위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive860

기사를 완전히 보호한 후 연방주의자(웹사이트)에서 전쟁 편집에 Dreadstar 관리

ANI 보고서를 거의 바로 위에(보관 후) 알게 되기 전에 다음과 같이 썼지만, 어떤 경우에도 별개의 문제다.드레드스타는 그곳에서 "나는 편집 전쟁 때문에 기사를 완전히 보호했다.나는 또한 잠재적 BLP 위반으로 확인된 자료도 제거했다.기사토크 페이지에서 그것을 풀어봐.드레드스타 13 23:36, 2014년 10월 13일 (UTC)" 그러나 이것은 괜찮지 않다.당신은 단지 BLP vio를 주장한다고 해서 편집 전쟁에서 이기고 당신이 원하는 것을 삭제할 수 없다.그 주장이 단순히 시스템을 조작하는 것인지에 대해 약간의 고려가 있어야 한다.

한동안 편집하지 않고 이 기사를 보다가 다시 보호받고 있다는 사실을 알게 되어 충격을 받지 않았다.내가 조금 충격을 받은 것은 보호 관리자에 의한 이 편집 [1]이었습니다. 보호 직후였죠.나는 이전의 보호 관리자인 HJ Mitchell과 상의하여 HJ Mitchell이 완벽하게 보호해 준 이 기사에 제3의 관리자인 Drmies가 추가한 위협적인 인용문들에 대해 이야기했고, "[관리자...보호되지 않은 것처럼 보호된 페이지에서 작업[작업]하는 것은 확실히...행정직은 합의를 제정하고, 때로는 집행하는 것과, 더 나아가서 정책(정책의 체계화)에 관한 것이다.행정가들은일방적으로행동해서는 안 되며, 그들은 다른 사람들처럼 완전한 보호를 존중해야 한다.그래서 그들은 의견이 일치하거나 논란의 여지가 없는 (예: 오타 수정) 토크 페이지에서 요청된 편집을 할 수 있고, 심각한 정책 위반(복사본, 심각한 BLP 위반, 공공 기물 파손, 기타 심각한 문제)을 제거할 수 있지만, 그것이 없었던 것처럼 단지 보호를 통해 편집해서는 안 된다.그들은 기술력을 가지고 있다."[2]

그러나 여기[3] 관리자인 드레드스타는 "BLP가 호출되었으니, 그것을 토크 페이지로 가져가라"는 코멘트와 함께 완전히 보호한 후 페이지에서 분쟁 자료를 삭제한다.그러나 물론 HJ Mitchell은 BLP가 단순히 "유인" 것이 아니라, 관리자가 편을 들려면 분명하고 심각한 위반이 있어야 한다고 나에게 장담했었다.이 경우 (GWBush의 Neil deGrasse Tyson의 "오류"에 관한) 자료는 충분히 인용되어 상당 기간 편집 전쟁 중에 잠시 삭제된 경우를 제외하고 실질적으로 유사한 형태로 페이지에 올라 있었으며, 타이슨이 실수를 시인한 것으로 입증된다.

HJ Mitchell과 얘기했는데 WP를 가리켰어Preference는 "이러한 명확한 지점이 존재한다면 편집 전쟁을 앞지르는 페이지의 이전 버전으로 관리자도 되돌릴 수 있다"고 밝히고, 그렇지 않으면 다시 관여하는 것을 거절했다.하지만 그건 옳지 않아:타이슨 소재는 보호 페이지의 유일한 텍스트 콘텐츠인 반연방 소재 코팅랙보다 상당히 유사한 형태로 페이지에 존재해왔다.편집 전쟁 중, 그리고 보호가 우연히 페이지 밖으로 잡았을 때 잠깐 페이지를 벗어났지만, 현재 버전은 "편집 전쟁보다 앞선 페이지의 이전 버전"이 아니다.

레어드스타가 스스로 되돌릴 수 있는 추천서를 받을 수 있을까?앤디브필(토크) 23시 15분 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:BOOMERang2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (대화) 02:36, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

이 무명의 뜻은 무엇인가?앤디브필 (대화) 08:45, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 WP가 옳은 일을 했다고 생각한다.공해. 이 자료가 WP에 위배되는지 여부에 대한 합의는 명확하지 않다.BLP는 아직, 그러니까 그렇게 진행하기보다는, 여기서 주의의 측면에서 방송하여 삭제하는 것이 최선이라는 정보를 포함시키는 것이 좋다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 03:00, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

드레드스타는 "그것을 제거"하지 않았다.그는 쟁의된 자료들을 삭제하기 위해 긍정적인 조치를 취했다.그게 내가 여기 있는 이유야.

이른바 '주의 측면의 오류'는 필자가 지적한 바와 같이, 그 주제에 대한 일직선 공격작품이 되는 상태에서 <연방주의자>에 대한 기사를 동결시키는 효과가 있다.이 기사를 삭제하려는 시도는 물론, 위키백과의 진실성을 배제한 타이슨의 창의적인 방식에 대한 언급을 계속하려는 시도는 보수 언론에서 상당한 부정적인 보도를 받아, 위키백과가 당파적 환경이라는 명성을 높였다.이 기사를 삭제하려는 시도는 BRD에 실패했지만, 이 시스템의 게임은 그들이 원하는 결과를 토론에서 실패하는 쪽에 전달하는 효과를 가지고 있다.또한, 위키피디아에는 적어도 페이지 보호를 시행하는 편집자들의 전통이 있었고, 명백한 정책 위반이 없는 내용 논쟁에 자신을 참여시키기 보다는 그들이 발견한 주에 기사를 남겨두었다.그런 논쟁의 한 쪽에 원하는 것을 주기 전에 그러한 정책 위반이 존재하는가에 대한 질문을 심각하게 받아들이지 않는 것은 심각한 비용이 든다.앤디브필 (대화) 06:41, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

일반적으로 BLP의 선의의 발명이 지원되어야 한다.연방주의자는 살아 있는 사람이 아니며 실제 사람들과 같은 보호를 받지 않는다.만약 당신이 그 기사가 완전히 뭉개지고, 폭파되고, 다시 시작하는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각한다면, 그것은 제안으로 제안할 가치가 있을 것이다.노스비사우스바라노프 (대화) 06:47, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, BLP의 선한 발명은 일반적으로 지지되어야 한다.문제는 BLP의 결정된 나쁜 믿음이나 둔감한 발명에 대해 어떻게 해야 하는가이다.WP:GAME을 참조하십시오. 내가 BrD에서 말한 것과 반대되는 입장을 내가 채택했다는 당신의 제안은 무엇인가?앤디브필 (토크) 07:03, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

이 특정한 문제에 대한 언급은 없지만, 현실은 잘 알려진 자유주의적 편견을 가지고 있고 위키피디아는 현실을 반영한다. --NE2 07:08, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

이 경우 현실은 위키백과 독자들에게 타이슨의 발명품에 관심을 가져온 연방주의자의 페이지를 알리는 데 있어서 BLP 문제가 없다는 것이다.어찌된 일인지 이 특정한 현실의 일부에 대한 자유주의적 편견이 명백한 "자유적" 검열관의 주목을 받지 못하고 있다. 그렇지 않으면 그들은 아마도 이 경우에 위키피디아가 현실을 반영하지 않도록 그렇게 애타게 여기지 않을 것이기 때문이다.이 섹션을 다시 가로채기 전에 이 문제에 대해 자유롭게 알리십시오.너의 우쭐함은 눈에 띄지만 도움이 되지 않는다.앤디브필 (대화) 08:08, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

현실의 무기한 차단을 지원한다.사실은 알려지지 않은 것으로 알려진 재미있는 것, 해방자로 환영받는 것, 임무를 완수하는 것 등이다.비리다타스 (대화) 09:01, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 고백하건대 나는 그것이 무엇을 의미하는지 전혀 알지 못한다. 비록 현실을 무기한 차단하는 것이 정확히 내가 싸우도록 강요 받는 것이기는 하지만 말이다.

내가 너에게 ping을 했음에도 불구하고, 너는 네가 다른 사람의 토크 페이지에 남긴 오해의 소지가 있는 "1RR 경고"에 반대하여 Obsidi가 "이전까지 정정했다"고 말한 것에 대해 내 질문에 대답하지 않았다.그게 최종 결정인가?앤디브필 (대화) 09:16, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"새로운 WP로 인해 타이슨 기사에 대한 편집 전쟁을 염두에 두십시오.NEWBLPBAN 임의 제재.WP:1RR로 제한하고 다른 편집자가 차단되거나 주제가 금지될 수 있도록 하는 것이 최선일 것이다.그 진술의 어떤 부분이 오해를 불러일으키는 것인가?또 다른 논의에서 이 점에 대해 오브시디는 정정되었는데, 지금 나는 너를 바로잡을 기회를 갖고 싶다.비리다타스 (대화) 10:01, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

답장해줘서 고마워.당신의 링크의 목표 즉, 내가 이것을 더 자세히 설명하겠다.Talk:NDG(불행히도 나는 여전히 Obsidi에 대한 당신의 "수정"이 마음에 들지 않는다) 왜냐하면 나는 거기서 자료를 언급할 것이기 때문이다.앤디브필(토크) 11시 29분, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

다시 한 번 말하지만, 나는 당신이 1RR가 WP의 일부라고 말한 것을 말하지 않았다.NEWBLPBAN, WP를 모르는 사람이 그렇게 생각하는 것이 잘못되었을 수도 있다는 것.NEWBLPBAN.당신은 마치 다른 편집자가 1RR을 위반하면 금지될 것처럼 말하고 있으니 당신은 그것을 피해야 한다.지금 나는 비리다타스가 ArbCom을 잘못 전달했다는 이유로 제재를 받아야 한다고 주장하는 것이 아니다. 당신이 말한 것은 틀리지 않았다.나는 단지 다음에 당신이 1RR가 WP의 일부가 아니라는 사실을 명확히 하는 것에 대해 생각하고 싶을 수 있도록 그것을 말했다.NEWBLPBAN은 더 많은 사람들이 헷갈리지 않도록 한다. (그리고 다른 사람들은 나를 "수정"하고, 나는 "수정"되지 않았고, 나는 내가 말한 것을 고수한다.)임의제재가 적용됨을 다른 사람에게 통지해야 할 경우: {{Ds/경고} 또는 이 경우 {{subst:경고 blp} --Obsidi(대화) 14:47, 2014년 10월 18일(UTC)[응답]을 사용할 수 있다.

아 그리고 이 게시판에 이름만 대면 다음에 ping해줬으면 좋겠다. --Obsidi (토크) 14:49, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"핑"은 위키피디아에 대한 나의 마지막 적극적인 관심을 담은 발명품이다.비르디타스가 무슨 말을 했는지 너의 토크페이지에서 물어보지 않은 것에 대해 사과할게.나는 여전히 그가 그때 그의 경고가 오해의 소지가 있다는 말을 들었는지 알아내려고 애쓰고 있다.앤디브필 (대화) 04:59, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 쓴 글은 어떤 식으로도 "다른 편집자가 1RR을 위반하면 금지될 것"이라는 것을 의미하지 않는다.해당 제재에 따라 편집자는 "해당되는 모든 정책과 지침을 준수"해야 하며 "사설 및 행동 모범 사례"를 따라야 한다.그것은 특히 편집 전쟁에 적용된다.스스로 정한 1RR은 그러한 제재를 받는 것을 피하는 데 도움이 된다.비리다타스 (대화) 01:14, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 마치 "관리자가 잘못된 개정을 보호했다"의 과장된 버전처럼 보인다.BLP에 근거하여 COTORACK의 주장(기사가 현재 토론에서 존재해야 하는 것에 대해 많은 사람들이 다르게 끝나기를 희망하고 있음)을 제거하고 기사를 보호하는 것은 완벽하게 받아들여진다.프로톤크 (대화) 15:08, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:COTRACK은 정책이 아니라 에세이로, 관리자가 보호 프로세스의 일부로 그 문제를 "수정"하는 것은 적절하지 않다는 기사였다.즉시 주소를 입력해야 하는 정책 위반이 없는 경우(그리고 COTORACK은 분명히 그렇지 않음) 보호 관리자가 품질에 맞게 텍스트를 "수정"하는 것은 완전히 부적절하며, 편집 전쟁이 끝나거나(위에서 언급했듯이) 페이지에 있는 내용을 방해받지 않고 그대로 두면 편집 전쟁 전에 안정적인 버전으로 되돌릴 수 있다.이것은 예전에는 널리 이해되었다.언제 논란이 됐나.

드레드스타는 "잘못된 버전을 보호"하지 않았다.그는 존재했던 버전을 보호했다...그리고 또 다른 것을 창조했다.앤디브필 (대화) 04:28, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 실제 WP를 닫으십시오.BLP 발행 여부와 상관없이, 관리자는 의심스러운 사례에 대해 BLP를 시행할 수 있는 광범위한 재량권을 부여받는다.기사에서 경합된 BLP 정보를 되돌리는 것이 허용될 수 있다고 판단하기에 충분한 편집자와 합리적인 정보가 이용 가능하다.유일한 논쟁은 그 자료가 실제로 BLP 위반인지 아닌지에 대한 것이다.그것은 드레드스타의 복귀에 전혀 영향을 미치지 않는다.그것이 논의되고 있다는 사실이 그의 행동을 정당화한다.따라서 토의를 토크 페이지로 가져와서 공감대를 얻은 후 자료를 복원한다.--v/r - TP 05:19, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
• 제거가 올바르다는 것을 Knowledkid87 및 TParis에 동의하십시오(논의 진행 중인 BLP 콘텐츠).그것이 WP인지 아닌지에 대해 합법적인 논쟁이 있는 것처럼 들린다.BLP 위반.그렇지 않을 수도 있고, 궁극적으로는 (몇 일 안에 재적용하도록 유도) 안 된다는 공감대를 찾을 수도 있겠지만, 문제가 되는 경우는 분명히 허튼소리가 아니며, 포함시켜야 한다는 사전 합의가 없다고 본다.BLP 정책은 명백히 LP에 대한 위해를 피하기 위해 매우 높은 우선순위를 부여하고 있으므로, 우리는 당분간 그 자료를 삭제하는 것을 선호해야 한다(LP에 해를 입히지 않기, 나머지 콘텐츠가 비 LP에 대해 불균형적으로 주장되는 적은 비용으로).DMACks (대화) 05:23, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]
• 누군가의 행동이나 전쟁 문제를 편집하는 것이 무엇이든, 이것은 도구의 부적절한 사용이다.관리자의 중립성에 대한 자신감이나 커뮤니티의 콘텐츠 결정에 대한 존중심을 훼손한다. - 위키데몬 (대화) 04:31, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

리, "누구의 행동이나 전쟁 문제를 편집하는 건... " 반복한다.나는 이 보호장치를 발견하고 프로젝트 페이지에서 얼마간 떨어져 있다가 편집했어.나는 보호를 촉발한 편집전쟁에 관여하지 않았다.앤디브필 (대화) 08:52, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:PROT는 "콘텐츠 분쟁으로 인해 페이지를 보호할 때, 현재 버전이 콘텐츠 정책을 명백히 위반하는 콘텐츠를 포함하고 있는 경우를 제외하고, 관리자는 일반적으로 현재 버전을 보호한다"고 말한다." 보호된 페이지에서 정책 위반을 제거하는 것이 허용된다.칠음 04:36, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

칠럼아, 위에서 읊은 것처럼 어렴풋이 기억하고 있는 지도정책을 찾아줘서 고맙다.하지만 그것은 당신의 결론에 도움이 되지 않는다.@Dreadstar: 당시 버전에는 컨텐츠 정책을 명백히 위반하는 컨텐츠가 포함되어 있다고 결론짓지 않았다.그는 또 "BLP 위반 소지가 있는 자료도 삭제했다"고 말했다."(추가)바라건대, 그가 여기에 와서 이것을 분명히 하기를 바란다.앤디브필 (대화) 08:43, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 놓친 것이 아니라면, 정책 위반이 성립되지 않는 것은 훨씬 더 분명하지 않다.실제로 내가 알기로는 잘 자리를 잡은 편집자들이 양쪽 다 선의로 논쟁하고 있다.따라서 관리 도구를 사용하여 논란이 되는 콘텐츠 문제에 대한 견해를 집행하는 관리자로 귀결된다. - Wikidemon (대화) 05:57, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 사건이 완전히 명확한 것은 아니라는 것을 인정한다.하지만 드레드가 편집을 할 당시 명백한 위반이라고 확신했을 것으로 짐작된다.편집의 타당성은 논쟁의 여지가 있지만 나는 여기서 관리 도구의 남용이 있었다고 생각하지 않는다.칠음 06:13, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 여러분은 "드레드가 명백한 위반이라고 확신했다"고 상상할 수 있지만, 위에서 내가 당신에게 하는 대답을 보십시오.앤디브필 (대화) 08:43, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

동의해, 학대가 아니라.아마도 성급한 사용일 것이다.편집자들이 어떤 문제가 BLP를 합법적으로 유발하는지에 대해 논쟁하고 있을 때, 그것을 듣는 것이 가장 좋다. - Wikidemon (토크) 06:30, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

"...그걸 끝까지 들어보는게 최선인가?"그러니까, 이런 맥락에서?난, 속상하게도, 네가 무슨 말을 하는지 이해하지 못하고 있어.

남용하지 않는다면, 드레드스타가 말하는 것처럼, 그가 주장하는 정책 위반에 대한 평가를 시도하지 않았다면 명백한 오류일 것이다.

나는 그를 알아채고 나중에 핑계를 댔지만, 그는 나타나지 않았다.이는 WP를 위반한 것으로 보인다.행정 구역.

보호가 만료되고 있지만, 나는 이것이 그의 행동의 적절성에 대한 의문을 불러일으키고 있다고 믿지 않는다. 다시는 그것을 하지 않겠다는 약속이 없기 때문이다.내가 받아들이겠다.앤디브필(토크) 23:13, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 반달리즘:사르 X

사용자의 공격적이고 폭력적인 편집, 과도한 남용 등:플릿 커맨드

• 플릿 커맨드 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 빅뱅 이론의 등장인물 목록(대화 기록 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제 링크 보호)

The List of the Big Bang 이론의 등장인물들에서는 플리트 커맨드가 논쟁의 여지가 있는 내용을 합리적으로 디스하는 것이 불가능할 정도로 공격적이고 대립적인 태도를 보이고 있다.그는 또한 기사의 편집요약에서 편집전쟁을 하고 나를 공격해 왔다.FleetCommand는 WP에 대해 논의하기 보다는 편집전을 선호하기 때문에 현재 이 기사에 건설적인 편집을 할 수 없다.BRD, 또한 WP의 수준을 입증한다.기사에 대해 자인하십시오.

한 달 전에 플리트 커맨드가 내 강연 페이지를 방문했어.그가 나를 산만한 사람이라고 부르기로 결심하기 전까지는 논의가 진전되고 있는 것 같았다.[6] 그는 다른 편집자[7][8]로부터 이 문제에 대한 호출을 받았고 거기서부터 토론은 내리막길로 접어들었다.(아카이브 토론 참조) 마지막 편집 후 한 달 이상 지난 그가 기사로 복귀한 '빅뱅 이론 등장인물 목록'은 "사용자가 입은 피해 복구:AussieLegend".[9] "손상"은 {{visible 닻}} 대신 {{anchor}}}을(를) 무교정 이름에 사용하는 고의적인 선택이었다.편집 후에, 나는 그에게도 완벽하지 않다는 것을 암시하는 방법으로, 인정하기엔 유치한 요약을 남기는 템플릿 이름을 고쳤다.[10] 요약본으로 되돌렸다. "역행된 WP의 건방진 위반:NOTBRANK. {{tl Official} 리디렉션 {{tl Official 웹 사이트}}}. 오직 AussieLegend만이 갈등에 관심이 있다. 나는 평화롭게 그의 토크 페이지를 찾아갔지만 그는 나를 계속 돌담하고 멍청하게 굴었다.나는 그것이 명백히 도를 넘는다고 보고, 플리트 커맨드의 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겼다.[11] 비록 내가 좀 촌스러웠지만, 내가 그 상황을 다루는 데 너무 지나쳤다고는 생각하지 않는다.이 시점에서 코드네임 리사는 토론에 자신을 끼워 넣었다.그녀에게 약간의 배경을 제공하려는 시도에도 불구하고(Windows XP에서 우리는 이전에 우호적인 거래를 했었다) 그녀의 게시물은 점점 더 비난적이고 위선적이 되었다.그녀는 심지어 플리트 커맨드를 내 토크 페이지에서 불러낸 편집자를 비판하기도 했는데, 단지 그가 대화에 참여하지 않았음에도 불구하고 "젠장"이라고 말했기 때문이다.결국 나는 그 논의에서 손을 떼고, 기사의 토크 페이지로 불화를 옮겨 내용 문제에 집중하는 쪽을 택했다.[12] 그러나, 그렇다고 해서 그녀가 나를 거짓말쟁이라고 부당하게 비난하는 것도 막지 못했다.[13] 기사의 토크 페이지에 대한 토론은 계속되었지만, 코드네임 리사는 계속해서 나의 행동에 의문을 제기하여 나는 내가 생각하는 것이 그녀의 토크 페이지[14]에 적절한 게시물이라고 생각되는 것을 남겼다. (몇 번 그녀는 나에게 플리트 커맨드의 행동에 대해 훈계했지만 위선적으로, 계속해서 내 것을 비판하였다[15].

플리트 커맨드가 기사 토크 페이지 토론에 참여한 것은 극히 미미했으며, 본질적으로 단 하나의 단락으로 구성되었으며, 여기에 사소한 질문과 근거 없는 주장을 추가했다.[16] 이후 그는 제대로 논의되지 않은 편집을 했다고만 발표했는데, [17] 그 후 공격이 이어졌다.[18] FleetCommand는 기사에서 공격적이고 부적절한 편집 요약을 만들어 다음과 같이 편집했다.

• "삭제됨 {{검증 실패}}}. 토크 페이지당 3시 54분에 검증이 통과했다. 사실, 나는 그것을 알고 있었다. 난 그저 아우시레젠드가 이 전투적인 행동에 의지하는지 알고 싶었어. 그랬어."
• "{weasel-inline date=2014년 10월}}}는 족제비 말이 아니라 공작 용어이기 때문에 삭제했다. 물론 아우시레젠드는 전쟁만을 추구하기 때문에 신경 쓰지 않는다. 또한 용어를 바꾸었다." - {{weasel-inline}}}}은(는) 내가 추가하지 않았기 때문에 특히 주목할 만한 것이다.그것은 IP에 의해 추가되었다.[19]

부적절한 요약뿐만 아니라, 플리트 커맨드도 편집-경고했다.코드네임 리사의 위협 때문에, 나는 도입된 오류를 수정하는 대신 전쟁을 문서화하기로 결정했다.보고 싶은 사람을 위해 한 짓이야편집전은 계속된다.오늘, 플리트 커맨드는 설명되지 않은 몇 가지 변경 사항을 기사에 적용했는데, 나는 그 이유를 각 요약에서 설명하면서 부분적으로 되돌렸다.[21][22] 건설적인 편집이 있었으므로 나는 그의 편집 내용을 모두 되돌리지 않았다는 점에 유의한다.[23] 사실 나는 다른 편집자들과의 이전 문제 때문에 기사에 추가된 두 개의 노트를 일부러 복원하지 않았다.오늘 편집에서 나는 또한 두 가지 변경을 하여 그 기사가 출처에 있는 것을 반영하도록 했다(이전 버전은 유의미한 WP를 포함했다).SYNTH.[24] FleetCommand의 조치는 내가 변경한 대부분의 내용을 되돌리는 것으로, 이 부분만 남겨두고 있었다.그는 고맙게도 그 편집에 찬성했다.그리고 기사토크 페이지에서 토론하는 그의 시도는 아직 없다.나는 완전한 결백을 주장하는 것은 아니지만, 나는 이 편집자와 협력하기 위해 최선을 다했지만, 단지 나의 노력에 의해 학대받았을 뿐이라고 믿는다.이것은 단순한 편집경쟁이 아니다.어떤 이유로든 기사로부터의 휴식이 효과가 없는 것으로 나타났다.한 달 후에 플리트 커맨드가 기사로 돌아왔고 첫 편집으로 나를 공격하기로 했다.[27] 콘텐츠가 중요한 부분이지만 여기서 가장 큰 문제는 플리트 커맨드가 지속적으로 공격적인 편집과 욕설 편집 요약을 한다는 점이다.그는 과거에도 여러 차례, 다른 편집자에 대한 태도와 편집 전쟁으로 인해 차단되었다.심지어 WP에서의 그의 행동에 대한 우려도 있다.A는 지금.이 편집자는 자신이 다른 편집자들과 협력해야 하고, 자신과 다소 이상한 오프위키 관계를 맺고 있는 것 같은 사람에게 의존해서는 안 되며, 자신의 행동을 충분히 정당화해야 한다는 것을 상기시킬 필요가 있는 편집자다.나는 그에게 이 분야에서 확실한 방향을 제시해 줄 것을 요청하는 것이고, 그가 편집 전쟁을 할 수 없다는 것을 상기시켰다.IM에서 부적절한 반전을 되돌리라고 확신한 후에도, 그는 편집 전쟁을 계속해왔다.그는 또한 BRD 과정을 존중할 필요가 있고 다른 편집자들이 편집한 내용을 할인할 필요가 없다.막혔을 때 그대로 편집하고 있다는 점에서 큰 희망이 없지만. --AussieLegend (1984) 14:44, 2014년 10월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 사용자:FleetCommand:이봐, 편집자 얘기는 그만해.편집 요약에서 사람들을 전사라고 부르는 것은 그들을 전사로 만들 것이다.네가 자기 실현 예언의 원인이지바보처럼 굴지 마.자, 이제 마무리하고 모두 이동합시다.--v/r - TP 19:17, 2014년 10월 16일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그렇게 쉬웠으면 좋았을 텐데.플리트 커맨드는 코드네임 리사의 조언을 듣고 있을 뿐이고, 자신에게 맞을 때만 조언을 듣는 것 같다.이 편집에서 그는 그녀가 시키는 대로 했기 때문에 스스로 돌아섰지만, 그의 바로 다음 편집에서 그는 효과적으로 자신을 되돌렸고, ref를 제거하고 한 진술의 맥락을 완전히 바꾸어, 소스화된 진술을 허튼소리로 바꾸었다.[29] 고쳐야 했다.[30] --AussieLegend (iii) 20:39, 2014년 10월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

그것들은 내용상의 문제들이야, 여기서는 행동상의 문제만 다룰 수 있어, 미안.--v/r - TP 21:01, 2014년 10월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 행동 문제를 다루고 있었다.내 요점은 그가 너의 의견에 주의를 기울일 것 같지 않다는 것이었다.내가 언급한 편집은 그의 일관되지 않은 행동의 예였다. --AussieLegend (1998년) 21:17, 2014년 10월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

WP의 인스턴스를 계속 보고하십시오.NPA 및 어느 시점에서는 관리자가 예방 조치를 취해야 할 것이다.--v/r - TP 21:19, 2014년 10월 16일(UTC)[응답]

@TParis:관리자가 마침내 무언가를 하기로 결정할 때까지 계속 보고해야 하는가?이 편집자는 NPA에 국한되지 않고, 교전, 편집, 기사 소유권 주장, 편집 거부 등을 포함한 부적절한 행동의 몇 가지 사례에 대해 지금 보고하고 있다.NPA의 오랜 이력과 비도덕성을 지닌 편집자로, 여러 차례 NPA가 차단된 적이 있다.그의 편집 이력을 통해 간단히 살펴보면, 한 편집자가 다른 편집자를 돼지라고 부르는 것과 같은 불친절한 경우를 보여준다.[31] 왜 지금 해서는 안 되는가?@FleetCommand: - 그 코드네임 리사가 검증이 실패하지 않는다고 말한 것은 그녀가 옳다는 것을 의미하는 것은 아닐지도 모른다.누구나 그 에피소드를 볼 수 있고 그녀가 틀렸다는 것을 알 수 있으며 나는 그 기사의 토크 페이지에서 그 이유를 설명했다.당신은 토론에 열려있다고 주장하지만, 나는 토론하려고 노력했지만 당신은 원하지 않는 것 같다.네가 하는 일은 편집 전쟁뿐이고 내가 너를 논하려고 할 때 나를 속이거나 나를 완전히 무시한다.BRD를 협력하고 존중할 필요가 있고, 그렇게 하지 않기 위해 변명할 필요가 없다. --AussieLegend (1998년) 11:48, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

"...당신과 의논하려고 할 때..시도는 그만해!플리트 커맨드 (대화) 15:39, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

물론, 예를 들어보자.나는 당신이 답장에서 완전히 무시했던 설명되지 않은 제목 변경[32]의 문제를 다루려고 노력했다.[33] --AussieLegend (iii) 16:31, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

"그는 고맙게도 내 말이 아니라 그의 말에 동의했다."
"답답장에서 완전히 무시했군."
너의 마음을 정해라.그가 무시한 것인가, 아니면 고맙게도 승낙한 것인가?86.57.57.209 (대화) 22:53, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 친절하게도 자신이 삭제한 행적 범위 복원에 동의했지만 자신이 변경한 설명되지 않은 제목 변경 문제는 완전히 무시했다. --AussieLegend (1904) 04:44, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그렇다면, "완전히"가 거짓이라면, 그는 부분적으로 무시했고, 부분적으로 동의했다.다음으로, 당신은 그가 동의하지 않을 때 불평하고, 그가 침묵할 때 불평하고, 그가 동의할 때 불평하고 조롱한다.그러므로, 당신은 그가 무엇을 하든지 상관없이 불평을 하고, 합의에 도달하려는 생각을 발견하게 된다.따라서, 그는 자신의 행동에 대해 책임을 지지 않는다. 86.57.54.112 (대화) 08:08, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 이란 출신이라는 것을 깨달았고, 그래서 영어가 모국어는 아닐지 모르지만, 그는 "설명되지 않은 제목 변경의 문제를 완전히 무시했다"는 것은 전적으로 정확하다.요점은, 그는 자신이 원하는 것에만 반응한다는 것이다.예를 들어, 나는 그가 기사의 토크 페이지 기사에 삽입한 원래의 연구 문제에 대해 토론하기를 나흘이나 기다렸지만 그는 거기에서 보이지 않았다. --AussieLegend (1911년) 08:49, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

너는 잘못 알고 있다; 나는 이란에서 온 것이 아니라 이란에서 온 것이다.그리고 나는 영어를 포함해서 6개 국어를 알고 있어.But, if you want to continue down this path, please be my guest; I'll take my leave now but I would be very surprised if anyone, be it Iranians, Australians, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans or Syrians ever tried to help you. 86.57.54.112 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis:넌 코드네임 리사처럼 말하잖아. (그러니까, 만약 네가 그의 유료 삭푸펫이 되고 싶다면, 거금을 달라고 해! 그건 그렇고 농담이었다.)

