히 지쳤기 때문이다. 하지만 나는 이 페이지들이 아무리 의도적인 편집자들이라 할지라도 다른 편집자들에게 유지되는 것을 믿을 수 없다.나는 그들이 WP와 보조를 맞출 필요가 있다는 것을 그들에게 끊임없이 상기시켜야 한다.NOT, WP:RS, WP:V 등 주간 단위로 한다.그러나 이것은 모두 요점을 벗어난 것이다.나는 네가 좋은 기사들과 특집 기사들을 가능한 많이 만들고 싶어한다는 것을 알고 있어. 그리고 그것은 당신이 살아가기 위한 멋진 목표야.센타이나 가면라이더 페이지 중 하나가 그런 술집에 닿으면 죽겠다.그러나 나는 당신이 배치해 놓은 페이지 레이아웃 선택에 동의하지 않는다.이러한 분할은 동일한 페이지를 생성하는데, 한 페이지에는 링크하는 장의 목록이 있고 다른 페이지에는 에피소드 목록이 있다는 점에서 차이가 있을 뿐이다.그리고 고스트 인 더 쉘의 프랜차이즈 페이지를 만드는 것은 우스꽝스럽게 보일 뿐이다.왜 우리는 원작에 대한 별도의 기사를 만들고 모든 관련 매체를 자신의 페이지에 맡기는가?나는 단지 이 분열의 이면에 있는 너의 추리를 이해할 수 없다.—율롱 (琉竜) 18:24, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 빈칸과 리디렉션의 구체적인 행동을 좀 더 자세히 살펴보고 싶다.만약 당신이 그 기사가 N을 만날 것이고 일주일 안에 인용문이 있을 것이라는 것을 알고 있다면, 왜 빈칸으로 리디렉션되는가?더 파괴적인 것은 인용문을 삽입한 후 AFD가 계속 닫히기 때문에 AFD를 하지 않는다는 사실이다.그리고 인용문은 공란과 리디렉션되기 전부터 온라인에 있었다.분명히 뭔가 잘못됐어당신은 당신이 N을 만날 것을 알았고 그것이 AFD로 갈 경우 보관될 것이라는 기사를 세 번이나 비우고 리디렉션했다.이 편집 작업이 어떻게 중단되지 않는 겁니까?ChrisGualtieri (대화) 18:50, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 네가 틀렸어.내가 가면라이더 × 가면라이더 게이임 & 위저드를 보냈더라면: 10월 11일, 10월 18일까지 AFD에 대한 운명적인 센고쿠 무비 배틀은 삭제로 종결되었을 것이다. 그 당시에는 영화의 공신력을 뒷받침할 믿을 만한 제3자의 출처가 없었기 때문이다.en.wp의 모든 절차를 거치는 것보다 신뢰할 수 있는 출처가 나오는 10일 동안 편집 내역에 있는 모든 내용을 리디렉션된 상태로 유지하는 것이 더 쉽다.나는 과거에 이 일을 겪어야 했고, 결국 내가 AFD에 보낸 것과 AFD가 삭제된 것에 대한 출처가 나왔기 때문에, 나는 그것이 유효한 기사가 될 수 있도록 시간이 지나갔다는 것을 관리자나 다른 편집자를 설득하는 일을 해야 했다(기억이 나지 않는다).—율롱 (琉竜)20:12, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Henshin이나 Hero Shock이 RS인지 아닌지에 대해 논쟁하고 싶지 않다.삭제되기 전에 많은 커버리지가 존재했다.[29][30][31][32][33] 일본어에는 분명히 알고 있듯이 더 많은 것이 있지만, 반복적으로 비워두고 방향을 바꾸기로 결정한 사실.지난 11일 공식 사이트까지 취재를 했는데 정당화하려는 것이다.[34] 전체는 그것이 계속 비워 두고 세 번 리디렉션하는 것을 선택할 것이라는 것을 알고 있으며, 일단 삭제되거나 WP로 리디렉션될 가능성이 높다는 것을 모두가 알고 있다.투순은 미래의 창작물을 배제하지 않는다.당신은 당신의 반복된 공백과 리디렉션이 허용되거나 유익하다고 말하는 겁니까?정책이 서로 맞지 않는 것 같다.당신은 그들의 의도를 포함한 정책에 대한 완전히 다른 해석을 가지고 있는 것 같다. 왜냐하면 당신이 편집된 역사에 대해 그렇게 걱정한다면, 나는 역사를 지키기 위해 그저 리디렉션이나 합병을 요구할 것이기 때문이다.당신은 존재하지 않는 문제들에 대해 걱정하고 있으며, 당신의 공백은 지역사회의 문제를 야기시키는 논쟁을 야기하는 혼란을 야기한다.AFD를 위해 무언가를 내놓거나 아예 토론하는 것이 왜 그렇게 어렵다고 생각하는가?ChrisGualtieri (토크) 21:08, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

내 입에 말 좀 집어 넣지 마.팬사이트는 절대로 이 페이지에서 출처로 사용되어서는 안 된다.테레비쿤이나 테레비 매거진에서 1주일 전 선불 소프트뱅크 휴대폰을 받은 사람이 2ch에 올린 뒤 4chan과 팬사이트에 유포되는 등, 어느 쪽이든 해상도가 형편없는 사진을 올리기만 하면 된다.e (나처럼) 서점에 가서 그 잡지의 한 권을 직접 사서 그 잡지의 내용을 볼 수 있다.아니면 장난감 산업에 종사하고 장난감 카탈로그의 사진이나 스캔을 올리고 이를 게시하면 모두가 보는 같은 종류의 사람으로부터 온 'leaks'라고들 한다.일반인은 카탈로그를 독립적으로 검증할 수 없기 때문에 출처로서 유효하지 않다.그리고 10월 11일 가면라이더 × 가면라이더 게이임 & 위저드: 운명적인 센고쿠 영화 전투가 만들어졌다.나는 그 영화가 개봉될 예정이라는 것을 알았다.나는 믿을 만한 출처가 실제로 그것의 명성을 뒷받침하기 위해 나올 때까지 조금 더 걸릴 것이라는 것을 알았다.그러나 나는 이 웹사이트에 있는 사람들이 WP가 깨닫지 못하는 사실을 알게 되는 즉시 카멘라이더 미누태의 모든 작은 조각들을 게시하기 위해 왁자지껄하게 떠들어대고 있다.토오순이가 있고 나는 청소를 해야 해.당신만이 WP를 요구하고 있다.BLAR을 따라야 한다.네가 내 얼굴에 던지기 전에는 네 토론되지 않은 글 중 하나를 되돌릴 때마다 그런 말을 들어본 적이 없어.현재 WP와 일치하지 않는 기사를 일시적으로 삭제하기 위해 AFD에 가지 않아도 된다.GNG는 1주일 후에 나올 것이다.그것은 단지 지체된 것이다.레샤 센타이 톡규거 만들려고 기다리는 사람들이 있는데, 사람들이 그 상표가 요청되었다는 것을 알게 되었고, 그것이 그들이 가진 유일한 출처라는 것을 알게 되었고 내가 매처럼 만든 리디렉션을 보지 않는 한 그들은 궁둥이를 추측할 것이다.—율롱 (琉竜) 21:35, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 분쟁을 해결하기 위해 절차와 정책이 존재한다고 생각하거나, 40개 이상의 출처를 가진 기사가 맹목적으로 두 번, 세 번, 다섯 번 다시 쓰여져서는 안 된다고 생각하는 것에 대해 "거절"하다고 생각한다.난 그 기사도 안 만들었어.나는 단지 많은 정보원이 온라인 상태였기 때문에 당신의 공란과 리디렉션을 되돌렸을 뿐이고 내가 읽을 수 있는 몇 가지 이슈를 인용하기 위해 읽을 수 많은 정보원을 추가했을 뿐이다.수십억 달러의 성공에도 불구하고 왜 드래곤볼 Z를 다섯 번이나 블랭킹하고 리디렉션했는지 설명해 주고 싶은가?난 네가 진정하고, 휴식을 취한 후에 사람들을 "사퇴"하거나 어떤 일을 "젠장"이라고 부르지 않을 때 돌아와야 한다고 생각해.마지막으로 페이지 보호가 어디 있는지 알고 있는데 벌써 여러 번 제안했어.당신은 결국 관리자였지만, ArbCom이나 수많은 ANI들, 그리고 당신의 토크 페이지에 제기된 반복적인 이슈들 이후에도 당신의 행동은 변하지 않은 것 같다.다른 사람이 가져가도록 놔둘 거야. 왜냐하면 오래 끌리고 변명에 지쳤거든.ChrisGualtieri (토크) 23:25, 2013년 11월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트 두 분이 AN/I에 분쟁을 얼마나 많이 제기하셨습니까?적어도 여섯 번은 돼야지, 아마 더 많을 거야.너희 둘은 분쟁 해결에 참여하지 않았니?거기서 무슨 일이 있었던 거야?솔직히 이 싸움이 끝이 없어 보여서 사람들이 점점 이것에 싫증을 느끼고 있는 것 같아.리즈 01:55, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 WP에 이것을 가져온 사람이다.ANI는 당신이 말하는 것처럼 사람들이 점점 그것에 싫증을 느낀다고 말했기 때문에 지금까지 3개의 기사가 드래곤볼(애니메), 유령(망가), 그리고 이제 블리치(애니메)에 관한 분쟁에 연루되어 왔다.페이지 기록을 보면 앞뒤로 되돌아오는 것을 볼 수 있다.내가 보기에는 분쟁 해결이 실패한 것 같아. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 02:22, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 률롱의 드래곤볼 AFD에 대한 조정은 보류되어 있었지만, 합의(디폴트 킵)가 없어 종결된 후, 률롱은 병합 논의를 열어, 분쟁 중에 보류해야 한다면 더 이상 중재에 참여하지 않겠다고 발표했다.[35][36] 스트라디바리우스 씨는 다음 단계가 긴 ANI 또는 Arb Com일 가능성이 높다고 언급하였다.중재가 특권이고 비행동적이지만 류룽은 그 과정을 경멸하고 논쟁의 논의와 유예를 거부하는 것이 다시 시작된 이유다.그는 Talk:Dragon_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime에서 합병을 계속하기 위해 그것을 중단했다.합병을 반대한다는 29.간단히 말해서, 나는 그의 반복된 공백과 리디렉션에 좌절하지만, 지역 사회와 새로운 새로운 시선이 이 문제에 관여할 수 있다는 것에 행복하다.블리치(anime)는 57개의 소스를 가지고 있으며 현재 40kb의 길이를 가지고 있지만 률롱은 블랭크와 리디렉션에 의한 효과적인 삭제를 추구하고 있다.나는 모두가 말다툼에 싫증이 난다고 생각한다.나는 Arb Com이 그 문제를 맡는 것에 대해 물어보았다.나는 단지 수십억 달러의 프랜차이즈가 한 페이지로 통합될 필요가 있거나 통합되어서는 안 된다는 것에 동의하지 않는다.커뮤니티에 앞서 기꺼이 제 주장을 하고 싶지만, N과 GNG의 기본 교장을 놓고 다툼이 벌어지고 있는 것이 안타깝다.크리스구알티에리(토크) 02:26, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 크리스 Arbcom이 마지막 수단이 될 거야. 사건을 넘겨받기 전에 먼저 관리자 의견을 내는 게 좋을 것 같아.과정은 길고, 아르브컴에서 가장 많이 보는 것은 주제 금지다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 02:34, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• Arb Com이 최후의 수단이지만 중재도 함께 하기로 되어 있다.수개월 동안 나는 행정 개입을 간청해 왔다.나는 정책이 준수되고 논의될 것을 요청한다; 심지어 RFC도 별 소용이 없는 것 같다.결국, RFC는 MOSAM이 그 자체의 공신력을 밀어붙일 수 없다고 말했다. 하지만 지금 우리는 그것을 대신 "편집자의 결정"으로 여기 있다.이러한 행동을 계속하기 위한 정책은 절대 없으며 "이것이 우리가 하는 일"은 비참한 것으로 판명되었다.Arb Com은 주제 금지 이상의 일을 하지만, 내가 기꺼이 위험을 감수할 수 있는 상황을 고려해 볼 때, 나는 실제로 내용을 추가하고 지역사회의 의견을 얻을 수 있다.나는 지난 한 달 동안 수백 개의 기사를 통폐합했지만, A&M에서만 문제가 있다.A&M은 내가 편집한 모든 것의 2%도 안 되는 부분을 차지하지만, 내가 겪은 문제의 98%가 넘는 것이다.주제 분야의 전문가로서; 나는 내가 주장할 수 있다는 것을 알지만, 내가 왜 내가 하는 일에 대해 듣거나, 나와의 의견 일치를 보거나 심지어 그 내용에 대한 개선을 시도하려는 사람은 결코 없다.위키피디아 제목이 공백으로 리디렉션 및 삭제하는 경우 - 어떻게 증가할 것인가?ChrisGualtieri (대화) 02:56, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 단지 ARBCOM을 추천한다. 왜냐하면 a) 행정부는 초여름으로 거슬러 올라가도 이 분쟁을 멀리하는 것처럼 보이고 b) 모든 당사자들이 분쟁 해결(자발적인)에 참여하지는 않을 것이기 때문이다.너의 좌절감을 들었어, 크리스.위키프로젝트 하나를 중심으로 한 콘텐츠(그러나 갈등은 WP의 다른 영역으로 흘러들어간다)를 둘러싼 갈등에서 행정관측이 블록을 나눠주는 것을 꺼려한다는 생각이 든다.

기본적으로 AN/I에서 사용되는 유일한 도구는 경고와 차단뿐입니다.나는 두 당이 이미 경고를 받았기 때문에 이 갈등을 해결하는 데 블록이 효과적일지에 대한 의문이 될 것이라고 확신한다.그리고 여기서, 관리팀은 결정하지 못한 것 같다.행정관이 설득력을 발휘해 편집자들에게 적대감을 덜 느끼고 협조적으로 일해 달라고 요청했다면 좋겠지만 나는 행정관들 중 몇몇이 중재자 역할에 편안하게 발을 들여놓는 것을 본 적이 있다.

이것이 내가 ARBCOM을 추천한 이유다.힘든 과정이지만 AN/I로 자주 가는 것도 그렇다.ARBCOM 요청을 제출하는 것만으로도 일부 관리자가 결정을 내리거나 최소한 논의를 재개할 수 있을 것이다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

추신. Knowled kid87, 정정해 준 덕분에 나는 누가 이 사건을 AN/I로 가져왔는지 간과했다.나는 이 갈등이 관련된 두 사람보다 더 많은 편집자들에게 영향을 주고 있다고 느낀다.l

그럼 이것을 아르브컴으로 보내라. 그들이 그 사건을 맡을지는 확실치 않지만 만약 당신이 말한 것이 사실이라면 다른 선택의 여지가 없다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 22:41, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

모든 사례가 다르고 각자의 장점에 따라 판단해야 하는 반면, ArbCom은 보통 정식 중재에 의해 해결되지 않은 사건을 받아들인다.그러므로 당사자들이 ArbCom에 가는 것이 필요하다고 느낀다면, 그것은 분명히 물어볼 가치가 있을 것이다.— 2013년 11월 4일(UTC) 03:57, 투어^{♪ talk ♪} 중 스트라디바리우스 씨[응답]

ArbCom은 콘텐츠 분쟁을 처리하지 않는데, 이것이 이 모든 것의 요점이다.드래곤볼(애니메이션), 블리치(애니메이션), 고스트 인 더 쉘(망가) 등과 관련한 다양한 병합·삭제 논의는 공감대가 있는 결정에 도달하는 일만 남았다.또한 나는 Arbcom에 또 한번의 여행을 하기보다는 거의 19만 개의 편집본을 넣은 이 계정을 벽돌로 쌓고 싶다.—율롱 (琉竜) 11:08, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

"솔로몬의 판단" 제안

거대한 뒷걸음질

나는 이 일을 극한 거리에서 조금 따라다녔지만, 위의 주제 금지 제안을 고려하면 이번에는 내가 나설 것 같다.

이것이 진정으로 위키피디아의 최선의 이익을 염두에 둔 두 당사자 사이의 진정한 콘텐츠 논쟁이었던 때가 있었다.내가 가장 잘 알 수 있는 것은, 류룽의 입장은, 같은 작품의 애니메이션과 만화 각색은 한 페이지를 공유해야 한다는 것과, 특정 시리즈에 대한 애니메이션/만화 기사의 수를 줄여야 한다는 것이었다.이 직책의 배경은 우리가 사소한 캐릭터들에 대한 정말 끔찍한 품질의 기사들을 양산하고 있었고, 두 사람 사이에 거의 차이가 없는 상황에서도 작품의 애니메이션과 만화를 각색하기 위한 페이지가 따로 있다는 점이었다.반면에 크리스게알티에리의 입장은 작품의 애니메이션과 만화적 각색을 위해 따로따로 기사를 써야 한다는 점, 특히 둘 사이에 상당한 차이가 있을 때, 위키피디아는 그런 소설의 소설과 영화/TV적 각색을 별도의 기사로 취급하는 경향이 있기 때문에 애니메이션/망가 입장은 모순이라는 점이었다.그 사이트의 나머지 부분에 대한 연습과 함께.이들은 둘 다 유효한 관찰에 근거하고 있으며 위키피디아에서 애니메이션과 만화영화의 보급을 개선하는 것을 목표로 하는 좋은 입장이다.

그러나 문제는 그러한 입장이 시간이 흐르면서 뒤죽박죽이 되어 최근 뒷전으로 밀리고 있다는 점이다.더 이상 애니메이션과 망가를 두 개의 기사로 나누는 것이 아니라 률롱과 크리스 구알티에리가 매 차례 서로 싸우는 내용이다.그것은 미국 정치를 떠올리게 한다; 양측의 우선 순위가 서로의 주장을 공격하는 것에서 단순히 서로를 공격하고 "이기기" 위해 노력하는 것으로 바뀌면서, 그 자리들은 점점 더 유동적이 되었다.여섯 번의 주요 싸움 후에, 여기서 승자가 없다는 것은 분명하고, 패자는 률롱과 크리스 게알티에리(지역사회에 서 있다는 측면에서), 애니메이션과 망가(이 싸움이 가진 마비 효과 면에서, 그리고 그 싸움으로 인해 다른 편집자들이 이 지역에서 일하고 싶어하지 않게 하고 있기 때문에), 위키피디아 전체로서 (왜냐하면)가 된다.우리는 이 난장판을 계속 정리해야 한다.

우리에게 필요한 것은 거대한 한 걸음 물러서서 두 당의 비전이 정확히 무엇인지 다시 정립해 보는 것이다.망가와 애니메이션을 위한 하나의 기사가 있어야 하고(즉, 하나의 기사가 있어야 한다) 망가와 애니메이션을 위한 하나의 기사가 있어야 한다(즉, 두 개의 기사가 있어야 한다).동일한 프랜차이즈에 대한 여러 기사를 보유하는 기준은 무엇인가?우리는 나루토(여러 등장인물의 유의미한 학술적 취재), 건담(개별적으로 눈에 띄는 여러 가지 애니메이션 각색), 풀메탈 연금술사(하나의 애니메이션은 만가와 크게 다른데 하나는 그렇지 않은 것)와 같은 주요 속성을 어떻게 다루고 있는지 생각해 볼 필요가 있다.요컨대 우리는 류롱과 크리스구얼티에리 둘 다 그들의 입장을 아주 상세하게 정리할 필요가 있고, 그리고 나서 류룽과 크리스구얼티에리의 추가적 관여를 최소한으로 하는 그런 입장들에 대한 논의를 할 필요가 있는데 (그들의 말다툼이 시작되기 전에 토론을 죽일 것이기 때문에) 애니미/망가와의 관계 없이 편집자들을 불러들일 것이기 때문이다.. 률롱과 크리스 구알티에리 모두 이 프로젝트에 최고를 원한다는 것은 내게 분명하지만, 취재에 대해 우호적인 입장을 찾으려는 시도는 싸움으로 번졌다.잘 절제된 RfC로 싸움을 끝내자.스벤망구아르드화? 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC) 16:21 [응답]

동의해. 류룽을 주제 삼아 위키백과를 아예 그만두게 하지 마.두 편집자 모두 프로젝트에 가장 적합한 것을 원할 뿐이다.그들은 자신의 생각에 따라 행동하고 그것에 대해 논쟁하는 대신 다른 사람들이 그들의 생각을 실행하도록 할 필요가 있다._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:07, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

비록 크리스와 률롱이 잠시 금지된 주제라고 하더라도(이것은 변명의 여지없이 제안된 금지사항이 아니다) 시간이 흐르면서 토론의 위험성이 희미해지지 않고 이 RfC를 가지고 이야기를 나눌 시간이 아직 남아 있다. - Knowled87 (토크) 00:21, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 수락 - 이 바인딩을 만드십시오!내가 RFC의 단 한 군데도 안 되는 대답을 하면 막아!난 이 문제를 해결하고 싶다.나는 률롱의 말에 동의하지 않을 수도 있지만, 그는 내가 할 수 없는 일을 하고 그를 위한 주제 금지는 그가 수많은 문제 기사를 유지하는 것을 방해할 것이다.위키백과에서 그를 몰아내지 않는다면.지옥, 나의 개선과 공헌은 률롱 같은 사람이 없으면 아무 의미가 없어. 그들이 청렴함을 확실히 갖도록 말이야.스벤이 게시한 시각장애인, 우리 둘의 사례를 지역사회에서 함께 들어보도록 하자.주장 1과 주장 2.나는 지역사회에 도달하기 위해 필사적으로 노력해왔다 - 나는 ArbCom 밖에서 이 논쟁을 끝낼 수 있는 가장 좋은 기회를 버리지 않을 것이다.률롱의 논평이 그가 위키피디아를 떠나는 결과를 가져올 수도 있을 것이다.그리고 그것은 "잃거나 잃거나"인 "승리하거나 지는" 것이 아니다.ChrisGualtieri (대화) 01:17, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이거 왜 률롱한테 거는 거야?누가 합의를 보지 않고 급진적인 분열을 하고 있는가?그리고 누가 적절한 절차를 밟으려 하는가?류룽은 단지 분열과 합병 전에 적절한 합의를 얻기 위해 노력하고 있는데, 이 조항들이 직면해 있다.

