Tim Zukas (talk · contribs) has a habit of making large undocumented edits to articles. These combine factual changes and stylistic changes; this is typical. He does not, in general, use helpful or indicative edit summaries (see the history of Overland Limited (UP train). This behavior, including his frequent IP editing, is documented at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, although I had no involvement with the creation of that page. I want to make clear that I'm here in my capacity as an editor; I have not used my tools in this dispute.

The specific dispute that brings me here concerns Overland Limited (UP train). I created this article in August 2014; the only other major editor is Centpacrr (talk · contribs). Beginning in February, first as an IP and then as himself, he began making large-scale changes in the pattern described above. Many edit summaries were misleading or non-existent. Examples include:

• [1], which according to the edit summary was a revert of [2] but made other stylistic changes and added a whole new completely unsourced section
• [3] the edit summary says "several corrections" (and indicates an intention to edit war) but again mixes stylistic changes and content changes. Note that sources are only removed, and not added.
• [4] as above, with the claim "your version has the errors, so you're the one that needs to explain. (Can't be done, tho.)" but no direct indication of what these errors were.
• [5] among other wholesale revisions, actually removes the entire footnotes section and {{reflist}} template, and then revert-warred [6] [7] while denying he'd done any such thing.

This dispute had gotten out of hand and discussions on Talk:Overland Limited (UP train) were not fruitful. Centpacrr and I went back and forth with Tim Zukas, especially in Talk:Overland_Limited_(UP_train)#.22Corrections.22, about what these "errors" were, what sources he had, and so on. I will acknowledge that he was in the right on several issues, but extracting this information was a slow, painful process. I opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which you can see at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Overland_Limited_.28UP_train.29.23.22Corrections.22. With the kind assistance of Thibbs (talk · contribs) we identified five major points of contention and invested a solid month (with breaks) in discussing them, often in considerable detail. This was my first encounter with DRN and I rather liked it. Thibbs closed the discussion on April 1. Almost immediately Tim Zukas began making the same types of edits as before: [8] [9] [10]. It's the same mixture of stylistic changes, factual changes, and removal of sources.

I think Centpacrr and I are at wits end here. This is a collaborative environment but Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway. It requires extraordinary effort to engage with this user. I'd like to ask that he, at the very least, be banned from Overland Limited (UP train). A more general topic ban from rail transport articles may be appropriate as he has engaged in similar edits on City of San Francisco (train) (see [11]) and City of Denver (train) ([12]). Failing that, I'd appreciate any guidance on how to move this issue forward. Thank you to anyone who read this far. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway"

What he means is, I correct the errors that they have put in, then they put them back. Centpacrr wants me to explain the corrections-- naturally I figure he should explain his uncorrections. He should try, that is-- it can't actually be done.

"we identified five major points of contention"