여기 봐, 지금.나는 실제 토론에 열려 있다.그러나 평화 회의는 전쟁 중에 열리지 않는다."검증 실패 문제는 추가 반대 없이 철저히 반박됐다"고 말하는 것이 토크 페이지 문장을 '검증 실패는 아니다'에서 '검증 실패는 실패한다'로 바꾸지는 않는다.또한, 나는 9월 내내 내가 멍청하지 않았다는 것에 동의할 거라고 생각해.그런데 그때를 보니 내가 영웅으로 보이나?아니면 내가 얼간이처럼 보이나?플리트 커맨드 (대화) 10:40, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• FleetCommand가 진행 중인 대립형 편집의 예를 위에서 볼 수 있다.내가 여기서 대답했을 때 나는 플리트 커맨드가 어떤 독특한 들여쓰기를 적용했다는 것을 알아차렸지만, 나는 원래의 들여쓰기를 유지하려고 노력했다.그를 고치는 것이 부적절한 반응을 일으킬 것을 예상하면서 나는 그의 움푹 들어간 것을 고치지 않기로 결정했다.그는 이어 "메시지를 올바르게 보내는 것은 좋은 시작이다"라는 편집 요약으로 나의 들여쓰기를 바꾸었다. 나머지는 최악으로 해."[34] 내가 실제로 들여쓰기를 고친 후에도 대립적 요약은 계속되었다.[35] 들여보내는 것을 내버려두는 대신, 그는 이제 내 뒤에 자리를 옮겼기 때문에, 나는 지금 내 뒤에 있는 게시물에 회신하고 있는데, 이것은 무심코 읽는 독자를 혼란스럽게 할 수밖에 없다.그가 뭐라고 대답하든 상관없어, 플리트 커맨드는 계속 대립하고 있어. --AussieLegend (1911년) 16:25, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답하라]

안녕, 그래서 이 둘이 마침내 ANI에 들어간거야?슬프지만 예측 가능한.

전체 평가:

• 그 글의 상태는 안정적이다. 이 정도의 역행과 부분역행은 어떤 글에서도 자연스러운 것이다.사용자 행동을 통해서만 우리는 실제로 문제가 있음을 알 수 있다.
• 함대 사령부(FC)의 편집은 분개하고, 그는 잘못된 시간에 편집하며, 적절한 분쟁 해결 과정을 서둘러 소집하지 않는 것 같다.나는 그러한 편집자들을 다루는 법을 안다; 약간의 존경과 약간의 타협이 그것을 해결할 수 있다.
• 아우시레젠드(AL)는 마스타돈 모드에 돌입했다:그는 악의를 상정하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 모든 사람과 모든 것을 위협으로 보고, 타협을 위해 한 치의 입장도 양보하지 않고, 모든 토크 페이지 포스트에 공격적으로 전투적인 답변을 올린다.(만약 내가 "Fleet Command, 닥쳐!"라는 댓글을 올렸더라면, AL(FC가 아님)은 "I"라고 대답했을 것이다.입을 다물지 않는다"고그리고 가장 중요한 것은 그가 거짓말을 많이 한다는 것이다.내가 그것들을 연대순으로 나열해야 할까 아니면 분류해서 나열해야 할까?연대순으로 갑시다.(아래 참조)
• 다른 관련 편집자들은 나와 사이포이드 폭탄이다. 비록 우리가 그 기사를 작성하지는 않았지만.사이포이드폭탄은 분쟁의 첫 단계 동안에만 존재했다.

사용자 대화:아우시레젠드

전체 논의는 개정 #625920663에서 볼 수 있다.그것은 2014년 9월 1일에 시작되었다.FC는 쇄빙선수로 시작했지만 AL이 여기서 개회 선언문을 통해 밝힌 것과 달리 잘 진행되지 않고 있었다.나는 비록 "스캐터브레인"이라는 코멘트가 왔을 때 비로소 FC가 이것을 예리하게 인식하고 있다는 것을 깨달았지만, AL이 FC를 잘못 알리고 있다는 것을 알고 있었다.현재, AL은 시포이드밤이 FC를 혼내기 위해 덜 민어를 사용했다고 언급했다.그가 언급하지 않은 것은 - TParis, 나는 당신이 이것을 읽고 있기를 바란다 - FC가 사건 초기에 사과했다는 것이다. 거의 즉시.게다가, AL은 당시 이 짧은 교환에 별로 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같다.이후 사이포이드밤도 사과했다.가장 중요한 것은 토론이 그 이후로 내리막길을 걷지 않았다는 것이다; 그것은 그 때 그리고 거기서 죽었고, 잠깐의 미개한 교류 때문이 아니었다.

사용자 대화:플릿 커맨드

전체 논의는 개정 #629285971에서 볼 수 있으며, 개정 #629165515에서 볼 수 있는 것을 제외한다.내가 틀렸다면 고쳐주길 바라지만 AL의 개회사명은 순수한 애드호미넴이다. 왜냐하면 그 목적은 상처를 입히거나 위협하거나 짝을 얻기 위한 것 같다. (분명히 어떤 분쟁을 해결하려는 공동의 시도는 아니었다.)내가 둘 다 진정시키려 하자 "국민이 아닌 내용을 토론하라"고 하자 FC는 "하자"고 답했고 AL은 "NPA를 나에게 던지지 말라"고 답했다!

또한, AL은 아무리 작은 것이 아니라 어떤 형태의 타협도 주고 싶지 않은 그의 절대적 거부감을 드러냈다.보통은 그런 편집본을 보면 ANI에 가져가는 것은 고사하고 굳이 생각 안 한다.만약 그것이 누군가를 화나게 하고 토론을 방해한다는 것을 안다면, 나는 분명히 그것을 피한다.대신, AL은 이렇게 했다: [37] 유치하다!매우 유치하다!누구에게도 아무런 차이가 없는 타협도 마다하지 않는 것이 바로 그 구현이다.또한, AL이 어떻게 실제로 그의 편집을 방어하는지 알아보세요.만약 AL이 "좋아, 내가 실수를 했어"라고 말했다면 더 설득력 있는 주장이었을 것이다.다들 그렇지?" (사실 그런 일이 있을 수 있다.하지만 안 돼!그는 '손해'는 일부러 대신 쓰기로 한 선택이었다고 말한다.{{{1}}}: 비반복 이름'의 경우.(문제는, 만약 내가 고의적인 선택이라고 믿었더라면, 그것은 반달리즘이 되었을 것이라는 것이다.)

토크:빅뱅 이론의 등장인물 목록

AL은 논의에서 FC의 존재는 미미하다고 주장했다.그러나 그가 말하지 않은 것은 소위 말하는 논의는 분쟁의 처리와는 별로 관계가 없고 대부분 교란이라는 것이었다.주로, 그는 특히 등록한 이의에 대한 답변이 없을 때, 요점을 알아내려고 하지 않았다.거짓말은 그의 수법이었고 선의나 협상 의지가 존재하지 않는다고 가정했다.FC도 잘하지 못했다. 미개한 토론에 참여하지 않는 것은 좋지만 분쟁 해결은 아니다.WP:DRN 및 WP:RFC는 그가 시도했음에 틀림없는 수단이었다.가장 중요한 것은 그들 중 누구도 그들의 논쟁을 해결할 수 있는 대안들의 길을 제대로 탐색하지 않았다는 것이다.사실 나는 그렇게 했다. 하지만 아첨해서는 안 된다.

아마도 그 토론에서 AL이 한 가장 중요한 일은 FC와 좋은 관계를 맺을 수 있다는 희망을 영원히 산산조각 낸, 특히 심술궂은 발언이었을 것이다.FC는 내가 제안했던 특정한 형태의 타협안을 구현했고 그것이 전쟁을 편집하는 것이냐고 물었다.당연히 예와 아니오 모두 틀린 답이다.그래서 대신 나는 한 편집자가 6명의 행정관의 감독 아래 같은 날 56번 더 되돌아간 어떤 사건을 호출하는 데 의지했고, 내가 마주친 가장 평화롭고 건설적인 위키 협력자 중 하나였다.(FYI, 그것은 WP:FASR 빠른 해상도, 그것이 무엇인지 궁금하다면!)나는 이 기억이 FC의 마음으로부터 더 이상의 분쟁에 대한 어떤 생각도 영원히 지워지길 바라고 있었다. 무슨 일이 있어도, 그 어떤 결과보다도 연대의 토론이 더 가치 있다는 것을 보여줌으로써 말이다.그렇지 않았다. 왜냐하면 AL이 와서 그가 단지 그것을 위해 FC와 싸우기 위해 어떤 길이라도 갈 것이라는 것을 보여주는 댓글을 올렸기 때문이다.AL은 그냥 입을 다물고 결과를 즐길 수도 있었지만, 아니야!그는 잠자는 지옥마당을 찔러야 한다.결국, 나는 인스턴트 메시징(IM)으로 전환하여 FC를 설득하여 이 모든 것을 수정 #629673768로 끝냈다.

사용자 대화:플리트 명령 § BRD

흠, 여기 AL은 틀렸어, 간단하고 간단해!그는 신의를 지키지 않는다. 그렇지 않으면 BRD가 완벽하게 지켜진다.FC는 "B를 했다.부분적으로 되돌린 경우, 특히 스코프 부분.그건 R이야.나는 동의했고, 일은 종결되었다."AL은 개회사에서 이를 WP의 사례로 설명하였다.그가 나쁜 믿음을 가졌기 때문에 그것을 소유한다.그러나 현실에서 이 문장은 "나는 당신의 되돌리기가 좋았다. 우리는 의견이 일치했다."라고 말하고 있다.내가 아는 한, 이것은 토크 페이지 대결이 없었거나 ANI가 없었더라면 나와 나의 존경 받는 동료 중 한 명이 한 일일 수도 있었다.

최종 코멘트

나는 두 편집자가 보인다; 하나는 토론 우선 접근으로 잠재적으로 골치 아픈 토론을 시작하고 "겸허하게 사과한다"고 말할 정도로 성숙하다; 다른 편집자는 자신이 사소한 실수를 저질렀다고 고백할 수도 없고, 단지 더 많은 증오와 증오를 부추기기 위해 아무것도 모르는 주제에 끼어들어야만 하는 것이다.싸우다내가 첫 번째 것에 정말 화낼 수 있을까?

안부 전합니다

코드네임 리사 (대화) 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC) 01:45 [응답]

코드네임 리사는 사건에 대한 비현실적이고 심하게 왜곡된 시각으로 가장 잘 묘사되는 것을 제시한다.

"AL이 FC를 잘못 알려주고 있다는 것을 알고 있었다." - 아니, 그건 사실이 아니다.예를 들며 FC에게 정상적인 연습이 무엇인지 알려주고 있었다.사실 나는 Codename Lisa라는 주장이 내가 플리트 커맨드의 토크 페이지에 올리기 전까지 관여하지 않았는지 의심스럽다. 플리트 커맨드가 나를 공격한 지 한 달이 훨씬 지난 후.

"그가 언급하지 않은 것은 - TParis, 나는 당신이 이것을 읽고 있기를 바란다 - FC가 거의 즉시 사과했다는 것이다." - 또한 전혀 사실이 아니다.FC는 나를 산산조각이 있는[38]이라고 불렀고 사이포이드폭탄의 도전을 받았다.[39] 그 후 플리트 커맨드는 RfA에 관련되기 때문에 더 미개했을 것이라고 주장함으로써 그의 비도덕성을 정당화하려고 했다.[40] (당신이 나보다 낫다는 것을 이해할 수 있다면!)한편, 나는 내 토크 페이지에서 플리트 커맨드[41]와 다른 편집자들과 대화를 계속하고 있었다.플리트 커맨드가 처음 "사과"에 미개했던 때부터, (이 편집 요약을 참고) 9일이 경과했다.[42] 그 당시에 그는 25개의 다른 편집을 했다.그것은 "거의 즉시" 옆에 있는 왕국의 영역에도 있지 않다!

"AL은 그 당시 이 짧은 교류에 별로 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같다." - 아니, 나는 그것에 신경이 쓰였지만 단 한 마디의 언급도 하지 않고 무시하기로 선택했다.[43]

"내가 틀렸다면 고쳐줘. 하지만 AL의 개막성명은 순수한 애드호미넴이야. 왜냐하면 그 목적은 상처를 입히거나, 위협하거나, 짝을 얻기 위한 것 같거든." - 그래, 틀렸어.나는 플리트 커맨드의 또 다른 미개한/NPA 편집 요약 때문에 게시하기에 적합하다고 보았다.[44] 다른 편집자에 대한 그의 태도는 너무 강압적이고 그 결과를 상기시킬 필요가 있다.

"내가 둘 다 진정시키려 했을 때 "국민이 아닌 내용을 토론하라"고 했을 때, FC는 "하자"고 답했고, AL은 "NPA를 나에게 던지지 말라"고 답했다. - 쓰레기.네가 실제로 말한 것은 여기 있고 내 대답은 이것이었다.나는 당신이 플리트 커맨드의 미개한/NPA 편집 요약본에 감히 화를 내려고 나를 집요하게 공격하기 전까지는 "NPA를 나에게 던지지 말라"고 말하지 않았다."국민이 아닌 내용을 논의하라"고 집요하게 말했지만, 그 다음엔 정확히 스스로 한다.

그는 "AL은 이번 토론에서 FC의 존재감은 미미했다. 그러나 그가 말하지 않은 것은 소위 말하는 토론은 분쟁의 처리와 별로 관계가 없고 대부분 교란이라는 것이었다." - 플리트 커맨드 강연의 페이지에서 리사 자신의 공격적인 행동 때문에 나는 그 페이지에서 물러나고 거기서 토론을 계속하려고 했다.그 논의는 이 포스트(플리트 커맨드의 가짜 양말풀이 주장[45]을 무시하는 것)까지는 생산적인 것 같았지만, 그 후 코드네임 리사는 플리트 커맨드의 페이지에서 공격을 계속하기로 결정했다.[46] 그녀는 쉽게 그녀의 글의 마지막 단락을 생략할 수 있었지만, 대신, 다시 한번 나의 "질문할 만한 과거 행위"에 의문을 제기하기로 결정했다.그 이후로 나는 그녀에게 주제를 계속 다루기 위해 두 번 이상 요청해야만 했다.[47][48] 그러나 편집자에게 초점을 맞추려고 해도[49] 성공하지 못했다.

"AL이 와서 그가 단지 그것의 지옥을 위해 FC와 싸우기 위해서라면 무슨 일이든 할 것이라는 것을 보여주는 댓글을 올렸기 때문" - 더 쓰레기.내가 한 일은 위키피디아를 베끼는 것 뿐이었다.Edit Warring은 실제로 논의를 주제 밖으로 끌어내는 대신, 플리트 커맨드나 코드네임 리사의 대화 페이지 또는 IM을 통해 진행되어야 하는 주제 밖의 토론에 대해 말했다.

코드네임 리사의 게시물은 분명하고 검증가능하게 부정확하기 때문에 댓글을 단 것이 훨씬 더 많지만, 나는 아무도 그것을 읽고 싶어하지 않을 것이라고 확신한다.아이러니하게도, 플리트 커맨드 사와 내가 동의하는 한 가지는 그녀가 기사에 참석하는 것이 도움이 되지 않았다는 것이다.[50] --AussieLegend (iii) 13:44, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 FC가 거의 즉각 사과했다는 리사의 주장에 동의하지 않는다.FC의 첫 반응은 아우시의 이익을 위해 오시를 모욕하는 척함으로써 오시에 대한 모욕을 경시하는 것이었다.모욕을 당한 지 9일이 지나서야 FC는 "어쨌든.." 요약을 편집하고 사과했다.나 또한 내 언어가 미개했다는 리사의 주장에 동의하지 않는다.나는 (개인을 함대가 아니라) 모욕을 (내가 느꼈던) "멍청이"라고 표현했고 (내가 느꼈던) "좆같이 비열한" 것으로 묘사했다.나는 그 모욕에 대해 뒷걸음질 치려는 플리트의 시도를 "쓰레기"와 "하위 성인"이라고 표현했는데, 그 중 후자는 리사의 "차일드"와 다를 바 없다.매우 유치하다!"라고 위의 언어.그렇긴 하지만, 리사가 내가 함대를 "전적으로" 모욕했다고 비난한 후, 나는 함대 사령부에 사과했다. 그렇게 하는 것이 그와 아우시 사이의 이 피해의 일부를 복구하는데 도움이 되기를 바랐기 때문이다.나는 그 사과를 지지하고 여전히 그것이 도움이 되기를 바란다.하지만 나는 이 문제에 대해 리사와 의견이 일치하지 않는다.사이포이드폭탄(대화) 18:02, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

네 말이 맞아: "거의 즉시"는 제외된다.나는 전체 사건의 연대표에서 비교적 일찍 일어났다는 선에 따라 뭔가를 쓰자는 뜻이었다.미안. 코드네임 리사 (대화) 05:03, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"사건 초기에"는 여전히 다소 오해를 불러일으킨다.'사건'에는 두 가지 부분이 있는데, 그의 사과는 1부 마지막이 되어서야 다시 시작되기 전까지 22일간의 평화가 있었다. --AussieLegend (1986년) 08:50, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

올바른 구절은 "그 실을 발견한 직후에 거의"이다.9일(9~16일 편집 없음) 결석했고, 돌아와 보니 위아래에서 워치리스트에 신경을 썼기 때문에 그래, 당연히 일부(25?) 편집을 하기 전에는 보지 못했다.비록 나는 호주 영어에 대해 잘 모르지만, 여기서, "아무튼.."는 해고의 중첩이다. 나는 나의 오래된 "스캐터브레인" 논평을 무시하곤 했다.물론, 그 논평은 긴급 조치였다.나는 모든 것을 다시 공부해서 정확히 무엇을 써야 할지 가늠할 시간이 필요했다. (9일 동안 많은 것을 잊어버린다.)32분이 걸렸다.

"사건 초기에" 또한 옳다: "초기"는 상대적이다; CL은 네 단계를 묘사했다.4개 중 1개 스테이지에서 발생했기 때문에, 네, 이른 시간이었죠.플리트 커맨드 (대화) 12:13, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

"스레드를 발견한다"?뭐, 그 실이 존재하는지 몰랐어? 게시한 후에도?왜 사라지기 전에 사과하지 못했을까, 아니면 아예 모욕을 올리지 않았을까?결국 사과한 것은 다 잘된 일이지만 애당초 미개한 짓은 하지 말았어야지, 너도 알고 있잖아.그리고 나서 당신은 가서 사과가 이 게시물에 끼쳤을지도 모르는 영향을 풀었다.당신은 여기서 당신의 감시 목록을 통해 일하는 것이 사과하는 것보다 더 중요하다는 것을 인정함으로써 그것을 더 악화시켰다.
"그 발언을 취소하는 것은 긴급 조치였다." - 만약 그것이 정말로 위급 상황이었다면, 당신은 당신의 감시 목록을 살펴보기 전에 그것을 했을 것이다.당신은 결석하기 전에 당신이 미개했다는 것을 알고 있었다.그것을 알려주기 위해 감시목록이 필요하지 않았고, 당신이 "무엇이든"으로 편집한 후, 돌아오기 전에 다른 5개의 편집을 했다.여기서 분명히 변명을 하고 있지만 그들은 투명하다. --AussieLegend (1911년) 13:00 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

부인: 1) AussieLegend와의 개인적 관여와 2) 나는 이것만 대충 훑어보았을 뿐 (철저하게 읽기는 귀찮을 정도) 대화:빅뱅이론의 등장인물 목록과 빅뱅이론의 등장인물 목록 개정 내역과 그들의 토크 페이지 내력.
그렇긴 하지만, 이 AussieLegend를 대충 훑어보면 그에 대한 나의 첫인상이 확인되는 것 같다.만약 그가 처음 몇 번의 순간적인 반전으로 누군가를 설득할 수 없다면, 그는 종종 꽤 설득력 있게 "설명"을 시작할 것이다.만약 누군가가 그가 쓴 글을 읽고 간신히 "오류"를 찾아낸다면, 그것은 그의 초기 되돌리기 추리에서 그가 틀릴 수 있는 부분이 지적된다면, 그는 그것을 인정하지 않고 계속해서 더 깊은 구멍을 파고, 가능하다면 다른 정책 위반들을 찾아내고 또 다른 두 번째 구멍을 파게 될 것이다.필요한 만큼 이 단계를 반복하십시오.
플리트 커맨드에 대한 나의 인상은 그가 너무 빨리(아마도) 가열되고 때로는 너무 무뚝뚝하고 직접적인 단어 선택을 상대방의 취향에 맞게 하는 것처럼 보일지도 모른다는 것이다.하지만 그가 진정할 때, 그는 그가 실제로 잘못했는지를 인정할 수 있다.그러나 만약 그가 잘못했다는 지적이 나오지 않는다면, 그는 또한 그렇지 않다고 확신할 때까지 완강히 계속할 것이다.
토론을 충분히 길게 하고 다른 부분은 보통 더 이상 귀찮게 하지 않고 포기한다.둘 다 똑같이 고집이 세면 빼면 말이다.잠깐 훑어보고/잠깐 훑어보고 나서 내 짧은 편향된 의견만. -헥쉐렛 (대화) 11:08, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사실이야, 내가 설명하려고 노력했어.그것도 과정의 일부지만, 내가 할 수 있는 한, 때로는 상대방이 듣기를 싫어할 때도 있다. --AussieLegend (1911년) 12:12, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 네가 듣지 않는다고 말할 수 있으면 좋겠지만, 완전히 사실인 건 아닐 거야.남들이 하는 말은 마음에 두고 있으면 그냥 무시하는 거야. -헥슈렛 (대화) 12:24, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP에서 FleetCommand에 의한 교전 편집:삭제검토/로그/2014년 9월 28일

이 링크는 다음과 같이 명시되어 있다. "...(3) WP:변경에 대한 TPO 통지가 필요하다.)."FC가 WP를 삽입하지 않고 되돌아감:TPO 코멘트는 편집 요약에 표시된 반대 의견을 토크 페이지를 통해 처리할 수 있었다.리턴은 3RR 편집-전쟁은 아니지만 WP:편집-전쟁에 의해 제한되는 통제불능의 공격적 행동이었다.미완성 (대화) 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC) 12:44 [응답]

그리고 그 끝은 그 후에 취소되었다.[51] --AussieLegend (iii) 13:08, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

잘못된 포럼.폐막은 WP에서 이미 논의되었다.ANB. 편집전은 WP에서 논의되어야 한다.AN3. 누구도 비공개 토론을 편집해서는 안 된다.이렇게 하면 폐쇄성의 온전성이 훼손되고 폐쇄적인 사람이 완전한 바보처럼 보이게 된다.또한 다른 사람들에게 흙을 파는 것은 흙 파는 사람을 나쁘게 보이게 할 뿐이다.WP:NOTBATTL, 그러니 그만둬. 46.62.142.76 (토크) 07:41, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이 모든 것은 편집자의 행동에 대한 전반적인 그림을 제시하는 데 있다.선을 긋고 "여기 이 부분, 저기 저 부분, 저기 저 부분에 대해 얘기하라"고 하면 안 된다.서로 다른 면들이 모두 겹친다.각각의 구체적인 측면을 다루기 위해 각 포럼에 간다면, 우리는 시스템 게임을 했다는 비난을 받게 될 것이다. --AussieLegend (1984) 10:49, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

IP의 요점은 닫힌/아카이브된 토론은 편집하지 않는다는 것이었습니다.휴업에 대해 동의하지 않을 경우 자신의 의견 차이를 제기할 다른 방법을 찾을 수 있다. -Hekseurt (대화) 12:24, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

IP의 요점은 닫힌/아카이브된 토론은 편집하지 않는다는 것이었습니다.휴업에 대해 동의하지 않을 경우 자신의 의견 차이를 제기할 다른 방법을 찾을 수 있다. -Hekseurt (대화) 12:24, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

폐쇄적인 토론은 일상적으로 편집되므로, 당신의 지식이나 부족이 일관된다.

내 직책의 요점이 바로 그거야, 함대 사령부는 편집자 교전을 하지 말았어야 했어.

— Unittilling(대화 • 기여) 01:32, 2014년 10월 21일(UTC)에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 이전 의견[답글]

@@FleetCommand::디바를 먹이지 마라.WP 사용:닥터 95.141.20.196 (대화) 12:58, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 편집자가 토론에서 변경에 대한 통지를 남기지 않고 템플릿(diff)을 제거했다는 점에 유의하십시오.미완성 (대화) 01:32, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]
• 삭제에 대한 편집 논평은 46.62.142.76의 위 게시물이 "참가자들 중 어느 한 쪽도 찬성하지 않는다"고 주장한다.검사 결과, 위의 코멘트는 아우시 레전드에게 "절제하라"고 말했다.위의 논평은 또한 이 포럼이 WP:3RR가 아니기 때문에 관리자들이 플리트 사령부의 편집 전쟁 증거를 무시해야 한다고 주장한다.나는 이 논평이 공평하지 않고 부분적이라는 것을 제출한다. 따라서 46.62.142.76의 중립성을 주장하는 코드네임 리사의 편집 코멘트는 검증되지 않았다. 46.62.142.76과 코드네임 리사는 부분적이다.행정가들은 전쟁 편집의 증거를 제공받았다.미완성 (대화) 01:32, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

리아 올구아 바실레스쿠는 삭제해서는 안 된다!

그것은 잘 소싱되었고, 리아 올구아 바실레스쿠의 사실이 위키피디아의 메인 페이지에 나타났다. 알고 있었는가?2014년 10월 11일자 칼럼.이와 같은 훌륭한 기사를 삭제하는 것은 위키백과의 정신에 어긋난다.— Osugiba(토크 • 기여) 14:32, 2014년 10월 20일(UTC)[응답]에 의해 추가된 선행 미서명 코멘트

알고 있었나: ...DYK는 이전에 삭제된 적이 있는가(치히로 번호 참조)?– 에피케니우스 (대화) 14:36, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 그럼 그 논쟁은 그만둬.그러나 그것은 잘 소싱된 논쟁의 여지가 없는 기사다.오수기바 (토크) 14:39, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

양말에 의해 작성됨 - 위키백과:Sockpuppet 조사/Iaaasi.삭제됨.더그웰러(토크) 15:02, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 삭제한 다음 다시 생성했다.아래에 게시할 새로운 스레드를 참조하십시오. -- Hoary (대화) 03:36, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

정당 범주를 통상적으로 편집하는 새로운 편집자.양말?