참고로 ChrisGualtieri는 Ryulong과 개인적인 문제를 가지고 있지 않지만, 그것이 전체 WP에 반한다는 사실은 다음과 같다.ANIME의 편집방식이 여러 편집자에게 스냅되었다.이 편집자들을 금지하는 것은 아무것도 해결하지 못할 것이며 만약 이것이 ANI의 가치가 있는 문제였다면 나는 WP 때문에 다음과 같이 말할 것이다.소유 및 WP:의견 일치를 보지 못한 채 기사를 분할/합병한 일부 편집자의 PITY.루시아 블랙 (토크) 01:22, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 크리스의 "만약 류룽의 논평이 그가 위키피디아를 떠나는 결과를 가져온다면"이라는 류룽의 "이것은 모든 일본 문화로 확장된 지극히 엄격한데, 나는 크리스 굴티에리가 이 안에 포함되지 않는 주제 영역을 편집하여 그것이 제정되고 제정된다면 사실상 나를 위한 완전한 사이트 금지령을 내렸기 때문이다.이런 일을 처리하느니 차라리 떠나고 돌아오지 않겠다."스벤망구아르드화?03:16, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 이런 종류의 경직된 형태의 분쟁 해결에 동의할 것이다.어떤 것이든 주제 금지나 중재위원회(aggain) 앞에 올라가는 것보다 낫다.—율롱 (琉竜) 03:46, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 문제는 RfC가 열리면 현재 진행 중인 병합 논의와 AfD의 문제가 여전히 남아 있다는 점이다. - 의미 있는 RfC가 앞으로 나아가기 위해서는 무기와 자신이 관여했던 논의를 모두 내려놓고 상대방의 요점에 대응해야 한다. - Knowled87 (대화) 03:53, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그러나 AFD는 곧 끝나가고 있고 (내 생각에) 두 개의 병합 논의는 결론을 향해 가고 있는 것 같다.이런 종류의 RFC에 동의하는 것이 세 가지 논의를 완전히 중단하지 않는 한, 그리고 무슨 일이 일어나는지 전체 프로젝트에 걸쳐 파급 효과가 있다.—율롱 (琉竜) 03:58, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 엿먹으라니까.드래곤볼은 노 병합으로 막을 내린다.애니메이션을 표백하다.률롱이 당분간 합병을 처리할 수 있다면.해 봐. 24시간 안에 도착해서 아무도 반대하지 않으면 내가 직접 합병할 수 있을 거야.내가 하고 싶지 않은 마지막 일이지만 률롱의 동의는 "모든 분쟁을 포기하라"는 상황의 원인이며 나는 그것들을 빨리 종결시키는 것에 대해 까다롭지 않다.유령 인 더 쉘은 악몽이지만 률롱은 악몽이다.그 빌어먹을 것을 한 페이지에 합쳐라.이것은 나에게 절대 "승리냐 지냐"는 사고방식이 아니다.이 갈등은 종식되어야 한다.그리고 만약 그것이 우리가 마침내 합리적인 조건으로 그것을 끝내게 해준다면, 나는 내 모든 일을 포기하고 모든 이슈를 포기할 용의가 있다.왜냐하면 우리 둘 다 주제 금지를 원하지 않기 때문이다.그리고 지역사회는 그야말로 열받아 - 나는 이것을 ANI에 가져오지 않았지만, 나는 그것이 다시 여기 돌아오거나 나만큼 많은 일을 하는 것을 방해하는 주제 금지로 끝나는 것을 원하지 않는다.이렇게 합시다.동의하십니까?ChrisGualtieri (대화) 04:24, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 나는 그것을 말하지 않는 편이 낫겠다.공식적으로는 아니더라도 개인적으로 이 RFC를 구속력으로 받아들일 겁니다.만약 불리하다면, 나는 지역사회의 결정에 만족한다.좋으면 률롱이 제기한 갈등에서 물러날 텐데, 왜?주제 금지든 아니든 류룽을 잃는 것은 그 지역 기사의 장기적 무결성에 있어서 나보다 훨씬 더 나쁘다.나는 이것이 최종적인 문제가 될 작정이다.오랫동안 나는 지역사회가 그 문제들을 듣고 우리를 위해 결정하기를 바랐다 - 정말로 스벤의 방법이 가장 좋은 방법이다.나는 이 일이 RFC로 끝나도록 하기 위해 무엇이든지 할 용의가 있다.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

RfC는 일어날 것이다.나는 류룽과 크리스 구얼티에리에게 이메일을 보냈고 그들이 처음 성명을 올리면 내가 그것을 라이브로 가져와서 그것의 존재에 대한 소문을 퍼뜨릴 것이다.두 사람 모두 곧 내게로 돌아오면 지금부터 16~24시간쯤 후에 어디선가 살 수 있을 것으로 기대하라.스벤망구아르 Wha?06:27, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

RfC는 일어날 것이다. 하지만 그것은 ChrisGualtieri가 그의 뜻대로 되지 않더라도 결과를 고수할 것이라는 것을 의미하는가?최근의 블리치(애니메이션) 사건은 크리스가 RfC에 관여하게 될 거의 동일한 사용자들에 의해 형성된 자신에 대한 확고한 합의를 의도적으로 무시하고 WP와 같은 지침을 의도적으로 잘못 인용하고 남용할 준비가 되어 있음을 보여준다.BLAR은 그의 의견을 추진하기 위해 노력했다.률롱이 크리스의 파괴적인 행동에 동조하는 것은 잘못한 일이었지만, 유감스럽게도 이것은 단지 크리스 게알티에리 대 률롱에 관한 것만은 아니며, 률롱을 크리스에 대한 어떤 제재와 동등하게 연관시키는 것은 불공평하다고 생각할 것이다.크리스는 애니메이션/망가 기사의 다른 편집자들과 뜨거운 갈등을 겪어왔고, 그가 그 직후에 사과를 한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.이것이 얼마나 오랫동안 계속되도록 허락될 것인가? 그가 그의 실수로부터 배운 어떤 징후가 있는가?Polken de Fanel (대화) 09:28, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

난 우리의 차이점이 과거에 있다고 생각했어, 폴켄.D&D 문제로 너에게 사과한 이후로 나는 너와 문제가 없었어.그리고 나는 Deadmau5를 포함한 어떤 것에 대한 지역사회의 결정에 대해 한번도 이의를 제기한 적이 없다.나는 당신이 내가 WP처럼 명백한 무언가를 남용하고 있다고 말하는 것에 불쾌하다.블라르, 내 사과는 아무 의미 없다고 말해.봐, 나는 률롱 주제가 금지되는 것을 원하지 않아. 왜냐하면 그는 공간의 무결성을 유지하는 데 나보다 더 유용하거든.우리의 차이에도 불구하고, 나는 갈등 속에서 반복적으로 그의 편을 든다.[37] 나는 편집 전쟁과 AFD의 삭제 이후 정말 열심히 노력했다. AFD는 지역사회가 운명을 결정하도록 하기 위해 만들었다.그것은 조정을 위해 보류되었고 나는 강제적인 백지상태와 반복적으로, 24시간 이내에 합의점을 찾기 위해 방향을 바꾸라고 하지 않는다.메인 스페이스에서 나온 내 작업은 40개 이상의 소스를 가지고 있었다. 그 결과 두 배의 크기와 세 배의 소스를 만들어냈다.그것은 사실 그것의 원본 기사보다 더 컸답니다!나는 내 일을 지지하지만 RFC가 일어나도록 내버려두자 - 나는 단지 그리고 반복적으로 커뮤니티 RFC가 그 전제조건에 동의하지 않은 후 소수의 A&M 편집자들이 fiat에 의해 결정했기 때문에 여기서 취재가 되지 않는 90개의 출처와 100개 이상의 오리지널 콘텐츠로 그러한 기사를 다루는 방법을 커뮤니티가 결정하기를 원한다고 말했다.[38]ChrisGuualtieri (talk) 11:59, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 논평 - 나는 만화와 만화책에 대한 이러한 논쟁을 보고 이것이 WP에서 어떤 역할을 하고 있는지 궁금해 한다.아마도 이런 질문을 하기에 적절한 장소는 아닐 것이다. 하지만 어떻게 이런 사소한 질문들 중 어떤 것이 주목할 만한 것으로 여겨질까?예를 들어, 왜 당신은 학자나 클래식 음악가들에게 좋은 평판을 얻고 있는가? 그러나 만화 캐릭터들은 그들만의 기사를 얻는가?Smet75 (대화) 19:11, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

  여기가 이런 질문을 할 수 있는 장소가 아니라는 네 말이 맞아.—율롱 (琉竜) 19:21, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:에녹

에녹 (토크 · 기여)이 사용자는 이탈리아 요리와 관련된 다양한 페이지를 돌아다니며 '이탈리아인'이 무엇인지에 대한 자신의 의견을 바탕으로 변경해 왔다.이 동작에는 기사 재작성, 템플릿 변경(예: 템플릿:파스타(토크 히스토리 링크 감시 로그 편집), 템플릿:이탈리아 요리(토크 히스토리 링크 감시 로그 편집), 기사(예: 카테고리:이탈리아 레스토랑(토크 히스토리 링크 보기 로그 편집)과 이슈에 대해 제대로 토론하지 않고 호명하는 이름.

몇 가지 예:

1. 카테고리를 삭제한 경우:이탈리아 레스토랑은 이탈리아에 없는 레스토랑에 관련된 모든 기사에서 이탈리안 레스토랑은 이탈리아에 없기 때문에 이탈리아인이 아니라는 그의 믿음에 근거한다.그러한 예 중 하나: diff
2. 그는 파스타와 관련된 모든 기사를 편집했으며 이탈리아 파스타만이 파스타라고 불릴 수 있는 개인적인 의견을 바탕으로 비이탈리아 파스타와 관련된 기사는 삭제했다.그러한 예 중 하나: diff
3. 그는 편집장으로 재직하는 동안 여러 차례 편집 전쟁을 벌였다.(토크 페이지에서 토론 참조)
4. 그는 예의범절, 3R 위반 그리고 다른 문제들에 심각한 문제를 가지고 있다.그러한 예 중 하나: diff

나와 다른 사람들은 그에게 멈추라고 여러 번 경고했고 그는 그의 골치 아픈 편집 패턴을 계속한다.그의 편집 스타일은 기껏해야 거칠고 지난 몇 주 동안 지나치게 지장을 초래했다.나는 개인적으로 그가 이탈리아 관련 과목에 대해서는 범주를 막아야 한다고 생각하지만, 그건 나뿐이야. --제레미 (블라블라 • 내가 했다!) 08:17, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

어제 많은 피드백을 받은 후 에녹은 분류에 동의하지 않지만, 자신이 소수라는 것을 이해하고 있으며 이탈리아 식당과 음식의 카테고리를 계속 바꿀 것이라고는 생각하지 않는다.그의 편집 이력을 전부 알 수는 없지만 이런 경고들을 가슴에 새기고 이런 행동을 계속하지 않겠다는 것일 수도 있다.리즈 13:22, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 리즈의 말에 동의한다.만약 더 이상 파괴적인 편집이 없다면 실질적인 문제는 해결된다.하지만, 내가 생각하기에 그 태도가 편집의 배후에 있고, 합법적인 우려에 대한 후속적인 대응은 충분히 골칫거리다.만약 그들이 그것을 혼자만 알고 있다면(즉, 오프위키) 괜찮다.그러나 그들의 토크 페이지인 페투치네 알프레도 교환에서 그들의 반응을 주목하라: 그것은 전혀 다른 차원의 코셔는 아니며, 발칸과 관련된 페이지에서 볼 수 있는 논의의 일부를 반영한다: "북 x는 y나라 사람이 쓰고 출판사 z가 출판하므로 권위적일 수 없다."예를 들어, 그것은 받아들일 수 없으며, 편집자가 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에 대해 논평하는 것을 즉시 금지한다.(저자의 할아버지와 '제1차 세계대전에서 나란히 싸운' 음식의 발명가라는 것은 신경쓰지 마십시오.)드레이미스 (대화) 14:08, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
• 내가 미래에 대해 고민하는 것은 수십 개의 이탈리아 요리 고양이 참조 에피소드를 없애는 것이 아니다.편집자의 특이하고 독특한 견해를 감안할 때, 그것은 속상한 일화였다.그가 수십 개의 물건에서 적절한 고양이를 제거했다는 것을 고려하면.여러 편집자에 의해 주목을 받고 난 후, 그는 그 문제를 해결하기 위해 전혀 아무 것도 하지 않았고 스스로 되돌아가기 위해 노력하지 않았다.그리고 "내가 완전히 옳다, 세상 다른 사람들은 완전히 틀렸다"는 그의 계속되는 태도를 볼 때.그러나 미래에 관해서는 적어도 이 사건에서 그는 나머지 세계의 완전히 잘못된 접근법에 연연하도록 배속되어 있다.미래에 대해 나를 괴롭히는 것은 이것이 분명히 그의 태도가 파행적인 편집으로 이어진 첫 사례가 아니라는 것이다.이 고양이가 이제 그에게서 안전하긴 하지만, 분명히, 그가 이런 태도를 계속 가지고 있는 한, 나는 그가 프로젝트의 손해와 유사한 행동을 할 수 있을지 걱정된다.나는 그가 다른 곳에서도 마찬가지로 파괴적인 행동은 용납되지 않을 것임을 나타내는 최종 경고의 혜택을 받을 것이라고 생각한다.-에페플체 (대화) 17:13, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
• (비관리자 논평) 나는 리즈와 드라이스의 위의 논평에 동의한다. 사용자가 자신에게 불리한 압도적인 증거에 직면하고 있다는 사실에 근거해 볼 때, 나는 그가 멈출 것이라고 생각한다.그렇지 않으면 그는 한 블록을 마주하고 있을 수도 있다(그러나 먼저 경고를 한 다음 24시간 동안 차단하는 것이 나을 수도 있다).에픽게니우스^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 20:36, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나의 주된 문제는 그가 어떤 식으로든 그의 행동이 용납될 수 없다는 것을 공식적으로 경고할 필요가 있다는 것이다.블록에 대한 가능성을 가진 최종 경고는 잘 작동한다. --제레미 (블라블라 • 내가 해냈어!) 05:59, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Soapfan2013이 비눗물 캐스트 목록 편집 에티켓을 따르지 않음, Part II

페이스북 괴롭힘 혐의

안녕 관리자 여러분, 만약 IP가 페이스북의 괴롭힘으로 당신을 고발한다면, 그 절차는 어떤 것인지 궁금할 뿐인데, 그것은 물론 완전히 엉터리지만, 동시에 나는 그것을 다소 심각하게 받아들인다.방해 IP로부터 받은 것인데, 그는 이를 차단하고 있다. 여기, JMHAMO (대화) 15:56, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

유저는 몇 달 동안 나를 괴롭혀 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Delaney&action=history과 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Kilbane&action=history과 같은 이유 없이 편집 내용을 되돌리고 있으며, 또한 수많은 다른 사용자들과의 전쟁을 편집하여 경박한 이유로 umpteen 페이지를 잠가버리게 했다.

그는 또한 경박한 이유로 나를 여러 번 차단시켰고 분명히 내가 이 사이트에서 편집하는 것을 원하지 않는다.

그는 내가 다른 집에서 편집하고 있기 때문에 전혀 말도 안 되는 블록을 피했다고 비난하고 있다.내가 진정한 이유로 차단된 것은 아니다.

지난번 내가 막혔을 때, 나는 아무런 경고도 받지 못했다. 그것은 에티켓에 어긋난다.

사용자들은 지금 가짜 계정으로 소셜 미디어에서 나를 괴롭히고 있다.나는 그가 위키피디아에 대한 나의 편집을 언급했기 때문에 그가 아닐까 의심한다.나는 또한 그가 나를 괴롭히고 이 사이트에서 내가 편집한 내용을 지금 석 달 넘게 스토킹하고 있기 때문에 그가 아닐까 의심한다.

그는 나와 다른 사용자들과의 싸움을 선택함으로써 이 사이트에 쉬지 않고 장애를 일으키고 있다.— 86.42.14.15 (대화) 16:03, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]이 추가된 선행 미서명 의견

• "그는 내가 다른 집에서 편집을 하고 있기 때문에 완전히 말도 안 되는 블록을 회피한다고 비난하고 있다." 어, 아니, 그건 그렇게 되는 게 아니야.블록은 IP 주소가 아닌 사용자에게 적용된다.내가 너를 위해 존재하는 블록을 실제로 볼 수 없기 때문에(마지막 블록이 어제 만료된 것 같으니까, 이 IP 주소도 차단하지 않을 테지만, 이 점을 고려해 보는 것도 좋을 거야.하지만, 당신은 페이스북 괴롭힘에 대한 당신의 주장을 입증해야 할 필요가 있다. 그렇지 않으면 당신은 다른 블록이 적용되고 있는 것을 발견할 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC) 16:12, 응답

왜 마지막 블록에 대한 경고를 받지 않았지?아무런 이유 없이 시행된 것 같다.그건 안 돼.응, 나는 이 계정이 차단되어서는 안 된다는 것에 동의해.내 편집 이력을 살펴봐.나는 페이지를 파손하거나 잘못된 편집을 하지 않는다.나는 또한 JMHamo가 계속해서 피할 수 있도록 허용되어온 사실 편집들을 반향이나 경고 없이 되돌리지 않는다; 그것은 그가 계속 그것을 하도록 격려한다.