He's referring to the five examples I gave of their errors. They were examples, not a complete list, and Centpacrr's latest version has lots more. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your desired outcome then that you'll remove and/or rewrite anything you don't like or disagree with, then other editors will read your version and then add references which support it? I don't think that's how this project works. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs pointed out to me that my creation of the LTA case page, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, was out of process, since Tim Zukas has never been banned, let alone blocked under his main account. I had been chasing down disruption from IPs at rail and air transportation articles, starting from the Boeing 314 Clipper article, and bit by bit, the disruption pattern pointed the way to Tim Zukas making a huge number of edits logged out, especially favoring a logged-out status when he wants to remove a bunch of text from an article. So the LTA case page was intended to document disruption from IPs based near me in Oakland and Berkeley, California, but it ended up documenting the behavior of Tim Zukas. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, Tim Zukas was blocked as IP 75.16.27.73 last year, blocked by The Bushranger for three months for "Long-term disruptive, nonconstructive editing without any discussion." Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While User:Tim Zukas made a couple of useful suggestions, he also introduced a variety of other unsourced claims that when I researched them and came up with relevant reliable sources proved his speculations to be completely incorrect. Over the past month I have refined and expanded the article in a sandbox while the DNR discussion was going on and verified this material citing more the 20 new reliable and verifiable sources to support the material I added along with posting seven new images. When the DNR was closed I transferred the updated article that I had been developing to the mainspace. Within less than a day, however, User:Tim Zukas has already made three massive unexplained deletions which are, as usual, unsupported by any sources or citations. When asked to specify what he considers to be errors -- and to supply sources to support his claims -- as usual he never does so. His only response was a completely unhelpful comment that "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." (see here) Unfortunately this is not the first run in that I (and many other editors) have had with this user in aviation and railroad transportation articles over a period of years now in which he has exhibited this same disruptive behavior. Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too had a run-in with Tim Zukas back in May 2013 on the San Francisco International Airport article. At that time he made a host of changes without any discussion or consensus. When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility. Considering all the contentious and sockpuppet IP edits that they have been involved in, it is really time for an extended block. David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing that an editor who's been here 5 years would make such a clueless as "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Boeing 314 article is now in its fourth semi-protection (this time for six months) exclusively because of this user's similar disruptive mass unsupported deletions using at least four sockpuppet anonymous IP's. It was not until after I had requested the current semi-protection that I was able to deduce that User:Tim Zukas and these sockpuppet IPs were one in the same. He also did the same with the Braniff International Airways article in which the editor he kept reversing claiming unspecified "errors" was a retired Braniff Captain who was also the Founder and President of Braniff Airways Foundation and Braniff Preservation Group, LLC which is essentially the airline's historical society!!! Centpacrr (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Zukas has a lot of 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility."

Show everyone the barrage of abuse.

""The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author."

Perhaps half of the numerous errors in Centpacrr's latest version of the article are misreadings of the source. A couple examples-- in the History section he says

"Lucius Beebe contends that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure to coerce better performance from the Chicago and North Western, and in fact a section of the Overland continued to use the C&NW during the period."

Anyone who reads Beebe's book can see that he contended nothing about the UP's motives and didn't claim no know anything about them. He offered that speculation and made it clear it was a guess.

In the Name section Centpacrr says

"The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden though to Chicago on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special"

No one knows where he got that idea-- the timetable in Beebe's book shows it running Council Bluffs to Oakland. The schedule wasn't fast enough for the one set of cars to make a round trip to Chicago in a week.

Presumably you commenters don't claim to be experts on the Overland Limited, and apparently you're inclined to think Centpacrr's errors aren't errors. Probably you don't have his sources to check. And sometimes it is the source that's wrong-- in the back of Signor's book Phelps said the "Limited" disappeared from the name in July 1947, but as I said before the timetables show that CNW and UP dropped the name in 1946 or earlier and SP dropped it in May 1947 or earlier. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all beside the point because you've never (or almost never) been willing to add sources to articles. Your habit of massive unexplained removals is the issue at stake here, and you've only been forthcoming after long, tedious discussions on talk pages and elsewhere. This behavior is discourteous. Centpacrr and I are not the only ones who think so. We're not the only ones who've asked you to stop. That are you are ostensibly right on various minor factual points doesn't change this because it required enormous effort to extract from you (a) what your actual concerns were and (b) what your sources were. Let's not get distracted in some abstract discussion about the operation of a long discontinued train. The issue here is your discourtesy toward other editors and your disregard for the established editing norms on this project. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved my earlier response to the Zukas posting above to the Overland Limited's talk page because, as Mackensen correctly points out above, it is unrelated to the basic ANI issue here which is this user's long standing disruptive behavior and practice of making massive, unsupported deletions of content and sources in many railroad and aviation related articles as well as his frequently employing massive anonymous IP sockpuppetry to avoid detection and hide his identity while doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For background information, there was a long-running thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard about this article, Overland Limited (UP train), for more than three weeks, in which the participants were User:Tim Zukas, User:Mackensen, and User:Centpacrr, and in which User:Thibbs was the mediator. The thread seemed to go reasonably well, but went much longer than the usual time for threads at DRN, which normally deals with issues in one to two weeks. The mediator, Thibbs, then suggested, and the parties agreed, to take further discussion back to the talk page. Within a day after the thread was closed, this report was filed. I have nothing substantive to add, but that is the recent history. If the parties are willing to resume commenting on content and not on contributors, formal mediation might still be available, but not if there are issues of conduct including of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think for all the reasons stated above by myself, Mackensen, David J Johnson, Binksternet, the long time history of abuse of User:Zukas as documented in the LTA, his intransigence during the recent DRN, and the wide number of articles in which this user has engaged in his pattern of similar disruptive editing over the past five years, that "mediation" would not be a fruitful exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make a note here (since I've been mentioned a few times now) that I won't be commenting on this case. I'm a hardliner against comments from a mediation being used in an evidentiary manner and really my only experience with Tim Zukas comes from the DRN proceeding. I know DRN isn't quite the same as full mediation but it's close enough to the same idea to make me uncomfortable commenting. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, your yeomanlike efforts in the DRN over the past month were very much appreciated, and the eventual failure to reach a resolution through it were certainly not your fault. The issues with this editor are long standing and involve his conflicts with many other articles and editors. Mackensen and I had hoped that trying the DRN might change that but alas it only served to prove that the basic problem is a much more pervasive and fundamental one which is largely unrelated to this single article's content. So please accept Mackensen and my thanks for your efforts. It is folks like you that really make the project go. Centpacrr (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose air & rail topic ban for Tim Zukas