인포박스 사진을 바꾸는 것이 첫 편집이었던 새 편집자 Hugh456(토크·기여·삭제 기여·로그·필터 로그·블록 유저·블록 로그)은 연예인이 정당 지지까지 언급한 적이 있고, 그 후 지지 의사를 부인했더라도 정당 카테고리에 연예인을 추가해 왔다.예: 게리 누만의 바이오와 트레이시 에멘의 바이오.Hugh456은 그들이 여기서 카테고리 자체에 추가한 포함 기준("보수당의 과거 및 현재 의원 또는 지지자(영국))"을 참조함으로써 이러한 편집을 정당화한다.게리 누먼의 경우, 그는 보수당에 대한 지지를 구체적으로 부인해 왔다. ("... 나를 보수주의자로 전락시킨 스코틀랜드 신문이 있었다. 그것은 절대적으로 피비린내 나는 거짓말이었다.") Hugh456의 3개 삽입물은 다음과 같다.BLP 위반.나는 왜 이것이 문제인지 Huge456에게 설명하려고 노력해왔다.

편집자는 WP처럼 보인다.조숙하고, 유사한 행동 때문에 캘러넥에 의해 차단된 사용자 고덕(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)을 연상시키는 편집 전쟁 및 기타 행위에 관여한다.또한 두 사용자의 토크 페이지와 Infobox 이미지의 스와핑에 있는 Bracket Bot 경고에 주목하십시오.지금은 이것을 철저히 조사할 시간이 없지만, 다른 사람이 Hugh456이 이전 사용자의 양말일 수도 있다고 생각하는지 확인하고 싶었다.고마워. - 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC) 14:02, MrX 14:02[응답]

그 범주는 여러 정당의 현재 지지자들과 이전 지지자들을 위한 것이라고 분명히 명시되어 있지만, 내 판본을 되돌려서 편집 전쟁을 처음 시작한 사람이 너였음을 어느 사용자나 분명히 알 수 있기 때문에 내가 기사들에 카테고리를 추가하고 있기 때문에 내가 양말일지도 모른다고 주장하려는 것은 농담이라고 생각한다.브래킷 봇이 내가 실수로 어떤 편집에 브래킷을 추가하지 않았다고 해서 내가 양말이라는 뜻이야?나는 방금 여러 다른 편집자 토크 페이지를 살펴봤는데, 그들 중 5명은 괄호를 추가하지 않았다고 언급하는 괄호봇을 가지고 있다. 이것은 그들이 양말이라는 것을 의미하나, 아니다!정보 상자 이미지를 교환하는 것은, 내가 누군가의 최근 최신 이미지를 추가했다는 것을 의미하지만, 당신은 얼굴을 충분히 볼 수 없기 때문에 사람들이 그것에 동의하지 않았고, 그것이 누군가를 양말 꼭두각시로 만드는 것인지, 다시 한번 말하지만, 그것은 그렇지 않다!내가 게리 누먼에 범주를 하나 더해도 넌 동의하지 않았는데, 네가 여러 가지 일로 나를 비난하고 있다는 것을 알겠다.브래킷봇이 다른 수많은 사용자들과 함께 했던 것처럼 내 토크 페이지에 글을 썼기 때문에 나를 양말이라고 주장하는 것은 우스꽝스럽기도 하고 터무니없기도 하다.나는 솔직히 너의 행동에 꽤 충격을 받았고 너의 비난을 읽은 다른 사람들은 의심의 여지없이 너의 비난이 터무니없다고 여길 것이다.Hig456 (대화) 14:58, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

범주명은 보수당(영국) 인사로 단순한 보수(작은 c) 원칙에 대한 정치적 지지가 아니라 당 자체와의 연결고리를 강하게 시사하고 있다.설명은 편집에 의해 "또는 후원자"를 포함하도록 확장되었을 뿐이다.

이 범주의 범위를 명확히 할 필요가 있다.나는 정당과의 선언된 연계를 의미하는 "정당 국민"에 대한 분명한 가치를 본다."보수 지지자"의 범위도 있을 수 있지만, 이는 (아마도 상위 범주) 모두 다르며 WP별로 검증하기도 어렵다.BLP. 대화 시 코멘트에 따라 사전에 명확하게 설정된 조건을 정의해야 한다.

'보수 지지층'이 만들어지든 안 만들어지든 크게 개의치 않지만, 별도로 주목받는 '정당 국민' 범주를 대체해서는 안 된다.

트레이시 에멘과 게리 누먼의 문제에 관해서라면, 우리는 무엇보다도 먼저 BLP를 만나야 한다.에민에는 그녀가 보수당에 투표했다고 주장하는 (그리고 그것 이상도 이하도 아니다).그것은 이 두 가지 범주 중 하나에 포함하기에 적절하지 않다: 그것은 수백만 명의 영국 유권자와 아마도 수천 명의 주목할 만한 영국 BLP 주제에도 똑같이 언급될 수 있다.나는 그렇게 넓은 범주가 백과사전적 가치가 있다고 생각하지 않는다."보수파에게 투표한 유명 가구명"의 범주도 WP에 실패할 것이다.신스.

우리는 "민주당이 보수당에 투표했다"라고 말할 수 있는 소스가 있다.에멘이 보수정치의 유력한 지지자인 것은 사실일지 모르지만, 우리는 추가적으로 그 출처를 밝혀야 할 것이다.그녀가 "보수 정당 사람들"이라고 말하려면 우리는 그 정도(지지도뿐만 아니라)와의 연결고리를 보여주어야 하며 또한 WP를 만나기 위해 이것을 조달해야 한다.BLP. 앤디 딩글리 (대화) 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC) 16:14 [응답]

사용자에 의한 이 편집은 다음과 같은 걱정스러운 wp를 나타낸다고 생각한다.또한 WP를 기피하는 것처럼 보이는 사용자에 의한 POV 특성:RS 및 wp:ES(관점을 제시할 때 제외)또한, 자신의 사용자 대화 페이지에서 경고를 삭제하는 것은 의심스러운 행동이다.Trafford09 (대화) 16:33, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

너의 마지막 문장은 방침에 반해서 나는 네가 그것을 치길 제안한다.WP:REMOVEED: "정책은 등록되거나 등록되지 않은 사용자가 자신의 대화 페이지에서 의견을 삭제하는 것을 금지하지 않는다.사용자 페이지에서 자료를 제거하는 것은 일반적으로 사용자가 그 내용을 읽고 알고 있다는 것을 의미한다.굳이 전시할 필요도 없고, 대개 사용자들이 강제로 전시해서는 안 된다." --Obsidi (토크) 16:57, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

너의 요점을 이해해, 오브시디. 하지만 내 요점은 아직 지킬 가치가 있어. 다른 사람들이 Hugh456의 MO가 다른 사람의 MO와 비슷한지 알아내는 데 도움이 될지도 모르니까.경고문을 남기거나 보관할 수도 있었지만 WP가 선호하는 방침에 반하는 경고만 삭제했다.나는 네가 올바르게 언급하는 정책을 알고 있었기 때문에 이것이 경멸스럽다는 말을 하지 않으려고 조심했다.사용자는 이 경고를 건설적이고 AGF를 유발하는 정신으로 자신의 사례를 주장할 때 사용했을 수 있지만, 그렇지 않은 경우 선택했다.Trafford09 (대화) 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC) 17:55 [응답]

사용자는 선택적으로 사진을 삭제하지 않고 왜곡하거나, 거부된 차단 해제 요청을 제출한 경우, 해당 대화 페이지에서 원하는 내용을 자유롭게 삭제할 수 있다."선호적" 방법은 권고사항에 지나지 않는다.사용자 대화 페이지 내역은 효과적으로 보관소 역할을 한다.유사한 MO를 찾고 있다면 보관 대신 삭제에 너무 많은 비중을 두지 마십시오. 많은 사용자가 그렇게 하고 있기 때문이다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 19:11, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 히어로456은 미국의 고도로그라는 영국 정치에 관심이 있는 것 같다.비록 그 기술은 유사점이 있지만, 나는 이렇게 노력하는 두 개의 뚜렷한 목표가 양말로는 흔치 않을 것이라고 생각한다.앤디 딩리 (대화) 09:22, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

편집기 68.204.113.233 반복적으로 듀란 듀란에서 잘 소싱된 장르 제거

반복 레크리에이션

안녕, 탐험가는 두 번이나 만들어졌고 속도도 빨라졌어블록을 달 수 있을까, 아니면 세 번째로 기다려야 하나?고마워 Gbawden (대화) 10:56, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

아직은 아무것도 할 필요가 없을 것 같아.두 작품 모두 같은 편집자에 의해 만들어졌기 때문에, 그가 계속해서 재창작을 한다면 우리는 간단히 그를 막을 수 있고, 어쨌든 우리는 보통 한 페이지에 단 두 개의 창작물을 넣어 소금에 절이지 않는다.나는 편집자에게 개인화된 메모를 남겼는데, 왜 계속 창작하는 것이 나쁜 생각인지 설명하려고 노력했다.나이튼드 (대화) 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC) 12시 39분[응답]

Ref Desk에서 에볼라 치료제 제공

사용자:Wnt 및 사용자:아스프로가 에볼라와의 비참조 치료에 대한 링크를 참조 데스크에서 제공하기로 결정했고, 그러한 자료의 모자쓰기를 되돌렸다.이는 WP를 위반하는 것만이 아니다.RS 그것은 위키피디아에 위배된다.일반 고지 사항.그 자료는 삭제되어야 하며, WP 정책의 명백한 위반을 막지는 못하더라도 편집자들은 훈계해야 한다.㎕δεες (대화) 21:14, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

치료? 좋은 위생 관행을 준수하는 것에 대한 코멘트에 가깝다.WP 기사 대 Ref Desk에 대한 참조문제는 이전에 나온 적이 있다.내일 해가 뜬다. 그것에 참고할 필요가 있을까?그러나 μηδεςς(매우 최근까지 매우 좋은 기여를 더했다)는 최근 아산화질소는 질식성 물질로서 주로 작용하고 있으며, 이를 남용하는 치과의사와 같은 사람들을 정기적으로 살해한다고 덧붙였다. 구글 웃음가스 사망.μΔείςς (talk) 20:30, 2014년 10월 17일 (UTC) [52].나 자신도 아산화질소를 이용한 치아추출이 한 번 이상 있었고, 그렇게는 되지 않았으므로, 나는 그것이 참고가 필요하다고 생각했을 것이다.산소는 저산소증을 예방하기 위해 아산화질소와 함께 주어진다.냄비가 다른 주전자들을 모두 검은색으로 부르고 있는가?이 편집자들은 늦은 시간에 바뀐 것 같고 모든 사람들이 그들의 곡조에 맞춰 춤을 추기를 원한다.-Aspro (토크) 22:00, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

이에 대한 나의 반응은 [53]이다.나의 출처는 위와 같은 나의 원래 논평에 있다."WP를 위반했다"고 주장하기 위해:RS"는 말할 것도 없고 일반 면책권(!)은 매우 특이해 보인다.이 토론의 목적은 사람들이 그 문제에 대해 생각하고 관련 출처와 개념을 참고하도록 하는 것이어야 하는데, 나는 그렇게 했다고 생각한다.Wnt (토크) 22:19, 2014년 10월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 다음은 아산화질소 질식에 대한 구글의 수천 건의 히트작이다. [54].에볼라를 화석으로 치료하는 것에 대한 제로 히트곡은 다음과 같다. [0].이 언급되지 않은 그리고 언급할 수 없는 벌의 본질은 모자이크가 필요하다. 그리고 나는 관리자가 그렇게 할 것을 제안한다.위키백과:일반거부권 μηδςς(토크) 00:02, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• CDC의 '준비 101: 좀비 아포칼립스' 프로그램이 위키백과에서 일어나는 전쟁 편집 문제를 놓친 것 같다.아이블리스 카운트 03:03, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그 질문에 대한 OP는 에볼라에 대한 어떤 돌팔이 치료법에 대해 물었다.우리는 위키피디아의 Ref 데스크가 그러한 잘못된 정보의 잠재적인 출처로 인용될 필요가 없다.그 질문에 대한 대답은 즉, 증상을 치료하고 면역체계를 물려주는 것 외에는 지금까지 증명된 치료법은 없다는 것이었다.달리 할 말도 없었고, 계속 열어둘 이유도 없었다.base야구 벅스 당근→03:11, 2014년 10월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 메데이스가 여기에 멋진 밀짚맨을 만든 것 같아."cure"라는 단어는 벅스가 없는 곳에서만 나타난다.Wnt는 어떤 치료법도 주장하지 않고 단지 일반적으로 관련된 과학적 발견을 제시하고 있었다.아스프로의 반응은 대부분 소독제와 정보접근에 관한 것이었으며 표백제에 대한 질문에 대한 응답으로 이루어졌다.에볼라가 그곳에서 제공될 수 있는 잘못된 "치유"는 분명히 없다.아스프로의 주장은 약간 WP처럼 보였다.순항미사일 비용 문제를 꺼내서 나에게 SOAPy를 들었지만, 나는 조사가 필요 없는 아주 사소한 문제로 본다(나는 또한 감정 리:미사일에 동의한다, 그래서 잠재적 SOAP 문제가 얼마나 심각한지에 대한 나의 해석이 편향될 수도 있다). 시멘틱맨티스 (talk) 15:20, 2014년 10월 20 (UTC)[응답]

• 여기서 문제가 되고 있는 정보는 다소 추측적이긴 하지만 적절하고 정리가 잘 되어 있었다.어떤 "치료"도 제공되거나 약속되지 않았다.그 실에 모자를 쓸 이유가 없었다.'의료적인 것'이라는 해트닝이 명기된 이유는 실을 해트릴 이유가 없었다는 것을 증명한다.우리는 의학적 조언을 제공하는 것에 대해 잘 정의되고 잘 적용되는 금지법을 가지고 있다.우리는 의료 정보를 논의하는 것을 금할 수 없다.—Steve Summit (대화) 15:31, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 이 밀짚맨을 만든다면 흥미로울 텐데-- 제발 나를 체크해줘-- 진심이야-- 하지만, 그렇지 않으면 적어도 세 명의 무능력한 행정가들의 의견을 들어줄 수 있을까?

위키피디아를 위반하지 않는 Ref Desk의 적절한 기능 제공:일반 고지 사항?"특정 조언이 필요한 경우(예: 의료, 법률, 재정 또는 리스크 관리) 해당 분야에 대한 자격증이 있거나 지식이 풍부한 전문가를 찾으십시오."

사실대로 말하자면 누구도 그냥 지어낼 수 없는 게 없는 걸까?㎕δεες (대화) 01:42, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

@Medeis:내가너의편집을 되돌렸을 때, 나는 너에게 이런 종류의 일이 과거에 죽도록 행해졌던 토크 페이지에서 토론할 것을 권했다.일반적인 리프데스크 가이드라인이 있고, 일반적으로 타협점 역할을 해온 구체적인 '카이나우의 기준'이 있다.이것의 요지는 개인에 대한 구체적인 치료법을 진단하거나 권고하는 것과 생물학적 지식의 일반적인 상태에 대해 논의하는 것에는 차이가 있다는 것이다.마늘이 에볼라로부터 보호해 줄 수 있는지, 소금이 암을 유발할 수 있는지, 빨간 고기가 심장병을 일으킬 수 있는지, 쿡 베리가 독성이 있는지, 커피가 당뇨병으로부터 보호해 줄 수 있는지 등을 논의한다면, 이런 것들은 개인에 대한 조언이 아니라 일반적인 지식의 상태에 대한 질문이다.일반적으로 전체 사이트에 대한 고지서를 언급하는 것은 다른 곳으로 가라고 구체적인 조언을 구하는 사람들을 암시하지만 그것을 요구하지는 않기 때문에 혼란을 가중시킬 뿐이다.예를 들어, 재정적인 조언에 대한 진술이 독자들이 로스와 전통적인 IRA의 차이점을 찾는 것을 금지하지 않는다는 것은 매우 명백해야 한다.비록 우리 기사가 말한 것을 사용하는 것이 잠재적으로 문제가 될 수 있다 하더라도.Wnt (토크) 04:39, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기서 Wnt와 아스프로를 지지해야 한다.Ref Desk 질문이 의료 자문 요청으로 간주되기 위해서는 반드시 통과되어야 하는 합의된 밝은 선 기준인 "Kainaw's 기준"의 '허용' 측면에 질문을 분명히 했다.Medeis'는 어떤 종류의 Ref Desk 정책보다 더 상상의 "합리화"를 사용하여 겉보기에는 개인적인 이유로 실을 꿰어 놓은 오랜 역사를 가지고 있다 - 거의 모든 Ref 데스크의 사람들은 과거에 수많은 불평의 대상이 되어왔던 이 파괴적인 편집자의 뒷모습을 보고 싶어할 것이다.메데이스의 항의는 종종 허용 한계를 초과한다. 가장 최근: [55].스티브 베이커 (대화) 05:05, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

메데이스, 넌 짚신을 만들었다고 내 고발로 짚신을 만들었어!너는 그것에 대해 점수를 좀 얻어야 한다.즉, 당신은 당신이 Wnt와 Aspros의 기여를 잘못 전달하고 있다는 나의 주장을 짚고 넘어가는 사람이 아니라 거짓말로 연결시켜 잘못 전달했다는 것이다. 그것들은 다소 다른 것이다.나의 용법이 불분명했다면 사과하고, 아마도 내가 나의 원래 논평에서 연결했어야 했다.나는 당신이 어떤 속임수를 쓰고 있다고 생각하지 않는다. 단지 문제의 텍스트 응답들이 에볼라에게 "치료"를 제공하지 않는다는 것이다.그들이라고 주장하는 것은 직위를 잘못 표현한 것으로, 이른바 '스트레이트 맨'이라고 한다.하지만 물론, 우리는 무관심한/무관심인 행정관으로부터 여기에 와야 한다. 나도 그들의 의견을 보고 싶을 것이다.시멘틱맨티스 (대화) 14:44, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

Joan Smalls의 소유권 문제

조안 스몰스(토크 히스토리 링크 감시 로그 편집) 기사의 장기 소유권 문제는 전통적인 방법을 통해 해결되지 않을 것 같다.또한 참가자는 다양한 IP이며, 관련 사용자 1명인 Friendypete2014(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 2014년 7월 이후 해당 계정에서 편집하지 않았다.나는 어젯밤에 그 기사를 표준으로 올리려고 헛되이 편집했다.그것은 부채질, 의심스러운 출처, 스타일 이슈 갤로어, 그리고 다른 사소한 문제들로 가득했다.나의 편집은 오늘 208.54.45.145 (대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)에 의해 반달리즘으로 되돌아갔다.나는 되돌아가서, 토크 페이지에 메모를 남기는 동안, 나의 편집은 50.12.126.142 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그)에 의해 다시 반달리즘으로 되돌아갔다.기사 이력을 살펴본 결과, 다양한 IP와 Friendypete2014가 기사에 대한 거의 모든 변경 사항(아래 디프)을 되돌리고 있는 것 같아 이 문제를 여기로 가져오기로 했다.

• 1차적으로 야생동물 기도에 의한 기사 정리/태그를 시도한다. 172.56.18.29 78/반환 사유 없음(3월 22일)
• 야생동물을 위한 기도는 변화를 다시 일으키는데, FriendyPete2014는 그 변화가 "소요되지 않았다"(3월 24일)는 주장으로 되돌아가고 있다.
• 변화를 설명하는 야생동물을 위한 기도는 콘텐츠와 관련이 없었다. FriendyPete2014 "변화하는 음색"(그러나 실제는 아님)과 가짜 보호 템플릿 추가(3월 24일)
• FriendlyPete2014 Lowercase 시그마 봇을 보호 템플릿을 다시 추가하기 위한 복구(3월 24일)
• 컨텐츠 정리를 시도하는 IP 사용자, 소유권 문제/비활성 보호 템플릿 언급 FriendlyPete 2014에 의해 반환/또 다른 가짜 보호 템플릿 추가(3월 26일)
• Jdanek007은 이슈에 대한 기사를 태그한다. FriendlyPete2014는 몇 가지 사소한 재작성이 포함된 태그 추가를 리딩(Jdanek007은 또한 응답하지 않은 토크 페이지 노트 - 4월 2/3일)했다.
• FriendlyPete2014는 "기사를 변경하거나 파괴하지 마십시오"(7월 19일)라는 내용의 편집 요약과 함께 "광고" 및 "피콕" 태그 추가 복구
• 나의 편집은 208.54.45.145가 "반달리즘" (10월 20일)으로 되돌아갔다.
• 나의 편집은 몇 분 후 50.12.126.142를 반달리즘으로 되돌렸다.

IP와 관련된 사용자 한 명에게 알리겠지만, IP의 양과 FriendyPete2014가 상당 기간 동안 편집되지 않았다는 사실을 고려하면, 나는 그들에게 소유권, 스타일 가이드, 반달리즘이 무엇인지에 대한 개인화된 메모를 남기지 않았다.BRD의 D가 이 상황에서 제대로 작동하지 않을 것 같기 때문에 정말 무의미해 보인다.나는 어떤 장기적인 반보호가 참석자들에게 대화를 하러 가도록 강요하거나 최소한 다른 사람들에게 하루 이상 그 기사를 표준으로 올릴 기회를 줄 수도 있다고 생각한다.핑카델리카 13:17^♣, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

청소를 좀 더 했더니 그 뒤로 일이 조용해졌다.나는 이 기사를 내 감시 목록에 추가하고 감시할 것이다.노트 FriendlyPete2014도 기사에 배치하기 위해 비무료 이미지를 반복적으로 업로드하고 있어 그 부분도 지켜봐야 한다. --Dianna (토크) 01:45, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 다이애나핑카델리카^♣ 15:09, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

몰리 링월드의 삭푸페트리 및 셰나니건과 관련 기사

올 여름 초부터 몰리 링왈드, 관련 기사, 헤더 랭겐캄프, 에이미 와이스 등 몇 편의 여배우 기사에 공작 문구와 홍보 콘텐츠를 추가하려는 끊임없는 노력이 있었다.몇 가지 예는 다음과 같은 편집이다: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] (마지막은 뭔가 엉터리 일이 벌어지고 있다는 증빙서류인데-- 영화의 예산은 조작된 낮은 수준으로 변경되어 이 영화가 돈벌이보다는 상업적인 성공이었다고 기사가 주장할 수 있다.)

유사한 행동 패턴의 계정들이 관련되어 있는데, 홍보 성향을 제외하고, 사용자 페이지가 없고, 편집 요약을 사용하는 경우는 거의 없으며, 적어도 두 개의 화면 이름이 링왈드 문자와 일치한다.하지만 이번 주말까지, 우리가 같은 생각을 가진 팬들과 상대하지 않는다고 결론지을 만한 충분한 증거가 없었다.그러나 지난 며칠 동안 몇 개의 계정이 BLP에서 사용하기 위해 분명히 무료가 아닌 이미지를 업로드하고 있으며(분명히 부적절한) 두 개의 계정이 동일한 결함 있는 NFCC 근거를 사용하고 있다:사용자가 업로드한 For Keeps.jpg의 Molly Ringwald:클레어 스탠디쉬, 그리고 파일:사용자가 업로드한 MollyRingwaldBetsysWedding.jpg:다아시엘리엇.계정 간 조정의 추가 증거: 클레어 스탠더드 계정이 비자유 이미지 오용을 중단하라는 경고를 받은 후 해당 계정이 중지되었지만 사용자:AintNoOther는 즉시 캠페인을 재개하여 파일 업로드:Time.jpg 표지에 링월드와 무료 영화 포스터를 링월드 BLP에 추가하십시오 [61].또한 사용자:IAmUnbreaked는 이들 계정이 방금 Ringwald BLP에 업로드한 비자유 이미지를 추가했다(예: [62]).

내가 발견한 관련 설명은 다음과 같다.

• 클레어 스탠디시 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 다르시엘리엇 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 아인트노오더 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• IAmUnbreaked (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 리스토나이트 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 멘디12 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

더 있을 수 있다.

사용자:GB 팬 및 사용자:디파스는 또한 링왈드 기사에서 부정행위를 지적했으며, 주로 비자유 이미지의 오용에 대해 SPI에 대해 논의하였다[63].나는 체크 유저가 행동할 수 있는 충분한 증거가 있다고 생각한다. 그리고 몇개의 신속한 블록에 대해 상당히 가능성이 있다.이면에 있는 사람(한 명의 사용자든 여러 명의 사용자든)은 최근 더욱 활발해졌고 특히 자유롭지 못한 이미지의 문제는 더 많은 기사로 번지고 있다.예를 들어, 로리 할리에와 화요 나이트의 최근 역사를 보라.빅 배드 울포위츠 (일명 헐라발루) (토크) 01:39, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

@Hullaballo Wolfowitz:만약 이것이 Sockpuppet 조사 요청이라면, WP:SPI는 장소 - NickGibson3900 08:17, 2014년 10월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 위키백과에 기재된 SPI 및 결과:Sockpuppet 조사/클레어 스탠다드.--제제벨의 포뇨^{bons mots} 22:01, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

AFD(Again)의 파괴적 생성

이 곳에서 자주 방문하는 사용자는 다음과 같은 사실을 상기할 수 있다.메이벤은 문제의 기사에 기고해 온 편집자가 싫었기 때문에 여러 개의 파괴적인 AFD를 만들었다.자, 이제 우리는 불과 며칠 전에 만들어진 "새로운" 계정을 가지고 있고, 비슷한 것을 하고 있다.해당 사용자가 사용자:Geoffreyofmonmouth와 AFD의 표적이 되고 있는 사용자는 User인 것으로 보인다.사용자가 처음 언급한 MJT21:앤디 딩리.나는 앤디처럼 여기서 뭔가 수상쩍다고 생각하지만, 뭐가 뭔지 잘 모르겠어.나는 이것이 단지 우연인지, 차단 가능한 공격인지, 아니면 그 사이에 있는 것인지에 대한 관리자 의견을 요청하고 있다.Sockpuppetry가 가장 분명한 설명인 것 같다.진킨슨은 2014년 10월 21일 01:03(UTC) 나에게 이야기한다[응답하라]

• 위키백과:삭제 조항/아더 페들리
• 위키백과:삭제/Francis Coulson 문서
• 위키백과:삭제/윌리엄 맨스필드 풀

나는 이것이 아마도 한 편집자의 작품보다는 베드포드 모던 스쿨에 관한 것일 것이라고 생각한다.앤디 딩리 (대화) 09:08, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• Geoffreyofmonmouth 및 사용자:Bristolbottom은 MJT21에 의해 만들어진 기사들을 추천받아 비슷한 기여를 했다.지명 이유는 거의 같다; 메이벤은 다른 사용자를 대상으로 하고 있고 스타일이 일치하지 않는다. 82.132.212.9 (대화) 20:19, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

알아, 스타일이 맞지 않아, 메이벤이 제프리나 브리스톨바텀과 같은 사용자가 아닌 게 분명해.내가 그렇게 생각했다는 인상을 받았다면 미안해.진킨슨은 2014년 10월 21일 22:11, 21 (UTC)과 통화[응답]

Neil deGrasse Tyson에서 RfC 닫힘/역전 검토

법적 위협?