'람블링맨의 토크' 페이지에서 말했듯이.나는 너의 페이스북 계정에 대한 이 주장을 반박한다. 그리고 나는 이 비난에 기분이 상했다.내 의견으로는 이 진술만으로는 당신이 더 이상의 편집을 할 수 없게 되어 있다.JMHAMO (대화) 16:08, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

"성난 남자"는 앞서 언급한 메시지에서 나를 겨냥한 독설적인 모욕 중 하나이다.사용자가 트롤 계정을 차단한 후/취소했지만 메시지는 내 메시지 기록에서 여전히 읽을 수 있고 나는 스크린샷을 촬영하는 것을 주의했다.나는 사생활 침해를 매우 심각하게 받아들이고 있고 나는 이것에 대해 행복하지 않다.— 86.42.14.15 (대화) 16:09, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]이 서명되지 않은 이전 의견 추가

사적인 것이 관련된 것처럼 들리므로, 당신은 WP:Arbcom과 같은 적절한 장소에 당신이 가지고 있는 어떤 증거도 보내야 하고 그 동안 위키피디아에 대한 비난은 중단해야 한다.또한 모든 경우에 차단 전 경고에 대한 요구사항이나 기대는 없다.예를 들어, 만약 당신이 정책을 위반하고 있고 멈출 것 같지 않다면, 어떠한 경고도 예상되지 않을 수 있다.좀 더 구체적인 예를 들어보자면, 최근에 같은 문제로 차단된 경우, 어떤 IP에서도, 차단 후 다시 돌아와서 행동을 반복하면 더 이상 경고 없이 다시 차단될 가능성이 높다.그리고 이미 지적된 바와 같이, 다른 IP에서도 차단되었다가 다시 돌아오게 되고, 같은 문제를 반복하지 않으면, 블록 회피로 인해 재잠금될 수도 있다.가장 좋은 방법은 정직하게 블록에서 기다리거나 구조적으로 편집을 시작하려면 블록을 해제해 달라고 요청하는 것이다.닐 아인(대화) 16:47, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

동일한 사용자가 사용한 것으로 보이는 IP:
86.42.0.170 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.0.202 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.1.70 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.3.116 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.8.57 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.11.48 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.12.125 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.14.15 (토크 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 블랙리스트 적중 • 남용 로그 • 사용자 페이지 링크 • COIBot • 차단 로그 • x-wiki • 필터 검색 편집 • WHOIS • RDNS • 추적 • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
다음 항목도 참조하십시오.위키백과:Sockpuppet 조사/86.42.11.48 --Guy Macon (대화) 18:00, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 SPI 외에도, Murry1975는 어떤 블록도 피하기 위해 이 파괴적인 IP의 깡충깡충 뛰기를 기록해 왔다.JMHAMO (대화) 18:09, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

IP는 고의적으로 파괴되고 어쩌면 심지어 술에 취한 것처럼 보인다.편집은 올바른 업데이트에 따라 달라지지만 공통 프로젝트 목표에 부합하지 않는 업데이트와 명백한 공공 기물 파손에 따라 달라진다.애처롭다.The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 베고비치의 편집을 하지 않았다.반달 편집으로 내 탓을 하지 마.나는 단지 너와 다른 사용자가 나에게 몇 달 동안 해왔던 것을 당신에게 하고 있다.너희 둘이 이유 없이 되돌릴 수 있도록 편집하느라 내 인생을 허비했어피해자 놀이는 그만둬그것은 딱 맞다.나는 너와 JMHAMO처럼 유치하게 굴고 있어.— 86.42.14.107 (대화) 22:32, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]이 추가된 이전 미서명 의견

게다가, 당신은 지금 3개월 이상 계속되고 있는 문제들에 대해 "논의하기 위해" 나에 대해 절대 거짓말을 한다.이 모든 것을 뭐라고 부릅니까?JMHamo는 다른 관리자로부터 나를 막을 근거가 없다는 말을 들었지만, 그는 그를 무시하고 경박한 금지를 시행하기 위해 다시 당신에게 갔다.타임스탬프 초과.너희 둘은 이유 없이 3개월 넘게 내 편집 내용을 되돌리고 있어. 그리고 난 '편집 전쟁'의 주인공이야.정말 한심하다.너희 둘은 금지를 시행하는 특권을 가져서는 안 된다.너는 나만큼 나쁘다.— 86.42.14.107 (대화) 22:35, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]이 추가된 이전 미서명 의견

관리자가 최신 IP 86.42.14.170을 차단할 수 있는가?고마워, JMHAMO (토크) 22:51, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이 모든 것이 86.42.0.0/20 범위에 있는 것처럼 보여서 레인지 블록을 아래로 던졌다.--v/r - TP 22:56, 2013년 11월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

미안해, 내가 바빠서 별로 안 돌아다녔어.이 IP는 협력 편집자가 아니며 그와 상호작용을 하는 대부분의 편집자들은 주말 내내 그의 난장판을 지켜보며, 그는 축구 프로젝트 가이드라인 내에서 일하지 않을 것이며, 간식과 함께 그의 길을 괴롭히려고 한다.만약 어떤 행정관이 대부분의 주말에 개입해서 이 사람을 막으려 한다면 그것은 잘못된 길로 가지 않을 것이다.내 로그에서 볼 수 있듯이, 내가 좀 더 이상 업데이트하지 않는 악당 발언, BLP 페이지에 대한 비방 댓글, 그리고 이런 "나는 내 블록을 회피하고 있지 않다"는 댓글들이 많이 있다.머리1975 (대화) 13:35, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

IP-hopper가 방해가 된다는 것을 확인할 수 있고, 이전에도 차단한 적이 있다.자이언트 스노우맨 13:42, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

사산 제국 토크페이지의 사고!

WP:Mark Miller의 REHASH

캐나다 반달리즘의 금지

WP:사용자에 의한 BLP 위반

[53] 나는 이 이용자에게 살아 있는 사람의 인권 기록이 "사과적이지 않다"는 매우 심각하고 비협조적인 비난을 하는 것을 삼가야 한다고 말했다.이것은 분명한 WP이다.또는 사용자에 의해, 그리고 지금 그는 나를 보고하라고 협박했다 [54].나는 정말로 관리자의 제3자의 의견이 필요하다.감사합니다.자랑볼사혜 (토크) 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC) 16:56 [응답]

살펴보니, 터키 신문을 출처로 쓰고 있는데, 뉴스 기사가 아닌 칼럼이나 사설로 보인다.게다가 그것은 그가 말하는 것을 말하지 않는다.물론 터키 원어민이 신문을 읽는 것이 더 좋겠지만, 그래, 여기까지 BLP처럼 보인다. 코시볼론 우리는 모두 Kosh 17:26, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

@KoshVorlon:시간을 내어 사안을 평가하고 대응해 주셔서 감사하다.터키어인 자신으로서 이 소식통은 사건을 묘사할 뿐 그의 '사과되지 않은' 인권기록에 대해서는 아무 말도 하지 않는다.무엇보다 앞서 언급하셨듯이 출처는 단 한 사람의 의견이다.그것은 RS가 아니다.자랑볼사혜 (토크) 18:58, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 현재 그의 토크 페이지에서 그와 이야기를 나누고 있다.어떤 행정관이라도 이 시점에서 내가 말하는 모든 것을 바로잡는 것을 환영한다.그는 적어도 이번에는 예의 바르게 행동한다. 우리는 모두 Kosh 11:55, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 지속적인 반달리즘:일본 불교에서의 209.66.194

위키백과 관리자(administrator)가 나를 따라다니며 편집한 내용을 되돌리기

WP:파괴, WP:소유 및 WP:사용자별 PA:Kwamikagami

여보세요

기사 고마라어에 대한 의견 불일치가 발생하여 의견 일치를 보지 못하였으므로 WP에서는 다음과 같은 논의가 시작되었다.해결책을 찾기 위한 RSN(토론 링크)

단, 해당 주제에 대한 두 가지 사용자 의견을 얻은 후(WP에 대한 토론 참조):RSN: 한 유저는 합의(WP:NPOV)가 없고 두 번째 유저는 단순히 언어적 사실과 민족적 사실의 연계를 해제할 수 없다고 말하므로 두 가지 의견이 모두 표현되어야 한다고 말한다. 그리고 내가 Talk에 대한 초안을 작성한 후:고마라어, 사용자로부터 받은 대답:콰미카가미는 나를 일레트레이트라고 부르는 것이었다(WP:PA)와 WP에 대해 사람들이 다른 의견을 제시했더라도, 그는 기사에 대한 어떠한 변경도 하지 않을 것이다.RSN(디프 링크)(WP:중단/WP:OWN).

나는 이 사용자가 저지른 인신공격과 그의 파괴적인 행동에 대해 관리자들로 하여금 조치를 취하도록 요청하고 싶다.

미리 고맙다

--Omar-toons (대화) 23:22, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 대부분의 오마르의 주장처럼 현실과 동떨어져 있다.이 경우, 그는 사람들의 의견을 요구했고, 그들은 그의 구식 출처가 분류에 필요한 RS가 아니라고 말했고, 그는 그런 것처럼 그것들을 사용한 초안을 작성했다.그는 적어도 심각한 SYNTH 없이는 자신의 주장을 전혀 지지하지 않는 다른 "소스"를 사용한다.그리고 어떤 변화도 허용하지 않는 것은커녕, 나는 이의가 없을 것이며, 그가 마침내 문제의 두 번째 기사를 다루었듯이, 그가 믿을 만한 출처를 제공하기만 한다면 직접 그것을 만들 것이라고 말했다.블렌치(우리의 싱글 RS)가 맞더라도 나는 그저 기본적인 역량을 기대한다.PA에 대해서는, S.O.가 방금 읽은 내용을 전혀 이해하지 못하는 편집을 할 때, 문맹 편집이라고 비판하는 것이 타당하다.—kwami (대화) 23:54, 2013년 11월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

(비관리자 논평) "맙소사, 완전히 문맹이신가?" 약간 가혹하지만, 오마르툰은 콰미카가미의 행동을 OWTership으로 잘못 표기하거나 오해했다.오마르툰은 선하자 페이지에 있는 콰미카가미의 변경과 그 요금을 화해시킬 수 있을까? --Jprg1966 01:10, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자 Takaisi, 두 번째 사건 통지

사용자:Takaisi는 지난달 편집 분쟁과 관련된 기사 소유권 문제에 대해 보고되었다. 기록 보관소를 참조하십시오.당시에는 회신이 없었으나 User:DAJF는 이 문제를 보고했다.

지난 며칠 동안 타카이시는 다시 편집에 들어갔다.이러한 편집의 대부분은 잘 짜여져 있고 건설적이다.반면 사용자는 특히 스텁이 병합된 경우 선호하는 버전으로 기사를 되돌리는 경향이 있다.

• 나고야 번리 대학 11월 3일
• 칸토 가쿠인 여자 주니어 칼리지 11월 4일

편집자는 유지 관리 태그(소카 여자 대학 11월 3일)도 없애고, 토크 페이지 토론에도 거의 참여하지 않는다.DAJF가 10월에 지적했듯이, 이것은 적어도 부분적으로 언어 문제가 될 수 있다.나는 과거(여기, 여기, 여기, 여기) 몇 차례에 걸쳐 타카이시의 코멘트를 일본어에서 영어로 번역한 적이 있으며, User talk에서는 영어 코멘트를 일본어로 번역한 적이 있다.타카이시 입니다

어떤 종류의 개입이 적절할지는 잘 모르겠지만, 나는 내가 할 수 있는 모든 것을 했고 사용자는 나와의 관계를 맺지 않고 있다.아마도 다른 사람들은 더 성공할 수 있을 것이다.신일렙(대화) 01:24, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 그런 편집자의 주의를 끌 수 있는 유일한 방법은 그의 활에 커다란 경고 사격을 가하는 것이다.나는 Cnilep의 좌절감을 이해하고 공유한다.사용자 대화 검사:Takaisi는 이 편집자가 그가 다르게 하도록 요청받는 어떤 것이든 자신의 털을 갈고 있다는 것을 보여준다.WP일 수 있다.역량 또는 언어일 수도 있고, 피비린내 나는 정신일 수도 있지만, 이제는 그만둬야 할 때다.Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 2013년 11월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

루퍼트 테일러의 IP에 의한 법적 위협

41.13.4.216(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) 요약 누락 자료가 교체된 상태에서 루퍼트 테일러(대화 기록 보호 링크 감시 로그 보기 편집)에서 소싱된 정보를 삭제했으며, 테일러의 경우 언론 보도는 명예훼손 및 지속적인 퇴짜를 당한다.여기에서의 시위는 위키피디아에 대한 법적 조치를 초래할 것이다.소재가 분명 '좋음'은 아니지만, 이 시점에는 SA 매체에서 광범위하게 보도되고 있는 것으로 보인다.나는 그곳에서 신뢰도가 떨어지는 출처를 일부 제거했고, 며칠 전 의견을 위해 WP:BLP/N에서도 바이오에 대한 보고를 했다.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 14:43, 2013년 11월 5일(UTC)[응답]

이것이 뉴스에 언급된 작은 스캔들 외에는 전혀 알려지지 않은 것으로 어떻게 삭제를 피할 수 있었는지는 놀랍다.이 남자의 스캔들에 대한 "기사"를 첨부된 법적 위협으로 희화화하는 것은 터무니없는 것이다.Doc talk 15:05, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

오푸스88888 및 조니 캐시

오푸스88888은 단순히 오푸스가 이것을 "과소화"로 간주하고 있기 때문에 조니 캐시가 "20세기 가장 영향력 있는 음악가" 중 하나라는 언급된 주장을 반복적으로 삭제하기 위해 스스로 착수했다.나는 그의 토크 페이지에 글을 남겼는데, 단순히 그가 동의하지 않는다고 해서 정보를 삭제하거나 삭제하지 말라고 경고했고, 만약 그가 계속한다면 공공 기물 파손으로 신고하겠다고 경고했다.오늘 내 토크 페이지에서 그는 나에게 "내가 원할 때 언제든지" 보고하라고 말했다.더 이상 확대되기 전에 행정관이 개입했으면 좋겠어.내가 기사토크 페이지에서 말했듯이, 우리 중 누구도 단순히 우리가 그것에 동의하지 않는다고 해서 인용된 정보를 삭제하지 못한다.고마워. ----The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:02, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI는 이런 곳에 있지 않다.사용자가 고의적인 업무 중단 등 공공 기물 파손 행위를 저지른 경우 WP에 보고하십시오.AIV. 대신 미니 편집 전쟁처럼 보인다.어떤 편집 전쟁과 마찬가지로, 당면한 문제에서 당신이 옳다고 해도 문제가 되지 않는다.사용자가 "또 저 똥을 뽑으면" 신고하라고 위협하는 것은 콘텐츠 분쟁을 해결하는 올바른 방법이 아니다.두 분 모두 WP를 무시하기로 선택하셨습니다.BRD: 토론 대신 재검증을 위한 Opus88888과 미개한 방식으로 토론하는 TheOldJacobite.기존 분쟁해결 메커니즘을 사용하고 COOL OFF를 제안한다. --Jprg1966^(talk) 15:26, 2013년 11월 5일(UTC)[응답]

이것은 콘텐츠 분쟁이 아니다.한 편집자는 단지 그가 그것에 동의하지 않는다고 해서 인용된 정보를 삭제하지 않는다.오퍼스는 자신의 편집이나 추리를 설명하려 하지 않고, 그야말로 '과소화'라는 한 단어로, 전혀 불충분하다.그리고, 그래, 나는 그가 기사를 계속 방해하면 그에게 신고하겠다고 협박했지만, 나는 그를 공격하지도 않았고, 화가 나지도 않았다.다른 행정관은 내가 이 문제를 여기로 가져와야 한다고 말했고, 나는 이 문제가 논의되기 위한 적절한 장소라고 믿는다.오퍼스는 이곳에 와서 편집한 내용을 설명할 기회가 있다. ----The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:48, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 내용상의 논쟁이다.그는 이 글의 한 문장이 과장된 것이고, 대담하고, 삭제된 것이라고 믿는다.출처가 있기 때문에 제거되기 전에 논의해야 한다고 주장하면서 되돌린 겁니다.그리고 나서 그것은 2차 번복과 그를 고발하겠다는 너의 미개한 협박과 함께 편집전이 되었다.심지어 고의적으로라도 합의에 반하는 편집은 공공 기물 파손이 아니라는 점을 기억하라: "일부 사용자들은 편집 문제에 대해 자신들과 대화할 용의가 있는 다른 사용자들과 합의하지 못하고, 합의에 반하는 변화를 반복한다.편집 전쟁은 공공 기물 파손이 아니므로 그렇게 다루어서는 안 된다.분쟁 해결이 도움이 될 수도 있다."

만약 당신이 이 편집자가 전쟁을 편집하고 있고 더 이상의 혼란을 막기 위해 행정 조치가 필요하다고 믿는다면, 그것만을 위한 게시판이 있다. --Jprg1966^(talk) 16:25, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

Jprg가 맞아, 제이콥라이트.드레이미스 (대화)20:42, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

워링 편집

밥 브로즈먼 페이지에서는 익명의 사용자들이 끊임없이 그 사람에 대한 논란이 되는 정보를 추가하려고 하는데, 그 개정은 10배 정도 되돌렸다.관리자들, 응답하라.알렉스 ^{discussion ★} 18:17, 2013년 11월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 페이지를 보호하고 로그인한 사용자에게 주의를 주었다.존 리브스 2013년 11월 5일(UTC) 18:36[응답]

알렉사 루키 편집 워링 게시판은 앞으로 이 내용을 꼭 보고해야 할 곳이다.호서 (대화) 2013년 11월 5일 19:18, (UTC)[응답]

워링 편집

행정관이 오그넨 쿠즈미치에 관한 두 편집자의 행동을 봐줄 수 있을까?감사합니다, JMHAMO (토크) 00:31, 2013년 11월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이미 그 페이지를 완전히 보호하는 대신에 두 명의 관계된 편집자에게 3rrr의 명확한 통지를 했다.그들이 되돌리기 전쟁을 계속하면 블록이 나올 것이다. --제즈벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 00:35, 2013년 11월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

블록 요청

나에 대한 보복

HiLo48이 Collingwood26을 상대로 한 인신공격

3 more paid editors?

I came across Ireneshih (talk · contribs) when I was responding to a request from User:Antiqueight for the use of a navbar I'd borrowed from another editor. I helped Antiqueight with a speedy deletion and also noticed Ireneshih, whose article creations stood out as promotional (and with hyped and badly sourced content. I deleted Christiane Wyler as obvious copyvio. I did some editing at Murray Newlands and Online Marketing: A User’s Manual and took one of her articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance Marketing for Professionals. On October 14th BillingTracker was deleted as a G11, then on the 17th Duncan Law Group was deleted as a G11, obviously promotional, all by User:Jimfbleak along with DataNumen Zip Repair as an A7. SEOZEO had been deleted earlier as an A7 by User:RHaworth who deleted Icansia yesterday as G11. User:DGG has taken TeenzFAV and Yliana Yepez to AfD, possibly after I posted something about paid editors to his talk page.

The icing on the cake was a post by an IP to my talk page today at User talk:Dougweller#Deleting the entry for Christiane Wyler about Ireneshih's article on Christiane Wyler, signed by Christiane Wyler and asking why the article was deleted and saying the copyrights for her photos registered on Commons (although it was the text that I was concerned with). This establishes a link between the editor creating the article and the subject of the article.

I am also getting anonymous tips about paid editors, see User talk:Dougweller#Paid page creation of non notable artist and User talk:Dougweller#Paid creation of Carter Hargrave page naming or pointing to Khocon (talk · contribs) (some promotional articles already deleted) and BiH (talk · contribs) (with the accusation that this user has multiple accounts). Again this editor has had several articles deleted, one as a G5 by User:Mark Arsten which I need to investigate. Real life calls and I don't have time to deal with all the deleted articles by these two editors and must go off and notify everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BiH responded at User talk:Dougweller#Advice. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had one or two deleted articles a few months because I used sources I thought are reliable, but they were not and I complied with it, because I was indeed wrong. Since then, I tend to use reliable sources and write and update things I find interesting and useful to Wikipedia (I tend to patrol random pages and improve them visually and with references or just tag them for later improvement), and I had no issues with the rules when I was told what can be used for sourcing. As far as "I have multiple accounts", please make sure that your triple check that, and I assure you that I use only one account. --BiH (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about the paid editing issue but I am very puzzled as to why the edits to Icansia and its talk page seem to have completely disappeared. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only explanation I can think of is that they have been oversighted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very weird indeed. If I remember rightly, when all deleted edits to a page have been the subject of oversighter-only RevDel, we still get the "___ deleted edits" link under the title of the page. Oversighters haven't been using the Oversight extension very much for the last several years, but that's the only reason I would expect the link to disappear entirely without a total removal of all deleted edits project-wide by server admins. Let me ask for the input of an oversighter. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Geoffrey Said which was deleted successively by Jimfbleak and myself. I wonder what oversight policy applies. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also listed most other of BiH's articles for deletion, by AfD, MfD, and speedy. One or two seem acceptable, and I do not like to delete acceptable articles no matter who writes them. Most paid editors make a few edits to establish their legitimacy. BiH has made a fair number of decent contributions, and a good deal of valid Wikignomeing, along with a fair number of references for political figures worded in a rather promotional manner. The best course to take with editing of this sort is to hunt out the questionable articles for deletion. Not all were in his edit history marked with N; for many, he wrote them in user space, and I found them in his move log. Doing it this way evades NP, (I'm not sure if it evades NPP) but it is nonetheless legitimate, & in fact a technique we have often recommended, especially before the rise of AfC. (Personally, I think the concentration on sockpuppets less important than being careful to remove all the bad articles in the first place, though of course sockpuppet identification does permit speedy deletion of anything subsequently written DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the deleted revision just fine, and no indication of oversight or revdel. Special:Undelete/Geoffrey Said and Special:Undelete/Icansia both show the deleted revisions. My guess is that this is just a server hiccup. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too can see all the deleted revisions just fine. "Old-school" oversight, which disrupted the history of a page, has been disabled for several years now; current oversighters can see the edits that were oversighted using the old tool (if they know what log to look at) but have no access to use the old tool. All revision-deleted or suppressed edits remain in the page history of the article. I agre with Timotheus Canens that it's likely a server hiccup; I've had problems all day with (a) logging in and (b) navigating via links when I do manage to log in. Risker (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that there's no entry in the old oversight log for either Icansia or Geoffrey Said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't see anything here this morning but it's showing up fine for me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone.