I think Tim Zukas is too anti-collegial to be allowed to edit here, but rather than suggest a block I propose instead a topic ban on the kinds of articles he edits with the greatest fervor: air and rail transportation, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This would seem to me to be an appropriate next step although what I expect will happen is that this user will (as he has in the past) engage in block evasion by reverting to editing from the many anonymous IP sockpuppets he has used in the past. Fortunately, however, these are also now fairly easy to identify as they all geolocate to the East San Francisco Bay Area either as Comcast Communications IPs where he lives in Oakland, or to static IPs assigned to the Berkeley Public Library and the University of California-Berkeley (including several to the Office of the UC's President), a school which he apparently also attended in the late 1960s. If this happens then it may be necessary to request semi-protection of individual articles that he disrupts such is the current case with the Boeing 314 entry so that they can't be edited by unregistered IP users. Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment by Centpacrr 1: Regretfully, as Mackensen correctly notes (below), the utter chutzpah of this user's most recent edit shows me that he really has no intention of respecting WP's policies and guidelines, atmosphere of collegiality, assuming good faith, or abiding by the consensus of the community. In addition I have still never seen this user ever add a single source or citation in any article supporting anything he has either added or changed. Instead he often either removes sources and citations posted by other editors, and/or makes changes in the text that no longer accurately reflect sources and citations that he leaves in.

This user is clearly intelligent, interested in the topics of air and rail transportation, has a good deal of useful knowledge in the subject, and is apparently an experienced railfan photographer. However I find it puzzling that such a person -- especially one who has a demonstrated long standing and continuing association with such a great academic institution as the University of California at Berkeley from which my grandfather graduated in 1914 -- to be so dismissive of the value and necessity of supporting material in WP entries by citing reliable, verifiable sources. By his instant action in again rejecting this basic tenant of building an encyclopedia as well as refusing to work with any other members of the WP community, this user has, in my view, waived any remaining benefit of the doubt as to his intentions to ever do so but has instead clearly declared a personal "it's my way or the highway" approach to the project.

If Mr. Zukas were willing to cooperate collegially with the rest of the editors on WP -- especially when asked to explain and support his views -- then I suspect he would be a very valuable contributor to the project. The goal in building each entry is, after all, to "get it right" and that is a cooperative, collaborative process. While this user may be very knowledgeable, if he is not willing to work within that process it tends to only defeat rather than advance the project. If Mr. Zukas is not willing to do so and continues his present demonstrated disruptive editing practices, then perhaps a period of being blocked may also be appropriate in addition to a topic ban from editing aviation and railroad related articles until such time as he is willing to work with the community as opposed to at cross purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2: Unfortunately Mr. Zukas has elected instead to double down Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with regret. I don't think this discussion has made any impression on Tim Zukas, given this edit just made with the blithe edit summary "Usual corrections." Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 1 above Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mr Zukas has been given multiple opportunities to edit and communicate with other editors in a spirit of civility and constructive editing. This he has patently failed to do - plus editing (sockpuppeting) from various IP addresses, as well as his own account. Wikipedia is, in the main, a good example team work: Mr Zukas has failed to ever accept co-operation. David J Johnson (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2 above Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose immediate block of Tim Zukas for continued disruptive editing & sockpuppetry