빌어먹을, 태양이 초신성이 될 때까지 누가 이 문제를 따지고 싶든 상관없어.하지만 헛소리로 다른 사람들을 짜증나게 하지 마.아무도 지아노나 에릭을 막지 못할 거야.그렇게 되면 더 큰 혼란만 빚어질 뿐이다.다른 사람이 협박을 당했다면 그럴지도 모르지.그러나 짐보는 실제적이거나 인지된 법적 위협을 처리할 수 있는 그 이상이다.그는 전에 그것을 해본 적이 있다.이것에는 실용적이고 생산적인 끝이 없다.어떤 행정관도 WP의 시행을 고집한다고 해서 프로젝트 자살은 하지 않을 것이다.NLT는 그 프로젝트에 어떤 영향을 미칠지 고려하지 않고 아무 생각 없이 한다.우리는 그 도구들을 현명하게 사용하고 정책이 어떻게 적용되는지에 대해 현명할 것으로 기대된다.그러니 정말 누군가를 괴롭히고 있다면 지아노의 토크 페이지로 가져가세요.우리 시간을 낭비하지 마라.--v/r - TP 22:47, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
지아노는 최근 짐보 웨일스의 토크 페이지에 IMO가 WP에 선을 넘는 글을 올렸다.NLT. 지아노: "그 동안, 여왕 폐하께서는 에릭 코벳이 여기서 실명을 사용하고 있고, 영국 법은 바뀌고 있기 때문에, 이 페이지에 있는 그 이름에 대한 지속적인 명예 훼손과 괴롭힘은 물론 의도된 법적 위협은 없는 일부 사람들을 브릭스턴에 상륙시킬 수도 있을 겁니다." 지아노가 에릭 코벳에 대한 "명백하고 괴롭힘"으로 짐보 웨일스를 감옥에 보낼 수 있음을 암시하고 있다는 사실에 "물론 법적인 위협은 하지 않는다"는 것이 도움이 되는가?Rationalobserver (대화) 21:03, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] (충돌 편집)그가 할 수 있는 가능성은 분명하지만, 지아노나 나나 어느 쪽도 어떤 법적 위협이나 사실 전혀 그런 종류의 위협을 하고 있지 않다.짐보는 단순히 그가 살고 있는 법적 관할권인 영국법을 떠올렸다. 에릭 코벳 21:09, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그리고 왜 그는 제안된 행정 공약에 대해 한 줄기에 그것을 다시 상기해야 했을까? - Knowledk87 (대화) 21:13, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 아마도 그가 살고 있는 관할 구역의 괴롭힘에 관한 법률을 분명히 모르고 있기 때문일까? 에릭 코벳 21:15, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 내가 말하는 주제와는 전혀 상관이 없다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 21:16, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 당신이 살고 있는 곳의 법칙은 무관하지 않은가?서버 위치의 법률만 적용 가능하다고 생각했다.Rationalobserver (talk) 21:20, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 다시 생각해 봐. 에릭 코벳 22:03, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그럼 정황으로 볼 때 법적 위협으로 받아들일 수 있는 겁니까?AnonNep (대화) 22:08, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 당신은 그것을 법적 관할권에 대한 명백한 오해에 대한 단순한 수정으로 받아들일 수 있다. 에릭 코벳 22:30, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 법적인 위협은 아니었지만 아마도, 아마도, 아마도, 아마도, 아마도, 어떤 법적 관할권이 언급되고 있는지 그들에게 확실히 알려주고 싶은가?그래, 말이 되네.AnonNep (대화) 22:44, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 그것을 보았고 그것이 좀 지나쳤다는 것에 동의한다.법적 위협을 암시할 뿐만 아니라 에릭에 대한 주제까지 벗어났다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 21:07, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그가 스스로 기소/소송의 위협을 하지 않는 한, 그것은 위협이 아니다.당사의 전체 WP:BLP 정책은 본질적으로 유사한 경고다.기타 이유로 부적절할 수 있다(대화) 21:09, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 에릭과 가이진의 말에 동의해.지아노는 기본적으로 "다른 사람이 법적 위협을 할 수도 있기 때문에 당신의 말을 조심하라"고 말하는 것이다.나이튼드 (대화) 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC) 21:12 (응답) Rationalobserver와 Knowledkid87 둘 다 완전히 우스꽝스럽다고 느끼지 않을 수 없다.지아노 (토크) 21:23, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 오, 주제가 행정 공약에 관한 것이었는데 당신은 트롤을 하고 무언가를 그 안에 넣어야 할 필요성을 느꼈고 토론과는 전혀 관련이 없었다.짐보에 대한 조사에 착수하고 싶다면, 이런 일을 할 수 있는 장소들이 있기 때문에, 우리가 필요로 하지 않는 것은 모든 빌어먹을 실마리에 있는 비꼬는 말들이다. - Knowledk87 (토크) 21:26, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그것은 WP의 '인정된 법적 위협'을 위반하는 것처럼 보인다.NLT는 '다른 사람들이 자신들에 대한 법적 위협이나 위키백과에 대한 법적 위협으로 합리적으로 이해할 수 있는 코멘트를 하는 것을 금지한다'고 밝혔다.AnonNep (대화) 21:31, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 도대체 왜 누가 짐보를 조사하려 하겠는가?나는 단지 영국의 법이 변하고 인터넷 트롤링에 훨씬 더 가혹해짐에 따라, 그 변화는 위키피디아의 지식인, 존경 받는 행정가, 통치자들이 어울리는 높은 프로필 페이지에 언급되어야 한다고 느낀다.설마 짐보나 그의 추종자들이 인터넷 트롤이라는 건 아니겠지?나 사실 꽤 충격 받았어.지아노 (토크) 21:35, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 다시 말하지만, 이것은 당신이 제기한 주제와 아무 상관이 없다. 만약 그것이 당신의 의도였다면, 당신은 왜 영국 법에 대해 새로운 주제를 시작하지 않았는가? - Knowledk87 (토크) 21:39, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그러나 나는 행정적인 서약에 대해 강력히 지지한다; 그것은 하나의 바짓가랑이를 걷어 올리고 아이패드에 손을 얹고 깃발 앞에서 찍힐 수도 있다.어쨌든, 지금 새로운 주제를 시작할 필요는 없어, 네가 나를 위해 여기서 시작했어.내 경험상 최고의 대화는 항상 접선에서 분출되는 대화들이다.지아노 (토크) 21:44, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] Giano와 Eric은 더 황당하다: Giano와 Eric이 불평에 대해 불평을 늘어놓는 것과 이것이 NLT인가에 대한 OP의 주장이다.누가 이것 좀 닫아주고 우리 모두를 구해줄래?데카우사 (대화) 21:54, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 이것이 분명히 법적인 위협이라고 주장하지 않았다(물음표 참조). 그리고 해명을 원하는 사람이 터무니없는 것으로 특징지어져야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.Rationalobserver (대화) 21:59, 2014년 10월 21일 그래, 니가 했다.이제 와서 자신을 바보로 만들었다고 생각하니까 뒷걸음질 쳐도 소용없다.지아노 (토크) 22:01, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 여기서 모두가 동의하는 것은 아니며, 그녀는 처음에 물음표를 제공했다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:05, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그건 물음표가 아니었어 족제비 자국이었지 너도 알잖아미래를 위한 팁:만약 누군가 문제를 일으키려고 한다면, 안전한 장소에서 노는 것이 항상 최선이다.지아노 (토크) 22:08, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 음, 나는 당신의 트롤링과 미끼에 내 자신을 낮추지는 않겠지만, 만약 당신이 그 진술이 완벽하고 분명히 받아들일 수 있다고 생각했다면, 왜 당신은 그것을 부인하는 것으로 자격을 부여할 필요성을 느꼈는가, 즉 "물론 의도된 법적 위협은 없다"?Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 분명히 당신이 만든 이것과 같은 바보 같은 실 한 가닥을 그 고갯길에서 벗어나려는 노력으로 말이다.그리고 여성의 참여에 대해 지적할 점이 있다면 편집 요약본보다는 공개적으로 말할 수 있는 용기를 가지십시오. 에릭 코벳 22:17, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 지아노가 여기서 한 말에서 원했던 반응 외에 어떤 좋은 점이 나올 수 있었던 것은 생각할 수 없다. - Knowledkid87 (토크) 22:14, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] (갈등 편집) 이 보고서가 왜 Rationalobserver에 의해 만들어졌는지 어떤 타당한 이유도 생각할 수 없다.나쁜 것도 몇 개 있지만 좋은 것도 없어. 에릭 코벳 22:20, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 만약 코멘트가 없었더라면 우리는 애초에 여기에 없었을텐데...- Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:23, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] OP는 정말로 그것이 법적인 위협이라고 주장했다: "...IMO는 WP:NLT로 선을 넘는다는 코멘트로. 물음표 없음.내가 보기에 이것은 법적 위협이 아니라 어떤 행동의 가능한 결과에 대한 선의의 경고다.물론 지역사회가 스스로 해결할 수 있다면 훨씬 더 좋을 것이다; 사용자:짐보 웨일즈는 그들의 토크 페이지에서 입증되지 않은 불평과 주장을 하는 것을 삼가야 하며 만약 그가 자발적으로 하지 않는다면 파괴적인 편집의 장애에 직면해야 한다.하지만 그건 또 다른 논의의 문제일 것이다. --존 (대화) 22:17, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그래서 당신은 이 경고가 만약 그들이 예상할 수 있는 법적 합의를 진지하게 받아들인다면 경고된 당사자가 어떻게 편집을 선택했는지에 영향을 줄 수 있다는 것에 동의하는가, 존?WP는 어떻게 다음을 수행하고 있는가?NLT는 이런 식으로 남의 말을 차갑게 하려는 편집자에게 행동할 것을 권고한다. --Demiurge1000 (대화) 22:22, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 바로 그거야!이것은 짐보에 대한 진정한 우려에서 나온 선의의 경고가 아니었다; 이것은 만약 짐보가 에릭에 대해 말하는 것을 멈추지 않는다면 법적인 결과가 있을 수도 있다는 베일에 싸인 협박이었다.Rationalobserver (대화) 22:27, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그것은 단순한 사실의 진술이었다.아무도 어떤 것으로도 누군가를 위협하지 않았다. 에릭코벳 22:33, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 아니, 법적 대응을 암시하는 것은 짐보와의 전쟁에서 또 다른 논평이었다.그를 미워하고 떠나길 바라는 편집자들이 있다는 것은 누구나 알고 있다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:35, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 짐보가 싫어하고 떠나고 싶어하는 편집자 집단이 있다는 것을 모두가 알고 있듯이, 그러나 아무도 합법적이든 아니든 간에 아무에게도 협박을 하지 않았기 때문에 그것은 무관하다. 에릭코벳 22:43, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 다시 한번 만약 지아노가 가질 수 있는 영국 법에 대한 주제를 만들고자 한다면, 나는 그것을 WP에서 다루는 협박으로 본다.위와 같은 NLT. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:46, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 위키피디아에 따르면:법적 위협 없음#인정된 법적 위협:다른 사람들이 자신들에 대한 법적 위협이나 위키피디아에 대한 위협으로 합리적으로 이해할 수 있는 코멘트를 하는 것은 그러한 코멘트를 의도하지 않더라도 자제하는 것이 중요하다. 예를 들어, 만약 당신이 다른 편집자의 논평이 "방어적" 또는 "거짓말"이라고 반복해서 주장한다면, 그 편집자는 비록 이것이 의도된 것이 아니더라도 명예훼손에 대한 고소 위협으로 해석할 수 있다. 이런 잦은 오해를 피하기 위해, 명예훼손으로 법적 조치를 위협하고 있다는 인식을 피하기 위해 덜 청구된 문구("나에 대한 진술은 사실이 아니며 다음의 이유로 고쳐졌으면 좋겠다..."와 같은)를 사용하라.Rationalobserver (대화) 22:29, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 편집자들이 이 문제를 너무 빨리 종결해 달라고 하는 것이 이상하다고 생각한다. 비록 당신이 틀렸다 하더라도 Rational은 결코 그것으로부터 얻을 수 있는 대우를 받을 자격이 없다. - Knowledk87 (토크) 22:32, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 위키백과 편집자가 어떤 방식으로 편집하는 데 있어 발생할 수 있는 법적 결과(누군가의 열띤 상상력이나 그 밖의 경우)에 대한 "사실 진술"은 편집자가 통상적으로 편집하는 방식을 방해할 가능성이 높으며, WP에 정확히 해당된다.NLT. 사용자:존은 이것을 알아야 하고, 그렇지 않으면 스스로 부끄러워해야 한다. --Demiurge1000 (대화) 22:41, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 법이 그렇게 되는 게 아니다.만약 그것이 적절하다고 여겨진다면, 그러한 기소들은 영국 경찰에 의해 제기될 것이다.그가 가진 것과 같은 방식으로 행동하기로 선택했는지는 전적으로 짐보에게 달려있다, 다른 누구도.그리고 그가 무엇을 결정하든, 아무도 아무것도 위협하지 않았다. 에릭 코벳 22:49, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그 논평은 법적 위협으로 합리적으로 해석될 수 없다.여기에서는 다른 편집자의 행태와 관련하여 "명예훼손"이라는 용어를 어떤 식으로든 사용하는 것을 법적인 위협이나 경고보다는 협박하려는 시도로 해석하고 있으므로, 그 용어를 사용할 때 고소할 의사가 없다는 점을 항상 지적하는 것이 신중하다.누가 이 실을 좀 닫아 주시겠습니까? --Anthonyhcole (talk · 기여 · e-메일) 22:18, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 정말 놀라운 편집 요약이다.그런 식으로 성차별적인 카드를 만듦으로써, 당신은 자신에게 호의를 보이지 않는다.지아노 (토크) 22:19, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 오, 그리고 에릭이랑 편집한 요약이 장미로 가득 차있나?제발.... - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:21, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 나는 나쁜 감정이 없다니 기쁘다. 네가 그렇게 말해줘서 정말 고마워.지아노 (토크) 22:22, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 아니면 이건 어때: [66] 그런 이유라도 있어? - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:24, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 그것은 편집 요약이 아니다 - 그것은 내 의견이다.지아노 (토크) 22:26, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 당신이 인용한 것은 Rationalobserver의 의견이었습니다. - Knowledkid87 (대화) 22:28, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답] 너와 이야기하는 것처럼 재미있어. 여기서 잘 시간인 것 같아. 그러니 나 없이 계속해야 할 거야.지아노 (토크) 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC) 22시 30분[응답]

내 사용자 페이지의 양말

양말

최근, 한 회전 IP가 WT에서 다음과 같이 논평하고 있었다.MOSNUM. 그가 금지된 편집자 DeFacto의 바보임이 분명했다.따라서, 그 페이지는 반보호되었다.이제 같은 일렉의 새로운 IP주소가 나를 따라다니고 있다.이제 이 가식적인 행동은 그만둘 때가 되었다.IP 점핑이 누군가를 방해하는 것에 대해 어떤 조치를 취할 수 있을까?SPI가 필요 없을 겁니다.이 남자는 누군가의 명백한 양말 인형이고, 그의 IP 홉핑은 친숙하다.RGlucester — 인터뷰 17:51, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 RG루스터가 위키피디아에 대한 그들의 제안에 대한 '반대'의 나쁜 믿음 제거(편집 요약 참조)를 숨기려 하는 것을 포착했다.관리자 알림판.그들은 가치 없는 IP 편집자에 대한 근거 없는 비난을 퍼부음으로써 보복을 시도하기로 결정했다.WP:SPI는 양말 의혹을 조사할 곳이다.이것은 위키피디아에 대한 그의 유사한 불신임 요청에 따른 것이다.의무 관리자가 액면 가격으로 수락한 페이지 보호 요청.RG루스터는 부츠에 비해 몸집이 너무 커져서 아무 문제 없이 자신의 몸무게를 내던지고 있는 것 같다.이 조치에 대한 결론을 성급히 내리기 전에 이 조치의 배경과 사실을 살펴보십시오. 94.196.87.132 (대화) 18:15, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

제발 살려줘.나는 그 "반대"를 삭제했다. 왜냐하면 그것은 사실 "반대"가 아니었기 때문이다.그것은 주제 외적인 혼란이었다. 그것은 내가 이전에 편집자에 대한 행정 조치를 지지했던 것에 대한 보복이었다. 일반적인 제재 제안과 관련이 있는 것이 아니라.여하튼, 당신이 단지 "일부 IP"가 아니라는 것은 꽤 분명하니, 제발 그 행동을 포기해라.RG루스터 — 인터뷰 18:17, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 당신이 그것을 제거할 권리가 없는 당신의 제안에 대한 "반대"였다.주제에서 벗어나서 혐의를 던지고 나서 더 좋게 생각하고 감추려고 했던 겁니다.당신은 단지 잘못된 편집 요약을 가지고 그것을 되돌릴 것이 아니라, 그것을 도전받기 위해 자유자재로 갔어야 했다.나는 위키피디아의 미등록 독자로, 당신에 의해 당신의 수렁 속으로 끌려 들어갔다. 94.196.87.132 (대화) 18:27, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

실을 통째로 제거하기보다는 그냥 놔두거나 쓰러지라고 하는 것이 더 현명했을 것이다.나나 다른 ANI gnomets가 전체적인 논의에 익숙하지 않은 실을 보면, 우리는 논의를 궤도에 올려놓기 위해 그것들을 붕괴시킨다.IP 홉핑에 대해서는, 나는 그것이 DeFacto라는 것이 다소 의심스럽다. DeFacto는 상당히 엄격한 MO를 가지고 있어 쉽게 고를 수 있는 MO를 WP에 자세히 설명하지는 않겠다.BEANS. SPI는 낚시를 위한 것이 아니므로 케이스는 상당히 강해야 한다(WP:DOOK) SPI 없이 완전히 차단(또는 범위 차단)한다.블랙매인 (토크) 21:52, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC) DOKishness가 다소 강하기 때문에 후자의 코멘트를 통해 스트라이크를 하고 있다.[답답하다]

괜찮아, 다시 꽂아서 쓰러뜨리고 싶으면 그렇게 해 줘.나는 네가 한 말이 무슨 뜻인지 잘 모르겠다.나는 이 사람이 어떤 종류의 사람이라는 것이 그 사건이 꽤 강력하다고 생각한다.그가 제국 부대와 정확히 같은 일을 해왔고, 현재 영국 기사에 대한 논의를 통제하기 위한 시도로 어뢰를 시도하고 있다는 점에서 그것이 사실적이었다고 해도 나는 놀라지 않을 것이다.그가 MOSNUM에서, 그리고 현재 AN에서 사용하고 있는 그의 회전 IP는 모두 연결되어 있다.게다가, 사실상의 그의 양말 캠페인은 초기에 유사한 IP를 사용한 것으로 보인다.RG루스터 — 인터뷰 23:03, 2014년 10월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이게 당신들 생각이라면 레인지 블록이 순서대로 있어관리자 게시판에서 관리자와의 편집 전쟁을 승인하지 않아 IP 한 개를 차단했는데, 관리 게시판에 나와 있는 관리자와의 편집 전쟁을 승인하지 않아 IP 한 개를 차단했는데, 그들은 나에게 매우 정중하게 대해 주었고, 이에 대해 감사를 표한다.Drmies (토크) 00:21, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

@Drmies:DeFacto의 SPI 아카이브를 살펴보십시오.같은 ISP의 IP는 DeFacto와 연관되어 2012년에 차단되었다.구체적으로, DeFacto가 만든 이 계정들에서 그 연관성은 꽤 분명하다.RGlucester — 인터뷰 01:49, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

미안하지만, 그 정보로는 내가 할 수 있는 게 없어.내가 그걸 배우고 DeFacto라고 결정했다고 해도, 난 여전히 레인지 블록을 배치할 능력이 없고, 그게 네가 필요한 거야.나는 아마도 모든 영국인들이 위키피디아를 편집하는 것을 박탈할 것이다. 맨체스터도 포함된다.그럼 우린 어디로 갈까?드레이미스 (토크) 02:17, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 적어도 우리는 더 이상 수 마일이나 미터로 논쟁할 필요가 없을 거야!RG루스터 — 인터뷰 03:12, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

SPI 케이스를 새로 열었는데, 그럴 필요가 있을 것 같으니까.RG루스터 — 인터뷰 04:24, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 연계된 디프트를 완전히 읽지 않았기 때문에 후자의 논평을 했다.MOSNUM에서 할 수 있다면 IP의 "톤"은 DeFacto와 분명히 유사하다.블랙매인 (대화) 04:29, 2014년 10월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자는 WP를 거의 이해하지 못한다.BLP 정책

괴롭힘, 검열, 사이버 폭력에 관여하는 편집자 그룹

법적위협

사절자:양키스10

관리 가말리엘 - 도구 오용 혐의

Inappropriate posts on porn/wanking/jerking off left on my talk page

Possible threat in deleted article

Please review the deleted content at Review Request For The Blocked Article By Third Party and determine if it contains an actionable threat. In particular the statement: "I am requiring that now the guy 'must' make it to be unblocked and unprotected article immediately. Otherwise, likely, but it not to be limited, if no response of this request, all will be a consequences." Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't perceive the threat as being one that requires any sort of worry. Nonetheless, I do see an SPA (who is most likely not a new user) with obvious WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE issues, so the only action I feel that needs to be taken at this time is a block on those grounds. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree.—John Cline (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying/Owning

What can I do in regards to one user privately e-mailing other users to have my edits undone without a paper trail leading back to the original user? It's all speculation on my part (based on far too many coincidences) and I have asked the other users, who have not denied it. This, if true (which I'm sure it is), is obvious bullying and owning on these users parts (one is even a site admin). Thanks in advance to any who reply.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usual way of handling meatpuppet accusations is the same as sockpuppet accusations: link to edits demonstrating that the accounts are acting together. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll compile it and do just that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help filing the SPI, leave me a message. NativeForeigner^Talk 05:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'm going to get on it sometime tomorrow.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian people by net worth

Hi, I have come across one editor who makes unfounded personal attack against other editors and reverted his edits here. I also left a note on his talk page to tell him why. He/she is one of the two editors who had edit wars in the past on the talk page of the same article. Now they edit war thru IP edits and disrupt Wikipedia. Please check and block them as they have already been warned by admins in the past for their repeated disruption. Thanks. 85.218.103.97 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hopefully it's stopped. It looks like the vandalism is removing Ali Khamenei and Babak Zanjani from the list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing topic ban for Der Statistiker after years of flame wars at Paris

Related: #Topic-ban_request_for_User:Der_Statistiker_in_Paris_articles.

UpdateI apologize for having started a thread without seeing another one was open. I strike this thread and add my support to the the topic ban in the existing discussion. An admin can close this threadUpdate ends
Since several years already, Der Statistiker is involved in never-ending flame wars at Paris. The content of the disputes are always trivial (in my view) but the behavior of Der Statistiker is locking the article. Quite literally, after the latest rounds of edit wars this article has been locked. My own involvement in editing the article is limited to twice restoring the consensus (my only two own edits ever to Paris, I think) but I have followed it and taken part in discussions. There is a lot of policy violations on all sides, but I'm afraid Der Statistiker has now passed the line. While the content issue (which picture to have in the infobox) is trivial, there is clear that there is a consensus for one version and that Der Statistiker refuses to accept this consensus. Before the lock, Der Statistiker edit-warred extensively and should probably have been blocked [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. Instead of letting matters rest after the article was blocked, Der Statistiker has only been increasing a highly disruptive behavior aimed at targeting people who disagreed with them. This includes the bizarre move to go to Paris on French Wikipedia with the only intention to start a discussion there about another user and myself, accusing me of being "of the worst POV pushers". While I found it amusing to be called a POV pusher for editing an article twice in five years, it's still a violation of WP:NPA and to go to French Wikipedia just to rant about other users, and to WP:CANVASS French users to stop the "Canadian-English" at English Wikipedia is bizarre [118], [119]. Now, back at Paris on English Wikipedia, other users have just started a constructive dialogue about how to improve the article overall, and Der Statistiker is immediately there to continue with rants about other users, not contributing anything to the discussion, and effectively polluting the atmosphere. [120], [121]. When the user says about those who disagree with him (again, all over a photo) "We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online" [122] it's not helpful. The user also says the people he dislike "request banishments against whoever disagree with them". Well, I am requesting that "banishment" in the form a topic ban. But not because of disagreement (my main concern in this dispute has always been behavior, not content) , but because of the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality of this user which all too evident in the diffs here provided. Because of these never-ending conflicts, one of the most visited articles on English Wikipedia has now been locked down for almost a month.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an active discussion about topic banning the editor in question above. I would suggest it you instead add your comments to that discussion (unless you have already done so) to avoid splitting the discussion.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They probably think that by multiplying the number of sections asking for my banishment, they will increase their chances to have an admin eventually ban me. It's a good example of WP:HARASS if there ever was one. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, User:Der Statistiker. You call people who disagree with you "The most vicious peole ever". You create an account on French Wikipedia just to attack there some persons disagreeing with you on English Wikipedia. You call me an "aggressive POV-pusher" for editing an article two times in five years. And after that, and much more, you say I harass you by reporting your multiple policy violations to ANI?Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's vicious is to make wholesale reverts without even discussing it with other editors beforehand. What's vicious is to repeatedly open files here to have an editor banned (and, surprise surprise, not the other editors involved in the dispute who have used insults and ad hominem on the talk page). What's vicious is to come to the Paris article to quarrel and not to actually contribute to it (most of you guys have never edited the Paris article and have landed in the article only to protect the edits of Dr. Blofeld). What's vicious is to insult me on the French Wikipedia and call me a "sockpuppet" there even though you don't know who I am. Finally, and most importantly, what's vicious is not to assume the good faith of another editor. No work at Wikipedia is possible if you don't assume the good faith of other editors (sentences like "you're trying to portray Paris as NYC" are NOT assuming the good faith of other editors). If you actually care about Paris (you know, the subject of the article), feel free to spend hours, as I've done, to look for information, data, references, and put them in the article. That will be way more constructive than endless reams of angry messages on the AN/I or the article talk page. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting lost, who are you talking to? I'm talking about your actions. You seem to mash all people you dislike into one. I've never called you a sockpuppet. I've never gone to an article to quarrel. I've opened this report on you, not any other one. I've never made any wholesale revert to Paris without discussing. In short, none of what you say applies to me. I cannot help get the feeling you're just throwing mud hoping some will stick to get away from the discussion about your repeated personal attacks.Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

1. Der Statistiker is obviously not the only one involved in this old conflict and a topic ban would only make of him a scapegoat.
2. In the latest days, the discussion is indeed getting constructive again. Asking to ban someone could only be a new spark to launch yet another conflict. We must do with all editors.
3. It's been agreed to postpone the photo conflict and focus on the article's content. This is clearly not the right time to put that question on the table again.
4. The multiple topic bans request can be interpreted as WP:HARASS. Launching a new topic when there's another one which has already been re-opened while it had already been closed is not a smart idea.

Yours faithfully. Metropolitan (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Had I seen there was an ongoing discussion I would have added it there, my bad for not checking. That does not change that the behavior is disruptive and aggressive.
2. I agree that the conflict involve many editors, I'm not claiming all the others are behaving exemplary. I do believe what Der Statistiker is behaving worse, and I believe the diffs show it. It's not about making a scapegoat, it's about a user whose behavios is disruptive.
3. Please re-read my post. Once more, the content dispute is irrelevant, the problem is the behavior and the personal attacks.
4. The discussion is at Paris may be better, but still once more, I'm talking about Der Statistiker, not Paris. In the last days, Der Statistiker has made several very strong personal attacks (calling other users "among the most vicious people online" today).Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't the most aggressive in the discussion. That title goes to Blo&Schro with their multiple "stupid", "Fuck off", "FFS", "complete twat" and other "Go away" [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]. DerStatistiker has indeed complained of other contributors' behaviours (as we did all for the matter, including you and me), but he has never posted direct insults.