It looks like these temporarily missing deleted revisions is part of a bug which was previously thought to be fixed. The issue was reported originally in this bug. A similar issue to the one above that happened on frwp is documented in this bug. I've added the above information to the bug report so it can be looked in to.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to comment anything is discussions, but most of my articles have at least possitive opinions from other users regarding notability and reference coverage. Also, one article in my userspace is tagged for deletion? That is MY userspace and my work, which is not in mainspace, so it should not be a subject of your concern.. I am really disappointed by the way you treat me as an editor. --BiH (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in your userspace, they are not "your" articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the discussion of paid editors, it does appear that User:Ireneshih is a primarily promotional account, and the number of poorly sourced articles created by this user are taking up other editors' time through multiple afd's. I am not familiar with the policy for dealing with probable paid editing, but from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it looks like the next step is a warning about promotion followed by a possible block.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is denying promotion[73] saying there isn't a line of promotion in the article at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced DBF Repair (software), whose nominator sees it quite differently. BiH has not denied being a paid editor. And Khocon, like Ireneshih, hasn't responded here. Sure, we can keep an eye on their articles, spend a lot of time making sure they meet our criteria (although forged sources are hard to detect and we know they are used) - but is that really all we can do? I've given Ireneshih an only warning for promotion, I guess the other 2 should have similar warnings? Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Wikipedia for more than 8 years, because I enjoy it and I never had similar issues. Normally, I deny all accusations from that anonymous user. Sometimes I patrol random articles and tag some of those being without references or having some other issue, so I must have caught someone's attention. Otherwise, he/she would use him/her username instead of IP. That is my opinion. --BiH (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent edit warring without discussion

I reported Olde Hornet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the edit warring noticeboard three days ago because he or she has been reverting edits made by multiple editors in one article without making any attempt to contribute to the discussion in the article's Talk page or on his or her own Talk page. Although he or she was blocked for 12 hours, he or she has returned from that block to continue edit warring without any attempts to communicate aside from using the same edit summary over and over. I updated the notice at edit warring noticeboard but I'm afraid that it may have been lost there since it's not a new report and there seems to have been some edit warring or frantic editing on that noticeboard. Can someone please look into this and perhaps issue a longer block to this editor or take other appropriate actions (I'm not sure what else would be appropriate since it's one editor edit warring with others without discussion or communication despite our best efforts)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say looks like a reasonable indef-block considering this user has been warned many times on his/her talk page and has never edited any articles in the talk or User talk namespace. In fact he/she has only edited the Alabama State article ever. Andrevan@ 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have a handful of edits to other articles, but recently it has just been to Alabama State. Indef might be harsh, for someone who has been blocked only once, no? Besides, it seems to be one passage they are most upset about. It'll be easy to tell whether they have removed it. I say give them a week to read the relevant guidelines. --Jprg1966^(talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was wrong - they have a few other edits, but not many. Here's the one user talk edit. Andrevan@ 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef. blocked him. Though I now wonder if indefinitely protecting the page may be a better way to force concussion. Thoughts? John Reaves 22:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's good practice to protect articles when a problem is being caused by a single editor (although if you can truly force concussions on particular editors by doing so I might change my mind!). ElKevbo (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Andrevan@ 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's too much coddling at ANI. Forced concussions should be just the first in a series of increasingly forceful... persuasions. See this discussion of "uses of lobotomy at ANI". EEng (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been wondering whether that article was going to be updated anytime soon. The mess at ASU is much more than just a news blimp, and there's a lot more that happened since mid-October. For instance, the governor has called for the search for a news president to be halted, the university won't speak to the governor expect through their lawyer, the newspaper and many others have accused the university of stonewalling, and the current investigation has depleted the state government's fund so there will have to be extra funding to investigate $200 million in recent building activities. Anyway, protection is not necessary at this time since I hope the article will attract some editors (not me--I don't really want to write up this mess since it infuriates me, this alleged (!) waste of taxpayers' money), but I'll keep my eye on it. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account who was already deleted keeps reverting my source.

I was adding a source where Mind Your Manners was played on an episode of Sons of Anarchy. All of sudden it was deleted. BTW the person, who took out my proof, once had his account deleted. The person I'm referring to is Koala15. I was just adding in the truth and some person threatened me to block my account after refusing to let it go. That person thinks I'm childish. No I'm not. A childish person on Wikipedia is mainly someone who harrasses people and adds fake sources without proof. S_hannon434 (talk) 8:20, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

There is no Koala15. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Koala15, only Zuul!--Shirt58 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:3RR. And then, if this really matters so much to you, discuss it on Talk:Mind Your Manners (Pearl Jam song). Though you should probably bear in mind that the mere fact that a song has been played on a television program is probably going to be regarded as trivia - unless you can cite an independent source that explains its significance to the program. (And as for Koala15 being 'deleted', we seem to be having technical problems - Koala15 is still here, and has never been blocked.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that not only have you not discussed the problem on the article's talk page, you have also not attempted to discuss it with Koala15 on his/her user talk page, nor did you notify Koala15 of the fact that you were raising the topic here at ANI. You need to read the clear notices at the top of this page. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "having their account deleted" - this is, in fact, technically impossible. Someone's user page can indeed be deleted - and there is absolutley nothing wrong, unusual, or suspicious about that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Sock of User:BBBAAACCC

Can we throw a block at the Ip found User talk:212.174.135.194. It's a duck test, is [persistently adding the same material, is trying to "source" the claims now with a youtube and imdb reference. I've reported to the vandalism board but in between time there is disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are an another source except my sources, he vandalising the page Zarrine Khan without any explanation or using talk page. And also he should be blocked because of 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.194 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism to revert an obvious sock and poorly sourced material. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - the IP seems to think that Pashtun is a nationality. It isn't. It is an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked due to the deafening quacking, and the block of BBBAAACCC extended by 24 hours for the blatant block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

As I mentioned above, I extended the block to 48 hours from the original 24 on BBBAAACCC, but I just noticed, while checking his talk page, that the block expiry time is currently set to 22:46:42 GMT on the twelvth, even though I put the 6th, and when I just tried to change it to the correct time...it still says an expiry time on the 12th. What da heck is going on, and can anyone fix it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it was a brain burp, although I set the correct date I forgot to change the day in the string from "Tue" to "Wed". Fixed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And indef

As the user has continued to IP sockpuppet blatantly with continued racist personal attacks, the block on User:BBBAAACCC has been extended to indef. In addition I've rangeblocked 212.174.135.192/26 for a week, if this causes collateral damage then modifying it is A-OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, another edit war

There's an edit war going on at Americas, with editors reverting one another even as they snipe at one another on the talk page. As near as I can tell the bone of contention is all of two words in the article. Could someone please protect the thing until the editors are finshed duking it out on the talk page; it's cluttering up my watchlist. Deor (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Done. Can I give the onlookers a piece of advice? When you see these edit warriors at it, slap an EW or 3R template on their talk page. Blocking is so much more satisfying than protecting, and the WMF doesn't actually pay us for protection. Edit warriors, you have a day to figure it out. Deor, would you be so kind as to liberally spray the place with EW or 3R warnings? It's homework time here. Thanks for bringing this up, Drmies (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually did; he removed it... - The Bushranger_{One ping only} 10:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just left a general comment, addressed to everyone, in the discussion thread on the talk page—seems better than singling particular editors out. There seem to be signs that as long as the editors will focus on the discussion rather than on reverting one another, the matter can be amicably resolved. Deor (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies, Bushranger; I hadn't seen that though I think I looked. The one-eyed man is admin. If I had, I would have considered blocking the editor since they reverted again afterward. (I wouldn't do it if the user hadn't been warned explicitly, at least at some point--and if I see that warning, of course.) But discussion is happening, so it's alright, I suppose. Thanks Bushranger, and thanks Deor, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a@hotmail.com

AEgis Technologies article posted by Tolsonbeerd

An article on this topic was among numerous articles posted on the Simple English Wikipedia from an account believed to be used by the banned company Wiki-PR. —rybec 00:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth a CU; It is the users only contribution, and they seem fairly familiar with commons and infoboxes. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated copyright violation at Sibur

94.25.115.124 (talk)‎ has twice added copyrighted material to Sibur, for the first time in March for which they were warned, and for a second time, today. User:Petchem2013 (talk contribs) also added the same copyvio material here in June. I know there is quite a time gap between the two edits the IP made buy it is clearly the same person due to the fact that they added the same material to the same page, and since they have already been warned and ignored it, it would be pointless to just warn them again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might an SPI be useful? It's conceivable that two different users decided to copy and paste from a website about the company. I agree it is suspicious, but I'd think verifying the link between the IP and the account could give a clearer idea of what steps need to be taken. --Jprg1966^(talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know an SPI would probably be need to prove a connection between the IP and the account. My main concern, and the reason I am reporting it here, is the IP has twice added the same content despite being warned. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected admin talk pages

I've always taken a view that, as an admin, my talk page should be accessible to isps and newbies since they are the most likely to want to find out why their articles were deleted. If that means that I occasionally get some petulant/angry/death-from-cancer postings, that goes with the mop. I stumbled across a permanently semi-protected admin talk page today (no name needed), which to me seems against the spirit of being an admin. However, I don't know if there is any policy regarding letting anyone edit our talk pages. Any ideas? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I semi my page once in awhile because I get a lot of spam for some reason. When I do it, there is an automated template that detects my protection and directs folks to an unprotected subpage. I don't think there is a reason for an indefinite protection but sometimes semi is helpful.--v/r - TP 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Have you checked how much vandalism (harassment, whatever) there was prior to the protection, and how long the protection has been in place. While I agree with you in principle, I don't believe there is a specific policy requiring our talk pages to be unprotected, and in some cases I can very well understand the need to (semi-) protect the page anyway. If it's just an "I don't like IPs and newbies" attitude, then it is a serious problem though; and if the problems are long ago, then asking the admin to try unprotecting may be a possibility, sometimes people simply forget such things. Fram (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:PROT#User_talk_pages. It should not protected unless there is recent, extreme vandalism. John Reaves 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, there had been persistent offensiveness and the page was protected by an uninvolved admin, I was just concerned that the the protection, now removed, had been in place since January. The subpage suggestion in the policy link above makes sense. Thanks to all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI / edit war at Tom Six

I just reverted an edit at Tom Six (edit talk history links watch logs) and noticed a slow motion edit war involving the addition of uncited peacockery by 77.170.6.222 (talk · contribs) on October 1. A number of other editors, including 192.64.61.15 (talk · contribs), 82.73.4.192 (talk · contribs), and 173.174.248.191 (talk · contribs) have removed the material owing to BLP/peacock concerns. IP 77.170, who originally added the material, responded multiple times to these reverts by restoring the material in question. Additionally, this IP claimed in an October 28 edit summary that they represent Tom Six professionally (or that they received this information from his management). The IP I reverted today is 62.194.162.138 (talk · contribs), who had not previously edited the page but seemed familiar with the edit war (edit summary: "this is checked and accurate information, please stop deleting this").

Due to the multiple concerns involved (edit warring, IP hopping, COI) and the long time scale, I wasn't sure how best to untangle it other than to bring it here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

Anybody? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help. Quick.

Our future is at stake: User:Sitush tells me he's been hit by an autoblock, related to User:Scottsdesk. Sitush emailed me something to copy, an unblock request, but I don't understand the syntax of the request and this may be quicker anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of users caught up in this, see User_talk:Jimfbleak#Block? Obviously a technical issue which has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Autoblock_checker_downValenciano (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's being fixed, right? If the caste warriors find out that Sitush is out of action we'll run out of server space in a day. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago [74]. There's a replacement here. There is no autoblock showing on Sitush's account, but if you send me the email I can look deeper. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I can see this is a wider issue than simply an autoblock affecting Sitush. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cant use my usurped Warrington-Hafspajen account adress (the one with the 10 000 edits, ask WritKeeper about that) . You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Somebody got in an autoblocked me. It says Elockid blocked me. Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NoahS24fgtp". The reason given for NoahS24fgtp's block is: "Spambot". And take a look at the post I posted om vandlism, my edits on that. I think somebody blocked me away because I did that. (this is the global Sw account, that is still working, there was a difference since the usurpation, the old one was different from the global. ) And I was the one to suggest that? Never did that. Crazy. Or what is THIS all about? a joke? Hafspajen (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, as above, it's clearly a wider technical issue. Admins like Elockid and Jimfbleak are reliable people who wouldn't do things "for a joke." This appears to be a technical glitch rather tha any admin error. Valenciano (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and now apparently fixed. If anyone is still experiencing issues they should note it at VPT to ensure the techs/devs see it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm ok now. Thanks all. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can think of one obvious solution to stop Sitush from having autoblock problems in the future... Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, imagine the turnout we'll get for that. I would support it, though I doubt that he'll want to put himself through it. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (Yay, in before the nominators!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose so, but I just thought I'd mention it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Will be a great to see POV pushers of every caste finally working together and voting in unison at Sitush's RFA. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it might overload SPI also ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh. The other annoying thing is that the one subject area where it would be most useful if you had the mop is also the one where the same crowd would wave at WP:INVOLVED if you ever used them, causing endless more rounds of a discussion that already feels way too iterative. :) MLauba ^(Talk) 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins using user page as talk page

Sorry to post below the closed archive, but since Bencherlite, BlackKite and I have all grossly abused our powers, could someone delete the WP:POLEMIC-violating User:PantherLeapord and User talk:PantherLeapord, and then block immediately if they get re-added. Anyone brave enough to actually explain WP:NPA to them would beneficial as well. Cheers ES&L 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with it. I'm sure he understands NPA, let's just give him a bit to calm down.--v/r - TP 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for step 1 ... don't blame you for not trying to tackle step 2...I'm sure you've read the above archive? Do you really believe that he has the slightest inkling of what WP:NPA actually says? ES&L 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CALMDOWN what would have really been beneficial would to ignore it per User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility. Given the panther is only a 20%, 267 mainspace editor I'm sure ya'll can ensure they're gone in no time. I find it truly sad that so many admins could react so quickly to a lame removal of a lame post on a user page and this lame thread, while an editor stating Asians can't be Austrailian et. al. (see current thread #1) doesn't seem to concern ya'll sufficently to comment. NE Ent 00:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States

We need some admin intervention at United States article please. We have one of our most high profile article having a long edit war that despite the page being locked a few time just this week alone wont end. The editors involved are talking things out - but as all can see they just cant some deleting and resorting stuff over just taking things out. Started a few weeks ago with this being done with +809 of data...but as time has gone we are at the point that +29,077 of date is begin edit, as in deleted then restored etc.. - Moxy (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Harold E. Varmus deleted

User:Lobsterthermidor

Sea salt

JasonsSamuels / JewishRabbiInNY

A couple of days ago an IP editor/new editor (JasonsSamuels (talk · contribs) / JewishRabbiInNY (talk · contribs)) started adding names of what he considers to be American Jews who are "criminals" to the List of American Jews, apparently as a "tit for tat" retaliation against some list of Muslims that has criminals in it - see this comment, this edit summary, and these comments. When List of American Jews was semi-protected, he turned his attention to American Jews, adding the same material there. It's hard to communicate with this individual as he's used at least two separate IPs and three Userids to make these edits, and doesn't appear to respond to comments (as an aside his claim to be a "JewishRabbiInNY" appears dubious at best). Since he seems to hop to new articles when his original targets are semi-protected, I've brought the issue here, as I think the behavior is disruptive enough that it warrants more serious action. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. His latest edit summary is Zionists can do what they want in the apartheid state of Israel, but not in the USA. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked the two and their latest IP, semi'd American Jews for a few days. I also plan to delete the "Crime" section of List of American Muslims, semi-protect that too, and will full protect it if someone adds it back before a thorough discussion somewhere. --Flo quenbeam (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done, der Floquenbeam. Jay--why didn't you put your magnificent 9-year old tool to use? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see cause for adulation. I am certain that the matter afore could have been done well, but I don't think it was.—John Cline (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strat, I don't understand what your objection is, or what you think could have been handled better, and in which way. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what alternative would have been better. I think it was a good block—and the other measures were called for, were they not? The editor stated a specific purpose to their edits in contravention to editing from a neutral point of view. I would want to hear a clear reason from this user why they should be allowed to edit again. --Jprg1966^(talk) 06:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I apologize for the delay in responding to your question. My initial response was a bit "knee jerk", which I have stricken. I think I confused hoping for a better outcome with a better outcome being possible. An objective review shows that Floquenbeam did in fact handle this as well as possible in accordance with policy, and I retract the unwarranted criticism. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, Strat (if I may still call you that--we go back a long way, you with your Strat and me with my PRS). I only just learned that this was you; good to see you again. And I see you haven't given up on seeing the glass as more than half full; I'm only a half-full kind of person myself. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies, for lending kindness in your prose. Strat is a valid nickname for me and you are most welcome to use it whenever you like for referencing me. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not showing my ignorance, but are there any non-Jewish rabbis? EEng (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it all depends on who you consider Jewish. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hmmm. Good point. After all (though I personally think he's a good guy) there are some people wondering openly whether the Pope really is Catholic. EEng (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:WilliamJE

Editor harassing real life sex abuse victim by adding her name to the article on the person she accused

Personal Attacks by DrFleischman against Attleboro

user 86.157.181.7, likely just incompetence

• 86.157.181.7 (talk · contribs)

A goodly percentage of this user's edits require reverting, but if I take this to AIV I suspect it will be turned aside. Lots of unnecessary tweaking of headings and mistaken 'improvements'. The user may be well-intentioned, but needs someone to ride shotgun. If anyone else wants to try to engage them, please feel free. I don't want to chase them all over Wikipedia. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might it help to actually talk to the editor rather than chasing them around the enyclopaedia? Unless I missed it, no one has actually tried that yet. All I see are three templated messages plus finally some more specific comments when telling them about this ANI. Templates are fine when appropriate, but in a more complex case where the edits are not clearly bad, some actual explaination of the problems with the edits would help.

I have started that, but I'm a lot less sure than you appear to be about the problems with the IP.

To start with, I looked at the 3 warnings. One was for changing the DOB without a source at Roh Moo-hyun. This is the sort of thing which looks like vandalism. Except that if you look in to the case, there is no clear source for the 1 September figure. There is a source used in the early life figure but it requires subscription and I'm not sure it actually shows the DOB (see Talk:Roh Moo-hyun). And a simple search find plenty of RS for the IP's 6th August date, not many for our 1 September date (edit: although there is a suggestion it's 6th of the 8th month of the lunar calendar).

The next warning was for changing the cause of death to "suicide by hanging" from "suicide". I don't know if it's normal for the infobox to go in to such detail, but the article itself already suggests the death was suicide by hanging (it's a bit uncertain on the suicide aspect in general).

The final warning from you but as it wasn't directed at anything in specific, I don't know if it's clear to the IP what you're complaining about particularly considering the earlier 2 warnings don't seem to be that justified.

Next, I had a look at 3 of the IPs edits from their contrib history. They were [106] which was changing a section heading from "Death" to "Illness and death", the section does somewhat cover an illness so whether or not it's necessary, I don't see anything obviously wrong with it. (In fact, IIRC, the illness and death is probably more common for a section like that.)

The next edit is [107]. This does look to be problematic as it's changing the name to a longer name without a source, and it doesn't seem to be supported by the source used in the article nor does a search find any evidence for the full name.

[108] is next, which is a self revertal of tributes to the subheading [109]. Since the section contained no tributes, the revertal was proper (perhaps the IP misread the section or intended to add tributes but then changed their mind). Either way, considering the quick self revertal, if the IP isn't regularly doing stuff like this I don't see it as a problem. However from looking more there, the IP also removed "suicide (gunshot)" from the infobox earlier [110]. This came before changing the Stephanie Parker article so it doesn't seem to be confusion from them being reverted/warned there, so it does seem to be a bit of a inappropriate and strange change. Particularly as the IP doesn't seem to be squemish about death or suicides (most of their edits seem to relate to that).

P.S. It would of course be helpful if the IP sought clarification themselves. On the other hand if many of their edits are not clearly blockable stuff, just following them around reverting and templating them often does not achieve much. Particularly as no one is likely to block them in such cases. Even a simple message will I suspect help a lot since even if they don't respond, people will take much more kindly to blocking them when it's clear they're not going to respond to problems raised with their edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might be helpful to address these issues with the editor, and I thank you for attempting to discuss this with them. But I'm never encouraged by editors who don't use summaries, and don't attempt to respond to warnings with an explanation, preferring to continue on the same path. I think that path is a pattern of little more than test edits, adding 'death' or 'personal life and death' headers, punctuated by the occasional unsourced change [111] or head-scratcher [112], [113]. I suspect there's a competence or language issue, and am dubious that the user will communicate. But maybe I'm quick to predicate my interpretation on previous experience. You're correct to make the effort. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/31.53.139.112 appears to have been the same editor and is currently blocked. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise; thank you for the note. Should this account be blocked for evasion, and are there any more where that came from? JNW (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only block if the disruptive edits continue. There's only been one edit since the AN/I notification and that was to undo their own edit. Peter James (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rockysantos and LTblb

Irom Chanu Sharmila

The BLP Irom Chanu Sharmila (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) is a bit of a mess; but I am bringing it here specifically for additional review of one specific edit summary:

• 15:10, 7 November 2013: "request it stand for 24 hours to keep her alive then undo when some have had the chance to read her plea."