• Subject user now also in violation of 3RR, continued disruptive editing, renewed sockpuppetry: Subject user Tim Zukas is now also in violation of WP:3RR for making a third mass unexplained and unsupported deletion of material and sources (see here) since the opening of this ANI, this time using one of his demonstrated sockpuppet IPs (128.32.11.112) to hide his identity which geolocates like many of his others to the University of California-Berkeley. I now propose an immediate block from editing of this user, a long term topic ban on editing air and rail transportation articles broadly construed, and long term (six month) semi-protection of the articles Overland Limited (UP train), City of San Francisco (train), and City of Denver (train). Centpacrr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Tim Zukas is edit warring, and he's violating WP:MULTIPLE by editing both logged in and logged out on the same article. I don't see that he has violated 3RR specifically, despite the continued edit warring which must be addressed. I suggest page protection combined with blocking of the IP and the Tim Zukas account. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment by Centpacrr: User Zukas has made five more massive unexplained and unsupported deletions of restored material and sources on the Overland Limited (UP train) article between April 2 (the day this ANI was opened by Mackensen) and today, April 6 ([13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]) including three between Saturday evening (April 4) and Monday morning (today, April 6). This indicates to me that despite the previous almost month long DRN and the opening of this process, this user has no interest or intention of cooperating and/or collaborating with the rest of the WP community in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subject user Zukas made a SIXTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion on Tuesday evening, April 7. [18] Again significant amounts of sourced material was deleted or changed; five cited sources removed; some new material added but none of it was supported by any citations or sources; no edit summary supplied. Centpacrr (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Subject user Zukas made a SEVENTH unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others on Wednesday morning, April 8 [19]. Centpacrr (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. An indefinite one. Tim has shown absolutely no ability to act collaboratively. And a ready willingness to flip us all the bird with his blatant non-stop socking. It's time for this farcical nonsense to stop. He must be tossed out of here and told not to come back in no uncertain terms. If even call for a community ban. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Subject user Zukas made an EIGHTH even larger unexplained and unsupported mass deletion similar to the others (including the entire lede this time) since the opening of this ANI on Thursday afternoon, April 9 [20]. Immediate edit blocking of this disruptive editor now sems essential. Centpacrr (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NINTH mass deletion [21], no edit summary, Friday afternoon, April 10. Centpacrr (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TENTH mass deletion [22], no edit summary, Satruday morning, April 11. Centpacrr (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, sadly; another deletion followed again today. This needs an admin to take action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ELEVENTH mass deletion [23], no edit summary, Sunday morning, April 12. Centpacrr (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The guy has been here for five years without having been blocked. At some point you might wonder if he's lost his marbles, or if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If that happened, it happened a while ago, based on that LTA case. There's signs of dodgy edits going back to 2013 with the named account, and, if Binksternet was correct about the IPs, dodgy IP editing in 2012 and 2011 as well. One such example of that IP editing would be [24], which is pretty iffy if you ask me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The vast majority of this user's most disruptive editing over the years has been done using multiple anonymous IP sockpuppets that all geolocate to the East San Francisco Bay Area either as Comcast Communications IPs where he lives in Oakland, or to static IPs assigned to the Berkeley Public Library and the University of California-Berkeley (including several to the Office of the UC's President), a school which he apparently also attended in the late 1960s, which were only positively determined in the last few weeks to actually all be sockpuppets that user Zukas has been using for years to disguise his identity and avoid being blocked. Now that all these sock IPs and user Zukas have been determined to be one in the same, it is also clear that he is the perpetrator of this long term pattern of abuse. Centpacrr (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1-month block. These mass deletions are ridiculous. And he did it 11 times to boot. An admin needs to take action eventually. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Centpacrr and Tim Zukas have been fighting over content of the Overland Limited piece for four and a half years, judging by Zukas's talk page. The latter seems to be an edit warrior, the former shows signs of "owning" the article. It wouldn't be a bad idea to toss them both from the piece as a first step to pacification. I wonder about Zukas's competence level, I did see one of his so-called "mass deletions" that completely wiped out the lead. Further investigation might lead to an indef result there... Carrite (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that, given that I created the article last August. I've been dealing with Zukas' IP edits since before then, but I never realized until recently that it was him. As the article creator I have found Centpacrr willing to discuss his edits and cite sources; I can see no benefit to removing him. Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TWELFTH mass deletion [25] since ANI opened on April 2 (36th mass deletion or otherwise unexplained, unsupported edit overall since February 9), non specific edit summary, Monday morning, April 13. Centpacrr (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What I have been doing since user Zukas began his current now two-month long campaign of making mass unexplained, unsupported deletions here has been developing this article by adding much new material which I have supported by also adding 33 new citations to specific sources in support of my additions as well as adding eight illustrations of material from my railroad history collections. As I have been doing so, however, user Zukas has been routinely removing many of these additions and sources of mine (and others) without ever explaining why. He also sometimes adds often speculative material of his own without ever including any citations or sources to support them. (As to my background in this area, two of my four published books on North American railroad history also contain material on the subject of this article.) In short, my intention with this (and all) articles I contribute to on WP is to build and improve them within the guidelines and policies of the project, to do so in cooperation and collaboration with the rest of the community of editors, and to provide reliable sources and citations for everything I contribute. I have never (nor do I now) claim "ownership" to this or any other WP article, and I am always happy to correct any errors I may make during that process as I discover them or they are pointed out to me when supported by other better sources. User Zukas' demonstrated approach to the project, on the other hand, appears to be exactly the opposite especially when it comes to providing sources to support his massive unexplained changes. Centpacrr (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting here that my support for the block includes anything from several months up to an indefinite block. This many reversions/removals of content against consensus and without a single attempt at explaining is just ridiculous. And that's without the apparently blatant, long-term sockpuppetry. I think the calls for Centpacrr to be "tossed" are a tad bogus, because there's no evidence that they are a problematic editor, just that they've been sucked into a long-term edit war with someone who clearly is problematic. I think an admin should close this soon. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As anticipated twice now,[26][27] Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still pushes for the use of the unreliable, self-published source Graham Pascoe & Peter Pepper: [28]