Now that you're aware that there is another open discussion, do you agree we should close this one and give some rest to these poor admins? Metropolitan (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are appalling, I agree. You're quite right that that behavior is also highly troublesome and should be checked. Not sure it matters here, though. If other people are speeding, we aren't allowed to speed. That other users clearly have been uncivil is no excuse for the strong personal attacks by DerStatistiker. But no, I don't think this discussion should be closed as it has many diffs that are relevant, though the discussions could well be combined.Jeppiz (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those Blofeld & SchroCat behaviours have already been checked and this has led me to a 3-day block for WP:BOOMERANG, a decision cancelled on appeal. This is a past story really. You don't do yourself good in insisting this way. Metropolitan (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on distracting from the central issue by pointing fingers, a gentle reminder that the 'not the only ones' of the most recent episode were summoned (by we-still-don't-know-who) to impose one photo on the Paris article. In any case, Statistiker, plus these 'parachuters', plus you, Metropolitan, were all on the same tag-team, fighting in a concerted effort to impose that one photo (and no other). This happened not only once, but twice in the space of one year, in exactly the same way, with exactly the same 'off-wiki and Co.' photo-pushing team. This was not only disruptive, but calculatingly against Wiki rules, and you supported each other knowing this full well. THEPROMENADER 23:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all of them, do you also imply Blo, Schro, Jeppiz and you? If so that could be interesting ;). Come on Promenader, move on. Metropolitan (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? Blo, Schro, Jeppitz and I were not part of any canvassed tag-team. In fact, those events were a clear indicator of who has a POV to push (and what they're willing to do to 'get it through'), and that is what's causing disruption in the Paris article. And no, countering a POV-campaign is not POV in itself, although you and Hardouin have tried hard to make it seem so. And your answer to every criticism here is a 'don't look here, look over there' comment... how can you even defend such behaviour, and why? THEPROMENADER 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been recent calls on the Paris talk page for the image question to be raised again, and as Der Statisker is happy to canvass on the French Wiki, I'm not sure who the "move on" question should be addressed to best. I've stepped away from the article as I find him an incredibly divisive editor who must take a large share of the blame in making the talk page toxic. Sadly, the bully has won on this occasion. – SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a "past story", just as you say, but then Der Statisker canvassed on French Wiki in an attempt to re-open a very recently closed debate. It's that battleground mentality that is the problem with which people are pissed off at. As for the diffs you posted above: I stand by the ones I made. When people mindlessly edit war without discussion it leads to friction and frustration. When one side of a debate sinks to meat puppeting and socking, it only leads to people becoming increasingly pissed off with such low and despicable tactics. On top of all that, not long after the consensus has been settled on this point, Der Statisker tries to buck that consensus with exactly the same tactics. Guess what... People are pissed off again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Der Statistiker who put the discussion on the French Wiki but Supermangaka who posted it on the French bistro [128] after the story was published in the French newspaper Le Monde[129]. It's been then suggested to continue the discussion on the Paris talk page. I have the feeling to be Bill Murray in the Groundhog Day, constantly living the same day and repeating the same thing. WP:HARASS? Metropolitan (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ? I didn't say he opened the discussion: I said he canvassed"Votre aide à tous serait bienvenue pour sortir de ce blocage. On ne peut pas accepter qu'un quarteron d'éditeurs canado-anglais imposent leur vision de Paris". This isn't harassment. He has badly breached policy and guidelines and once again we see the same pattern of behaviour. Several people complaining about the same point isn't harassment: it's a bloody great big red flag that someone is going well beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained in the file opened above by ThePromenader (opening another file to request my banishment when there is one already opened is a neat case of WP:HARASS), WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise (and in fact you, SchroCat, is making wholesale reverts to protect the content of the article edited by your friend Dr. Blofeld, which is in breach of WP:OWN; see your wholesale reverts here and here). I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. Your multiple demands for banishment will go nowhere. So perhaps if you tried to compromise instead of hoping for my "liquidation", the atmosphere in the article would improve considerably. All I've seen from you in the past year is a very uncompromising editor who arrived in the article for the sole purpose of protecting the edits of Dr. Blofeld. That is not constructive. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan: Who is harassing whom? User:Der Statistiker call people who disagree "The most vicious peole ever". He creates an account on French Wikipedia just to attack me and others. He call me an "aggressive POV-pusher" for editing an article two times in five years. In response, I have filed one report at ANI, and that is all. Tell me, am I harassing him or he harassing me?Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that you edited the article only two times in five years, and those were to revert someone else. If you don't see a problem there, I think any admin can see one. You clearly don't care about the article, and only jumped on the bandwagon for reasons that I ignore (off-wiki contact by Dr. Blofeld?). I, unlike you, have added CONTENT to the article (you know, the hard stuff that takes many hours not of sillily arguing on talk pages or AN/I, but of researching valuable information, data, references). I would be more than glad to see you devote your time to improve the content of the article, especially in the categories where it is sorely lacking (economy, demographics, transports, administration), rather than spending your life on talk pages and AN/I, where you and ThePromenader's harassment force me to spend so much time these days. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the battlefield mentality I'm talking of. First you accuse me of being "one of the worst POV-pushers on the article". After finding out I've only edited it twice, that is now a problem and you accuse me of "jumping on the bandwagon" after off-wiki contact. Both accusations are false, but the funny thing is how contradictory they are. It's the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It just underlines how it's the never-ending personal attacks that matter for Der Statistiker. The problem with me is not that I've pushed a POV (2 edits), nor that I've edited only two times (hardly unique) but that I've expressed support the for consensus. That "justifies" all the personal attacks on me and on others. It's for that battlefield mentality Der Statistiker is problematic on articles related to Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who comes in the article solely to defend the "tourist" edits of Dr. Blofeld is a POV-pusher. Yes, I think it matches the definition neatly. And there was no consensus about this photomontage at the time when you made yours reverts. It's beyond me how so many editors who had never edited the Paris article simply came there to make some reverts. It's not only suspicious, but also against many guidelines of Wikipedia (the goal of being an editor at Wikipedia is to expand the articles by adding valuable content, not to roam the site to make some reverts in articles you never otherwise edit). Der Statistiker (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This all needs to stop, now. Here's my temporary solution, which I will gladly enforce with blocks at any moment (pending the outcome of the topic-ban debate above): from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time.

This also entails that you should all stop, immediately, to fight with each other on this noticeboard. This goes for everybody who has, let's say, five or more contributions to Talk:Paris within the last six months. Just stay out of here for now and leave any further measures to uninvolved people to decide on; !votes about banning from involved voices are usually useless in such threads anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.

Related: #Proposing topic ban for Der Statistiker after years of flame wars at Paris

- Constant aggressive edit warring, constant disregard for/gaming WP rules and reverting in disregarding (even denying) talk-page discussions, ... for starters.

I could make a long list of events, but I think the present state of the Talk:Paris page is enough of a case. Der Statistiker has some very original views about what Paris "should" be (but isn't), and goes to any length to make sure that they become "reality" in the Paris article, all while remaining just inside Wikipedia rules, of course. Repealing their efforts has always been a headache, and that since almost ten years now.

(edited) This is a mess. I'm withdrawing the meat puppet and sock puppet accusations for now, because I'm now not sure who started what, but for sure at least two few-edits participants are from the www.skyscrapercity.com page where (Google translated) 'troops' were coached how to edit Wikipedia, and both Minato ku and Sesto Elemento are present here (read forward and back for more): [130], and a former 'vote' campaign originated there too [131], but it was not reported by participating contributors. (added) No, wait, yes it was! [132]. Der Statistiker is absent from all these discussions, oddly. And we still don't know who started brought them in the first place. Admitedly, it might have been Minato ku, and Der Statistiker was just jumping on their cause. Neither party spoke up to clarify (or even deny) even after being asked, anyhow. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good example of Der Statistiker's general attitude towards discussion and other contributors: [133]

Sockpuppet case against Der Statistiker: conclusion: Editing another language under another name [134]

Der Statistiker, latest bout of reverts: First revert (diff): 2014-09-23T02:33:20 [135]

contributions: [136]

Minato ku first revert: 2014-09-23T22:23:19 [137]

contributions: [138]

Sesto Elemento first revert: 2014-09-21T17:23:56 [139]

contributions: [140]

Through all of the above, Der Statistiker and at least two of the above participants appear always at the same time for the same 'cause'. I hope Der Statistiker's general bad attitude, unwillingness to discuss anything (except how others are (expletive) and wrong), the general disingenuousity (especially in false/'kettle black' accusations) is evident enough throughout all that... I think it more than is, but I'm hardly looking at this objectively.

Right, so you recognize yourself that you're not sure anymore who started what, you open a case here to ask for my banishment, but then say it's in fact Minato Ku who might be responsible (then why did you open this case about me in the first place??), then post some diffs showing some reverts from myself and two other editors which are similar, but dear Sir, I can also post some diffs from you and other editors which are similar. ThePromander's reverts ([141], [142], [143]), SchroCat's reverts ([144], [145], [146]), Jeppiz' reverts ([147], [148]), Dr Blofeld's revert ([149]), all perfectly the same, reverting to the same photomontage (notice how each guy stops before breaking the 3 revert rule and lets the other ones continue to revert in turn).

You then accuse me of always showing up at the same time as other editors. It's funny because I always see you popping up in the Paris article at the same time as User:SchroCat, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Jeppiz, and always, always to block any change in the montage at the top of that infox. So are you guys informing each other of the changes in that infobox to act together? Or are SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Jeppiz your meatpuppets, or are you theirs?

Your accusations can be thrown back at you, and do little to improve the editing atmosphere in the article. For more than a year now I've seen the three of you (ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, SchroCat), with the occasional help of Jeppiz and one or two other editors, acting together to prevent any change in the article that you don't like. On that I second what Metropolitan said today: it looks like WP:OWN to me. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership? Coming from you, and your staggering displays of ownership so far, that's incredibly rich. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing anyone can accuse me of is being very bad at arguing. But thanks for insinuating otherwise.

Whether the others show up by your bidding or on their own, you are using them to promote your own POV, which would be impossible without misguided 'like-minded' support.

Actually, it would be great if Minato ku and Sesto Elemento gave their input here. THEPROMENADER 05:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got some evidence of the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry otherwise you would be better to strike those parts of the report. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I already withdrew the sockpuppet part (this user may have been condemned in the past for this, but I have to check that). For meatpuppetry, what should I provide? THEPROMENADER 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For meat puppetry you would want to provide links to other contributors providing similar or identical additions or removals of information that have limtied or few other contributions. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Amortias above. Additionally have other dispute resolution avenues been tried (WP:DRN or WP:RFC)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that DerStatistiker is a user whose behavior at Paris hurts Wikipedia more than it helps and I could support a topic ban. I agree with Amortias that every accusation has to be supported by evidence and diffs.Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear with me, in all my years here, I've never done anything like this before. Isn't the talk page itself a good start? The edit history of all those involved would help, too... okay, I'll go get those. Sorry, cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth looking at WP:D&L for advice on producing the diffs for evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been better prepared. I withdraw the meatpuppetry accusation (I have yet to sort out who did what first, I may have been wrong about that), so my bad, Sorry. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must make another correction: I did make a case against the same user, but for sockpuppetry. I added it into the links above. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I wish to say about the matter I have already said elsewhere (repeated in the thread below, as applicable. – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, And strongly so. You only have to have to look at his behaviour and lack of AGF last July/August and in events since such as recently and forum shopping to make this an appropriate action.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat have contacted me off-wiki, asking me to weigh in here as a non-involved admin, so here are my remarks and a suggestion as to how to resolve this.

I realize AN/I is not normally a place to talk about article content, but in this case I can't help weighing in on that first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while. The presumably most iconic skyscrapers of the region, La Défense, sit outside of the city itself. The recent dispute about the infobox image strikes me as an enormous waste of time that could be better spent improving the article. The image is entirely suitable, whereas (for example) the "landmarks" section is frankly an almost unreadable laundry list. And, yes, the article probably needs to say more about modern Paris, and possibly the image isn't perfect, but it would not be on any reasonable person's list of the top 10 things that ought to change about this article.

But on to the process matters that belong here at AN/I.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is primarily about building an encyclopedia rather than about experiments in process. Yes "anyone can edit," but we seem to be dealing with a matter here where all but one of the contributors with significant experience here are on the same side of the issue and, even if none of the people weighing in on the other side are "meat puppets," let alone sock puppets, the fact remains that they are not people who have made any signficant contributions to Wikipedia, nor have they shown any indication that they are coming in here with expertise rather than with an agenda. (I'm all for people who haven't contributed before joining discussions, especially if they have knowledge to contribute, but clearly if a bunch of people showing up at once to weigh in on one side of an argument, some off-wiki canvassing is going on.)

So here is my suggestion. User:Der Statistiker: have the sense to back down when all the other experienced editors disagree with you. And, going forward if you don't do that, yes, I will support a topic ban, which would be a pity because you obviously have more of a clue about the topic than you do about how to collaborate. If you think you can propose some hunks of prose that could be added to the article to take up the topics you think have been neglected, and that there is any chance of actually getting consensus for them, go for it, but bow out gracefully if you can't get that consensus. And if you want to round up people from off-wiki, round them up to work on articles that actually need a ton of work, in areas where they actually have expertise, not to weigh in as useless extra voices. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and when someone comes out of nowhere and weighs in on a disagreement on a talk page, they are not effectively casting votes: they are just wasting everyone's time by obscuring the strong, though not unanimous, consensus that obviously exist among the relevant parties.

And the other people working on this: the article is already protected. Don't feel like you have to answer every point Der Statistiker raises on the talk page if he's clearly proposing something against consensus. You don't have to repeat your view for each time he repeats his, or someone with no contributions to Wikipedia echoes his. And you could put some of the time saved into proposing some edits that would improve the article, especially to remove some cruft and make it the readable overview it should be.

Probably not what anyone wanted to hear from me. Oh, well. - Jmabel Talk 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that... and happy to finally see some attention and an objective voice of reason. This has been going on since almost ten years already. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now gather that there is a related sock puppet/meat puppet investigation that was not linked here. If that comes up positive, obviously I would support appropriate warnings or blocks. - Jmabel Talk 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update and Comment - The earlier 'kerfuffle' over the Paris Lede photo caught the attention of France's national newspaper, Le Monde [150], and their article brought some attention to French wikipedia. Because of this, this user's behaviour has bled over to there as well, and their battle there is the same (Paris-related articles) as here. They are now posting as multiple anon IP's, and still pushing their 'this photo or nothing' agenda : [151] and [152]. A lengthy ad hominem-filled 'this photo or nothing' argument was posted on both pages [153][154] by IP 86.195.249.77, later just-as-rude and personal-attack filled comments later came from 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169, yet later 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169 came to change 86.195.249.77 and 83.204.251.169's signature to Der Statistiker [155][156]. What's more, the same is imposing the same photo on the French Paris article (in ignoring the ongoing discussion) as user Pointois[157], the same that surfaced in the Der Statistiker sockpuppet case here. Why not post as Pointois? An admin asked them to disclose this link, but they never complied. Der Statistiker was User:Hardouin here before, too... and with all the single-purpose 'parachute contributors' appearing out of nowhere with every conflict they create, it makes it hard to tell where the canvassing ends and the multiple usernames begin.
  
• Anyhow, I am trying to use the attention the article brought to recruit Paris-knowledgable French-wikipédia contributors to help bring the English Wikipedia up to WP:FA status (I offered to help with the translation), but Der Statistiker's belligerant behaviour, lack of consideration for other contributors (ignoring them or treating them as 'stupid obstacles' if they don't side with him), lack of participation in discussions (if not only to obfuscate them in wordy condescending language, false comparisons and details they know participants won't understand), canvassing 'like-minded' (for their agenda) off-wiki contributors (who tend less to know/care about silly things like 'references' and 'rules' ) to 'support' their 'cause', general use of subterfuge and gaming the system in general, all serve to disrupt the editing atmosphere and to dissuade any new contributors from participating. I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly their goal. I think ten years of this is long enough.THEPROMENADER 12:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING This case was closed by an admin and moved to the archives: [158], but ThePromander, who is engaged in a personal feud here, has resurrected this case by removing it from the archive and pasting it here. WP:HARASS? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... no. It was not closed (pending the sockpuppet investigation related to this case) and it was archived... by a bot. I moved it here again because you've recommenced exactly the same bad behaviour you were warned about earlier in this thread. Thanks for drawing attention to this, though. THEPROMENADER 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. A topic ban for Der Statistiker seems to be the only reasonable option. The repeated disruptive behavior (including grossly obvious off-site canvassing by the same user) has gone on too long, and continues to date, on both the French Paris Talk page and the English Paris Talk page. Consensus has been attained (notwithstanding outside help from meatpuppets or otherwise), and yet Der Statistiker continues his/her disruptive campaign of personal attacks while blatantly pushing his/her agenda. Enough is enough. It's time to move on constructively, in the hopes of improving further still the quality of articles here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. I was in two minds about it, until I saw Statisker shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, even though consensus was reached some time ago, as well as to engage in personal attacks on editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a- you were never in two minds about this. You have always been biased against me, and have repeatedly insulted me on the Paris talk page ("fuck off" and the likes). I can provide diffs if requested.

b- I have not "shamelessly canvassed". What's shameless is your unfounded accusation. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way.

c- all I see here is a rogue group of usual suspects who have resurrected an archived case because they hate me so much they wish to have me banned (not just temporarily blocked or warned or whatever, but banned for life, perhaps eradicated if they could). Probably the article published by Le Monde which talked about my work at Wikipedia has greatly angered them: [159]. None of this is going to improve the reputation of Wikipedia. You guys are not living in a dark box, and the rest of the world is watching you and what you're doing. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a. Yes, I was in two minds, as there had been no additional issues on the talk page, so please do not try and double guess what I may or may not have been thinking;

b. You have canvassed, and it is a lie to claim otherwise; roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock. We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world".

c. I'll ignore this: it's not worth addressing. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a- Your history on the talk page shows you were never in two minds. In fact your first edit ever in the Paris article consisted in making a wholesale revert of my contributions to the article [160], even though we had never ever known each other or talked to each other before. Did you try to discuss things with me before reverting me? No.

b- There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there.

c- You ignore it because you know it's true and have nothing to respond to it. Pitiful. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to disengage from further comment here. You are not listening to explanations, and are only seeing what you want to see, while denying what can be seen by anyone in your bad faith comments on French Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. I generally lean on the side of dispute resolution rather than topic bans but the outright off-wiki canvassing and battleground mentality presented here is too much not to attract a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. Looking at diffs it is clear disruption going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: coverage of the story in French media
The conflict between contributors of the Paris article has already been published in Le Monde newspaper [161]. A story which has also been mentionned on the French major radio Europe 1[162]. The conflict opposes contributors such as ThePromenader and SchroCat who pushes a WP:POV for a purely heritage/tourist description of Paris against those who want the city to be portrayed in a more multi-dimensional way, emphasizing also its no-less significant role as an important node in the global economic system [163].

In this context, resurrecting a closed file as it's been done here, with journalists starting to follow this affair, is clearly not the good way to calm things down. I should also add that the file is totally empty. Der Statistiker is clearly not the most aggressive contributor in the conflict. He insulted no one, which is not the case of other contributors as shown in these examples: [164] [165] [166] [167] [168].

The Paris article will be unprotected on 25 October 2014. At this stage, the most important thing in my humble opinion is to calm down heated temperaments so that we could bring back a more constructive spirit to the work on the article. Asking admins to choose their side in the conflict, as proposed here by ThePromenader, is clearly not the good way to achieve that purpose. Metropolitan (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important to who? That article was but a wee appeal-to-emotion blurb about the 'kerfuffleness' of the 'debate' that neither asked nor answered questions... it was anything but 'important', and I was in it. I can provide a link to it if anyone likes.

Metropolitan's 'solution' for 'calming the debate' is letting a few fulfil whatever goal they were summoned here to fulfil in spite of a consensus (that they deny exists) - this is called 'an agenda'. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What all this is about is a wikipedian (or not) with an agenda off-wiki canvassing others for the sole purpose of 'forcing' one photo. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus Christ. This is still going on? It's been well over a year now. I haven't looked into this article since then, but given the same names are involved now as then, chances are that more than one person needs to step away from this article. Resolute 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolute, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible support Please, just do it. Even now he's taken swipes at my work on it and canvassing off wiki. He's annoying and disruptive who ought to be banned full stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, you should read again the WP:5PILLARS of Wikipedia: "Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed". How could you ask admins to ban someone on the ground that "he has taken swipes at [your] work"? That's against the very fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Metropolitan (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban - I've been lurking at that talk page for almost two years now, and when Der Statistiker is not involved, there is essentially no conflict. The user's continued POV pushing and combative attitude is detrimental to both the article and the encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris article does have a massive WP:POV issue, but certainly not caused by Der Statistiker! As clearly shown on the following table, the POV bias of the Paris article is about a strictly historical/heritage depiction of the city totally ignoring its modern aspects. As far as I know, Der Statistiker has essentially worked on economy and demographics sections, which have been dwarved to nearly nothing over time. If you want to know who pushes for the heritage POV, ask yourself who's attacking him. The table compares the number of words of different sections from the Paris and London articles, which are two similar-sized capitals of similar countries. It just speaks for itself.

Field of interest	Paris		London
	Number of words	% of total	Number of words	% of total
History	3,573 words	22%	2,048 words	17%
Heritage	4,277 words	26%	204 words	2%
Culture	2,545 words	15%	1,661 words	14%
Subtotal	10,395 words	63%	3,913 words	32%
Economy	673 words	4%	727 words	6%
Demographics	852 words	5%	1,605 words	13%
Transport	819 words	5%	1,693 words	14%
Subtotal	2,344 words	13%	4,025 words	33%
Overall total	16,388 words	100%	12,131 words	100%

Those figures cannot lie. If you want to read more about the obvious WP:POV issue on the Paris article, here's a link to the dedicated section on the talk page: Restoring NPOV to the Paris article. Metropolitan (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What the (expletive) does this have to do with anything here, if not distracting from/defending the contributor's behaviour? I don't disagree with your content criticisms, but you do realise that, by stating that "there's a problem" that "needs to be fixed" that "explains the contributors' behaviour", you are just showing your shared 'views' and WP:BATTLEGROUND, right?

Contrary to what your comment here insinuates, nobody ever opposed any such change between those WP:CANVASS campaigns; in fact, the article stagnated. You're presenting yourself as some sort of diplomat/voice of reason here, but you only came for those campaigns. The level of disingenuousity here is palpatating. THEPROMENADER 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan, it's a bit hard to understand your arguments. Are there problems with the Paris article? Quite likely, and most people agree. Could it be improved? Definitely. Are there other editors who should reconsider their behavior. Almost certainly. But none of that is relevant here. The table above that you copy-pasted above was relevant when you did at the talk page of Paris, it's entirely irrelevant here. You seem to want to continue discussing Paris here, but that is not the topic. You have posted a large number of posts now discussing Paris and discussing other user. Start a thread about users you find problematic if you want, but even if other users have misbehaved (and some certainly have), it's still no excuse for Der Statistiker misbehaving and thus irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban I (mistakenly) opened another request for the same topic ban. I support a topic ban as Der Statistiker has been actively edit warring [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], then took the fight to French Wikipedia when the English article was locked [174], [175], and have made repeated off-topic rants ([176], [177]) and personal attacks. The battlefield mentality is well illustrated by the attacks at me. After I defended the consesus, Der Statstiker first called me "one of the biggest POV-pushers" [178], [179]. After finding out I had in fact only edited the article twice ever, suddenly the attacks were turned around and I was attacked for my non-editing and wild accusations of being there for the wrong reasons [180]. This is indicative of the problem. Disagree with Der Statistiker, and personal attacks will follow no matter if you're involved or uninvolved. In this edit today, Der Statistiker even claims openly that "anyone coming to the article to defend the consensus version is a POV-pusher" [181]. It does not get much clearer than that. Calling fellow users who dare to disagree "the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online" [182] it's not helpful. This battlefield mentality is very problematic and disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat here what I already said in the other request opened by this bellicose editor. Sigh...

You admit that you edited the article only two times in five years, and those were to revert someone else. If you don't see a problem there, I think any admin can see one. You clearly don't care about the article, and only jumped on the bandwagon for reasons that I ignore (off-wiki contact by Dr. Blofeld?). I, unlike you, have added CONTENT to the article (you know, the hard stuff that takes many hours not of sillily arguing on talk pages or AN/I, but of researching valuable information, data, references). I would be more than glad to see you devote your time to improve the content of the article, especially in the categories where it is sorely lacking (economy, demographics, transports, administration), rather than spending your life on talk pages and AN/I, where you and ThePromenader's harassment force me to spend so much time these days. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also this:

WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise (and in fact some like SchroCat are making wholesale reverts to protect the content of the article edited by Dr. Blofeld, which is in breach of WP:OWN; for example see SchroCat's wholesale reverts here and here). I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. Your multiple demands for banishment will go nowhere. So perhaps if you tried to compromise instead of hoping for my "liquidation", the atmosphere in the article would improve considerably. All I've seen from some of you in the past year is very uncompromising editors who arrived in the article for the sole purpose of protecting the edits of Dr. Blofeld. That is not constructive. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to all involved parties: Please see my posting at the duplicated thread below [183]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor needs an intervention

Raymarcbadz

A few days ago I posted the following but no-one responded. I have brought it back here. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing content from "nation" at the XXXX Olympics articles. Here is a summary of his disruptive behaviour:

1. [184] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
2. [185] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
3. [186] - Benin at the 2008 Summer Olympics - (20/10/14)
4. [187] - Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)

• Older examples:

1. [188] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (10/3/13)
2. [189] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (9/3/13)
3. I can spot seven here

• Warnings:
• I gave him a 4im due to the amount of content removal ([190]) which s/he reverted quickly ([191])

Raymarcbadz has made 35000+ edits and he has been a great service to WP:OLY. I just think he has gone a bit far. Maybe a official final warning saying: "If you remove content again from WP:OLY articles, you'll be blocked without warning". Just a suggestion though, as it is up to a sysop. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see here a reasonable explanation by Raymarcbadz as to the reason for removal of sourced material. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a reasonable explanation for removing chunks of content in most of the articles that I edited.

• The intent to nominate an article for a GA category - When you are creating an article for a nation competing at the particular Olympic Games edition, you do not need to expand lengthy information for each athlete and his status in the competition in order to nominate an article. There are multiple approaches to polish your article in order to nominate an article. Since the nations article contains data and results, I do not have any problem if you're describing about the status of the sport for a particular nation, but putting petty and pointless details (e.g. born in etc.) is not the main target to nominate an article.
• Background - Is this an appropriate manner to set up historical information about the nation from the previous Games? Better if you place some of them in the Olympic nations article without mentioning a year of the nation's participation, because this is a direct approach to examine what happens to the particular nation during the Games regardless of the edition.
• Sports Reference as a source material - I do not know which source material should I rather cite to describe the status of the competition and to narrate the life of an athlete if I am clearly using Sports Reference. There are numerous variations to cite data using the Sports Reference, but through uncertainty and questionable fact, which one is effectively official?
• Useless information - Some of the information that I observed for each article do not directly focus on the athlete's performance at these Games. For example, born in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia (referring to the athlete in the article Bolivia at the 2008 Summer Olympics). Is this better if you should not mention the athlete's personal facts on the article? This would have been done in the article of the athlete itself. If you're aiming to focus on the athlete's performance, why cannot you put everything there in someone's article. If you wish to put a qualitative content on each section of the nations article, just provide the description briefly. No need to put too much petty information on the article. Another way to polish the article with enough content (not on the tables) is to create a section that summarizes the performance of the athletes of each nation during the Games. From my discernment, nations articles do not rely solely on the quantitative techniques (e.g. results tables for each sport), but rather analyze the outcome of the athletes before, during, and after the Olympics.

If you want to clarify something, please leave me a message. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close of a stale RFC

Request resolution of ANI thread

Temporary page review

Lia Olguța Vasilescu for redeletion

Or similar. Despite the heartfelt appeals of puppet "Osugiba" in a thread above, in a thread within WP:AN, and in a thread within the Help page, the article Lia Olguța Vasilescu was deleted (not by me). But later it was re-created, first (I think unobjectionably) as a mere stub (by User:Auric), and then enormously amplified in this edit by User:Nick, with the edit summary "expand article with text from external site under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence".

Nick presents the source as this at Blogspot (which I've archived here). It's stuffed with Mediawiki markup and very obviously either is or pretends to be a Wikipedia scrape. Titled "fgfg", it's in a throwaway Blogspot account. (See the top page, doartest.blogspot.com.tr/.) Even if Nick had no idea of the history of the article, I wonder why he considered this to be a reliable source.

The earlier history of the article shows that it was created by one puppet ("Bagnume") of a banned user and then stoutly defended by another puppet ("Osugiba") of the same banned user.

I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary, in one way or another (I don't know which way). And he's an admin, too.... I'd summarily delete/revert/protect it myself, but it might look as if I have some grudge against the biographee (whom I'd never heard of 24 hours ago), imaginably there's some rationale for copying in an article from "fgfg.html" within a throwaway blog, and so anyway I'll leave the job to somebody else, and also provide an opportunity for the defense of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blogspot page, although allegedly created in 2011, is an exact copy of this last revision made by Osugiba before the Wikipedia article was deleted. Also, if the Blogspot post was really written in 2011 how could the editor have used an image shot in 2013? Per WP:DENY I say the Wikipedia article should be stubbed back to Auric's translation. De728631 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Blogspot post seems to be an unattributed copy of the recently deleted version of the Wikipedia article, which makes it a copyright violation. Nick may have been unaware that he was inserting text which was itself a copyright violation (though given the source, he really ought to have known better). If he really wants to take responsibility for the edits of the banned user, he's permitted to do so, though in that case he must restore the article history so that all past contributors are properly credited. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had asked, I'd have fully explained. The article I 'imported' should be the version of the article as created originally by Iaaasi (using one of his enormous number of sockpuppets) which was speedily deleted yesterday as the work of a banned user which nobody else had made significant edits to. There are several editors trying to work with Iaaasi, trying to get him to stop breaching has ban by socking, and trying to get him into the position where he can be rejoin the community. The most recent plan is to try and get Iaaasi to write on a blog (which is what he set up yesterday) making content available to be imported into the project by an uninvolved third party.

This idea comes from a recent post by Jimbo, where he suggested those who can't work with the community but who still wish to contribute should consider setting up blogs, writing there, and releasing their work under the CC-BY-SA licence.