I had removed the content due to a lack of a WP:RS. Can others please take a look and weigh in on the appropriateness of the content? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced. Given that it contains negative assertions about at least one named individual, it must be reverted, under WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the policy is clear. It can even be an exception to 3RR. Content is easy to restore later if an individual can find an RS. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced material was restored yet again: [114]. I've reverted, and left another message at User talk:DesmondCoutinho. Hopefully, he'll finally respond, but otherwise, I think a block may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has responded, and though the response is not exactly nice, I believe he is not going to revert anymore. Also, he knows that the next revert will be accompanied by a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K6ka

Inappropriate warnings;

6 March 2022

• 23:3923:39, 6 March 2022 diff hist +1,810‎ N User talk:Dancingpony022 ‎ Welcome to Wikipedia! current Tag: Twinkle
• 23:3823:38, 6 March 2022 diff hist +677‎ User talk:1111digital ‎ →‎Attention needed at username change request: new section current
• 23:3823:38, 6 March 2022 diff hist +439‎ Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple ‎ →‎1111digital → digitalupdates: re
• 23:3523:35, 6 March 2022 diff hist +298‎ Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple ‎ →‎Pavithrauniverse22 → dancingpony022: x
• 23:3323:33, 6 March 2022diff hist+33‎ mUser:K6ka ‎No edit summary current
• 23:3123:31, 6 March 2022diff hist+1‎ User:K6ka/Talk page FAQs ‎No edit summary current
• 23:0323:03, 6 March 2022 diff hist +1,377‎ User talk:128.75.142.193 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle

5 March 2022

• 23:3823:38, 5 March 2022 diff hist −15‎ Full-frame DSLR ‎ →‎References: is there a particular reason why Pentax's is expanded while the rest are collapsed? current

4 March 2022

• 13:2513:25, 4 March 2022 diff hist +535‎ User talk:Coffee ‎ →‎Wishing you all the best: new section

1 March 2022

• 18:4618:46, 1 March 2022 diff hist +68‎ m Wikipedia:Changing username/Archives ‎ + current

18 February 2022

• 00:5600:56, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,166‎ User talk:74.196.16.16 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Google Search. Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5600:56, 18 February 2022 diff hist +894‎ m Talk:Google Search ‎ Reverted edits by 74.196.16.16 (talk) to last version by InfiniteNexus current Tag: Rollback
• 00:5200:52, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,167‎ User talk:129.126.35.178 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Westminster Abbey. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:5200:52, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1‎ m Westminster Abbey ‎ Reverted edits by 129.126.35.178 (talk) to last version by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE00:588F:45D6:BB13:E94F Tag: Rollback
• 00:4900:49, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,161‎ User talk:129.126.39.19 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Treatment of women by the Taliban. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4900:49, 18 February 2022 diff hist +233‎ m Treatment of women by the Taliban ‎ Reverted edits by 129.126.39.19 (talk) to last version by Tartan357 Tag: Rollback
• 00:4800:48, 18 February 2022 diff hist −425‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ rv/v
• 00:4800:48, 18 February 2022 diff hist +27‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ Adding {{pp-vandalism}} Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4800:48, 18 February 2022 diff hist 0‎ m Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ Changed protection settings for "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents": Persistent vandalism ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)) Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4700:47, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:188.239.192.233 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4700:47, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:5.150.23.74 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4700:47, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:169.148.44.114 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4700:47, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:92.53.53.68 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4700:47, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:112.204.186.177 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4500:45, 18 February 2022 diff hist +782‎ User talk:Mp1articlehoep ‎ Caution: Unconstructive editing on Super Records. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4500:45, 18 February 2022 diff hist +3,902‎ m Super Records ‎ Reverted edits by Mp1articlehoep (talk) to last version by K6ka current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4400:44, 18 February 2022 diff hist +813‎ N User talk:Mp1articlehoep ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Super Records. Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4400:44, 18 February 2022 diff hist +3,917‎ m Super Records ‎ Reverted 4 edits by Mp1articlehoep (talk) to last revision by Ser Amantio di Nicolao Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 00:4300:43, 18 February 2022 diff hist +165‎ m Great Dividing Range ‎ Reverted edits by 49.179.1.168 (talk) to last version by ThylacineHunter Tag: Rollback
• 00:4300:43, 18 February 2022 diff hist −46‎ Kenora ‎ Reverted 1 edit by 2604:3D09:B980:7500:BDF1:8574:E928:66F3 (talk): Not a notable entry Tags: Twinkle Undo
• 00:4200:42, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Auberge de Castille et Portugal ‎ Reverted edits by 42.200.64.45 (talk) to last version by Monkbot current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4200:42, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m University of Kentucky Soccer Complex ‎ Reverted edits by 42.200.64.45 (talk) to last version by American Money current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4200:42, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m MacBride Copperbelt Mining Museum ‎ Reverted edits by 42.200.64.45 (talk) to last version by RJFJR current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4200:42, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:42.200.64.45 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Skodje (village) ‎ Reverted edits by 36.226.170.159 (talk) to last version by Jay1279 current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,383‎ User talk:36.226.170.159 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Giuliano Razzoli ‎ Reverted edits by 190.3.192.74 (talk) to last version by WildCherry06 Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m The Opry House ‎ Reverted edits by 190.3.192.74 (talk) to last version by 79.225.117.20 current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Nationalsozialistischer Führungsoffizier ‎ Reverted edits by 190.3.192.74 (talk) to last version by 139.193.149.58 current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Karen Jennings (disambiguation) ‎ Reverted edits by 190.3.192.74 (talk) to last version by PamD current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,401‎ N User talk:190.3.192.74 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,383‎ User talk:105.112.70.45 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Muntingiaceae ‎ Reverted edits by 105.112.70.45 (talk) to last version by Petrosclerosis current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Dell Clark ‎ Reverted edits by 105.112.70.45 (talk) to last version by Ser Amantio di Nicolao current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4100:41, 18 February 2022 diff hist −13‎ m Bychawka Pierwsza ‎ Reverted edits by 105.112.70.45 (talk) to last version by SporkBot current Tag: Rollback
• 00:4000:40, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,383‎ User talk:202.79.21.205 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:3700:37, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,160‎ N User talk:98.220.3.184 ‎ General note: Unconstructive editing on Five-card draw. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:3700:37, 18 February 2022 diff hist −8‎ m Five-card draw ‎ Reverted edits by 98.220.3.184 (talk) to last version by 2005 current Tag: Rollback
• 00:3700:37, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,383‎ User talk:179.233.20.2 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle
• 00:3700:37, 18 February 2022 diff hist +1,383‎ User talk:5.150.23.56 ‎ You have been blocked from editing to prevent further vandalism. current Tag: Twinkle

IDK what's going on, but I think their contribs show someth "a bit weird" is going on.

Script fail, or someth. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how these users received messages. Their talk pages don't even exist ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's wrong either. I don't warn users randomly, so it isn't a fault on my end. K6ka (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but, you're making stuff like User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67 so maybe just... stop and work out what's going on? Please, thx. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this revert left a message on the talk page on the very user who edited the page before him ... so what's the problem? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why it is happening; all I can report is that I, and apparently several others, got 'warnings' inappropriately - as seen on User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I recall something like this happening a few days ago with different editors and it was certainly not something the editor did. AGF first. Let's look at one of the edits.[115] At Honoré Daumier it wa an IPv6 editor. [116] Judging from that page though, numerous IP editors are seeing a warning. This looks like a clear error on Wikipedia's part and not on K6ka. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is; it's a technical issue that's been discussed a bit on VPT already this week. Here's the thread; there might be others. It's been reported to Bugzilla, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, IPs are being wrongly warned. That might or might not be important, depending on ones POV. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's important, but I don't think it's particularly fair to be sanctioning people for a technical issue over which they have no control, and I don't think it's a good idea to tell people to stop reverting vandalism either, so IMO, we're kinda caught between a rock and a hard place. Your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to wait for the issue to be fixed. In the meantime, users that were incorrectly warned will just have to flood the talk pages of the editor that reverted vandalism :( K6ka (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating page after MfD deletion

IP account used for nothing but vandalism

I am bringing this here, rather than AIV, because the user is currently blocked for a week. User: 98.197.200.120 is a vandalism-only account. More precisely, in the 10 months they have been posting here, their additions have consisted entirely of capital-letter nonsense rants in Spanish or Spanglish. Recent examples: [119] [120] [121] Earlier examples: [122] [123] [124] [125] Earliest examples: [126] [127] The rants appear to be about some person that the user regards as having historical or religious significance. They do not respond to warnings by either template or personal note. When blocked, they come right back and resume their posting pattern as soon as the block expires. They have NEVER made a constructive contribution to the Wiki. I don't know what can be done about this type of account, but I am bringing it here for evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{anonblock}}ed for 6 months. I kind of sort of in a way over-ruled Mark on this one, but i don't think he'll mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response! --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the same user is posting the same kind of rants (minus the occasional English word that they throw in here) at the Spanish Wikipedia. [128] Is there any coordination or communication between the wikis, or should there be? --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's little formal coordination for things like this, but I'm sure they'd appreciate a heads up if you can notify them at their equivalent noticeboard. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to leave a note at what I hope to be the correct admin noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one their contribs (creation of an article talk page with nonsense) as vandalism. If you need help with the es.wiki stuff let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting disruptive SPA

Rupintojas (talk · contribs) seems to have only one agenda: slow-warring on nationality issues at Ignacy Domeyko. I think a warning may be advisable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 10:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So give him a warning ... yours holds the same power as anyone else's ES&L 11:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be a WP:ARBEURO discretionary sanction situation. I mean, it looks like the specific issue on Ignacy Domeyko has been going on since at least 2005, with various editors calling him Polish, Lithuanian, or Belorussian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him the sanctions warning and added one at Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This may make me sound like a bit of an ass, but I clicked on a random link from that ARBEURO matter and noticed that the editor known as Galassi was sanctioned for Ukraine and Cossacks. Now unless the definition of Pogrom is suddenly NOT highly relevant to both of those, isn't this edit a violation of the sanctions?[129] Several others also jump out at me in the recent contribution list. Do these things expire or is the "indefinite" clause right because at first glance it looks like they mean nothing. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking of WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions, but perhaps they have been superseded; I've been happily out of the loop on those issues for few years now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus reply here} 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redirect now to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor that seems to have some issues.

User with persistent copyright infringement uploads

BGCTwinsEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently been uploading images that constitute blatant copyright infringement. This user just received their 9th template warning on their talk page, and has been told specifically what they were doing wrong three times. I asked them to stop a month ago, they left a message on my talk page saying "I very well understand the image issues as it was my first time & I made mistakes" which led me to believe they understood the issue and were going to improve.[130] Despite this the bad image uploads have continued, and probably will continue until some sort of action is taken. I brought this issue here a few weeks ago but received no response.LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I did receive a bad image warning however due to the fair use copyright disclaimer under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, & research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statue that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal usetips the balance in favor of fair use. So as long as I, the uploader, has no intentions of making a profit from the images then by law the images are allowed to be placed on wikipedia. You would have known that if you bothered to read the file description page & the file discussion page where I explained the exact same thing to the person who most recently gave me the image warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGCTwinsEdit (talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows a much more stringent interpretation of "fair use" than the one you are trying to use, BGC. None of our exceptions to copyright apply to an ordinary shot such as the one I just deleted, of a living person for whom a non-copyrighted picture could be obtained. --Orange MikeTalk 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to see if BGCTwinsEdit understands and accepts this - if not a block is needed. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reporting user: Handyunits

Hello! The editor is continuously reverting edits and putting original research to {{Islamism in South Asia}} without providing any reliable references in support of such edits not even leaving any notes in the template's talk page. The user was previously reported here. The list of events added by this editor have not a single reliable source that proves those events as a part of Islamic politics in South Asia. I'm seeking Administrator's attention for this edit war. Regards,--Benfold (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just left User:Handyunits a pretty direct message to not readd those events, but to participate in discussion at the template talk page. Looking at the history of Template talk:Islamism in South Asia, Benfold has participated there, but Handyunits has not. If Handyunits disregards my suggestion, a block for edit warring is absolutely in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your involvement to resolve the issue. Hopefully, the editor will discuss in the template talk page rather than continuous reverting.--Benfold (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: RfC regarding the anime and manga dispute has been started

Previous AN/I threads have focused on a dispute surrounding coverage of anime and manga articles, often focusing on the conduct between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri. The most recent AN/I thread was resolved in favor of holding a binding RfC on the content issue, with he hopes that that would allow the conduct issue to resolve itself.

The RfC is now online, and can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC.

Uninvolved parties are encouraged to come to the page and voice their opinions. This is an issue that several members of the Anime and Manga WikiProject have been heated about, so it is also going to be good to have neutral parties watching the conversation to make sure that it stays on topic and does not dissolve into bickering about past user conduct.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short-sighted, dickish behaviour, not assuming good faith, yadda yadda yadda

Legal threat by User talk:74.196.111.68

Special:Contributions/Banaster_Giver_Extra_Polite

User:Parrot of Doom: battleground on article talk pages

Personal attacks need to be redacted

• User:Writegeist (edit talk history links watch logs)

I've been in a discussion on User_talk:Jimbo Wales about paid editing and talking to editors about my experience. This user has been spreading ad hominems. They've said that defending myself is a crime and then went on to insult me and assume some serious bad faith. It was pointed out to them that they've crossed the line and their response was to throw more personal attack at that user. Writegeist's comments should be redacted.--v/r - TP 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note this paid-to-edit administrator takes my comments as insulting etc. I think my points were well made, I totally disagree with his pejorative labels, and it's absolutely no problem to me to strike the comments to satisfy him, so I shall now do so. I have already struck my reply to attacks--unfounded, in my view--by another editor, as that part of the discussion was off topic and threatened to become disruptive if continued. Writegeist (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "well made" when you assume bad faith about some attribute of them that you don't like, poke them about it, and they defend themselves. As I've already said, that's circular reasoning. You are the cause of your own conclusions. It is wrong to expect someone not to defend themselves and to assume that the act of, not even the content of but the act itself, defending oneself is in itself evidence of wrongdoing. If you have a problem with me, show a policy I've violated. Otherwise, keep the personal comments about me to yourself. You're not going to get a WP:CIVILITY free pass just because I got paid once to write an article for which even User:Smallbones, as one of my sharpest critics, said was a good article.--v/r - TP 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for my comment, but the best I could find was "the article is ok." I might have said "good" somewhere, I guess but it would have been a somewhat inflated "good". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet Writegeist, you used the edit-summary for your post above to take cheap pot-shots? That's pathetic behaviour, and unbecoming of anyone on this project. Based on that, I think action needs to be taken - this BS has to be stopped for the protection of the project and its editors ES&L 22:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. The project and its editors don't need protection from paid-to-edit administrators being openly referred to as paid-to-edit administrators. The project and its editors need protection from paid-to-edit administrators. Writegeist (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice opinion, unfortunately the two relevant policies WP:NPA and WP:COI don't support it. When you use paid-to-edit as a pejorative, it is a personal attack.--v/r - TP 01:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and you do it again here? Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA ES&L 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is indeed getting a bit hot over at Jimbo's talk page. The topic is naturally quite incendiary. Who would have thought up the idea that administrators should be allowed to accept pay for writing Wikipedia articles? It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper. But another admin is minimizing the practice, and TP admits it, and I'll say that he aggressively confronted me with the accusation that I was assuming bad faith by saying that this is improper. With such a hot topic, it is easy to see offense where none was intended. In 2 cases where I was involved, I was sure that the other admin was intentionally patronizing me, but TP pointed out the misunderstanding. Of course I noticed that TP had just been on the other side of a misunderstanding and had in effect done the same thing as I'd done. The only problem is that TP started waving around talk of banning, accusations of bad faith, NPA, etc. It's a lot worse when admins do it, and TP has been the worst of the lot, IMHO. I think if everybody calms down a bit, we'll all be ok. But I don't expect that this will ever be a friendly topic to discuss. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hot topic and there are a lot of editors who are throwing around assumptions as fact because there is no "face" of paid editing. I'm arguably a paid editor, arguably not but I've taken the position that I am to demonstrate that the assumptions are far worse than reality. But being bombarded with those assumptions, which are actually quite poor and exaggerated, and being the only one defending a position (and then being told that defending that position is itself a bad thing, including by you) is quite a bit taxing. You've stated even here that "It just astounds me that anybody would think this proper" which to me says that not only do you disagree with me, but you don't think anyone should even be defending this. Which then begs the question, are you even open to discussion? You should expect that others, on a project as large as this, won't all share your opinion. You really shouldn't be astounded that some don't. There is no consensus against this and harassing an editor, by going around and calling me a "paid-to-edit administrator" at every chance like Writegeist is doing, is unacceptable behavior. That needs to be stopped. A lesson should be taken out of Jimbo's book. Jimbo does not always agree with everyone, but you'll never see him tell someone they arn't allowed to make a counter argument to his views. He gives folks' arguments an objective assessment before he writes them off. For example, in your earlier comment to me, you said "I'll then go over them and show you examples of what I think is wrong." That's a pretty bad assumption. Without even looking, you assumed you would find something wrong. (ps, when I said you said it was "good", I didn't mean the positive "it's a good article" but the more mild "there are no glaring problems, we're good here.") I want an objective ear, not a predisposed one.--v/r - TP 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I officially ask that his edit of "Um -- someone might point out that it's no surprise to see you swing by to misrepresent my comments. Someone might point out ignorance of a well-known Shakespeare quote; and further, that "parasitic practices" really rather clearly describes practices, and not any individual editor, as parasitic; and that the words "awareness of venality" do not, in fact, say "User:So-and-so is venal." So someone might point out your comments imply a level of comprehension that's on a par with the example already noted. But thank you for your contribution to the topic at hand. be actually excised instead of cutely struck out. WG used the edit summary of struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator at 22:17 6 Nov, which I think is a bit beyond snarky. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another misrepresentation from this user. The edit history clearly shows that when I struck my response to the attack in which he recast and thereby misrepresented my comments to TParis, my actual edit summary said: "striking, as off-topic conflict with this user is unhelpful". [132]Writegeist (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit history clearly shows "struck at the request of paid-to-edit administrator" ES&L 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Collect's comments here again. They clearly refer to my comments to him, not to TParis. These are the comments he wants "excised". He misrepresents my edit summary on those comments by claiming I used a summary which in fact I used on comments to another user. That's about as clear an example of misrepresentation as I've ever seen here. I'm slightly surprised to see an administrator going along with it. I even gave you a link to the actual edit summary on my comments to Collect. "Wow, I could tell you what you are, but that would break WP:NPA" Writegeist (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Collect says outright that the edit summary comment was in the "22:17 6 Nov" edit.--v/r - TP 01:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The time and date were dropped in devoid of the link that would help clarify—to (most, I bet) readers who don't go ferreting around for the quoted summary in the edit history—that this summary, contrary to the clear impression given, was not the one used on the comments to which Collect devotes the entire preceding substance of his complaint. And by juxtaposing the words "...struck out", which close his complaint about my comments to him, with the words "WG used the edit summary of 'struck at the request...,' which open the sentence immediately following, the totally false impression is given that the struck comments he is complaining about carried the 'struck at the request...' edit summary. Smallbones's incisive comments aside, I'm finding this all rather tedious now, so I'll leave you to it. Writegeist (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something that is interesting (at least to me). I would normally think that a personal attack would need to require some negative element. However, consider the following in a hypothetical discussion whether some user should be blocked. user:xxxx Is opposed. In the discussion one editor remarks:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user:xxxx, who is opposing this block, has been blocked three times.

In contrast, consider the following:

Multiply -blocked user:xxxx is opposed.

In both cases, an editor is sharing the information that some has been blocked. Yet the second form seems more negative. Usually a term as a modifier seems a message that it is a pejorative, even if the underlying facts aren't all that negative. TParis appears to have admitted accepting pay for editing, and is an admin, yet in a discussion, I think there's a difference between:

As we discuss this, it may be relevant to note that user: TParis, who is making this point, is an admin and has received payment for editing.