WCM incurs in policy violation, because he's fully aware of their status of WP:SPS which have never been published academically and who copied content from Wikipedia into that very pamphlet (as discovered by WCM himself). Moreover, he's now openly advocating for and backing edits with his own original research: [29][30][31]

See also [32], WCM hasn't abandoned his WP:BATTLEFIELD philosophy. This is confirmed by his statement that WP:MEAT could be acceptable if not done "to damage Wikipedia", i.e. "to do the right thing": [33]

Is this community willing to do so something about it this time?[34][35]

PS: As a side note, it's relevant to mention that WCM is currently exporting Falklands-related fights to other wikis:

• Spanish Wikipedia: [36][37][38][39][40]
• Wikisource: [41] [42]
• Commons: [43] [44] [45]

--Langus (t) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as WCM's mentor, most of this post seems irrelevant: conduct on other Wikis obviously cannot be addressed on this Wiki and most of the above is simply attacks on WCM (I can't help but note that you linked the diff to WCM being blocked on Commons, and not the current version of the thread on their talk page which shows that it was subsequently lifted). The only substantive complaint, that WCM re-added an unreliable source to the Capture of Port Egmont article does not seem to have been discussed anywhere prior to this post. Could not a different source be substituted if this source isn't satisfactory? Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Nick, my primary concern is that invalid source. I'm more than willing to use another one, wherever it be, but WCM has reverted its removal. I'm tired of pointing it out, both here and in talk pages of related articles; WCM's stance is always the same. You can see I warned this noticeboard about WCM's obsession with Pascoe & Pepper in the first two wikilinks above: [46][47]

Also, I tried to discuss this source way back in time at WP:RSN, but WCM blocked that attempt: [48]