If you insist on the history being restored, I'll happily do that, though I specifically included the correct attribution template at the bottom of the article to properly attribute the author in the manner they had requested. Nick (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De728631's post implies that the blog post contains the most recent revision by the sockpuppet prior to the article's deletion. If that's true, then your attribution template was not correct, since it failed to credit all the authors of the article other than Iaaasi. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, it looks like there's been a misunderstanding on what Iaaasi should have copied over to his blog, he's taken the last edit he made, when he should have taken the last edit he made before any other editors edited the page. I've restored the history of the page to cover for that problem, but it now creates the messy issue of the source text on the blog being a copyright violation and needing to be de-linked, which in turn takes us right back to the issue of the article being by a banned user with no significant edits by any other user. I'll try and get in touch with Iaaasi and get him to remove the offending text from his blog and replace it with the correct revision (which by my reckoning is [192]). Nick (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would also be great if he wouldn't falsify the dates of his blog posts, as that causes considerable confusion (as it did in this case) over which version of the text is the original. If he continues to do this, the folks at Wikipedia:Copyright problems may start removing all text imported from his blog(s) as presumptive copyvios. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's fixed the date issue too, he tells me he had simply overwritten a previous blog entry rather than trying to do anything sneaky with the date. Nick (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I hope this endeavour at rehabilitation is successful, and that in a few months' time we can all welcome him back into the community. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this very concerning. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi describes this user as having been community banned due to nationalistic POV editing and edit warring, and there is a note at the top of User talk:Iaaasi warning that in addition to socking to circumvent the ban, the user has been e-mailing editors to proxy edit for him. Talk page access has been revoked for bias. In a well intentioned implementation of a plan by Jimbo, one of our most out-of-touch legacy admins, Nick overwrote an article that had been deleted under WP:Banning policy and recreated as a rules-conforming stub by another editor with a version posted by Iaaasi on an external site, thereby creating an attribution violation. This version of the article should be revision deleted and either Nick or some other goodhearted editor should use the sources to expand the stub, rather than meat-puppeting for Iaaasi. Or alternatively, someone should take full responsibility for the article expansion as is permitted under the banning policy and has been recently clarified by Arbcom here. Since Iaaasi was banned in part for violations of NPOV and I cannot read Romanian, I don't feel competent to do this; otherwise I would have stayed up late last night and fixed up this article. To simply import a version by a banned editor, especially without checking whether it involved restoring uncredited edits by others, was a well-meaning violation of the ban policy. It's also unfair to other banned editors, or editors whose work gets reverted on sight: for comparison, see this recently archived WP:AN discussion on banning an IP editor whose edits are generally good copyedits, and discussions about article creations by socks of the banned Pumpie and the globally banned Olha. Banned means banned. It is the nuclear option. (Moreover, as Jimbo apparently did not realize if he indeed suggested this, potentially useful edits by editors with behavioral problems, banned or not, do not consist entirely or even for the most part of largely solo article creation. That is not how a wiki works.) Either the community formally decides to unban Iaaasi, or rarely and with extreme caution individual editors explicitly take responsibility for and reinstate his edits, or we modify the ban policy. I would advocate in any case for being very clear in ban discussions that a ban is a total site ban and requires removal of all edits by the editor made after the decision is reached. The AN discussion revealed uncertainty about that, and we may therefore be being too hasty to ban. But end runs around bans are not a good thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This. WP:PROXYING allows for edits on behalf of banned users if it can be shown that such edits are productive and/or verifiable and there are independent reasons for adding them. But an initiative of only a few editors to rehabilitate a banned user runs afoul of this policy and our general principles. Whether Iaasi or any other banned users are allowed to insert their original content at Wikipedia in order to return to good standing is to be decided by the community. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure that Nick had honorable intentions. But I wrote above "I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary", and after the explanation I still do. I'm not immediately sure of all the details of what Yngvadottir writes, but its general thrust seems right. However, there's also a more nuts-and-bolts question. There is of course nothing necessarily wrong with heavy dependence of an article on sources in Romanian. Unfortunately, I can't read Romanian. Can you read Romanian, Nick? If you can't, did you ask one or more dispassionate reader of Romanian to check the quality, or how else did you check the material? -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources. Nick (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When dealing with an editor for whom AGF can apply, a quick check with Google Translate can suffice. I suggest that AGF shouldn't apply for a banned editor, and that a quick check with Google Translate is nowhere near adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You can suggest many things Hoary but unless you actually can demonstrate a problem with the content, rather than the person who created it, this discussion is pointless, and I'm out. Nick (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: reusability of Wikipedia content is infinitely more important than the details of how we might try to deter banned editors. Since Wikipedia ought to be able to take CC-licensed content from other online encyclopedias with practicable attribution, and vice versa, it inevitably follows that we can take CC-licensed content from deleted Wikipedia entries. When this happens the decent way to close the loop is to identify the deleted content that we now find acceptable to keep on a live page, and undelete that content. Because obviously per CC the worst thing we could do would be to delete history revisions solely to conceal their attribution. Undeleting the history, and also undeleting any associated talk page revisions, also has the advantage of revealing what substantive problems people found with the text the first time. Whether the choice is to delete the article or to undelete the history, it should be done rapidly to show that CC is taken seriously; the choice of which to do reflects the outcome of the undeletion discussion or new AfD that would happen anyway. And if a banned user has used this to sneak some acceptable content into the encyclopedia, so what? You know you'll never catch them all! Wnt (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wnt: I'm not sure how far removed our points of view ultimately are; and to complicate things, Jimbo has now said at my talk page that his statement on the topic has been misrepresented. Since I don't know where that statement is to be found, I don't know. However, we ban editors to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. In this case, an old one that I am unfamiliar with and linguistically ill-equipped to investigate for myself, at least partly because of non-neutral editing. Letting such a person's edits stand is ill-advised on that basis. Rather, if they can be shown to have reformed, let's unban them. That way we also avoid this kind of ridiculously complicated methodology involving blogs, not to mention the time sink of investigations and AfDs. On the other hand, if they are to stay banned, as Hoary says, they've exhausted the community's good faith and any edits made by their socks in defiance of the ban should be reinstated on an individual basis and with great care, with the person reinstating them explicitly taking full responsibility. It is my understanding that we just had an ArbCom case clarifying that. Part of my concern is that if we devalue a ban by enabling it to be circumvented as appears to be the intent here as a way of rehabilitating the editor, we open the door to more casual banning of other editors (as in my opinion we saw in the AN discussion on the IP editor); part is that it's simply unfair to other banned editors who don't happen to have supporters willing to work with them (and rewards e-mail and other off-wiki canvassing); and part is that it flies in the face of the motivation for their having been banned, which is to protect the encyclopedia. Altogether better would be to unban, since the issue really boils down to: is this editor's work a net gain or a net danger to the encyclopedia. Otherwise we should follow ArbCom's ruling and make reinstatement of such edits rare and very cautious. I believe an AfD to be far too narrow a scope for this. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main point here is that when a non-banned editor takes the banned person's text and adds it, they have the chance to put that text up under their own responsibility. Now that means that Nick, making this edit, can be held to account if there are clear BLP violations or something, but you'd have to show that. I think it should be a bedrock principle that when an editor in good standing adds valid content, there is no action that can or should be taken against that - there's nothing more fundamentally what Wikipedia is for than this. We don't rip out all the contributions a banned user has made to our existing articles at the moment of the ban; the text, if acceptable, stands. We can't allow tactical thinking to get so out of control that it attacks the encyclopedia instead of defending it. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they've been banned because their edits are deemed to have too high a risk of harm. We do forbid and rip out edits made after the ban. The question with respect to this article is whether what Nick restored was, in fact, ok; and it's a more complex situation than clear BLP violations, since the editor was banned for nationalistic POV editing. The broader question is what to do about this ban-evading editor. To unban him might indeed be best for the encyclopedia. But to bend over backwards to abet his ban evasion is bad for the encyclopedia on several levels, one of them being that his work is to be presumed not good. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I pretty much agree with the principle "2) Banned editors" under [193] that was debated recently. They emphasize the cautiousness a bit more than I would, but the bottom line is, if a banned editor posts something, even after the ban, you can repost it under your own name, taking responsibility for that content. This is not a bug but a feature - for example, there are article subjects who come on and are contentious and get banned, but we shouldn't have BLPs where we aren't willing to listen to what the subject has to say, no matter what he's like to work with. As long as there's some human condom interposed between him and our content. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK. But there are two kinds of problem here. One is a copyright problem: the last time I looked, the resuscitated WP article cited a (or the?) page in a throwaway blog, which in turn didn't indicate its authorship. (It merely said that it was posted by "punctul pe j", who later added the comment "fg".) Secondly, the editor doing the reposting strikes me as nowhere near sufficiently cautious about the worth of the material (given that this had been produced and vociferously defended by a banned user and his socks/cronies): dealing with sources in Romanian, he just "did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues". There's WikiProject Romania and WP:Translators available; if an article by a banned ideologue sporting this block log is so important, shouldn't a reader of Romanian be asked; and if a reader of Romanian needn't be asked, is the article so important? (It's interesting that the biographee only rates a stub in ro:WP, and has never had anything much longer.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The check performed here was inadequate for a banned editor, and the whole idea of the posting to a blog is deliberate circumvention of a ban. Either it's time to lift the ban or the blog idea is a bad one (which is why I would have expected Jimbo to say how it had been misinterpreted here). The copyright issue was indicative of the casualness with which this was done, but has now been fixed by undeletion of the previous versions - so we now just have an adequately attributed article that defies a ban and hasn't been seriously checked for NPOV. @Wnt: Very few article subjects are banned (I would hope.) Article subjects not being familiar with our processes and editors who have caused sufficient problems for the encyclopedia that they have been banned are two distinct groups. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person to check with would be Nick, who added this material. He's an editor in good standing, and we should "WP:AGF" that he checked the content unless and until someone posts an actual reason why there's something wrong with it. Rules wise, it is as if he posted the content himself --- except for the galling ball-and-chain of a CC-attribution link to an external blog, but that's a copyright issue, not a policy issue; one which I would like to see resolved per above. Undeleting a few revisions of one article is not a very drastic thing to do to fix that problem, and is actually unrelated to the banning of any editor. But you can't rightly act to suppress Nick's content unless you make a case against him. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I suppose I should dive a bit into the fundamental issue here. Suppose we didn't (for some obtuse reason) undelete the history. Well, in theory, we should still be able to cite Wikipedia for the content, provided some admin looks over the history and sees the history of the deleted version. This is because Wikipedia content is theoretically reusable. For example, if I write a book and illustrate it with a photo of the Alps taken from Commons, the publisher should not have to pull and pulp the run if Commons deletes the photo out of some overwrought moralizing about whether some tourists in the photo gave permission to be photographed on private property. Otherwise, most of Wikimedia's resources would be all but worthless for most uses apart from merely running the website, which could be done with far more restrictive releases to WMF for noncommercial use. The theory, as I've heard it said around here, is that Wikipedia doesn't break the freedom of its content with its ever-hungrier deletion processes because the content can still be attributed if you merely email an admin and ask for who the authors were. That is, yes, a nervous-making doctrine, but it's better than the alternative. So in theory you could do that directly, attributing the article to former deleted versions of the article that are unavailable. Now the reason why I don't like this of course is that it gives the impression of breaking attribution deliberately, with the purpose of hiding contributions from an editor you disliked/banned/whatever, which would not look good in a real copyright case I assume (IANAL). But because this principle is so basic to the function of any part of WMF, it really should be acknowledged! Wnt (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point we seem to be drawing further apart. The copyright/attribution problem has been solved by the attribution, but by Nick's own admission he did not check the article for NPOV (and initially posted the content without even verifying that it was the version he thought it was). This does not conform to best practice with a banned user, nor to Arbcom's clarification. It would have been better for him to directly reinstate the version he wished to take responsibility for. It's also not fair to other banned users who don't have friends ready to go through such hoopla to try to rehabilitate their content. I've referred above to Pumpie: recent socks of that user have created stubs on metro stations and several users have complained about their being deleted on sight before others can evaluate and possibly adopt them, but that's the banning policy. Taking responsibility for a banned user's edits is supposed to be a rare and very cautious thing, so it is inappropriate to say we should extend AGF in this case simply because Nick is a user in good standing and an admin. My concern is for the ramifications of such an end run around policy for the encyclopedia - and also, if Iaaasi can indeed now be trusted to write neutrally, the largely unspoken assumption behind what happened with the revival of this article, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not unbanning him. I think it's time for a proposal to unban him, and it seems it had better be here rather than AN? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir please point out where I said I didn't check the article for NPOV or redact your incorrect accusation. I'd actually quite like an apology for that. Nick (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You wrote above in response to a query about how far you had checked the article: "I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources." This does not even mention what I understand Iaaasi was primarily banned for—biased editing—you admit that (like me) you are unable to evaluate the use of sources in detail because of inability to read Romanian. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has become rather infamous for discarding editors with a long history of productive edits (indeed, many of the names on the list of top editors of all time) based on a few problematic edits. (I have not attempted to determine if this is one of those editors) The logical corollary of that is that a third party who reads their offsite editing will, most of the time, find their writing to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Copying that one piece of writing does not, alas, give any guarantee that they will not say something sometime that could get them banned; it proves one piece is OK, when checked by someone else. I don't say this to dissuade you from trying to unban the writer (I have not developed any opinion about that) but only to emphasize that Nick need not be signing on to anything more than the text that actually passes through his cut and paste buffer. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfortunately all too familiar with Iaaasi's content contributions and his editing history, checking the point of view of the article was the first thing I did, before I even thought about reinstating it - it was the fact it didn't have a POV that made me think restoring it would be good for the project. When I was happy that there wasn't any POV/nationalistic issues, I set about checking it for the usual issues, making sure the references were accurate, thankfully the content of the article and the references meant this was a very straight forward and quick job, much of the content is essentially basic factual information concerning titles and dates of positions held, and election/voting results. I found it simple, quick and easy to check everything was in order, maybe I've missed something glaringly obvious, but I cannot for the life of me find anything wrong with the article, beyond a couple of slightly malformed references. Please, if I'm missing something, I'd dearly love to hear what I've missed, but I honestly cannot find fault with the article, no matter how critical I am looking at it. It is the article I'd have written on the same subject. Nick (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Ah! Unfortunately you hadn't mentioned that at all, and given the reasons for his being banned, that was the most important thing to be sure of concerning the article. I still think it would have been better to take some of the sources from the deleted version and make your own expansion from the stub that someone else had made, and there may be issues of omission or selective mention. But that makes me feel much better about having Iaaasi's version in mainspace. And I do think we need at this point to consider unbanning him on that basis, with mentorship or some other sort of checks. It would amount to the community regularizing what you did with this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note I just had to remove a whole bunch of (stupidly repeated) sock posts from another Iaaasi IP sock from this very thread. I'm sure Nick's efforts to "work with" Iaaasi are honorable and all, but if this effort of vandal appeasement is meant as a way to convince Iaaasi to respect Wikipedia rules, it clearly isn't working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're Iaaasi socks, they're miles away from his usual ranges. I'm wondering if it's connected with the bunfight going on with Eurocentral et al. Nick (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behavior right after the block of User:Bobi987 Ivanov expired

User:Bobi987 Ivanov was blocked two times successively (Block log) and right after his last block expired (23.10.2014) he continues with his disruptive behavior/edit warring on the same article for which he was blocked (article history) and on others as well ([194]). While he was blocked the edit warring started (or continued) from 2 IP addresses User:79.126.172.145 and User:85.30.127.197 (both from the same Internet provider). While he was blocked and the after the interventions of the IP addresses above, the articles had to be protected (only autoconfirmed users) ([195] & [196]). Now when his block expired, the disruptive editing continues. My request is his block time to be increased and the 2 IPs checked for sockpuppeting. --StanProg (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss my edits on the talk pages. I've posted a few subjects, for example, this one. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't blocked because I was making disruptive edits, but because I refused to discuss absolved subjects, multiply absolved. And, I'm sorry about that. I'll try to play by the rules from now on. My edits are always confirmed by academic studies, books etc. I just provide what the sources say. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Scottperry at WP:NPOV

[197] [198]

Warned: [199]

And about this ANI discussion: [200]

Sought input from WP:FTN: [201]

As far as I can see Scottperry refuses content discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?, just "vote-counting", accusing me of not following due process etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Francis Schonken (talk) is attempting to catch some admin by surprise here. He has a long history of blocks, has already made two reversions compared to my one, and seems to have posted this here right after I let him know I was going to work. Well I read Wikipedia at work too Francis, surprise! Specifically, he has already reverted this one WP:NOV policy twice, inclucing his July 30 reversion. He originally inserted the policy in early July without any "clear consensus". He first reverted it on July 30, in the apparent hope that he would "catch other editors off guard" by waiting until that time, still making the first reversion without any "clear consensus", and when asked how he achieved consensus, all he could do was to point to a talk-discussion where his edit was first reverted by User:Flyer22 in which Flyer22 had reverted his edit. How is that "consensus"? He seems to me to be the disruptive one, so far making two reversions, trying to "force" his will upon Wiki policy via irresponsible behavior, and not actually caring about first achieving "clear consensus" before making edits to our policy. Yet repeatedly claiming that he "did" achieve consensus, before his attempted changes to our policy. He has been editing Wikipedia for 9 years I believe, and I would guess that he must have at least a reasonable understanding about what "consensus" really is. Why he repeatedly claims that he had consensus for his edit, I cannot understand. It appears to me that he may be attempting to "game the system". If he makes a third reversion, I would ask that he be blocked for 2 weeks. I am beginning to think user Francis is a real "system gamer", and may need a block simply due to his request that I be blocked here. In fact I would like to request a 2 week block of him right now, due to his obviously "bad-faith" edit here. (this comment first posted at 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC). Last revision:Scott P. (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disruption here. Scottperry has ample participation on the talk page although his accusation about Francis hoping to catch other editors off guard is very questionable. --NeilN^{talk to me} 13:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly Neil, very kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, you're adding to your post after I replied. Please don't do that. No one should be blocked yet. Just drop the stick and continue calmly discussing on the talk page. --NeilN^{talk to me} 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are right. Sorry and twice now, thank you kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I've asked you essentially this at the NPOV talk page:exactly why do you feel that your edit has consensus behind it? Your answer over there was to provide a link to a discussion between you and User:Flyer22 where she had simply reverted your attempted policy edit. If you might still feel so strongly that your edit had a consensus behind it, is there any other "proof" that you might have that a consensus amongst multiple editors approving the edit was arrived at before you made the edit? I would not have reverted your policy change if you had been able to provide such proof. Still I offer, if you could just provide some real evidence of such a consensus behind your edit, I would still be happy to let you keep the edit. Otherwise, why do you still seem to feel so strongly that you had consensus? How would you define consensus? Maybe that is what needs clarification here. I don't know. Scott P. (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my close at AN3 on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by 184.162.56.126

This user has been persistently adding incorrect information [202] [203] [204] [205] and has expressed an unwillingness to discuss [206], in spite of posts on his talk page user talk:184.162.56.126#Recent edit to Supergirl. The two articles affected are Supergirl and Bewitched ([207]). Thanks for looking into this. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just a note that the linked information is accurate (Supergirl first appeared in 1958!) but presented in a POV format the page is better off without.--Auric talk 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Don't know how to word it better though. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main page for AfD on October 23 -- group of unclosed items appear as if closed

User:BadMotherf

Blocking of User:Gomu gomu no pistol on dubious grounds by User:Berean Hunter setting a bad precedent

Insults on talk-page

Can some admin please give a warning to this user, Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not to insult people on talk pages as he did here: diff. He showed serious hateriot in a Balkans sentitive area, a kind of conduct we older editors indeed don't want to see here on en.wiki. FkpCascais (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. Are you happy for someone to close this or do you specifically want an admin to intervene? Amortias (T)(C) 23:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have gave him a cookie as well and a welcoming notice... "While you probably didn't intend any offense" come on, the user clearly intended to offend consciently. A warning not to repeat such behavior would be way more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a standardised first warning for the behaviour he displayed. While I agree the behaviour might have been intentional theres no sign of a history of this behaviour by this user. If he had demonstrated a tendancy for this type of behaviour then I would have placed a stronger warning. Although not strongly worded I would consider the last sentance as advice not to repeat the beahvaiour. Amortias (T)(C) 23:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto just won't stop

Repeated attempts to insert copyvio and remove negative review

I don't really know where else to go with this, so here we are. Crhamar (talk · contribs) has attempted to insert a copyvio three times at Champs (film): [209], [210], [211]. It is a copy-paste of this text. In addition, he has repeatedly attempted to remove a negative review from the article, sometimes under a deceptive edit summary, such as "bolstering content". This follows from a previous user, Qohen Leth (talk · contribs), who also removed the review. This has gone beyond any problems of WP:COI and become seriously disruptive. Qohen Leth has not edited the page in a while, and I suspect that Crhamar is either a sock puppet or meat puppet based on their shared dislike for this negative review. If someone feels that it's warranted, semi-protection would be appreciated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be quicker to request page protection straight off response times usually a bit better there. No guarantees though. Amortias (T)(C) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just overcautious, but I try to avoid the look of forum-shopping as much as possible. Anyway, I don't mind waiting for resolution here. The article is not under imminent threat from 4chan; it's just being targeted periodically by COI editors/POV pushers. I can revert that myself, though page protection would make my life less stressful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for repeatedly inserting copyvios, and left a note on their talkpage to let them know that once they acknowledge our copyright policy and promise not to do it again, I'll be happy to unblock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Questionable user identity

User Borsoka used sockpuppets

Sockfarm spamming links to what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com

User C759 is deleting some relevant links

Well, the issue is. User C759 deleted twice relevant links (from an omnilogy, scientific community) with unique, adequate photos like photos from typhoon areas (examples: http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/social-network-seo-social-network/a-new-strong-typhoon-is-coming-to-china-hainan-guangdong-and-guangxi-provinces/msg21571/#msg21571 and http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/social-network-seo-social-network/after-4-nights-and-5-days-without-electricity-and-almost-without-water/) and others like, for instance, a picture proving new Mirinda Watermelon from China (this one: http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com/drinks/a-chinese-mirinda/). He or she thinks it's "spam", but it has high relevance and it's useful for Wikipedia and for its readers. It's not that important, but I'm a scientist, almost 40 years old and obviously I can't be and I'm not some kind of spammer, who will link something wrong. Please, tell me your opinion, because I'm not going to spend more time to undo C759 deletions. Сароман (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C759 is absolutely right for removing the links. The pages seem to be forums, so they can't be considered reliable sources, and links to forums generally shouldn't be included in articles (see WP:ELNO, number 10). If the images are public domain or creative commons, I would suggest uploading a couple of the best and including the best in the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the photographs (images) are not public domain or creative commons. (And, by the way, there is a contradiction: in one hand the scientific forum "can't be considered reliable source", but in other hand, some of its content can be "included in the article" and no credit/link to the source. (?!). In my opinion, it's not in fair.) --Сароман (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to forums are not appropriate because the forums are not a reliable source, not for credit reasons. If the images are suitably licensed they can be displayed. Images don't have the same reliable source policies because they are not used to state facts by themselves; they are used to illustrate other content (which should of course be reliably sourced). --Richard Yin (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IF "forums are not a reliable source", then please explain this:

1. Links to an Indian forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=+http%3A%2F%2Fdefenceforumindia.com%2Fforum%2F&go=Go)

2. Links to another forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=forum.ragezone.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go)

3. Links to vbulletin.com's forum (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vbulletin.com%2Fforum%2F&fulltext=Search) AND MANY OTHERS! Wikipedia.org is full of links to forums, this is a fact. Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard? 是不是，Yin先生？;) Сароман (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's racist. Or as we Chinese would say, 那是种族主义. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

没有啊！真的，I didn't get it. In this conversation NOONE uses any form of racism (known in Chinese as "种族主义"). Me and the people here discuss only the issue that an user, nicknamed "C759" deleted twice links to a scientific (omnilogic) forum, despite of the fact that the linked content is related, informative, reliable, etc., and then, after we couldn't find agreement with him, I posted here this issue to see what is the opinion of the administration. No racism at all!!! About this question "是不是，Yin先生?", it means "Isn't it, Mr. Yin?" or "Yes or no, Mr. Yin?"(even Google Translate can show some approximate translation of this and you can see there is nothing racist in this question: https://translate.google.com/#zh-CN/en/%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF%0AYin%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F), in Chinese, because I saw there are still SO MANY LINKS TO FORUMS IN THIS ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA (https://www.en.wikipedia.org) and I pointed to some of them, then I suppose that if you guys keep those links and you delete only the links to http://www.seo-forum-seo-luntan.com (which is a Chinese-English-Russian-Bulgarian forum, i.e. very international, non-rasist forum), then we're talking about a phenomenon called "Double standard", IMHO. That's all. As far as I am busy with my online and offline jobs + my family, I have no time for free labor here and if the issue is clear (for me it's already 100% clear), I don't want to spend any more time here, because I prefer to spend my labor for actions that are profitable and reasonable, not for free as most of you over here (as far as I'm relatively poor 39 years old family man). Thank you for your attention and for your answers, for your time! Сароман (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by user Mayasutra

This user recently edited a talk page comment about him/her-self from another user (happens to be an admin) to refer to another editor [233]. S/he has been warned for edit-warring on his talk page and continues to pile comments in talk page with no progress. Four editors have tried to address his/her concerns with me being the latest one. Talk page section where s/he explicitly refuses to engage in discussion. S/he made edit that changed content [234] while noting explicitly in the edit summary "No change in content." S/he says [235] Admin Bgwhite has assigned Joshua Jonathan to handle this. Mayasutra notified[236]. @Joshua Jonathan, Bladesmulti, and Abecedare: ping. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was already wondering; I thought I'd changed my comment, but it was reverted (or so) by Mayasutra. By the way, Bgwhite only wrote "follow JJ's advice"; he didn't assign me any "task". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is actually actionable, lets hear from Mayasutra first. Commenting on the current situation, I would give this a few days before deciding anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to have a look at what AmritasyaPutra kept repeating. This is already being resolved by Joshua Jonathan (handling issues pointwise). Am sorry I misunderstood BgWhite's instruction. Anyways, moving on, hoping Blade and Abe provide sources for the remaining issues. JJ, your advice on India talk page is well taken.--Mayasutra [= No Illusion =] (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Possible conflict of interest regarding Coodie & Chike

I am being very careful about this notice. I'm not sure how to handle it myself so I'm posting it here.
Coodie Rock(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since July 2013. Since than has done 6 edits, all of them related to a filmmaker named Coodie. All of the changes were marked as minor though they are obviously not so.
I think the single issue this user is dealing with, together with the similarity of the username, warrants further looking into by an experienced editor in order to rule out conflict of interest.
Thank you. Ehudzel (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could just ask them, explain our guidelines on COI editing and then use the WP:COIN board if there is no/negative response. The article is really in need of a lot of work but seems to pass notability and should be reasonably easy to further reference since the “Window Seat” video did get a lot of news coverage and seems to pass notability for mention in the article and is one of the artist's major works I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol forty

BLPN Legal threats

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez Legal threats about some tag or another.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies, but does he have a valid complaint? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs and account(s) have been blocked, so there's not much more to do. The article, subject and associates have a long history of disruption, sockpuppetry and ownership so this was more of the same. I handled the thing from the OTRS side, and it looks like it's over for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which complaint Bugs? There are a few.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the one objecting to the claim that it looks like the article was written by the subject and/or his pals. That might well be true, but it requires sufficient supporting evidence that the guy can't reasonably complain. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really make much of that but it seems the individual that the IP says made those claims is also the individual that banned that IP.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Tutelary is a member of Wikipediocracy

User:Levente 2

I hate to do this, and I hope this is the best place, but User:Levente 2 is being a bit of a drain. The problem is he's apparently young, Hungarian, and cannot speak English. But he doesn't see that as an impediment to creating new articles in English or adding to existing articles - I think he's just using Google Translate or something similar. Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway (which I've proposed for deletion) is by far his best contribution, but it's largely incomprehensible - everything else is already deleted or reverted. Another problem is that he inserts low-quality photos that don't really add anything - his latest was replacing a higher-quality photo with a lower-quality one. I've tried to talk to him, but he can't understand what I'm saying - and I can't understand what he's saying either. He's wasting people's time, he's wasting his own time, and is simply incapable of contributing in English right now. Ideally if anyone can speak Hungarian they might be able to persuade him to go away and stick to the Hungarian Wikipedia, but I think he really does need to be stopped here. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE is required. Their English is too poor to write an article. Their English also too poor to effectively communicate what they are trying to say so other editors can assist them. Unfortunately this makes their activity disruptive.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His current English is defo. way below even the average level of Hungarian students at his age. I've politely explained him what's going on and what's wrong with his edits – hope that will help. I also offered my help for him and would do the same here: if he ignores the advices or makes something utterly wrong, or you just want to make a thing clear, drop me a line. I'm happy to translate it to Hungarian. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks! Neatsfoot (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Virtual" range block

Hi there, I would like to bring up a case of user blocking whose circumstances or implications may have been overlooked by the blocking admins. Please note, this is not necessarily an appeal to the block. I'd just like to hear your views, if there are any precedents and hopefully work towards a solution.

The company in question (250,000 employees) has a policy of somehow having all outgoing web traffic from all employees' browsers spoofed as one single IP address, 171.161.160.10. As a result, inevitably, some rotten apples gave all other users a bad name. I would argue that, given the scale, blocking this IP address is tantamount to a range block.