Versus

Paid-to-edit administrator user: TParis, who is making this point

I'm no semantic expert, and it seems like the factual content is the same, but the second sounds like a personal attack. I don't think we should permit it, although I'm not sure it fits squarely into our definition of a personal attack.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I said "aren't you fucking brilliant" would you take that as a compliment or an insult? It's all in the context, just like the second statement - it was intended to draw attention and belittle TParis as a leper. ES&L 00:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion it is about time to lower the boom on individuals who taunt, bait, template, or unjustly block COI editors who are not in violation of NPOV. Already existing stalking rules should apply. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting User:DIREKTOR because keeps reverting sourced edits but refuses to discuss

I reported User:DIREKTOR for edit warring noticeboard about ten days ago because he or she has been reverting a sourced edits refusing to discuss about the materiality and the grounds of the revert. The page was protected (with the last version, i.e. with my edit reverted as I moved away from the issue to keep my hands clean).

I insisted with several requests to participate to the discussion and I showed extreme patience but this has proven to be useless. The editor declares "to be disgusted by my conduct", "qualifies my proficency in English insufficient to participate to the discussion", "that my only intention is to enter spicy sentences", "that I enter nationalist edits" and so on. The user replied (I quote): Get other people involved, or find someone who understands English at a reasonable level to discuss for you. Otherwise, I say openly: I will just revert everything you do to this article. It is NOT my job to spend time "policing" your attempts at fraudulent referencing, and not a single user can be asked to discuss with someone who reads every other post because he barely understands the language. It is also not my job to fix your faulty grammar: if you don't understand English up to a certain level - you're not supposed to edit articles on enWiki..

I have the feeling that the issue is rather that, I just participated bringing a view that is different from his views but that is equally well sourced. The edit I posted was literally copied (I am sorry for that) from a English book from a Reputable institution but even this did not work: the edit was reverted without any reason. All all my requests to know why did not work.

I requested a 3O but this could not be processed because no discussion had place before. So I found myself between a rock and a hard place. For this reason I report this incident. My primary concern is to find a solution. Useless to say, if the community confirms that Direktor has behaved in conformity with WP's rules I will accept the judgement. For what I could see on other discussions, Direktor usually talks like that. So may be this is normal and acceptable.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At a glance it seems User:DIREKTOR (Silvio1973, please note you linked another user above - user names are case sensitive apparently) has WP:OWN behaviour on Talk:Istrian exodus. Refusal to comment on what seems a decent source-based addition looks disruptive to me. I suspect there is some pro-Yugoslavian POV on the part of DIREKTOR, but I am the son of Istrian exiles, and as such I'm quite biased on the issue, most probably.--cyclopia^speak! 11:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is most certainly not the case. I have not expanded that article in any significant way and absolutely do not consider myself the "owner". As for "refusing to comment", I have filled an entire talkpage archive and more trying my best to work this out with Silvio. Then we rolled back to an old version and basically agreed not to edit without consensus... until the user typically disregarded all agreements and started another edit war. I explain my position in detail at the talkpage [133]. The bottom line is that, whichever way you look at it, Silvio and myself certainly seem unable to discuss properly - and discussion is very much required on this complex, sensitive, and highly controversial issue, which is in fact the subject of something of an international dispute.

What is required is neutral input. More users. Someone who's willing to help and work with us (or perhaps against us :)) towards a neutral representation of the source material. And yes Cyclopia, while I certainly do not mean to say this "disqualifies" you somehow, it would indeed obviously be better if the input (if any) would come from users who aren't personally connected to this issue, especially actual victims of these tragic events. For the record, I am a "Yugoslav" (Croat) of Italian ancestry myself, hailing originally from Veneto. -- Director (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I further commented on the talk page, but I fully acknowledge I have a bias -also detailed in the talk page. I'll see if I can maintain restraint or if I should leave, and for sure neutral editors should be encouraged there. However, regardless of Silvio1973 previous edits/behaviour, which I didn't analyze in detail, the last edit seemed at least worth of discussion, and not of such blunt dismissal -and you yourself actually half-acknowledged that on the talk page. In any case, I am asking there just if you can both list what are the points of contention and the sources you both use; then probably it becomes easier for editors uninvolved in the issue to see what to do.--cyclopia^speak! 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No DIREKTOR, it's not the case. You are a responsible person and I am an incompetent, aggressive and nationalist user. And on top of that, as you correctly say my English is very poor. OK, now the entire community knows what a bad editor I am. But now please tell us what is wrong with the sources provided in support of the edit. We have been all extremely patient. Yes this issue is controversial and you do very little (if anything) to contribute to make things running more smoothly. But this time you have passed the limit. And quite a long time ago. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above editors are currently at DRN concerning a related page (See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Republic of Kosovo). I believe both pages are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but nothing untoward is or was happening in relation to that issue. I often edit Kosovo articles, Silvio just followed my contribs there to harass. But still, besides the arguable WIKIHOUNDING there's nothing there that might warrant mention at ANI.. -- Director (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain focused on the reason of the AN/I

Direktor continue to add useless comment on the other users, but I have reported this issue on AN/I because I want to know why Direktor keeps reverting a sourced edit about the Istrian Exodus and not to give him an additional occasion to insult me.

The edit reverted is:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

There are 3 sources:

1)Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union - Page 136, Lynn Tesser - It contains the exact sentence of the proposed edit.

2)History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 77 - It contains the following sentence about the second period of the exodus : A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control.

3)People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 106 - Concerning the exodus from Rijeka/Fiume that had place during the second wave of the exodus it is written : The liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

If these sources are not good, I want to know why. Otherwise the edit has to be restored and the disruptive comportment of Direktor must be stopped.Silvio1973 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who is pushing what POV, the behaviour of DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) on Talk:Istrian exodus leaves a lot to be desired. Continuous apparently unfounded accusations that Silvio1973 does not understand English and stubborn refusal to discuss several edits are seriously problematic. Granted, in some cases it seems, by reading the talk page, that DIREKTOR is right on some points, but this does not justifies his behaviour apparently. --cyclopia^speak! 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..And you're posting this after my having reverted myself [134], and after having read on the talkpage that I did so? [135] I may be out of bounds on this specific sentence, and that not by any great margin - but this is such an tiny part of the main problem, it hardly even warrants discussion here. The central issue is Silvio's disruption that makes trying to discuss with him an unbelievably annoying and time-consuming chore. Were that not the case, we would likely already have solved any problems. As I said before:

“

As regards the Istrian exodus business, its a huge mess to read, but I believe any who take the time may well be surprised anyone has invested so much painstaking effort to unravel Silvio1973's fraudulent referencing and misrepresentation to try and arrive at a source-based lede. The user has no understanding of WP:SYNTH, has trouble with complex English forms, quotes references that have nothing to do with his text, those sources he does read he misrepresents in an incredibly biased manner (taking fragments from various sentences and piecing them together in such a way that entirely distorts the position of the author). He cherry-picks sentences without regard to their context; he attributes text to authors who did not write it; when I add text that is actually based directly on the ref, he demands the right to modify it in accordance with his personal views or else forbids its entry, he outright lies (for lack of a better term) and claims sources support him when, upon investigation, - they do not. He enters into these long monologues where he attempts to convince me of the validity of his own personal theories regarding these events, etc. All this is just childishly obvious and easily-demonstrable. I could go on and on. Frankly its incredible. A nightmare for any Wikipedian. I probably should just have reverted and ignored the user after discovering the deception(s), or reported him for all this disruption, but I honestly thought we were slowly getting somewhere and decided to invest the time. My mistake.

”

I say yet again - Silvio does understand English, he just doesn't read it very often during discussion because that apparently presents an effort for him. I invite anyone to review Archive 3 and see it for themselves, particularly as the discussion really starts going (the Archive actually starts with Silvio's first misquoted reference). In fact I hope he doesn't understand English, because the alternative is that he's been deliberately making quite the fool of me, the user who invested immense effort in spite of the barrier to try and work this out. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, let me present one case here (then I'll go to work to present more cases :)). Here's me writing a 5,000-character post where I go into some detail regarding a complex attempt at sourcing fraud with two references [136]; which followed another such attempt [137]. Only after some research was I even able to divine which one of the several piled-on references is actually used as the support for the text Silvio introduced at the time, and discover that the rest are just fluff to make the thing "stick". Then I go into how the one source that's actually the basis for the edit ("Ahonen") has been misrepresented, in both its position being distorted, and through just plain lying. On top of all that's mentioned there, I also later discovered that "Ahonen", referred to as the author in Silvio's citation - isn't the author.

With the second ref, I go on about how the user attempted to deceive me by posting an obvious sentence fragment (perhaps less obvious to him), that turned out (when I finally found the book) only to refer to claims made by Stalin during his confrontation with Yugoslavia. I.e. the author was just talking about Stalin's claims, and not presenting her own position. But Silvio1973 won't tell you things like that. He'll say its "sourced" and repeatedly refuse to complete the fraudulent sentence fragment he presented, etc.

But its the user's response [138] that's really interesting. Without even the slightest attempt at apology, he writes a brief comment about how I've spent a lot of my limited time on that post (he clearly didn't read it), and then starts a new section for no reason [139], just continuing on as if nothing had happened, and repeatedly making strange and dishonest claims about my supposedly not having participated in a DRN thread (where I obviously did participate). This sort of thing is generally how it goes, as Cyclopia seems to have noted reviewing the latest threads. -- Director (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies -I didn't notice yet your self revert before writing that comment, and it is indeed a very good demonstration of good faith on your part. Now, the thread you cite is indeed worrying on the part of Silvio1973, even if I would not go as far as to present it as "fraudulent" -he is selectively quoting out of context and nobody denies it's bad, but it does not seem the full context flatly contradicts the kind of reasoning Silvio1973 wanted to add -after all, it does not state it was just Stalin's claim, only that the claim has been used by Stalin. However yes, it is problematic, refusal to give context is also very problematic, and you are mostly correct debating his edits in that context, from what I can read. However in general, DIREKTOR, your confrontational attitude does not help. Just keep cool and keep arguments based on sourcing. I honestly think both of you should (1)list the individual points of contention (2)go on some relevant wikiproject and ask for outside help, perhaps via a RfC or something. --cyclopia^speak! 10:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hardly objective of course, but I wouldn't describe it as "confrontational". You'd be surprised how fast one gets annoyed with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and having to repeat oneself every single time. "Fraud" may be a harsh-sounding word, but its accurate. I know that's how we call it in medicine when someone posts fake sources (over and over again).

Again, while I know this is not the venue to request participation, I hope the thread will draw attention to the dysfunction of the talkpage over there: we need at least one more user. Silvio and I alone just don't get anywhere. We of course tried 3O, RfCs, and DRN already. Otherwise I don't see how we can proceed. -- Director (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only be happy if more users participate. However, if Stalin used a specific fact to the benefit of his propaganda, this does not mean the fact is false. Indeed the source say that it's true (although Direktor claimed at least 10 times my English is poor and I did not understan). However I will bring, when we will discuss of that point, more sources supporting the fact. Concerning the context, everything now it's provided. And yes 4 sources describe the same context. Feel free to read. Direktor, please tell us what is wrong. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... no, Ballinger does not confirm the claim, I read almost all of her book. And Corni 2008 specifically contradicts said claim (p.106), explaining that there was "no official decision for expelling Italians", and that "modern historiography places social and economic factors to the forefront" (p.109), etc... Goodness only knows what it is (if anything) that's making you think Ballinger "say it's true". I honestly suspect more OR, or nothing. Never mind the dishonest presentation of claims by Joesph Stalin, as "facts" by prof. Ballinger, and the deliberate, repeated refusal to finish an obvious sentence fragment to avoid the deception being exposed... -- Director (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, this is a separate matter. I opened to ANI for an edit that you kept reverting. Apparently this issue is solved. Please refer to the talk page if you want to add something. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe it is relevant. And I do not think the issue is solved at all, as even now you're pushing for a new set of controversial changes. After I filled-out an entire talkpage archive, you accused me of not discussing with you. So naturally I want to explain why I stopped doing so, and why I believe its your behavior that's truly at the core of the problem - and not mine (at least not to a comparable extent). -- Director (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Direktor, going trough your posts - with everyone, not only when you discuss with me - it looks that it´s always someone's else fault. You are never responsible. The others are never competent enough. Look I did you behaved on the DRN concerning the discussion about the Republic of Kosovo. You are a competent and experienced editor but you are too confrontational and you fail to recognise when (sometime) you are wrong. But the worse is that you concentrate on the users and not on their contributions. For someone of your experience it's regrettable. You should be less confrontational. It is in your own interest, other users won't take you less seriously because you are calmer. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for User:Blade-of-the-South

User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags

user talk:2607:F0D0:2002:69:0:0:0:20

This IPV6 editor keeps disrupting Wikipedia. At first, he makes some simple request at my talk page, posing as 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Then he gets blocked as sockpuppet of blocked user, who has been interested in code2000, for one year. Then all hell breaks loose, yet this account is blocked for three days. However, that can't stop him from screaming and yelling and spewing words that he used inappropriately. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who has been dealing with this user as well, I would recommend they be blocked from editing their talk page since they have not done anything besides delete constructive comments and make personal attacks. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk page access revoked, and I've lengthened the block given the obvious pattern of vandalism and disruption. Can someone smart (Elockid? Kww?) look at the situation? There was a proxy block. I'm looking at the other IPs and accounts in a minute. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On a technical note, this IP is likely an open proxy, given that it's registered to a hosting company, and blocked on the Dutch and French Wikipedias as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, he/she now is trying to reach George at Commons. We hope (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked proxy admits that he is the blocked user Sourceforge (talk·contribs). Let's verify that he is, shall we? George Ho (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IPv6 has been blocked globally. If you're talking about CheckUser, it won't normally connect an account to its IP.--Jasper Deng(talk) 20:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any other methods? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go on behavioral evidence alone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are only three ways to connect an accountname to an IP address (whether IPv4 or IPv6).

• Give Checkuser a really good reason. They are very cautious around privacy.
• Get the editor to admit it.
• Find a good correlation among edits, whether it's making identical reverts/!votes, or more subtle behavioural stuff.

But why would you need to verify? bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this user is using the second method himself by admitting as Sourceforge and evading blocks by using 31.170.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in Commons. Update: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sourceforge is created. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's User:Wikinger, of course. Everybody just please block any IP he uses on sight; always use hardblocks for a year and with talkpage access revoked immediately, without further warnings; these are always open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I remember, we usually hardblock this ISP. For future reference, it might be a good idea to get a Steward to block these IPs globally once they've been identified/blocked here. Elockid^(Talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire /32 is globally hardblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

31.170.166.23 was acting up at Commons earlier and is now blocked for 3 days there. This IP is just continuing the quest of the IPv6 one. We hope (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious behaviour by User: Christopher Theodore at Talk:State of nature and elsewhere.

User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'. Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [165] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [166]. At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely. Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [167] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:

1. "User:ChristopherTheodore, a new account, seems to have severe difficulties comprehending our policies regarding original research, and has been filling Talk:State of nature with an unsourced and repetitive argument to effect the that 'state of nature' is a synonym for 'universe' - rather than a specific concept within political philosophy, the (properly sourced and defined) subject of the existing article - based entirely on an unsupported assertion that this is an 'axiom'."

• This misconstrues the actual issue. (see Talk:State_of_nature#The_actual_state_of_nature) The account is 3 years old. Is this "new?" (or is this an attempt to skew the facts to some purpose that is lost on me?)

• Example of what I mean by "misconstrues the actual issue" from my talk page:

"This will be my last statement regarding the dispute. It is true that "state of nature" could be interpreted to mean "the current state of the universe". Nobody is disputing that this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words. Let's consider a different example: capital flight. This is a topic in the field of economics. However, someone approaching the topic with no knowledge whatsoever, such as your hypothetical collage student, could conclude that it means airline flights to a capital city. This is a legitimate interpretation of those words, but it would be ludicrous to include information about Reagan National Airport in the capital flight article. The state of nature article is about the concept in the field of philosophy. Political philosophers do not use the term to mean the physical state of the universe; they use it to mean the hypothetical social structures which existed before the emergence of governments. Your attempt to expand the scope of the topic, without showing any evidence that published philosophers recognized that expanded scope, is unambiguously original research. Pburka (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If my use of the dictionary as a source to so grossly distort the concept of the article like they are providing here (and many other examples of this same kind), then i could comprehend why it's OR), but this is not what I did. Further, my "hypothetical collage student" was actual someone still in high-school. Further still, not only is "this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words" but it is exactly on point. The state of nature is Nature... and the various theories presented in the philosophers works discuss what life might have been like in Nature before civilization.

1. "Having failed to win the argument there, and despite the efforts of multiple contributors to explain why his argument has no relevance within the context of the existing article, he has raised exactly the same unsourced and questionable 'axiom' and arguments at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources [168] and at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard [169]."

• After misconstruing the actual issue, I made a serious good faith effort to clarify it. The use of the term "axiom" was made in it's purest sense: "3. An established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" -- Websters

1. "At no point has Christopher Theodore acknowledged that his proposal is not only unsourced, and clearly based on original research, but completely and utterly off-topic with regard to the present content of the article. Given the repetitive nature of the argument, combined with what seems to be a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think his behaviour has strayed well into tendentiousness, if not exhibiting a lack of basic competence, and that it may be that a block and/or a topic ban may be necessary, at least until he gives an indication of understanding why articles about one subject shouldn't go off at a tangent and discuss something else entirely."

• After seeing the real issue was being misconstrued, I tried to re-state it in a number of ways in hopes of clarifying it. There was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating, there was no repeating. ;-)

• After misconstruing the real issue, the claims of OR are suspect. I am still unclear on certain points regarding OR policy and my questions along those lines remain unaddressed (other then with what feels like a condescending off handed dismissal and links to policy which didn't seem to support the interpretation or application of that policy with regards to the issue).

1. "Incidentally, it is worth noting that a previous contributor, User:Aksis was making exactly the same argument, in almost exactly the same words, [170] some five years ago. It seems not unreasonable to ask whether Christopher Theodore and Aksis are one and the same person - if so, we seem to also have a bad case of beating the proverbial deceased equine."

• Before editing the article, I checked the Talk Page (and Archived it), after a review of it I decided one of the points that User:Aksis was making had merit, so I decided to champion his/her cause on that point. I am not the same person as User:Aksis. This can be verified via my IP.

In addition:

[diff]

As can be seen from the diff, I had made a good faith effort to provide references to support this statement, but persist it a self evident truth. Further, I never deleted any portion of the article and edited it in a manner that not only preserved much of the existing text, but most importantly, the real concept of what the article is about, and in my opinion improved it.

William M. Connolley gave this as the reason for the reversion in the tag line: (rv. Don't like it. See talk), and you can see for your self how things went from there.

I don't think the claim of OR is valid, I think it is a strawman and the real reason for the accusation is there is no grounds to simply revert an edit based on the fact that William "didn't like it," but there is for OR. I feel like the people contributing to the article are friends or know each other via wikipedia and are working together and supporting each other, which in most instances is a good thing, but in this instance I feel a bit harassed and bullied.

I also don't believe my points were honestly comprehended. I also don't think the issue[s] I raised regarding the interpretation of the OR policy or with the current lead were ever honestly addressed.

There was nothing I found in the OR policy that prohibited relying upon definitions as sources, only that other kinds of sources are more desirable (I pointed this out on the Talk page). This seems to have been interpreted as some absolute rule, rather then what I gathered the spirit of the policy is, to prevent relying upon definitions to grossly distort a topic. No contradicting primary source information was presented to rebut the definitions I presented in support of that statement. Just a repetitive, and in my honest opinion, baseless accusation of OR.