However, it is patently clear that this is not an acceptable source. WCM should know this, having himself realized that these individuals copied content from Wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting that I should've started yet another discussion instead of filling an ANI. Let me ask you this: how many times is it needed to discuss the same topic before an incident being warranted? --Langus (t) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WCM "blocked your attempt" to discuss this at RSN three years ago... You posted a question, WCM responded, and no-one else took an interest in the discussion. Making personal attacks here over ancient discussion threads hardly contributes to resolving content disputes. Judging from WCM's edit summary [49], he appears to be acknowledge that the source isn't without its problems, but that it's OK for an uncontroversial fact. As you aren't disputing the article content, I would suggest that you propose a superior reference - that would be a win-win for our readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the source in dispute is basically a copy of Wikipedia information, then it can't be used at all. We can't reference ourselves for a fact, regardless of how controversial it is. A new source would need to be found which is not based on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this is the second time that Langus-TxT has raised a frivolous complaint about me at ANI [50], further he has a habit of reverting cited edits on Falklands topics if he dislikes it. [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. In Langus-TxT, we also have an editor who sees themselves as fighting [56] British Warriors, [57] British nationalists in en.WP on es.wikipedia [58] It is not "one" of the British, Wee Curry Monster is the worst falklandista of Wikipedia. Welcome to their world haha. This diff [59] is nothing more than a personal attack, however, its worth noting a very old RFC [60] where this editor's habit of reverting cited edits was noted four years ago. They're still doing it. [61] Here we see Langus accusing myself and @Kahastok: of being POV pushers. The issue we were trying to discuss was why there was a need for duplication of the same information. Further, I note @BedsBookworm: has expressed their frustration at Langus constantly reverting their edits [62], further when I re-assured Bookworm that I didn't think Langus was another editors meatpuppet [63] he somehow managed to infer that was a personal attack on him [64],[65]. He is also being misleading in his use of diffs above, [66] please note two remarks he claims were my attempt as WP:OR I withdrew, edit summary rm comments - withdrawn. The other [67] is clearly not WP:OR, I state clearly that it was based on personal recollection from over a decade ago and I point to someone with better information ie I was trying to be helpful. Am I doing something wrong there, nor is it meat puppetry to suggest that someone with superior language skills could help address an issue, I didn't tell him what to write.

The comments about other wikipedias are of course irrelevant here but I would like to take a few minutes to address them. The issue on Commons relates to this image, I know from my long experience on Falklands matters that this image has been circulating for some time. Its actually a fake that was produced to claim an event was front page news, whereas it was a tiny footnote at the bottom of the theatre section. There are a group of Spanish editors (including Langus-TxT), who A) acted in a tag team to dominate the deletion nomination, B) substituted an original copy of the article for this fake version on es.wikpedia and C) added a description that is utterly misleading, historically inaccurate and pushing Argentine state propaganda. I merely tried to alert the admin community there eg [68].

What is relevant here, is that Langus-TxT also added this known fake copy of the Times article here [69].

The source mentioned is not based on Wikipedia and it is not referencing wikipedia. I did, however, notice that something I'd written on wikipedia had crept in there. WP:SPS has an exemption for acknowledged experts, Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts on Falkland Islands history, the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise [70] endorsing an errata slip their prepared for his own work. In this case it was used to source an entirely uncontroversial fact. Removing a source and replacing it with a cn tag simply because the editor in question doesn't like what Pepper and Pascoe have to say is editing to damage the encyclopedia.

This is a recurring theme with this editor, when he sees a source he doesn't like (ie it contradicts certain nationalist claims in Argentina's pursuit of its Falklands sovereignty claim) he seeks to find excuses to ignore it and demand material cited to it is removed from Wikipedia. Latest example here [71] where even though the source desribes her book The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. he attempts to remove content claiming its "amateurish" based on his false claim two different books are contradictory (they aren't by the way). I note [72] he appears to be about to demand comments are removed in an article based on rubbishing the source as amateurish.

I really do think its about time the conduct of Langus was examined, he seems to create conflict unnecessarily too often. WCM_email 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Langus' complaint seems to be an exercise in mud-slinging - just as it was last time Langus brought WCM to ANI here. Throw mud around, see if it'll stick. If this happens again I think there may be some room for WP:BOOMERANG against Langus.