Thanks for your kind attention. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a long term issue with this IP. The rule is not to avoid range blocks but to use them carefully.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard procedure at large companies to have a single outward-facing IP address. As pointed out on the talk page for 171.161.160.10 (talk · contribs), the solution is to create a registered user ID. The user's refusal to do so does not inspire good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this line of thinking is missing the point. This is not a one-user problem. The fact that one user cannot or doesn't want to register is immaterial. We are talking about 250,000 potential contributors being blocked, and Wikipedia missing out as a result. Why do we have to be careful with range blocks? Same kind of considerations should apply here, that's all I'm saying. Currently the account is on a 2-year block from editing and account creation. 31.185.133.188 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it impacting you or anyone you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened before, when we blocked an entire country by blocking a single IP. The conclusion was to block for short amounts of time and allow for registered accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:82.148.97.69/header <- The IP of Qatar (no joke). Tutelary (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Qatar. This is a corporate IP. It seems to be having problems off wikipedia as well. They can register an account and the problem for them is gone.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there are both good eggs and bad apples that edit under that IP address. The IP address gets blocked because of the bad apples. The IP address will continue to get blocked because of the bad apples. This will not change.

As far as I can see, the only solution to this problem is just what Bugs and Serialjoe have already said: the "250,000 potential contributors" should create accounts and ask for Wikipedia:IP block exemption. It really is just that simple. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original position that this is a corporate proxy funneling multiple users is likely correct. Similar IPs are blocked regularly based on the frequency of problematic editing. These blocks are almost always 'anonymous-only' and have no impact on accounts who choose to edit from school/work. There seems to be some hand-waving over the potential pool of editors behind the IP in this instance under the presumption that BoA is funneling every one of their 250k employees across the world to this one choke point. This is not the case; there are hundreds of IPs allocated BoA, many of which draw large numbers of edits without incident, and some of which get blocked in a similar fashion (ex: 171.159.194.11 (talk · contribs), 199.43.32.99 (talk · contribs), 171.159.194.10 (talk · contribs)). The segmentation strategy for those IPs is unknown, but I've seen some companies allocate pools to public facing terminals that can be used by anyone (see Best Buy) which may explain the odd distribution of problematic edits. I respect that the original requester has a hang-up about registering an account which would instantly solve his issue. Another option may be to request your IT/corporate communications contacts to swap you to another outgoing IP which has less of a history of abuse. Kuru (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to lift a hastily placed block

User J Greb harassment

Tarc is engaging in open abuse. As requested by Dreadstar, I am posting the incident here.

Help Needed

outing and disruption by Ips

There are IPs following me around, outing me and another uses background and claiming we are "anti-Semites"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthright_Unplugged&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ein_Qiniyye&action=history

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly are they "outing" you? Number57 15:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the IPs statement that they are from Syria, seen in edit summaries on both pages. I don't give IPs a lot of credibility, though, and Supreme, it seems, has kinda outted themself by confirming the IPs comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Supreme is digging himself a hole here.... Epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's true that you are an anti-Semite from Syria, it is just pure IP vandalism/trolling. Don't dwell on it. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same troll is now attacking me as an " anti-Semitic self-hating communist" (not true, needless to say), and clearly has a large supply of IPs to edit from. RolandR (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Birthright Unplugged has been semi-protected by admin, Chillum (talk·contribs). --Ankit Maity_{«T § C»} 15:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion spree by an user

Why should I have a User Name? (talk · contribs) has been on a deleting spree for quite some months now. His AfD stats are troublesome (see here). 49 Delete votes as opposed to 1 keep vote. 75 AfD nominations in a matter of two months. The AfD results were mostly kept. Shouldn't there be some oversight for such activity? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you post an ANI notification on their talk page?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's actually wrong with this users AfD's? I can't see an issue with them voting to delete articles 500 times and voting to keep only once. I also don't see an issue with one user posting 500 articles to AfD in two month and the results being mostly to keep. Do you see an actual issue with their nominations besides the sheer number of them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, I disagree with User:EtienneDolet. Stats do not prove there is a problem. The average person participating in AFD is going to !vote delete because most people who nom at AFD aren't doing it for spurious reasons. That said, reading through WSIHAUN's contributions there, I am seeing a lot of "per <name>" rationales and just a lot of laziness. Some of the comments by WSIHAUN show a lack of competence. Frankly, I think it's reasonable to ask WSIHAUN to participate somewhere else for awhile.--TP (alt) 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wikitool EtienneDolet posted isn't loading for me. I went to the contributions but very few. If the greater amount of AfD's are like [241] this then it might be best if they choose to slowdown for a while. A user 'Speednat' eventually told what the the duplicate article was. I'm not sure I would have found that article. It also seems as if this AfD might have been a duplicate AfD. Also he asks that the duplicate article be deleted as well without actually offering a reason.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned user boasted: "I PROD or AfD anybody whose article is undersourced and make no distinction about their nationalities or anything else", as if it were a good thing. With that said, I just don't find the user's aim on Wikipedia constructive, it's quite the opposite. His insistence on having articles as many articles deleted without attempting to improve them or by merely placing constructive and often times necessary tags is quite troubling. The articles he nominates are often times easily savable (i.e. Haroutioun Hovanes Chakmakjian). For example, I've done my utmost to have this one article saved, but what about the rest? As TParis (talk·contribs) mentioned, a lot of these nominations are not only laziness but incompetent. Some troubling AfDs that come into my mind are Hotel_Føroyar, Nick Baird, Bashir III. At Nick Baird, his attitude is particularly concerning. He was quite aggressive towards an user who simply wanted to userify an article:

Troutman, how are you going to rehab it? Do you know the gentleman personally? Did you work with him, as a diplomat or a journalist and you know how he achieved outstanding notability?

@Serialjoepsycho: that website is helpful, but it takes awhile to load. However, it will load eventually. It's a really bad server. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The statistics themselves are not really an issue. WSIHAUN's opinion in deletion discussions is, according to those statistics, consistent with community consensus about 72% of the time. That's reasonably high. The majority of the outliers are where he voted to delete something that was ultimately kept. But many users consider themselves either "deletionist" or "inclusionist" and that record would be consistent with the former. While there might be some concerning examples, we should be careful not to cherry-pick. There are also several examples where he was "brought around" and withdrew his nomination - eg. 1 and 2. Believing that things should be deleted is not a punishable offence and the nominations (while defended/argued strongly) don't seem to be pointy or pointless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As an example, Étienne Dolet, your AFD contributions are consistent with community consensus only 53% of the time. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting 49 times out of 50 to delete does seem a high ratio. It suggests a lot of voting in AfDs where the article obviously should not exist. I don't bother voting in AfDs if I know the result is an obvious delete - it seems a waste of editing time! For me, Why should I have a User Name's problem was not in voting at AfDs but in his over eager initiating of AfDs on articles that should exist. I know this because I opposed a lot of them, saw that there seemed to be an alarming number of them being inflicted on articles that needed only a very little bit of work done on them to remove any problems, and so decide to follow any new ones he initiated (so much so that he accused me of stalking). In some cases I did quite a bit of work on articles he AfD'd to just make sure there was no question of them being deleted (Globular Flute and Rojda Aykoç come to mind, there were others, mostly obscure articles that would never have attracted many AfD votes and so could have easily been deleted on his opinion alone). And for a while he was making a lot of invalid or completely unsustainable AfDs which he later had to withdraw. I noticed he began to ask advice from more experienced editors after that experience, before initiating new AfDs. All that said, he seems to have calmed down a lot on the AfD creation front over the last month or so. Étienne Dolet's complaint does has some substance if we go back beyond that (I would not like anyone to think the complaint is being done in bad faith) - but I'm not sure if there are enough new instances to reinitiated the AfD creation concern, or if there is an objectionable pattern or pov editing in the voting for delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see nothing wrong with the complained of behavior. AfD is where the community comes to debate whether or not an article should be kept. Since the default is to keep any article unless a consensus to delete it emerges, those who want to keep something are more than welcome to ignore the nomination or not comment. But if someone is primarily a deletionist and only bothers commenting on those articles where delete is the outcome desired, so be it. Keeping score on how often one's vote correlates with the consensus may tell us how well you can sense outcomes but not anything about the strength of your arguments. 100% is easy as the last commentator on a snowball... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tiptoethrutheminefield has a point but the statistics are still disjointed. The 49/50 stat only comes about if you use that tool to analyse the last 50 AFDs. To consider the rest of the complaint you need to go back further than that (as Tiptoe points out) which means expanding the stats to the last 450 or so which suggest his long-term !voting record isn't anything like 49/50. As Carlossuarez46 points out, it is possible to get 100% "green squares" if you never nominate anything and you're always the last to comment on nothing but SNOW closes. But a quick review of WSIHAUN's shows that's not his MO so producing stats like that is far more difficult. A more detailed analysis suggests there's nothing for Étienne to be particularly concerned about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About A Stupid Choice I Made Six Years Ago

Issue with coordinates

Fronde

Vandalism (and/or trolling) and insults

Wikistalking

WP:AGF Unblock on BengaliHindu

BengaliHindu he been editing for nearly 5 years with over 5600 Edits with no previous blocks .He has been blocked as per this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BengaliHindu. Now 5 of the 10 edits of Abhijit4law are clear copyright violations whereas BengaliHindu has no history of copyright violations as far I can see.The Nirmalya1234 has has only 3 edits 2 reverts and 3rd one copy paste text on the article Talk page which an established editor will not do .But feel here BengaliHindu needed to be given WP:AGF as the behavioral evidence is not clear and the Checkuser report was inconclusive.The User has requested an unblock and I had posted on the talk page of the Checkuser Salvio giuliano but he appears to be away.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel only an established editor knows about SPI rules and how to avoid behavioral match by making edits which do not match with his own edits.--MehulWB (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the case does look weak. Also isn't it generally standard that you contact the user when you post an SPI so that they can defend themselves?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be good form but I will say there is times I don't. Honestly sometimes I think it's better because all you do is list all the reasons you think they are a sockpuppet, which in cases of legitamte socks it can be used to modiofy their behavior and elminate the tells. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, why wasn't User:Berean Hunter notified? User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, He's the one who blocked, not Salvio. Salvio said "Technically speaking, this is just a Possible match. I'm afraid the connection will have to mainly be based on behavioural evidence". I don't think he's going to say anything different now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpmaster with sufficient wit to change their editing style and avoid "tells" is surely going to see their own SPI at some point. Avoiding talkpage notification just has a delaying effect (unless the sockmaster is stalking the reporter's contributions). That delaying effect does have some value in the case of more persistent sockmasters, as it can delay the sudden onset of disruptive/deceptive editing on the SPI page. That's the only real benefit of non-notification. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies if it is a standard to inform but I didn't find about this on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations and I filed the case after this message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BengaliHindu&diff=625584066&oldid=625546685 from another editor. --MehulWB (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller I have notified User:Berean Hunter. But wanted to check with the CU first was there any update as he had last posted on September 22nd and the block was done on October 25th Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page protection request they opened after making their last edit to that page [263]. Here is the BLPN that they opened on the matter before the first supposed sock made a revert on the article [264]. You'll also find that they discussed this on the talk page. I wonder what would have happened if they were informed an active socketpuppet investigation was opened against them. Perhaps they could have defended themselves. All 3 should be unblocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am supporting unblock. There is no reason to believe that it was one person. If BengaliHindu is living in a populated city, definitely there will be many people who may have shared similar thought, and I cannot see any abuse of multiple accounts. I had a suspicion before, that BengaliHindu might be socking on an AFD, but none of those accounts seemed to be related with him, and each of it edited the same subjects for ages. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further the issue the dispute was over one page Ahmed Hassan Imran with MehulWB most of whose 73 edits are over this page and this sock case.BengaliHindu said he would stop eidting the page and it was semi protected and hence user Nirmalya1234 could not post and posted on talk.That appears to be resolved and do see a need to block after a month.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not screamingly obvious, it may be slightly off base but I think that AGF was being extended by the relatively short block. It's a toss up to whether it's a sock or not so a lot can be done here and have a wait and see approach and give a little WP:ROPE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho, when an editor use your username then you get notification at the top of the page beside your username. I have mentioned the username in SPI and this will surely notify him. The case was filed on 15 Sept. and closed on 26 Oct. which I think was enough time to defend. Plus, the user filed the unblock request where he can defend himself. --MehulWB (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We still require the actual notification to the talkpage as well. Sometimes a person isn't online to see that and the resulting email from the message tells them to log in. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got it but honestly I didn't find this notify thing in the instruction of How to open an investigation on SPI page. And if notification is a standard then the user have filed vandalism reports against me but didn't notify me.--MehulWB (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AIV board is different from any of the other boards, that is a straightforward set amount of warnigns whereas these boards are more complicated and can't just be summarized in diffs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MehulWB:, You today made this post [265]. It seems to me that you are implying that because they contacted Jayanta Nath that proves that he contacted the others, but then you offer no proof that contacted Jayanta Nath. Do you have any proof? If not that really goes to show the ridiculousness of your claims. Nirmalya1234 reverted the information twice. There protected edit request suggests they are a new user [266]. They could have kept on reverting but didn't. Abhijit4law, didn't revert. They added other content in that was deleted. And Mehlu you didn't post it on their talk page. You might have pinged them but after your personal attacks it's reasonable that they ignored them. That message that was on your screen before you clicked save while filling out the SPI told you to contact them on the talk page. It even gave you a template to use.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Ahmed Hassan Imran is a Member of the Parliament and has been in severe controversy [267] [268] [269] and any one can edit his page to say only BengaliHindu will edit his page is not assuming good faith.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why Pharaoh contacted me rather than the blocking admin (and then came here before I had a chance to reply), but as Dougweller correctly points out, I merely said that the technical evidence I got made it possible the three accounts were operated by the same person. It was the closing admin who made the final call and it's him you should contact to have the block lifted. As anyone who has ever been involved in SPIs knows, "possible" is a very low threshold and, in such cases, in order to call sock puppetry the closing admin has to also examine the behavioural evidence. As a result, I can only repeat what I already wrote: technically speaking, a connection is possible, but before doing anything it's necessary to consider behaviour. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies Salvio the block was done on Oct 25th over a month later after your posting on September 22nd and hence wanted to confirm that no other issue was involved .BengaliHindu posted an unblock request hence brought it here thinking you were away .My apologies for any misunderstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologise, don't worry. I just found it strange that you should ask me rather than Berean Hunter, that's all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho:, I thought you're an experienced editor but your message asking me of proofs is really ridiculous. Firstly, I said that I just guessed which mean I am not 100% sure and secondly, another experienced editor user: Titodutta echoed that too[270] so why don't you ask him too? It needs basic logic to understand why I guessed. Now, I missed the message at SPI and the thing you're keep referring to is at the end which states "You may wish to notify the accused with {{subst:uw-socksuspect casename}} which clears that it is not mandatory to notify and which personal attacks I made? --MehulWB (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Behavioral evidence certainly suggests puppetry. Nirmalya1234's first edit was to engage in the exact same edit as the master in an ongoing edit war where Mehul was pulling material on a BLP rationale and BengaliHindu was restoring it and incorrectly calling the removal vandalism. Bengal exaggerated in his report to AIV stating that Mehul was "consistently blanking out" the article. A commenting admin stated that they would take Mehul's pov in this matter. And then the first sock/meat stepped in to precisely take up the edit war that Bengali was undertaking. As Hell in a Bucket pointed out, my AGF was to block for only 72 hours. If you notice the SPI report also had another admin/CU who stated "Likely as not to be meatpuppetry...".

• It will be several hours before I can reply again.
  — Berean Hunter(talk) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Nirmalya1234 and Abhijit4law, their contribs do look odd from a purely technical stand. The first two edits [271] [272] of Nirm were to restore edits by BengaliHindu [273]] that someone else had reverted out. Abhijit4law's first edit to that same article was [274] (admin only, as the BLP violation forced RevDeling the edit) but was consistent with the previous edits, only less verbose. This leads us to one of a few possibilities: 1. These are socks of the same person, to which the block is fine. 2. This is meatpuppetry and the other accounts are SPAs here to force a POV, in which the block is fine. 3. These are three different people that don't know each other, and two just happened to get involved in this article exactly after the master was reverted, which is remarkable timing.

The patterns in their editing and supporting make option 3 exceedingly unlikely, as the patterns of the edits and methods strongly support previous examples of POV socking. That BengaliHindu is an established editor doesn't make socking less likely. Established editors frequently use socks to do the dirty work, as to not tarnish their "good hand" account. Not all editors who do this are "evil", and often they do it out of an attempt to "right great wrongs", which appears to be the exact case here. BengaliHindu and MehulWB were on the cusp of an edit war when these two new accounts showed up, a point that shouldn't be lost as it gives us a motivation for creating the accounts.

As for the CU finding of "possible". There is no singular definition of what that means, but I could guess that means "They are in the same city or area, but one uses a computer and the other uses a cell phone, so the user agents and ISP don't match". There are other possible explanations. This is not uncommon for sockpuppetry, although obviously it isn't a foolproof method to get away with it. All it really says is "it is possible", meaning the persons aren't on different continents, so it can't be ruled out. This is why behavior is always the means of which we connect sockpuppets, not CU.

In short, I think the conclusions that Berean Hunter came to are reasonable and within expectations, and I can see that many other admin would have come to the same conclusion. The master is only blocked for 72 hours, which is actually less than average for a first time offense (1-2 weeks), so perhaps Berean Hunter was cutting him a little slack because he is an established editor. Whether this is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry doesn't matter because the blocks could justifiably be the same, although it is more likely sockpuppetry. Is it 100% guaranteed? No, but SPI doesn't work that way. Is it considerably likely that BH got it right? Yes, based on the evidence here, and other behavioral evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 15:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown The CU actually last posted in September 22 and block was given on October 25 and the article Ahmed Hassan Imran had semi protected on September 23 and no one really edited for a month but for a one minor edit on Oct 12th Further no established Editor will Copy paste the article text on the Talk page. after the article had been semi protected it is absolutely pointless. BengaliHindu has no previous blocks for the last 5 years and hence WP:AGF should have given to him and unblocked the page has not been edited for a month and behavioral evidence is not clear. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All we can do here is decide if Berean Hunter used good judgement, and if that judgement falls within the range of what is acceptable and reasonable. There is no Truth®. You've provided your insight, I've provided mine. Debating the minutia of an admin board that is perpetually a month backlogged doesn't change whether or not his actions were within community norms. Dennis - 2¢ 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown I posted here only to request for an Unblock the user has also requested in his talk page.Admin Berean Hunter is well within his discretion to take call here.This request is only for an Unblock as per WP:AGF .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have shot yourself in the foot. Once you open the ANI, most admin are going to avoid the talk page case, as once here, it is up to the community, not so much individual admin. No admin wants to rush in, just to find out the community disagrees with them, so they (we) do the safe thing: nothing. The problem is, in his request for unblock, he is saying he didn't sock, while the evidence I looked at says he very likely did. No admin is going to unblock him unless they think Berean Hunter either 1. made a mistake connecting the dots, 2. blocked for too long, or 3. abused his authority. Once you file it here, it is pretty much going to be a consensus to unblock, or Berean himself, we don't have a lot of choices. Had the person said "Look, I screwed up, I shouldn't have socked but that was a month ago and I haven't socked since", then any number of admin might have just unblocked. As long as the story doesn't match the evidence, the status quo tends to be the default position. Dennis - 2¢ 21:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharoah, my block of 72 hours was given on AGF...an experienced user is often given longer blocks because they ought to know better. Calling the other user's edits vandalism when they are clearly trying to cite BLP comes across as disingenuous and lacking in good faith itself. BengaliHindu should be experienced enough to know what vandalism means. The less-than-AGF version would be that he used the vandalism claim as a tactic where he didn't have a good rebuttal for the BLP claim and simply wanted to revert to his version of the article. The moral of the story is don't sock and don't recruit friends/editors to come to your aid.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 21:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear BLP case? MehulWB talked thru talk page revisions until [275]. The vandalism report came before Mehulwb was remotely clear. BengaliHindu was the first person to take this to the talk page. BengaliHindu even took it to the BLPN as suggested by EdJohnston. It sure looks a whole lot like BengaliHindu was trying to handle this dispute in a responsible consensus seeking manner. There's little actual evidence to suggest that these other users were sockpuppets or meat puppets (Great Band BTW. I've always wondered if the band influenced the phrase meat puppet). What there was, a news story that seems to have been national. Both of the two alleged socks could have been brought here due that news story. Malapati, another alleged sock, could have been brought here due to said story. Now if it's felt there's a need to ban him because of his Vandalism report have at it. It's actually ridiculous to ban him for sockpuppetry in the absence of any legitimate evidence supporting it.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It was me who first notifed BengaliHindu which he just posted on the articles talk page and since then all my comments were in the articles talk page. The BLPN direct us to abide by BLPCRIME rule but again BengaliHindu denied that and started tagging my edis as vandalism. I didnt know another admin supported my edits. It is ridiculous of what you are accusing me of. I tried my best to explain him but he distracted the talk and didnt reaponse and then came the socks. I have nothing personal with you nor even with BengaliHindu so please, stop accusing me and my edits. MehulWB (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on Bengalihindu's talk page. I'm talking about the articles talk page. Pretty quickly after you contacted BH he stopped reverting you. You have provided extremely weak evidence of sock puppetry. He took it to BLPN. He took it to the articles talk page. I'm wondering why an individual would cease editing when it's starting to becoming an edit war, take discussion to the talk page, and open a BLPN, while using meatpuppets. Doesn't sound reasonable and there is no actual evidence that BengaliHindu did that. This is a bad block.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're again wrong! Firstly, I posted on BengaliHindu's talk page because he was the editor with whom I supposed to discuss his edits not with other editors and that is exactly what I did. Secondly, if it has to be on article's talk page then BengaliHindu kept replying meo n his talk page until his warning[276] so if he was not reverting me then he wouldn't get the warning. Also, he could have directed me to the article's talk page but he posted on the article's talk page a day after not pretty quickly. He took it to BLPN and I posted my comments there too. I didn't ignored that unlike him. But after that he denied the BLPN outcome WP:BLPCRIME. Didn't I took part in every possible discussion? I was even reported for vandalism despite my attempt to discuss with him even in BLPN.

Secondly, he accused me of vandalism and blanking which is false accusations against me. Thirdly, I filed a case with evidence after another editor's message on his talk page and it wasn't me who blocked him. I do not have the authority to block him. It was upto the admin's to assess my evidences. Please, try to understand that. MehulWB (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[277] here they respond to you unclear message. Here is the last time they revert you or make an edit to the article[278]. Here they take it to BLPN [279]. Here is the last time [280] Here is the last time they interact at all with the article. They have acted in good faith. They talked you. They quit reverting. They took other actions in an attempt to get a consensus. It seems unreasonable that they contacted others. There is no evidence of this. The reason taking it to the article talk page is important because this talk is about the article in question. You posting your BLP concerns on the talk page could have actually stopped the second editor from reverting. And if the vandalism board post is a reason to ban him then for that. There's nothing wrong with the first ban except than upon review it wasn't overturned. Hopefully this act of incompetence doesn't have any effect on BengaliHindu in the future.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're circling around a baseless point. You're giving links where he replied me but do not forget that I was first to communicate with him to which he replied. After he took it to the article's talk page, I kept posting there. We both were asked to use BLPN which he did first and I followed him there too. Surely, consensus do not comes with reporting of false accusation, please, explain this. Tell me where I said they acted in bad faith? Tell me where I acted in bad faith? I participated in every possible discussions and even I was reported to the admins of vandalism! You're indirectly accusing the admins also including those who blocked him. The blocking was done by the admins based on their assessment for which they have already replied. You're keep commenting about one side of the story. I doubt your neutrality here. Please, explain this also and tell me why another experienced editor expressed the same out of nowhere?--MehulWB (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant that you contacted him on his talkpage first. It actually is relevant that he engaged you in conversation, that he took it to BLPN, That he ceased reverting you, that he took it to the article talk page, and that he quickly dropped the stick. It's relevant because your sockpuppet case is very weak. Seeing as they have acted in good faith, they are a long time editor, they have never before now used sock puppets, and they've been banned it's exceedingly unlikely that they have used sockpuppets now. You are a single purpose user account. You may have one edit that doesn't directly tie to the Ahmed Hassan Imran article. That experienced editor did not open it. That experienced editor isn't a single purpose user account. That experienced editors last post wasn't a month ago. Unlike you that experienced editor isn't suspicious. Yes you took part in every discussion but you didn't see an issue with the fact that BengaluHindu didn't because no one at all bothered to contact them so they knew they had a SPI open. You are the one who came here trying to justify the ban with comments like, "I feel only an established editor knows about SPI rules and how to avoid behavioral match by making edits which do not match with his own edits." No evidence just bias.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see your point now and I realized that it was wrong to justify the ban. I have already apologies to BengaliHindu and I feel sorry about it. Please, pardon me if I was rude to you but I was accused of vandalism which was wrong and not expected from an experienced editor. I know I have lot more to learn in Wikipedia--MehulWB (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, your logic of behavioural evidence is not very convincing. Ahmed Hassan Imran is a controversial character in India. During September 2014, he was front page news in Indian and Bangladeshi newspapers. Its not very unlikely that edits will increase during that time. If someone creates a new user account Nirmalya1234 and edits something similar to an existing user does that make the user a sockpuppet? Abhijit4law made a COPYVIO at the same time. Why that user has to be a sockpuppet? I checked that user's contribution history just now. His first edit was in July and he made some edits on some different topic, totally unrelated. Another user, Malapati, made an edit after one year out of nowhere, but the user was not judged to be a sockpuppet. Weird logic! In the end its your decision and I'm the unfortunate victim. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Copied from BengaliHindu 's Talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards and Berean Hunter, please refer to [281]. It might be helpful while you are discussing about the behaviour of MehulWB. In the very first comment the user mentions about "we" and "us", which implies a group. So why not explore the possibility of Nirmalya1234 being a sock of MehulWB? How come MehulWB who is apparently new to Wikipedia, have so much knowledge on WP:SOCK and opens up an SPI case? Is it very normal behaviour? Isn't it possible that the user opened up the sock Nirmalya1234 to make the SPI case look solid? Why not investigate that aspect as well? BengaliHindu (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Copied from BengaliHindu 's Talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Now, what is this new allegation? I was keep trying to discuss with valid links then why I will need to open a false account? I might be new to Wikipedia and I am aware that I do not know all the rules. I am keep learning but I filed the SPI case after another editor's message on his talk page. MehulWB (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MehulWB

I think it's reasonable if it's asked if MehulWB own behavior should be discussed. MehulWB seems to be a single purpose user account. Most of their edits are about or can be tied back to Ahmed Hassan Imran's article. Before today their last edit was September 23. Someone posts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu to defend BengaliHindu and they magically appear a month later. They comeback to make unsupported accusations [282]. I also feel the need to point to their first comment here. Those comments to me suggest, "So what if the evidence is weak. Experienced users know how to fake it." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that he appears to fail WP:DUCK for 78 edits with the sole focus being on Controversial Member of Parliament Ahmed Hassan Imran and in getting involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BengaliHindu and defending his block. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:DUCK. Sole focus on one article, out of 78 edits most of it in an3, blpn, spi, rpp, ani for this article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"they magically appear a month later" - I posted in SPI and if it seem to you a magic then sorry as I do not know how to do magics. But as per you isn't it magic that another user Malapati suddenly made edits on the same article echoing summery of BengaliHindu's edits after over a year? User Malapati's last edit was on 15 January 2013 before he just made edits on the same page on 22 September 2014[283]. Also, isn't it magic that after the block sudden users started defending him at the very same time? A user came to SPI posting that BengaliHindu is personally known to him for which I just guessed that the other two accounts might be his familiar persons which is also guessed by another experienced editor Titodutta[284] and you just concluded that I am giving unproven accusations then the other experienced editor did the same like me. Actually, you're directly accusing me without proofs. --MehulWB (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again the accusation on me that my sole purpose it to block BengaliHindu is a direct accusation without proofs. Again the rule "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to me also. As I said earlier that I filed SPI after another editor's comment on user BengaliHindu's page[285] and it wasn't me who blocked him so please be more focused.--MehulWB (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malapati wasn't banned for being a sock. He made a post on the 22nd. Bengalihindu's last edit was the 14th and they last touched the talk page on the 16th. There's no connection between the two besides your assumption of bad faith. Your actions are more suspicious than that of anyone that was involved. Magic? No, and if you asked the users who have moved could probably explain how exactly they came to find out about Bengalihindu's ban. There really wasn't anything suspicious about your SPI. Your return a month later and constant accusations without evidence is suspicious. Seems like you have an Axe to grind.-Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I am amazed by the height of your ilogic and constant accusations against me even without proofs. I am a reader of Wikipedia and just ask the admins to show you how many times I logged into Wikipedia and for which pages I got notifications. It is laughable that my so called return after a month is suspicious yet user Malapati's return after a year to make a short edit for a while is not suspicious? I am requesting you again please do not blatantly accusme me of which I am not. MehulWB (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a single purpose user account. Anyone can look at your contributions and see that. I do not need an admin to tell me how many notifications you got on October 26 that lead you to respond. I can already tell you how many you got. 0. You may have watched listed it. User Malapati doesn't make user BengaliHindu look suspicious. Malapati used different sources. They didn't revert the content back in. Their post was week after BengaliHindu's. Your return comes with real gems such as [286] and your first post in this ANI. Accusations without evidence and a suggestion that evidence doesn't matter in the case of an experienced editor. Seems like you have a bit of an Axe to Grind here. It's a damn shame to see an editor get blocked for that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a crime if I find a particular BLP with one sided information and tried to edit it? Is it necessarily impose that I have to keep editing other topics? I am tired of your bad faith accusations and again I submitted the evidences only and I didn't block him. Honestly, it seems like you actually have a bit of an Axe to Grind here and it's a damn shame of how you're accusing me without evidences.MehulWB (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a crime if you find a BLP issue and want to fix it. However that is a red herring discussion in this debate. You are a single purpose user account. You came back suddenly after a month to comment to keep an editor banned. This is very suspicious. Seems like you have an axe to grind. BengaliHindu should review back to see if they had any issues with an editor that lead to a ban and see if any of them match up to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@-Serialjoepsycho- You are right. Previously, I had issues with Nickaang and Mrwikidor. Later on it was found that Mrwikidor was a sockpuppet of Nickaang. Mrwikidor made an AfD for 2013 Canning riots, which was declined by the community. Interesting part is that Ahmed Hassan Imran has been accused of engineering the 2013 Canning riots. Mrwikidor tried to get 2013 Canning riots deleted and MehulWB tried to get almost the entire content of Ahmed Hassan Imran deleted. It looks like a pattern. BengaliHindu (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't come suddenly after a month. I always keep track of my contributions. Your suspicious is not very convincing and your continuous false accusations in bad faith really seems like you have an Axe to Grind here. Not just BengaliHindu but also any editors are free to do the reviews like you did and honestly, with my experience in Wikipedia I find BengaliHindu more reasonable than you and I am sad about your direct accusations against me. I wish you could see the other side of the story.MehulWB (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it is otherwise but last edited on September 23rd and then your next edit was on October 26th in BengaliHindu SPI Page within 30 minutes of another user posting there that clearly failed WP:DUCK .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your first edit to BengaliHindu Talk page here .You wrote These facts are changing day by day and are mere allegations. Those allegations are being backtracked now. Hence in this regard your are requested not to post anything which is not proven in Courts since posting of such unproven libelous news information against an elected Rajya Sabha MP in public domain falls under Cyber crime.If you are not the rightful authority then we would like to request you to forward us to the Wikipedia's actual authority.Thank you . The Term We appears to imply that the editing is being done on behalf of someone else of course later on it was changed in later edits .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't get you about failing WP:DUCK. I have already clarified the we term to his talk page. I am not editing on behalf of anyone. I felt to come forward and make the edits as the information on him were unproven false allegations which do not represent an encyclopedic information which I also tried to clarify on the article's talk page. If you read Kalom newspaper then you'll know why I said the unproven allegations were backtracked. I even requested him to wait for the investigation findings and then he can add. Even recently, the Central Bureau of Investigation, India denies the allegation by a section of media.-MehulWB (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. 