And now I am being accused of many things.. I may be a "newb" at wikipedia, but I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in here, but it seems from a perusal of the talk page that Andy has roughly the right read (though I don't think a similarity to a 5 year old account is relevant even if they're the same person). The proposed changes to the page don't seem to be supported by sourcing, specifically a source which indicates the whole thoughtthis change expresses. And the discussion on the talk page seems like a waste of time as Andy describes. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the comments there by User:Atethnekos. ChistopherTheodore still doesn't grasp our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. The charge that policy is being manipulated is ridiculous and I fail to understand how this new user who has a lesser understanding of policy (if others have a greater understanding as he says) at the same time has a greater understanding of the spirit of those policies. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mistook my use of the word "policy" to mean wiki policy when I wrote "I am not new to the concept of people using a greater knowledge of policy (and how to manipulate them contrary to the spirit of those policies), to abuse someone who doesn't have as great an understanding," I was using the term generally. There is life out-side of the wiki-paradigm. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Christopher Theodore's response to this has been to add yet more original research (or more accurately unsourced and unverifiable assertions) to the State of nature article. [171] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making rebuttals in debate is getting me accused of WP:TEDIOUS. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long has this article been nothing more then a "Start Class" article for all the WPProjects involved? Seems like it's been years now (but I'm not sure how to verify that.) I think I can see why it's not improving after this very educational experiance. Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially I had hoped that I'd be able to engage this user in discussion. However he seems unwilling to consider that he may be in error, and insists on adding unreferenced or poorly referenced material to the article despite a clear consensus against the changes on the talk page. Most recently he has attempted to use primary sources attributed to Emer de Vattel (d. 1767) to reference a claim about contemporary theories of the origin of rights. At this point Mr. Theodore has alienated all of the other editors who participated in the discussion. I strongly advise him to find some other topics to edit, and to understand the importance of providing relevant references from reliable secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I just blocked him for a week for edit warring, tendentious editing, editing to prove a WP:POINT and most of the above. I don't see a shorter block as providing enough time to engage w/ Christopher Theodore and see if the editing issues are something which can be resolved. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Copyright violation etc by User:Blueyefinity

User Unable to Follow Basic Wikipedia Editing Protocol

User:Balloftwine continuing disruption on Robin Spielberg

User:Balloftwine along with an IP editor removed most of the content from this article before the IP tagged it for AfD. I have restored much of the removed content and added sources, but Balloftwine has continued to remove sourced content. I have warned them but they have continued with edits that not only remove content but 'break' the article by leaving references hanging without any content. This is disrupting the AfD, which should itself be looked at as somewhat suspicious. Having made major edits to the article I am now 'involved' so to speak and would welcome some independent intervention. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Michig kept reverting spurious advertising-type non-encyclopedic content. Balloftwine (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michig clearly has a personal interest in keeping advertising up on Wikipedia.Balloftwine (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off to give them last warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is empty. Why not discuss problems with the article there instead of edit-warring and then complaining here? Just as an aside, the article looks fine, well-sourced, and judging by the length of the discography, clearly notable. --Pete (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Cosmic is back

spa sock

Removal of unsafe links

Problematic user page at User:Bandi Namit

Long term vandalism from a user with a dynamic IP address

Please could people experienced in dealing with long-term vandalism from users with a dynamic IP address please assist at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?.

The same user has been inserting various nonsense into articles about UK railways for months now - the thread in question goes back to August and the title indicates that it has been going on longer than that. They've used over two dozen IP addresses, almost all from BT (UK's largest ISP), rarely staying on the same one for more than a week.

Short of semi-protecting every article about UK train operating companies, rolling stock and stations (thousands of articles) or catching hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders with range blocks, is there anything that we can do to stop simply firefighting? Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have exhausted all the normal measures, I suggest the use of stronger medicine. We can certainly achieve the equivalent of semi-protecting articles on all those subjects, but in a way that applies to BT broadband customers only, using the edit filter. This would not inconvenience BT broadband IP editors editing non-British-transport articles, nor would it affect IP editors from any other ISP editing any kind of article. Even BT customers editing British transport-related articles would only be inconvenienced to the extent of having to create an account to be able to edit those articles. This would not be hard -- we've done it before for, for example, an editor from Croatia that used addresses that spanned over several of that country's large ISPs that persisted in making curious edits to Nazi-related topics. After a couple of months, they went away, and the filter was removed without them coming back. If you give me some keywords that identify the topics in question, I will happily create the filter. -- The Anome (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a filter already (545), but it's mostly logging false positives, and it's unlikely that many users in Croatia will be editing pages in English about Nazi-related topics, but UK-based users are likely to edit UK-related topics. Peter James (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a description of a possible edit filter at User talk:Master of Puppets#Your block of 86.154.165.236. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter I created has, since being refined a bit, caught mostly-related edits. I've been slowly tuning it as we see what it finds as false-positive (which, admittedly, was a lot at the beginning) - if you look at the newest page of the log, it's been catching almost exclusively relevant edits. m.o.p 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent I can see are 86.155.193.248 and 86.170.48.51, both probably unrelated. Edits to articles in some categories, such as railway stations have been 100% false positives. Peter James (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is our man, who (so far) has ignored non-British topics and heritage railways. The primary "tell" is that he adds unsourced information about a future transfer of rolling stock to or from South West Trains, but does so on a variety of pages, always related to British railways. He also goes for London buses, but I've not yet worked out a "tell" for those; the only link is that the same IP address is used within the same hour. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The filter can only go so far - I can only narrow down which pages are being affected and possibly tag them in the edit history, but I can't include anything that specific in the regex. m.o.p 20:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding RfC talk comments, deleting WP:CONSENSUS summaries and WP:TAGTEAM

This is the second ANI I've had to bring due to User:SchroCat editing or altering other people's comments and this is the second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM involving SchroCat. That ANI started by User:Light show is here. The first ANI where every administrator admonished ShroCat for interjecting his comments in other people's edits is here.

There's an RfC at Talk:Peter Sellers regarding specific use of the word "Jewish" to describe a character in some commercials he played (RfC here). After a week of very grueling and confusing debate with multiple opinions as to exact content, I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary". If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way, I would be happy to, and in a couple of cases did, correct that. [184]

Apparently unhappy with the survey results (a vast majority of editors are not agreeing with him), ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey and all the other editors' subsequent comments. [185]. User:Dr. Blofeld, one of the few editors steadfastly resisting any altering of the wording to the article, in an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM now has reverted my restoration of my comments.

ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year and this behavior is continuing. There's multiple other examples of consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior which is another ANI in itself. Can something please be done about his editor? --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue here is your troll like behaviour on the Peter Sellers talk page and false edit summaries such as this which falsly claim Schrod to be removing editor's comments. And it takes two to edit war, so bringing up Schrod's past history as if he's some serial edt warrer is just silly. I doubt you'll get much support coming here. Why don't you just walk away and start doing something useful?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld—here you are calling me a "troll". Is that sort of language necessary or constructive? (Above you are referring to Oakshade's "troll like behavior") Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I'd say that trying to stop tendentious editing, attempted bullying, and the forceful insertion of utter bollocks counts as something useful. As opposed to, say, calling people trolls and demanding that they leave off of productive editing, perhaps. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Three rights make a left, of course. Doc talk 06:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to highlight Dr. Blofeld's last comment there as an example of this team's approach to those who disagree with them. When I brought up concern for the term "Jewish," this was the kind of response I got. Now with wider community RfC input, it's clear this was a valid concern. Saying "walk away and start doing something useful" is no help to your cause. Constructive discussion as must of us have been doing from the beginning would help your and ShroCat's case much better.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How tiresome, yet another misleading set of half facts from Oakshade.

1. "editing or altering other people's comments": hatting inappropriate comments is not editing or altering anything. As at least one other has pointed out, it is not advisable for an involved editor to try and summarise an RfC – especially if you are the one who has started it, and especially if you do such a bad job of it that you end up aggravating others by providing a misleading situation.

2. "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": no, Light show did not accuse me of tag-teaming, and the term (or any related accusation) does not appear in that ANI. (In passing, that ANI turned more boomerang on Light show than anything else)

3. "I created a straight forward non-partial "Survey summary"." No, it was not "non-partial" (whatever that means). It was one-sided and misleading and misrepresented the opinions of at least four other editors

4. "If I in good faith misrepresented anyone's opinion in any way": you did, and there are still misrepresentations in your "summary" which you have failed to correct. I raised these in the thread and you have not done anything about them. I struggle to keep hold of my good faith, considering the circumstances

5. "Apparently unhappy with the survey results": actually, given the selection of different replacements, more people want the current version than any of the other versions

6. "ShroCat is now attempting to hide this survey": as per my point 1 above, hatting is appropriate: the comments are still there and can be seen, if required.

7. "an apparent effort to circumvent WP:3RR using WP:TAGTEAM": Oakshade should try and learn that having people disagree with him is not tag teaming, it's people disagreeing with him.

8. "ShroCat has been blocked for edit warring earlier this year": temporarily and was lifted quickly when the admin realised I had reverted because it was a BLP breach.

9. "this behavior is continuing": Are you trying to drag me through ANI for Tag teaming or edit warring? Both are wrong, whichever the choice

10. "WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": More unfounded and ridiculous mud-slinging - I refute it all utterly.

- SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just respond to the most obvious and confirm-able non-truth above. Only 4 out of 15 16 editors so far want the current version. ShroCat is one of those 4 editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I revert to base Anglo-Saxon because of another of your turgid little smears, there is no "non-truth" here. You have lied in your accusation. You have lied in your "summary" of opinions and now you smear by lying again: there is no non-truth: there is a different way to looking at the opinions of the other editors and you are looking at it differently to me: it is not a non-truth, so stop with the loaded language. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the truth. You're way out WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to like consensus, but you always have to respect it. Claims of "turgid little smears" with absolutely nothing to back up such claims isn't going to help you build a consensus your way. --Oakshade (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your statement contained a number of lies: they were outlined below. Can I suggest you deal with the points below, about Tag teaming being an essay and neither guideline or policy, and the opinion of some that an involved editor summarising their own RfC is a bad thing? We may be able to move on to more constructive things sooner if you could. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've still never explained what exactly currently are the "lies" in the summery. But it's likely going to stay hatted so it's pointless to argue about it. I'm aware WP:TAGTEAM is an essay but it's an effective essay demonstrating the circumvention of WP:CONSENSUS as you and two other editors have done like as pointed out below your out-of-consensus removing of infoboxes from the Peter Sellers and a couple of other articles. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are not really making sense now, or are at least clutching at straw here. I am not circumventing any consensus whatsoever, so stop throwing around the accusations please. You may have a beef about me, but try and keep it real, could you? Are there any more things you want to raise, or can we all drop the dramah and get back to doing what we were doing before? - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. A summary midstream of an RfC, that's not unheard of. Nor is hatting such a section, if only for convenience sake. And then you all have a survey over whether or not to hat the comments and what the survey is saying? Drmies (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting is in effect hiding it. The discussion has so many different proposals for alternate wording with so many different editors preferring so many different alternates (with only a small percentage preferring the current version), there had to be some kind of summarizing so editors can at least gauge all the different options. Now SchroCat is hiding this from editors. --Oakshade (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People can read the thread, which contains reference to the sources and counter arguments. You decided to allot opinions to people who had not expressed such an opinion: that is abysmally poor practice. You are too involved to provide a neutral summary, especially when there are so many different parties going for so many different options, with more people wanting the status quo than any other. The thread is still there, and accusing an editor of deleting comments in your summary really takes the cake! - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullshit, Oakshade. "In effect hiding it"--whatever. You're not being oppressed here. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've always felt hats are neon pointers to "the good stuff is in here." NE Ent 21:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies likes this.
• Uhm, a quick comment - in my purely professional capacity, of course - NE Ent? That comment is full of win. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks at Oakshade's contributions to wikipedia in recent months, I don't think this is the sort of troll we want on wikipedia. It's disruptive, and he's continuing to waste time with this here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who disagrees with this tag team is called a "troll." I've been editing here since 2006 and have created some major articles and never has anyone thrown such attacks at me until I dared to disagree with editors of this article a couple of weeks ago. This is their M.O.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At the moment, the only problematic behaviour I see in this thread is two edtors calling Oakshade a "troll" and a "liar". THis is an editor who has been here a long time - longer than me - and whilst I have often disagreed with him, especially at AfD, I have never seen any evidence of such behaviour. And none has been presented here, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As per my comments above: "second ANI regarding WP:TAGTEAM": untrue. " I created a straight forward non-partial": untrue. "this behavior is continuing": untrue. " consistent WP:NPA, WP:HOUND and WP:OWN behavior": untrue. And that's just in this thread. I'll happily outline the ones in the RfC, if you'd like? I do not consider pointing out such untruths as "problematic". I am not sure what the length of someone's history has to do with anything, tbh: if we're playing that game, Blofeld has been here longer than Oakshade - and that means absolutely nothing too! - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• An untruth does not liar make; "lie" implies intention to deceive, so, unless you can provide evidence an editor is being intentionally duplicitous it's best not to call them a liar. NE Ent 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Very true, NE Ent, but when I see someone summarise a thread and misrepresent the opinions of others, and then file at ANI with a series of "untruths" all strung together, I'm afraid my AGF facility takes too much of a battering to think anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the misrepresentation? Where exactly are you claiming I'm intentionally deceiving anyone? As I've said, if you point out exactly, I will happilly correct it (as I've done twice, btw [186][187]).--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet, despite having to twice alter it after some very basic misrepresentation was found, it's STILL misleading. I've already pointed out in the talk thread where it is misleading and you still haven't corrected it. Even if you correct now, for a third time, it is rather self-evident that for such an involved editor to try and summarise something using your opinions was a mistake. If you had simply tried to report the situation it may (and only just may) have been acceptable, but you tried to interpret the opinions of others - and you've made something of a mess. "Non-neutral" is the nicest way that your efforts can be described. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read what you wrote in the talk thread and I don't see what you're talking about that's "misleading." For the sake of everyone here, can you please explain what exactly is currently "misleading" about the summery?--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me what purpose the summary is intended to provide; I'd expect both participants and the eventual RFC closer to read the entire discussion in its entirety. NE Ent 00:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many proposals for the re-wording of the content by multiple editors and so many preferences for those proposals from so many editors, as well as those who wanted no re-write or elimination of the section as a whole, and with the thread meandering on for what seemed like forever, there needed to be a place that had some sort of easy references to those who came onto the RfC so they can get an understanding of even what was being debated. That's all the purpose was and I think it was a good purpose.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackkite and Oakshade, what percentage of Oakshade's contributions in the last three months have gone into constructive mainspace editing? DO you really consider him a constructive editor Blackkite? The fact is you're not a productive editor, I've looked at your contributions since August on here and your continued posting on the Sellers talk page and here is wasting a lot of time for everybody involved. The way you and Light show obsessively keep posting on the Sellers page pushing either infoboxes or trivial article "issues" for weeks on end while contributing bugger all to the encyclopedia. It's destructive behaviour and a drain on good editors here who really should not have to be dealing with this and be editing themselves. I suggest you take a break from here for a bit and come back when you're willing to improve the encyclopedia and edit something else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ernst, Black Kite is a hardworking admin, but do you really want them to dig through those edits to find evidence for your position? This is the third time this week, I think, that I have to point out the usefulness of RfC/U. Your interest here should be to disprove the allegations; throwing mud right back at the plaintiff is rarely useful. Think tactics, evil one. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Besides multiple improvements to multiple articles, in the last three months alone I've created the articles Brian Kelley (intelligence), Sanja Bizjak, Daniela Knapp, The Disaster Artist and Christine Schorn. If you feel such activity is "unconstructive," you can start a formal investigation. This smear/attack-anyone-who-disagrees WP:NOTTHEM defense is just what we're dealing with with these editors and this is prime example. I have certainly disagreed with Blackkite over the years but never have I doubted his sincerity nor his ability to constructively work with other editors. I recommend you begin that approach with editors you don't see eye to eye with.--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness you have made some additions pre October but in the last few weeks or so you've been worryingly focused on Talk:Peter Sellers haven't you? Why not continue to create articles and ignore it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the hat itself as worth arguing about, but editors should sign them per the instructions at {{hat}} (and WP:TPG) NE Ent 21:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, my bad - thanks for adding it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titling the hatting in bold "misleading and one-sided" and "twisting to your own opinion" as SchroCat has done is most certainly worth arguing about. Instead of taking my word for it, everyone is certainly invited to look at the summary and decide if there is anything "misleading" or has the intention of anything but a convenient summary to a very long and arduous debate. --Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah OK. So, all this boils down to someone having mistitled something. And you started an ANI thread over that. Thanks for reminding us why these are called dramah boards. Moving right along--the Peyton Manning show is on. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was started over the tag teaming in order to circumvent WP:CONSENSUS. That opinion stands. But I did have to point out that relatively less-major issue of SchroCat's inappropriate title. Believe me, there are many other issues of WP:CIVIL and other violations, some of which has been demonstrated on this board, but there's only so much that can be covered in a single ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no breach of an essay, and you've provided no evidence of it anyway. I have struck the elements of that hat's title that are inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Other editors may wish to have a look at the discussion. I can not BELIEVE what absolute bollocks is being passed off as reasoning there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the very few things I agreed with Jack Merridew about is the pitched-battle mentality of the "key authors" of this article resisting the inclusion of an infobox at all costs. There is an extremely limited consensus to exclude the infobox, and it's tiresome and frustrating to argue with those that control every nuance of the article. So please don't kill the messenger. Doctalk 02:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on that...I wonder if they even realise how amateurish the article looks without one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not giving an opinion on this situation, but on a narrow note, WP:TAGTEAM is not a policy or even a guideline, it is an essay, and rightly so, especially considering how often it gets misued mis-invoked. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since doing !vote summaries in the middle of an RFC or RM discussion is considered a bad, bad thing ... and is usually an attempt to skew the continued !votes (remember, it's the POLICY-BASED discussion that counts, not the COUNT) ... hatting such an egregious attempt to change the course of the RFC was an absolute necessity. So, I'd say that WP:BRD kicks in, but no ... in this case, we stop at Bold - hat it, and move on, don't even dream of reverting the hat because whoever hatted it stopped you from being considered disruptive ES&L 11:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing at Naveen Jain yet again

• Naveen Jain (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• 173.160.176.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.160.176.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.103.74.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Oct'13 COIN Report

This article has a long history of editors attempting to whitewash the article against a conflict of interest (COIN January 2008). In the past, most of the problems have been managed with partial protection of the article. After the latest potential IPO of Jain's company Intelius was pulled, the article settled down and protection was removed.

173.160.176.110/111 are new WP:SPA ips registered to "NAVEEN JAIN NAVEENJAIN". The ip's have repeatedly violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI with their editing, and have attacked other editors.

70.103.74.91 is an Intelius ip. Similar problems from this ip, though the editor is more civil.

70.103.74.91 and 173.160.176.111 have continued after the COIN report.

I can provide diffs if necessary, but given the article history, the blatant coi's, and the short editing histories, I hope we can get through this quickly. Minimally, I'd like to see 173.160.176.111 blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ronz, what are the odds that I come across this languishing thread, and I'm the one who semi-protected the article last year. I just did the same, and will have a look at the rest of the bizniz. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd block the 173 IP(s)--that last edit of theirs is pretty clearly evidence of COI editing and BLP violating--but I see little point after I semi-protected the article. Please do drop me/us a line if their behavior elsewhere becomes disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks and will do! --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Express

Hello. I would like to bring before a group of uninvolved admins a significant edit that recently occurred on the Suburban Express page. But first, I find it appropriate to give you the backdrop of this situation.

Over a 3 month period, CorporateM has been helping monitor and mediate edits to the page via the Suburban Express Talk page. Involved in the discussion have been numerous COIs, including myself, the owner of the company, and many other paid editors (the reward board, Biosthmors, and SirCharlesofDriftwood). Due to outing editors (here and here), the owner of Suburban Express Arri_at_Suburban_Express was blocked.

Once blocked, the owner of Suburban Express continued posting private information about WP editors on the Suburban Express website (web address not shown since they contain names) as seen here for AlmostGrad and here for Gulugawa, and here for NegatedVoid. He also posted about a Wikimedia admin here.

As you all can see, there has been quite a bit of controversy, which leads me to my main concern. As described above, the article has been monitored and mediated by CorporateM. He has worked tirelessly and was even recognized for his work here. As things have progressed, SlimVirgin has taken the stance that s/he believes no COIs should discuss or edit the main Suburban Express page or its Talk page as seen in this example and again in this example. Prior to both comments directed at AlmostGrad, s/he solicited Suburban Express for feedback. When AlmostGrad inquired as to why this was fair, SlimVirgin ignored the comment.

This leads up to the most serious edit. On November 9th, this major edit was done marked as a copy-edit. This edit was done without any prior discussion, negating over 3 months of edits under the supervision of CorporateM. Once these edits were completed, many admins displayed their disagreements with the shift in POV, even if subtly like in this response. Other editors were more bold in their response here and also here referring to "whitewashing". One editor, N2e suggested that SlimVirgin was making a WP:BOLD edit. However, as another IP pointed out in this edit, you need to be WP:CAREFUL. Some would argue that copy-edits do not fall under this category, however; SlimVirgin’s edit was far from a “simple copyedit” as the rule describes. In essence, SlimVirgin has whitewashed the criticism, for which 45 largely-reliable secondary sources exist, while adding self-published primary sources and interviews to promote the subject.

Once these edits were completed, AlmostGrad attempted to give examples of notable facts that should be addressed here. To these suggestions, SlimVirgin was again silent. Furthermore, SlimVirgin used admin privileges to dig out non visible (and irrelevant) material. This received a response from AlmostGrad to which I agree.