It is clear to me that Langus is not assuming WCM's good faith and has not done so for a very long time. This is amply demonstrated by the es.wiki links WCM provides: while clearly we can't do anything about es.wiki conduct, it is a clear demonstration of why there is an issue on en.wiki. If Langus objects to the source, the thing to do would be to discuss it the talk page, not to come straight to ANI with a trumped-up complaint that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. We should not encourage or support serial mudslingers such as Langus.

In terms of the source, we should be clear that the source is not a straight copy of Wikipedia and is not based on Wikipedia. It also is quite good at citing its own sources. There is no question that it takes a side in the dispute (you only need to read it to see that), but that does not make it unreliable in all circumstances as Langus claims. We could, in principle, look for the original sources, but they are often not easily accessible, and when the point is not in contention in the sovereignty dispute there is little reason to do so. Of course, if Langus wishes to find better sources, I don't think anyone is going to stop him. Kahastok talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there you have it, the pamphlet that copied WCM's text from Wikipedia, self-published by two persons who don't have the qualifications and haven't produced anything of academic value (yet WCM calls them "acknowledged experts"), the pamphlet that despite "citing" sources makes wild novel interpretations of them, is being defended right here and right now before our eyes.

I'm not required to replace any source, as Kahastok and Nick-D are suggesting me to do: if that would've the case, it would be virtually impossible for us to remove unreliable sources from Wikipedia when they are currently being used to back ideas that are only found in them. My intention is to remove the reference to this unreliable source, and it's being resisted by the same guy who knows it's not reliable. WP:AGF has a limit, as every seasoned editor knows. --Langus (t) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that this is specially relevant now that we know that the Government of the United Kingdom is carrying cyberoperations to shape public's opinion on the Falklands issue, which includes "seeding the internet with false information": [73][74][75] --Langus (t) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually suggested was that you discuss the point on the talk page, and not immediately come running to WP:ANI to throw around wild accusations around just because somebody had the temerity to disagree with you on a matter of content. But given that you are not actually disputing the text, your finding a better source would resolve your issue entirely without any drama and probably without even any disagreement.

The question of reliability is a matter of content (i.e. not relevant here), but it is worth remembering that a source may be reliable in some contexts or for some things, and not reliable in other contexts and for other things.

But when it comes down to it, you're slinging mud shot after mud shot around here, presumably with the aim of getting some to stick on WCM. But your argument for sanctioning him boils down solely to the fact that he disagrees with you on a matter of content. There is nothing else. That is unacceptable behaviour - on your part. You accuse WCM of bad-faith editing - but again, the only basis you give for this accusation is that you disagree with him. Again, that's unacceptable. And it's not even the first time you've done this. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing WCM of being part of some kind of British "cyberoperations" campaign in relation to content which you don't dispute (just the reference provided) is very silly. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that even at ANI Langus approaches every discussion in a combative manner. I did not state, as he claims, my own opinion that Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper were acknowledged as experts in Falkland Islands history, I pointed out that the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise [76]. They have in fact been published in the Buenos Aires Herald (21st January 2011) and it certainly seems that the Argentine government takes their work seriously [77],[78],[79],[80],[81]. As Kahastok notes as a source it does take a side, however, they are very well cited and for none-contentious facts often a very convenient online source. Langus' assertion they are unreliable is entirely his opinion, another example of his habit of justifying removal of material by attacking the credibility of the source by speculation. Removal of a source to replace with a {{cn}} is not constructive. The accusation levelled of being a British Government Cyberwarfare operative is just silly (especially as ironically he cites a WP:SPS blog). The bad faith attack on the use of sources is just silly. I ask can something be done about this constant mud-slinging, I'd rather be writing articles that have time wasted at the drama boards. And for information I was 3 in 1963, I am not the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, I have an alibi as I was at playgroup. WCM_email 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that the HUMINT operations are in march since 2008, nothing more (and BTW, Todo Noticias, Clarin, etc are reliable sources). If WCM believes I'm accusing him of being part of it, he's just showing his cola de paja, as we say in Rio de la Plata: my point was that Pascoe & Pepper may be very well part of this scheme. They have received attention in the media, mainly through the falklander newspaper Penguin News and the pro-British news portal Mercopress (which reprints articles from the Penguin News). Morevoer, The Buenos Aires Herald re-published Pepper's article because he submitted it to them,[82] in an active effort to push their revisionist interpretation of Falklands' history. It was published alongside with Ambassador Cisnero's response.[83] His last "publication" in this newspaper is a reader's letter.[84] This is not the behavior nor the credentials of an "acknowledged expert". Lawrence Freedman is indeed a proper historian, but his work "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" is part of the UK Government Official History Series. The same government conducting the cyberoperations. In the very link WCM provided above, it can be seen that "the legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected". The Cabinet Office in turn contacted Freedman, and commissioned an errata slip.