Second administrator opinion requested on an article deletion

Deb deleted the new article Angela richter as spam when it wasn't, and while I was trying to do some basic cleanup. When I asked her to restore it, instead of restoring, she copy/pasted it to my sandbox, without page history (I didn't write the article). When I called her on that, she demanded I clean it in my sandbox before she restores it to the original title. The original, without any cleanup at all, is suitable for Wikipedia and not speedy deletable under any standard. I would like another administrator to have a look at this and voice an opinion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one edit in the history, and the text (Life and Work) was copypasted from here, so that it is best not to be restored. You are welcome to use the list which is not copyrighted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. G11 (Advertising) sits right next to G12 (Copyright infringement) on the delete rationale list so it was likely a mis-click on the admin's part.--v/r - TP 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess it was not, but the creator did mention in her edit summary that she was creating it for promotional purposes and it certainly read that way. Deb (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is a copyvio, someone who speaks better German than I do should probably notify German wikipedia, since this article appeared to be a translation of the German one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this paragraph is definitely not a translation of German Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at that. Deb (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelHolmes36

Blocked by ‑Scottywong. Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

A new contributor who seems incapable of complying with policy. Repeatedly adding the same material regarding a local radio broadcaster to the Villa Grove, Illinois article, despite being told that the individual doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Has already been blocked once for edit warring over this (and for deleting the thread on WP:3RRNB) but has come back after the block and continued with exactly the same behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked. He's clearly not willing to play by the rules, and the first block didn't get his attention. We'll see if this one does. He should be unblocked if he responds on his talk page and sincerely indicates his understanding of edit warring and 3RR. ‑Scottywong spout _ 22:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now an obvious sockpuppet has appeared. [287]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked by Jpgordon. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stalking and harassment

IP 96.231.161.128 is stalking and harassing me. He has deleted stuff from my talk page (see [288], [289], [290]). Quis separabit? 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked two weeks. You aren't the only one he was harassing, and being a dynamic, that is the best I can estimate before he gets a new IP address. It should be an indef block until he comes around, but I can't realistically do that with dynamic IPs, so if he comes back with a new IP, it should be blocked on the spot. Dennis - 2¢ 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPs changing "block" to "unblock"

Closed as RFPP and block requests declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Well, I have stumbled upon an issue that has begun to irk me greatly. Apparently IP users are changing "block" to "unblock" on User talk:180.253.124.234. So far, 180.245.166.173, 180.245.142.164, 36.72.49.238, 180.253.124.234, and 222.124.124.234 have desecrated the talk page. I tried reasoning with one of them, but my message fell victim as well. I am requesting that all these IPs be blocked, and that the page be indefinitely semi-protected. Electricburst1996 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reported it at WP:RPP, and requested temporary protection, however, because the IP user is going to want to edit their own talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:HJ Mitchell and I declined the RFPP yesterday and I just declined it again. I used the same message both times, "Come on it's an IP talk page. All they are really doing is changing block to unblock and multiple editors are warring with them over it. Just ignore it and move on to something else. It really isn't going to confuse an experienced editor and isn't a productive use of time." Sure they are trolling but every time someone responds they get what they want. Just ignore it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still request the IPs in question be blocked, though. What do you say? Electricburst1996 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He said "No. Don't sweat the small stuff." I could explain 100 reasons, technical, philosophical and practical, but in the end, sometimes the best thing to do is ignore it. See also: Don't feed the trollsDennis - 2¢ 22:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to sound a dick but surely there's better things to do than to edit war over an IPs talkpage content? ... They changed one word ... It's not the end of the world!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Davey, there's no need for put-downs. Please consider: is it better to apologize for sounding like a dick, or to not sound like a dick in the first place? Meanwhile, I agree with you. Blocking is pointless, because they're dynamic IPs and the range is too big to block. It's probably all one individual, and just think how boring it'll be for them if people ignore the changes. Electricburst1996, we appreciate your impulse to keep Wikipedia clean, but resistance makes it much tastier for the troll. Ignore. Bishonentalk 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Well I agree it's better not to be a dick at all but sometimes you have to be a dick to get the point across ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) needs some attention. The article should probably get renamed to Ross William Ulbricht (the guy the FBI has identified as the person behind the Dread Pirate Roberts pseudonym). @Signedzzz: and a bunch of IPs have been edit warring over including Ulbricht's name in the article, even though no one seems to care that Ulbricht is named in Silk Road (marketplace). The article has become a mess and it's hard to clean up with an active edit war. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The FBI identifying his real name really doesn't matter, we use what the sources use, and when we want to change the name of an article, we start a discussion or WP:RM on the talk page. That isn't something that admin decide, only editors decide names. Admin just mop up afterwards. As for edit war or such, I just looked and the amount of traffic on the article isn't that heavy. 13 edits in 24 hours is nothing. Dennis - 2¢ 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signedzzz has reverted seven times in the past two days. That's some pretty blatant edit warring, but I'm ok with ignoring it if you are, Dennis. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) No notification. 2) It's six, not seven. Arithmetic is one of several problems here. 3) This user and one IP (possibly two) have been restoring blatant WP:BLPCRIME vio material into the article, doubling its size with 3.5k of poorly written gossip and scandal about a criminal trial that hasn't even begun yet. (The mention of the name here is a deliberate red herring). 4) The matter has been raised at the BLP noticeboard a month ago. This editor apparently doesn't agree with that decision, and stated that I (not he) should therefore take it back there. 5) Check the user's talk page. He was blocked, and then unblocked (on Jimmy Wales' personal recommendation!) because, he says, "I don't want my main account associated with nude celebrity images (and my knowledge of them)". Since then, he has used the account solely for POV-pushing on this article, which has nothing to do with his great "knowledge" of nude celebrity images (which I'm not questioning). If he wants to continue editing, he should probably use a non-sockpuppet account. And then, possibly, he wouldn't be so inclined to insert large chunks of BLP vio material at will. I'm guessing it's mainly just a trolling account. zzz (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This "alternate" was created to make a post on Jimbo's page, and Jimbo essentially gave his blessing. That use has expired, however, and the user needs to either connect the dots or go back to their original account, as using an undisclosed alternate account without good cause is also known as socking. Legit Alternate Account, I would also note that you do seem to be editing against a consensus at WP:BLPN and the talk page. As the reversions by Signedzzz seem to support removing BLP material based on previous consensus, I'm just not that concerned with the number of them. That is two strikes against you. Three if you count forgetting to notify. Dennis - 2¢ 11:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Signedzzz with the {{ping}} template in my original statement, so I guess that you'll have to correct your scorecard. I don't think this BLP noticeboard discussion constitutes "consensus" not to include Ulbricht's name in the article, but the case has progressed since then. There was a rather important decision at near the beginning of the month and the case is going to trial in November. This is on top of a year's worth of reporting on the prosecution of Ulbricht. The IPs seem to want to label Ulbricht as a criminal and Signedzzz seems to be singlehandedly editing him out of existence. I only got involved in that article to inject some sanity. Let's skip the edit warring (and the threats) and just skip to the AFD of an article that names Ulbricht. Then we'll see what the consensus really is. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "got involved", and proceeded to do precisely what the IP was doing. And FYI, the trial is scheduled to begin Monday, January 5, 2015, as you would know from my version of the article if you hadn't repeatedly replaced it with the offending version without even reading it. zzz (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here, trying to communicate with a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'm not a sockpuppet (or a troll). I'm an alternate account. I hadn't even noticed you'd been editing [[Silk Road (marketplace). So how can including Ulbricht's name in Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) be a BLP violation but including it in Silk Road (marketplace) is not? Can you help me understand that? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you claimed you were an alt account for the purpose of talking about sensitive subjects on Jimmy's page. Now you are using it on general purpose articles and you haven't disclosed your original account. Unless your safety or freedom is somehow effected by using your other account on this article, then yes, you are using an alternate account for invalid purposes and should stop it. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Dennis - 2¢ 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing my main account would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, as you know from what I have already shared. Having established this account, I prefer to use it for subjects which are controversial (and this article fits that profile). Instead of dealing with a simmering edit war, you seem to be focused on me, Dennis. Why is that? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a BLP violation? Unless the IP is obviously hiding the fact that the guy got a Nobel Prize or something while keeping the arrest record, full name, etc. there (i.e. WP:UNDUE), it is not a BLP violation so long as it is sourced.

It is not a BLP violation, and to make sure, you should change it to something similar to "Ross William Ulbricht is reportedly accused by the FBI...". – Epicgenius (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree as long as you qualify it properly (not "he is Dread Pirate Roberts", but that "he is accused by the FBI...") I don't see the BLP problem, seems right up WP:BLPCRIME. Specifically under WP:CRIMINAL for perpetrators where it says "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." I would say this qualifies. --Obsidi (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't think there's a problem with mentioning his name, eg "Ross William Ulbricht is reportedly accused by the FBI". That sentence can go in the lead, or wherever. That's not the issue. The "Arrest" section (2 paragraphs) is the issue. If you think it should stay, fine - I'll leave the article alone! zzz (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EG, first paragraph: "He faces charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and attempting to kill 6 people. However, the prosecutor believes that none of the 6 planned murders occurred, despite $730,000 being paid in the attempts." No problem with that? zzz (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You can keep that. He is reportedly accused, but is not specifically the sole suspect. Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to reason "consensus" with the IP, & so I pointed him to this discussion. Naturally he pointed out to me that the current "consensus" is actually now to keep all speculations of that nature in the article. So, who's right? The original BLP consensus was to delete. But 3 editors here think it's fine. I guess it's fine, then. zzz (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another bit, from the second paragraph:

The hitman, a user named 'redandwhite', offered to kill FriendlyChemist for between $150,000 and $300,000 (at which Ulbricht responded that he had "had a hit done for $80k"). redandwhite later said "Your problem has been taken care of" zzz (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm being told I'm wrong, I want the above 3 editors (Obsidi, Epicgenius and Legit Alternate Account) to justify keeping this stuff in the article, please. zzz (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind, of course, no one has been tried for anything at this point. The trial is next year. (As I already mentioned). zzz (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying my opinion. It doesn't seem like a BLP violation, unless it's clear that there is no evidence supporting that this person is behind the Dread Pirate Roberts name. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're being serious for one minute, does it have to be "clear that there is no evidence supporting that this person" payed for 6 people to be killed, before Wikipedia states it as a fact? Or is it just something about this person? Or something else? Maybe you just didn't read what I'd been deleting in the article, is more likely, I guess.zzz (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe you just didn't read what I'd been deleting in the article." That in itself is a lie and quite possibly, an attempt to force me to change my POV, not counting the comments that border on incivility ("Assuming you're being serious for one minute"). But we know for a fact that you are deleting sourced info. It is also referred to in popular media sources. While it may be undue, containing content about the arrest of the supposed Dread Pirate Roberts, it is not a BLP violation. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was giving you an easy way to admit you were wrong. And hoping it was true. You actually think, then, that saying "The hitman, a user named 'redandwhite', offered to kill FriendlyChemist for between $150,000 and $300,000 (at which Ulbricht responded that he had "had a hit done for $80k"). redandwhite later said "Your problem has been taken care of" in Wikipedia's voice, as a straight-up statement of fact, is OK? I suggest you avoid editing BLPs, or commenting on this noticeboard in future. zzz (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, since you're now whining about "incivility" (while simultaneously resorting to personal abuse - how typical), "Maybe you just didn't read what I'd been deleting in the article" cannot, rationally or logically speaking, be a "lie". Competence is required. zzz (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think that you are using this noticeboard as a platform to vent your anger over this supposed BLP violation, which can just as easily be solved by adding "supposedly" before the statements. I plan to do neither of your suggestions, by the way. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anger, no, frustration, yes, after BLPN, merge, unmerge, tedious IP reverting & alt/socking. Adding 'supposedly' liberally would make the statements less libellous but not useful. And as for my suggestions, I'm of course glad to hear it, as a matter of fact. zzz (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. So, you are frustrated. Well, now is a time to discuss with the Ip user and tell them why you don't want the info in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the advice, you're right. I've attempted to open a discussion on the talk page here, and left a note at the 2 main IP contibutors' talk pages, User talk:128.2.6.101 and User talk:73.40.254.86. zzz (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP pointed out to me after reading this thread, "the consensus is pretty clear that you're trying to force an agenda by committing repeated vandalism and censorship of the DPR article. All I have done so far is revert previous edits before you made numerous large deletions of factual information from the article. What you are doing is vandalism and against the rules of Wikipedia. You should stop now before you get banned." Which is an accurate summary at this point. zzz (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've bolded where I see the problem which we disagree about (some of the "factual information"), so maybe my point is easier to understand. zzz (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is rapidly getting into material that belongs on the article talk page rather than here, which is where I suggest it goes. Then if you can't work it out, WP:DRN. And I still recommend that "Legit" stop using that account for general purpose editing or link the accounts, or he will likely be blocked sooner rather than later. Dennis - 2¢ 21:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. As I said, I'll leave the article alone. If I was Ulbricht, I'd sue, but I'm not. I would have thought it was pretty obvious what to do with this stuff, but apparently I've misunderstood the WP:BLP policies. Arguments have already taken place on the talk page, I have nothing more to say, thanks. (It was only me who saw any problem, so "consensus" will prevail, regardless. Why should I give a WP:FUCK.) zzz (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else would like to comment on the massive cultural bias(?) on display here, that would be fine, though. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here. As in, it's ok to state that someone has hired hitmen, etc, etc. In this case. Why is that? zzz (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No takers, huh. Well, I reverted it anyway. It is no BLP violation, according to these, but it's libel. zzz (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin commentI've had a look through the version of [27 October, 17:20], which I would guess is roughly the version you are complaining about. While I'd take issue with the copyediting, I don't see a BLP problem. WP:BLPCRIME says this:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

There is no hard-and-fast rule there that such material cannot be included, and I think that the international attention on this case justifies its inclusion against the requirement to "seriously consider not including material in any article." Nowhere does the article say with Wikipedia's voice that he is guilty of any crime; the paragraph in question is clear that, "The FBI allege...," "What the FBI says is...," and that Ulbricht denies the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be impolite, but Signedzzz seems to be the problem here. He seems to be attacking anyone who does not agree with him. The edit warring continues, but now he is claiming WP:LIBEL as his justification. There are content problems to be addressed, but it is pointless to try while an edit war is ongoing and the one of the edit warriors is abusive. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that at its best says very little, and that attracts allegations that this or that real-life person is, or is framed to be, this online ID. Redirect to Silk Road (marketplace) (as was recently done) and protect the redirect. As a poor alternative, don't redirect but instead protect the article in its short version. If either (i) more comes to light about "Dread Pirate Roberts" or (ii) there is a conviction, then unprotect. -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully protected the article today for three days to prevent edit-warring following a RFPP request (I was not aware of this thread and never heard of this article before).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed a discussion on Dennis's talkpage of Legit Alternate Account's supposed "completely open" use of an undisclosed alternate account. It's absurd. "Using an alternate account to work on controversial topics that I don't want associated with my main account"[291] is not being completely open, it is the very definition of avoiding scrutiny. I have blocked the account indefinitely. See also discussion on User talk:Dennis Brown and my fairly elaborate block rationale on the user's page. Bishonentalk 19:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yeah, I did that when they first popped up, but apparently Godking decreed that they must be unblocked, and somebody did so. I agree completely with the block. HJ MitchellPenny for your thoughts? 19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of this got complicated because Jimmy got involved, well meaning but it muddied the water. If he was using the account only for celebrity nudes or something like that (per his statement), we probably would have tolerated it, understanding some people don't want their real name associated with working with nude anything. Weak, but a valid enough reason under WP:SOCKLEGIT. The problem being that he had never edited one of those articles/images under that name. Dennis - 2¢ 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user was taking full advantage of the unequal playing field. As a result, I was intending to wash my hands of the article, as I noted above. Thanks. zzz (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Contemporary Art

Please see the talk page for Sommer Contemporary Art at Talk:Sommer Contemporary Art. A user created the article on their user page, then moved the article to the Wikipedia name space, then moved it to the main space. This has left the user's talk page, along with all their discussions, on the talk page for the article.

This was brought to Wikipedia's attention at Wikipedia:Help desk#Created an article. Thanks, Dismas ^(talk) 06:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Unarchived, because there's another problem.) The article itself was just a bunch of marketing fluff copied directly from the gallery's own copyrighted site. I've blanked it now and have left just the lead sentence and the list of artists. Do the earlier versions need to be deleted? Neatsfoot (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "other problem" is not a matter for this noticeboard. If it's a copyright violation then please tag it as a G12 speedy delete candidate. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, "I've [...] left just the lead sentence and the list of artists" - G12 is only applicable if it is entirely copyrighted with nothing that can be kept. The lead sentence and the bare list are fine. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has apparently now been speedied as G11. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Neatsfoot (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please just indef this person already?

Caramella1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account that seems to exist solely for the purposes of disruption: edit warring at Two envelopes problem for the purposes of pushing obvious original research and generally creating needless and drama for everyone (see user contributions, sockpuppet reports, etc, and the quacking IP 89.31.176.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Does anyone actually think this person is here to build an encyclopedia? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say unto thee administrators: go forth and administrate! Verily, the disruption and wasting of time continueth. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, User:Caramella1 has continued to harass a fellow editor User:INic as in this edit even after User:Caramella1's SP charges against User:INic have been dismissed. Tkuvho (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoseAziz78

Blocked for WP:NLT by C.Fred. Amortias (T)(C) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Hi

Legal threat at User talk:JoseAziz78 probably aimed at me, C.Fred and Ian.thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 19:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just advised the user of WP:NLT and am waiting for his/her reaction. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See you beat me to it. Was about to do the same. Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed he meant the administrators by "the proper authorities," but regardless I don't see him being any use to the site since his singular purpose is to right great wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I will report you to the proper authorities" is a big vague and may or may not be a legal threat. Regardless, C.Fred is on the ball here and I'm confident he can make the call whether to block or not, without additional input. Dennis - 2¢ 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ian thomson, you are keeping defamation directed at Acharya S in. I have added absolutely no religious biases whatsoever so, that is just a lie. You are degrading and abusing Acharya S by insisting on false information to smear her. Plus, she has always insisted upon using the name Acharya S or DM Murdock ONLY so, please change it immediately as explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#Personal_name

https://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning/posts/709849762361439

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here at Wiki but, i am absolutely disgusted and appalled with the defamation and abuse directed at Acharya S by Wikipedia and some editors and it must be changed. Please help me fix the false information at her Wiki article too at here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

I cannot believe how badly her article is written. It reads like it was written by anti-Acharya S critics. This should help:

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

Wikipedia and some editors should be sued it's so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseAziz78 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I get the feeling this isn't going to end well. I could link GREATWRONGS and the like, but I just don't see the point after the claims of defamation and the like. Again, I'm happy to leave C.Fred in the driver's seat, but I don't see me arguing against whatever he does here. Dennis - 2¢ 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The definite legal threat in the users last comment should just about finish this one off. Amortias (T)(C) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Should be sued" is not the same as "I will sue". There is no legal threat. There is also, however, no sign the editor understands UNDUE, NPOV, and that Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not but is how I read into it considering other posts. Amortias (T)(C) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I have left some (hopefully) helpful links. It is up to the editor whether he chooses to heed the good advice given him. KillerChihuahua 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User blocked indefinitely. It may not be a direct threat, but the chilling effect (an implication that editors work at the peril of being sued) is still there. Any administrator is free to unblock if the threat is rescinded and (/or) the user understands that s/he cannot unilaterally overturn the previous RFC and must engage in civil discussions to reach consensus if a change in the article is desired. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No argument here; I would not have blocked given the lack of statement of intent, but I'm notoriously soft on newbies. I have already opined to the offending party that he's not likely to make headway by belligerently stating that you "had no right" to block, and have advised him instead to seek to understand and correct his behavior. I have scant hope he will listen, however, I have made the attempt. KillerChihuahua 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indefinite community ban of myself

User blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Might as well let you that in spite of my indefinite community ban I'm editing your encyclopedia but will stop after hanging myself. 79.79.141.212 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to emergency@. Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your concern but I wasn't serious about hanging myself! Therefore I've struck that comment out. 79.79.141.212 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather report a threat that turns out to be a bad taste joke than not report one.

The self confessed block evasion should be fairly self resolving here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Debresser conduct at Jewish seminary

Admin are human, they screw up sometimes. Here, BD2412 was called to task, he listened to his peers and admitted his mistake, which is the honorable thing to do. Both sides made mistakes, but we do hold admin to a higher standard. The editor that got the dirty end of the stick earlier is now extending an olive branch, an act that says good things about their character. I think we are done here. Dennis - 2¢ 21:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

I intend to impose a short block User:Debresser for an absolutely exasperating level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at Jewish seminary, where he has repeatedly reverted my efforts to resolve problems with the page by adding appropriate cleanup tags and formatting it in accordance with WP:MOSDAB. I have tried very patiently to explain to this editor that extra links other than the actual ambiguous terms are not permitted on disambiguation pages, and that these links cause incorrect results to come up in the tools that disambiguators use to determine possible fixes for incoming links. I feel that the situation escalated uncomfortably quickly (my first effort to bring the page into compliance with WP:MOSDAB was reverted with a "warning" from this editor). Another editor has commented that this exemplifies User:Debresser "attempting to claim WP:Ownership on all articles relating to Judaism with what could be seen as an almost autocratic editing style", which suggests that this is a pattern of conduct now being extended to the content of a disambiguation page, despite the very different and very strict requirements established for disambiguation pages as minimal navigational tools. If there is an intermediate means of resolution, I'd be all for it - I try to avoid Wikidrama of this sort. bd2412 T 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 has been behaving below standard for an admin on Wikipedia.

1. He has been edit warring with me, reverting my edits.
2. He is trying to impose rules or a rule that is or are not in any of the pertaining guideline he quotes.
3. He fails to explain himself when challenged. When I show him that his point of view is not reflected in the guideline, he posts this request to block me.
4. He posts intimidating messages on my talk page and on the Jewish seminary talk page, mentioning that he is an admin. See [292] and [293]. Note also the edit summaries.

The most interesting thing, is that the deletion discussion of the page in question is not even closed, and already he wants to model it to his liking.

In any case, I am a long-time and experienced editor, in good standing, and will not have myself bullied by an admin who doesn't even behave like one. I propose to decline BD2412's request and to reprimand him for his ungentlemanly behavior, not befitting an admin. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I have reverted one edit by Debresser on this article, and and that was for his unilateral removal of a cleanup tag. He promptly (and again, unilaterally) reverted that edit based on his incorrect belief that the page needed no cleanup. Any other regular disambiguator looking at the page will see the problems with it immediately. I have explained to this editor that my editing of the page is not in my capacity as a content editor, but as an administrator seeking to clear up a problem with the conformance of the page to WP:MOSDAB, so that it functions properly as a disambiguation page. I may have been a bit taken aback by this editor "warning" me for bringing the page into compliance, which preceded any communication that I had with this editor. Finally, although the page has been nominated for deletion, it is currently tagged as a disambiguation page, and will cause all of the problems improperly formatted disambiguation pages cause for so long as it remains tagged as one. This is the part of the dispute that the editor in question seems unwilling to hear and understand. bd2412T 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  BD2412: I would strongly advise against blocking Debresser yourself, as it would almost certainly create the impression of an "involved" admin action. Just because you are bringing something in line with a style guideline doesn't make it an "admin action" that would not create "involved" status when challenged. However, I'll gladly look into Debresser's conduct myself and apply measures if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What Fut. Perf. says, with the emphasis on strongly. You may have reverted only once, but you're clearly in an editorial dispute of some kind. I also don't think it's an admin's job to bring something in line with a MOS guideline, so as far as I'm concerned you did that as an editor. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How is making changes to meet the MOS happen under your admin hat vs editor hat? Or did you get those mixed up (above)?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BD2412 seems incredibly anal about applying his "proper formatting" to disambiguation pages over the objections of those working on them. Not an admin matter, except for his attempted bullying by blocking. --NE2 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Another irregular verb:

• I am seriously focused
• You are too concerned about details that don't matter.
• He/she is "incredibly anal".

--Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412, this was not your finest hour. That's clearly editing, not adminning. I'm glad to see you brought this here instead of blocking yourself, but even the threats of blocking (and the tiresome labeling of another editor's work as "vandalism", a tactic that seems to be gaining popularity every day) were not good. At all. Please don't do stuff like that anymore. Also, if you two could just wait until the AFD closes to decide what direction to take the page, it will become clearer how to handle it. Oh, yeah, before I forget, Debresser was acting sub-optimally too; "destructive edit" is essentially the same kind of lame name calling and reaction-seeking as "vandalism". --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. In the nine years I have been editing here, I have never been as exasperated as this. I believe I have overreacted to the initial revert and "warning", and I therefore withdraw from the situation. Thanks. bd2412 T 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, I'll be happy to continue working with you constructively on improving this page and others on this encyclopedia. In this regard, please let me know if the current version, which has been edited in the mean time by multiple editors, isn't much better than what we had before? Is there any other problem you see with it other than the link in the first line? Please use my talk page, as we did before. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

BLP problem on user talk page

User's comments have been rev/deled and talk page privileges have been revoked. — CactusWriter (talk)

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

---

A blocked user is using their talk page to accuse a public figure.[294] I brought it here because I'm guessing someone should block them from editing their talk page, and just in case this is one of those edits that should be deleted from the page history. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best report it to oversight via the link at the top of the page, they tend to have a quicker response time to libelious posts. Amortias (T)(C) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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