In closing, the article should be reverted back, pre-SlimVirgin’s “copyedit” here since it reflects vigorous conversation and mediation. I would also like to request that SlimVirgin refrain from asking others to not engage in discussion about the topic on talk pages, since those are intended to reach a consensus (which was not reached for SlimVirgin’s latest copyedit). 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On User_talk:Arri_at_Suburban_Express, I saw the following comment:

I've placed this discussion On hold per private discussion. LFaraone 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we should wait for the "private discussion" to end right now, or get started with the ANI talk? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for posting here is not due to the unblock request on that talk page, but rather a substantial un-discussed edit on the Suburban Express and requests by SlimVirgin for editors to stop editing.24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That edit was quite a problem, especially combined with the discouragement of discussion considering its boldness. While it is arguably acceptable to reduce the emphasis on Suburban Exp's disputes with students, there was clearly no consensus for raising the article's rhetoric on Suburban Exp's "rigorously enforcing" it's "terms of service." 135.0.167.2 (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute to me, and not something that requires admin action. If you cannot settle your disagreements on the talk page, I would say that the best thing to do is to take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given SlimVirgin's copy edits to the article I would say that she is involved, but I don't see her advice for the COI editors to stay away as being problematic, as long as it is only advice and not a demand. The main guiding policies here are verifiability, neutral point of view and consensus, and I can't see that she has broken any of these, especially given her well-reasoned post here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus reached for that copyedit, nor are the edits a neutral point of view. An example can be seen in these edits marked in my second to last paragraph above: "while adding self-published primary sources and interviews to promote the subject." These edits (which are and advertisement and quote from the owner about riding statistics, which display no verifiability) coupled with the release of private info available to admins creates a significant problem.24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "SlimVirgin used admin privileges to dig out non visible (and irrelevant) material"--where? how? pretty significant charge (I suppose we're aiming for a cumulative effect here), but I don't see what she did wrong in that comment. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFC submission SV references in her comment was deleted at AlmostGrad's request and is thus currently visible only to admins. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and it is improperly used. SV says in the link, "It's worth noting that AlmostGrad created Dennis Toeppen via articles for creation; the submission was rejected because it was a largely negative article about a living person, but someone else posted it (a shorter version, but in several sections identical). AlmostGrad crossed a line by doing that..." BUT, AlmostGrad is correct is stating, " In any case, an AfC submission by me is no justification or defense for outing NegatedVoid. Also, I'm not sure if submitting a well-sourced draft to AfC (where it is reviewed for potential tone/NPOV/sourcing issues before being published in articlespace) is comparable to outing - the draft was merely declined, and the deletion was a G7, not G10 as would have been the case if it were a BLP violation."24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the AfC should have been G10ed instead of G7ed. Why can't SlimVirgin refer to something only admins can see? Where does this new charge--if I read IP24's comments correctly--of outing someone come from? I'm beginning to think that both articles should be deleted under G14:More Trouble Than It's Worth. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it was NOT deleted under G10, so stating what "should" have been is not applicable to this discussion and "should" be disregarded. In a formal court, "should" haves would also not be a valid argument by either party. If it "should" have been, it would have been. Also, SV used his/her admin privileges to violate policy. These privileges were incorrectly used to prove a "point", of which did not relate to the Suburban Express article in itself. This privilege was used to publicly take a personal stance against an editor 24.15.78.1 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "If it should have been it would have been" is nonsense. If someone says that G7 was an error, perhaps they're right. Not a huge deal. Your links are all fine and dandy, but I still don't see the violation. What I do see is that you misrepresent SlimVirgin's "major edit", which was not marked (perhaps only abbreviated) as a copy edit in the edit summary or on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, that is incorrect. It was explicitly called a copyedit by SV...the section is even called Copy edit. You cannot make the assumption that G7 was in error. That was not mentioned anywhere, except not so subtly by SV. You may also want to note this24.15.78.1 (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I must have landed in some alternate universe. Let's see. You say AlmostGrad is correct in stating it was deleted as G7 but should have been deleted as G10 if it were a BLP violation. I say it was deleted as G7 and maybe should have been deleted as G10. You say that's wrong of me to say, since I can't say "should" since I can't use the word "should" in a court of law. I suppose you're right in principle that I cannot make the assumption that G7 was in error, but as it happens I am an administrator and I saw no request for G7 nor a blanking in that AfC, so I surmise that G7 was in error. "Copyedit"--it was called a whole bunch of things, not just "copyedit". The edit summaries and talk page discussions aren't hidden, so anyone can see that you're incorrect. What the hell, I'll cite the edit summary: "tightened, some rewriting, rmvd some repetitive refs, blogs".

  One more thing. You're here trying to get some kind of administrative action. From an administrator, I presume. I am an administrator. You're not doing much to make me want to act--besides, I can't tell anymore what it is you want. There is something, though, that I'm aching to do: disallow you from editing the article and the talk page, of the bus outfit and of Toeppen. You're nothing but disruption and I can say with some confidence that I don't have a COI here, and can act in an uninvolved manner. In fact, I think I would like someone to close this since it's too long, too uninteresting, too poorly written, too contradictory. And that's my comment. I'll only be back here should a boomerang fly by and input is requested. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was G7'ed at my request, not in error. If it were G10-worthy, it would have been immediately G10'ed by the AfC reviewer. It was declined at AfC for tone and balance issues - I was asked to find positive material to balance out the negative stuff - which is not really possible when the subject is only known for owning a bus service that sues customers, and for cybersquatting - as you can see from the current version of the article.

Why SlimVirgin should not dig up and use material visible only to admins is because they are an involved party here, with a strong, decidedly non-neutral point of view, and using admin-only access (or even knowledge of existence, which only admins will readily have) of a deleted G7 draft from several months back as an argument for defending the owner, who is currently blocked and is outing people off-wiki (on-wiki near-outing was part of the reason for this editor's block), means that SlimVirgin is using privileges not available to regular editors to further their point of view. This sets regular editors up at a disadvantage, and makes the discussion an uneven playing field. One could argue that if SlimVirgin were not an admin they could still have requested a copy of the deleted draft from an admin, but I think it is quite improbable that a non-admin editor would have easily found out the existence of the deleted draft, then requested it from an admin, and then investigated its history. I also doubt an admin would have readily provided them the draft without them showing good cause, like wanting to further work on the draft and a desire to fix the issues it had - I don't think an admin would have provided the draft in order to aid collectoin of information to use against another editor. What is SlimVirgin trying to prove anyway? That I have issues with the company? I have already explicitly declared my CoI on my userpage long back. SlimVirgin says:

"It's worth noting that AlmostGrad created Dennis Toeppen via articles for creation... AlmostGrad crossed a line by doing that, just as Arri at Suburban Express crossed a line by posting real names on his website."

As I responded, I am not sure if submitting a well-sourced draft to AfC (where it is reviewed for potential tone/NPOV/sourcing issues before being published in articlespace) is comparable to outing, or is an appropriate justification/defense/minimization rationale for the latter.

I am not sure if admins are expected to stick together (or whether that was said in jest), but it seems like a lack of AGF to me when Drmies accuses the inexperienced IP of misrepresentation for using the phrase "marked as copy edit", while dismissing the use of "copy edit" by SlimVirgin as a mere abbreviation - the IP never said the "marked" in their post referred to the edit summary - and the corresponding talk page section by Slimirgin is indeed titled "Copy edit" - which is a misleading term for an experienced editor to use for such a significant edit, especially since copy edit is about the only kind of change an editor is allowed to make to a contentious article without discussion or before seeking consensus. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, that is not fair. In my link above SV even labels the link you show as a copyedit, please click the link and look. S/he just adds a different note on the edit itself. Additionally, My request is clear in the last paragraph of the initial post. If you feel the need to block me due to my proposal/incident, I will accept it because my copyedit comment is 100% accurate. I also have never attempted, nor will attempt to edit the Dennis Toeppen page/talk OR Suburban Express article page. You can block me on those anyway. Sj 24.15.78.1 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this thread was started - SlimVirgin is making a solid attempt at improving the article, and it is getting better as a result. Please continue to work through its talk page. Suggesting specific content changes and compromises is more helpful than challenging someone else's work or meta-challenging their use of process. There's no admin abuse here; starting drama on ANI will not improve the article. (Also: That is a confusing use of my username; could you move it or label it with 'cc:' ? It is better to ping people at the start of a comment.) – SJ + 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand, and don't want to bother to try to understand whether or not SV was correct in the point they made that you mention. But I do think you're concentrating way too much on the admin abuse thing. As I understand it, the AFC page was deleted on request of the sole contributor. AFAIK, this is mainly do with the fact that AFC is not intended to be some sort of repository so if the original creator isn't interested in proceeding with the AFC there's likely no point keeping it. But if someone asked for it to be kept and indicated they planned to continue with it, it's likely it would be kept. Besides that, plenty of admins will provide a copy of a deleted page, assuming it wasn't deleted for copyright or as an attack page or similar reasons. Even in the case of a courtesy deletion (which doesn't seem to be the case here), if you had legitimate reasons to want to look in to someone's history, it's likely an admin would help (exceptions would be cases would be where privacy would be a major concern like if someone accidentally revealed their IP or real name or something although those cases should generally be suppressed anyway). Perhaps SV could have asked an another admin instead of looking themselves but really from the limited I've seen, I don't see anything majorly wrong with SV checking out the deleted AFC. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had several non-neutral closely involved editors who are also in a real-world battle with each other. This has involved not only locking horns with each other, but also critiquing neutral editors and their work as a way of further their causes. As a result the article, several noticeboards, and some user talk pages have all been turned into a drama-fest, and the neutral and near-neutral editors trying to help have been given a whole lot of grief and subject to numerous ginned-up accusations. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll insert in here just one point on which I very much agree with User:North8000. As a nuetral editor with no COI relative to Suburban Express, who happened to weigh in with a few comments on that Talk page in the past week or two, and to date, has made a very few relatively minor edits (and one of those only after a BRD on the Talk page), I will just say that having these real-world intellectual enemies arguing and screwing up Wikipedia over their quite public disagreements, and then excessive wiki-lawyering and trollish behavior by many on both sides, has made it nearly impossible to make any progress with improving the article. (or, at least, to make any progress at a cost low enough that any sane volunteer editor would put up with it!)

So whomever suggested a topic-ban for all the (now) identified COI folks on both sides, or at least for a designated period for a cooling off period, would be fine by me. Then the few of us neutral editors who are left could actually work collaboratively on describing encyclopedically this small US company, in a way that endeavors to be neutral and reflect both sides, as well as not put undue emphasis on any part of the history or the current wiki-spat. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that identifying them (one is currently blocked) and giving them a strong warning to 99% stick to content in discussions, and if they going to a noticeboard with something weak it is likely to boomerang on them.North8000 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As described above, AlmostGrad was strictly sticking to content and was left with zero responses. I also attempted to give productive responses to content since SV made such a dramatic copyedit.....However, that discussion is about content, which is not applicable on this board. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, after seeing the real-world battle (and what has spilled over into Wikipedia), out in the real world battle I'd be 100% with you, but we're not there. That said, whether it was right or wrong, taking SV to ani just for referring to using some non-visible material to inform her thoughts is an example of what I complained about in my previous post. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take North8000's comment to heart, rather than arguing it. Be patient, and content discussions will get a response. If you alienate editors who take an interest in the article by drawing them into unwanted drama, you may end up without any neutral editors willing to get involved. – SJ + 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the comments to heart. I think I am either confused on the rules or don't understand the proper process to have my original concern (last paragraph of initial post) addressed. A dramatic edit was done on a controversial topic without discussion after a long 3 month chain of mediated edits. After well sourced suggestions are proposed/presented, they are completely ignored on the talk page by that same editor who made the dramatic change. Finally, that same editor tells everyone to stay away and refrain from even discussing. I'll attempt to re-read the rules, but I'm baffled on on this one. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether SV's edits should stay or not, but it looks to me like none of the neutral-ish people there even reverted or disputed them, and you have essentially (by coming here) gone far beyond disputing the edits onto alleging improper behavior by SV. You might have not understood that you did this, but you did. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few who did dispute the edits, but given the amount of controversy that had already ensued around the article, none attempted to revert the edits (and to be honest, I don't blame them). Here are some examples: "It looks better(ish) I think, though probably a bit too far the other way" and "I don't completely agree with SlimVirgin's whitewash under BLP rules. However, I digress. I will leave that for all of you to decide. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by Johnsmith2116

Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning about here[188] this editor began doing edits to golfer articles. If you look at the win boxes you'll see he starts it but leaves it half empty. His edit summary reads 'someone please complete the information, thank you'

Similar edits can be found to golfer or golf tournament articles here[189], here[190] , here[191], here[192], here[193], here[194], here[195], here[196], here[197], and here[198]. All with similar edit summaries. There are more, but this is just meant as a sampling and meant to show this editor's track history.

In early June I asked[199] this editor on his talk page to do complete and stop the incomplete ones. After no reply and further instances of this editing, I asked administrator The Bushranger to have a word with JS2116. He did here[200] and after further edits of the same type, TBR issued a even stronger warning[201] for him to stop doing the incomplete edits

For a while JS2116 made correct edits but then in September went back to his old ways with an edit like this[202] which actually contained question marks in place of the player's scores. TBR issued yet another warning[203]

Not too long after that, Jsmith did this edit[204] which was incorrect because the tournament was still ongoing. I told TBR about it, and for the first time Jsmith replied back on a talk page. It can be found here. He accused me[205] of trying to intimidate him. TNR said I wasn't and Jsmith replied back[206]

Which brings us to yesterday and today. He made this edit[207] to the [Chris Kirk]] article with the edit summary 'there's a glitch in here, don't know how to fix it)' His edit was going to make a mess of Kirk's win box and knew it but went ahead and did it anyway. I reverted[208] the edit before properly editing Kirk's victory from yesterday[209] into the box.

I didn't raise this edit with TBR not till today when without explanation, Jsmith reverted[210] an edit of mine to Fonty Flock. My edit had corrected information about Flock's death and included a source for it but Jsmith for whatever inexplicable reason reverted it. I then told TBR about this and the Chris Kirk edit.

Since then Jsmith has accused me of lying today to TBR without proof(and there is none) and accusing me of bullying him. Check his posts to TBR's here[211] and to another editor's talk page[212]. That editor had left a message[213] on my talk page warning me of what Jsmith had said to TBR.

As I've written[214], Wikipedia might have the best golf recordkeeping around. I wouldn't have any problem with Jsmith if he'd just stop making incomplete edits. Jsmith's refused to do so on multiple occasions even though they have been asked not to and been warned by an administrator that some of his work is disruptive. Now he is conducting personal attacks against me too....William 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We refuse to tolerate this anymore - 2+ years is long enough; WilliamJE's e-bullying days are over

I was notified through Yahoo Messenger a few minutes ago, by one of the above editors' many victims that he has tried to e-bully over the last 2 years, that there was a message waiting here for me. So I'm going to jump right in.

Before I get started, I'll say that when you have an editor who stlks the section, waiting to catch someone in the middle of a 2-part edit, and then in the middle of it report it as false, instead of waiting to see if it maybe was a mistake, or if possibly unfinished and that it'll be finished in good faith in a few minutes, you've got a rogue editor who just wants to start trouble with people. Users don't need a trouble-making stalker waiting for them every weekend.

Now I'll say what I was going to say: I wanted to let you know that that the person in question has a 2-plus year history of abusing this system to intimidate several users. And he's lied several times in the past, and today is no exception. But it's more than that - on weekends. he stalks the place in waiting, in the hope that he catches people in the MIDDLE of an edit, one in which we have every intention of getting right, but when we don't complete it in 10 seconds, he steps in to mess with it and goes running to the Wikipedia principal to tattle. Fact is there's probably a lot about him that you aren't aware of. There are 2 sides to the story, and you've mainly just gotten the one from him in which he either highly stretched the truth or flat out lied, to you and several others. I'm sorry if you got caught in the middle. Hopefully this kind of thing will stop, but with his type (because I've had the misfortune of knowing his type in real life), it's unlikely to stop. But please keep in mind, even THE most active golf editor in all of Wikipedia (who I won't name, as it would be unfair to him) has never had a problem, he's left me alone and never gotten on my case. Only this one guy has, because he likes to play internet tough guy and thinks he's a lot more important than he is, and doesn't allow for temporary, easily repairable mistake by anyone, for whatever reasons that only a warped mind like his could possibly understand. If that person Bushranger would like to intervene and take the statements of several other good users who he has tried to cowardly e-intimidate, then it shall be so.

He also tried to claim that I falsely accused him of lying. This is pitiful, and yet predictable - every liar always says they are falsely accused of lying. He has lied on SEVERAL occasions about users, today is not the first. .. Fact is he falsely accuses me of making an inexcusable edit when in fact I went to edit the wrong page by MISTAKE -- but instead of trying to find out what happened, he did what an opportunistic bullies like him do and used it as a means to lie and say it was malicious. Please don't fall for that.

I'll not stand for this and won't be intimidated. I've dealt with scum the likes that that user can't imagine, and I will NOT let a "keyboard warrior" like him pretend to be Mr. Tough Guy at my expense.

And he just LIED to you today at least TWICE, on top of everything else. First, I made no "replacing" or whatever garbage he calls it. Second, heaven forbid I make an honest mistake, "oh my god the sky is falling someone made a mistake! Keyboard warrior to the rescue, how dare that person make an honest human mistake, can't have that, I'll teach him, I'm the keyboard warrior! I'll fix him and go crying to the principal again!" This garbage of his has gotten old and pathetic and MANY other's are sick of his garbage and petty stuff. He needs seriously to get a life. I'll continue to do my editing as the rest of the others have without being intimidated by him. —

He also tried to claim that I falsely accused him of lying. This is pitiful, and yet predictable - every liar always says they are falsely accused of lying. He has lied on SEVERAL occasions about users, today is not the first. .. Fact is he falsely accuses me of making an inexcusable edit when in fact I went to edit the wrong page by mistake -- but instead of trying to find out what happened, he did what an opportunistic bully like him does and used it as a means to lie and say it was malicious. Please don't fall for his BS. Darn right this has to end -- WilliamJE's 2-year reign as the bully of Wikipedia will stop.

I, along with all the others that he tried to intimidate and failed at intimidating, will continue our good faith editing with the very rare, unwitting, unintentional mistake without fear of some e-bully trying to play God and throw his weight around.

Not every editor here makes 100 edits per day, not every editor here knows all the ins and outs of the system and is allowed to make a small technical error once in a while without The Gooch of Wikipedia trying to come along and steal his lunch money in the schoolyard. I didn't tolerate bullies in REAL life, and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow an internet bully obviously with too much time on his hands to bully me here either.

And oh by the way, as pointed out to me by one of his countless would-be victims in a private chat, you'll notice that he has a lot more RED next to his edits than he has GREEN. He likes to take people's hard work and creativity and with the push of a button make it disappear, for now reason, obviously because he doesn't have enough else going on in life. He gets off on trying to make people miserable. He must have been rejected when he was a kid and wants to take it out on the world in his aduly years, I don't know.

I've had this account for 6 years, and only started editing last year. And I'll CONTINUE editing. I'm not afraid of some rogue e-bully. There are millions of them just like him here in the USA, and they're aren't tough, and I'll not be intimidated. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else to keep in mind -- as with all people with social problems, he lets things linger and carry over and use it as an excuse a long time down the road - he remembers from a few months ago how I didn't let him intimidate me THEN, and now he is still trying to do it, so, since he's realized that after 2 months I'm STILL not allowing him to intimidate me, he can't stand it, and he lashes out. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Provide diffs to prove your points. People here are busy and are not going to go running looking for the information you're claiming. Please provide links or your claims are baseless. Oh and be careful of the boomerang over there, looking at your edit history and talk page you've been asked to be more careful on your edits and you've ignore them and refused to discuss, make sure it doesn't hit you (though I think I can see it on it's way back.) Canterbury Tail talk 19:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Click here to see a list of where they both edited together, and how far apart, and how many edits each made to that page. Dream Focus 19:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have advised User:WilliamJE of this posting as required. JodyB _talk 20:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• And I was also not notified, despite being mentioned, as is required. As I've advised this user before, regardless of how he feels about another editor, personal attacks are never acceptable, and the sheer volume of them in the above screed makes it impossible to regard with anything other than a hefted WP:BOOMERANG, especially when there is blatant "following and reverting" like this being done.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Bushranger and company, on not notifying - this whole thing with this back and forth protesting is new to me, and I'm not up on the protocol. If I had known, I'd have notified you. Also I'd like to mention, what I said about that particular editor was not meant as a personal attack, but rather more of a possible statement of fact. But I'll take your advice and keep that type of talk out of it. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest starting with the Editor Interaction Analyzer and then use diffs with all the edits that are close in time to explain your position.I am One of Many (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Johnsmith for one week for disruptive editing, including personal attacks, WP:IDHT, the obvious bad edits to articles, and sock puppet threats. John's contributions here made things worse, not better. And even after he posted here, he added this paragraph to an earlier screed. He has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any of the problems he has created; instead he just lashes out at his accuser, and with no evidence to back it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user maintaining ArbCom election guide

Revdelete please?

Conduct in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

word count is an arbitrary metric where ink and paper price is