I ask Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster and Nick-D a question. Suppose I find an article that reads: "Galileo Galilei built his first telescope in 1611 <ref>A self published source</ref>". But, alas, every reliable source I can find on the subject says he did so in 1609.

You are saying that I shouldn't remove a self-published source from Wikipedia without replacing it with another source. WCM says that removing it and leaving in place a {{cn}} tag is "not constructive".

How would you propose to solve this paradox? --Langus (t) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this normal behaviour on wikipedia?

I don't edit a great deal on wikipedia and any time spent is wasted as Langus simply reverts any edit I do. My last two edits [85],[86] were immediately reverted. Bizarre behaviour as in one case I added an image Langus wanted [87]. Even stranger he left a message demanding I explain myself to him [88]. The talk page discussion is simply weird [89] attacking anyone who supported my edit as a "POV pusher" [90],[91]. I really can't see what the issue was and I don't think Langus can explain himself either. The comments here about Cyberwar, I mean is this guy on the same planet as the rest of us? Like I said I don't edit a great deal and right now I think I'm going to pack it in as a waste of time, I mean what is the point if conspiracy theory nutjobs can run rampant? BedsBookworm (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. You'll learn that one of the biggest problems in Wikipedia are not "conspiracy theory nutjobs" but the alarming level of aggressiveness and incivility.

Regarding you points, it's all there in the conversations for anyone interested to see. To sum it up: I do not revert every edit you do. The image you added came along with a rather controversial content deletion. Two people supported that edit: WCM and Kahastok. My revertions had a rationale, which I explained every time, but you insist on ignoring them and taking the matter personally.

If you know anything about these Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe that would make them reliable sources, then by at all means bring it forward. --Langus (t) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed Talk:Greenbelt station#Requested move 7 February 2015, a multi-move seeking to use a lowercase "s" for the names of various DC Metro stations, as not moved for lack of consensus after a two-month discussion. There were valid points made on both sides, including the existence of sources using both capitalized and uncapitalized forms, so I felt that a clear consensus was needed. At the time of the discussion, the titles with the capitalized "S" were fairly new, resulting from a December 2014 multi-move request primarily aimed at removing "(WMATA station)" from these titles. Following my closure, other editors moved the various pages at issue to the lowercase "s" title, primarily based on WP:USSTATION. I have no dog in this hunt (other than having closed the last discussion, and being a frequent Metro rider from living in the DC Metro area), but as my closure could be deemed involvement, I leave it to the community to determine the appropriate resolution of the matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you meant to notify me and also note that in addition to these moves I opened and continued discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations) designed to break the impasse for which the RM process failed, and linked to it from after the RM you closed noting "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution". That would be a constructive place for people who care to weigh in. What was most clear at the RM is that there's a consensus that the capped titles were wrong; we're just not aligned yet on the best fix. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the RM result, you should've filed yet another move review. This seems to be a disaster in terms of procedural errors. There was the first request, which moved to the articles to the capitalised title. There was the move review for that request, which you withdrew in the face of opposition. There was this new RM for the lowercased titles by you, which was yesterday closed as no consensus. In merely hours after the RM was closed as "no consensus" to move to the lowercase title, all of the articles involved in the RM had been moved to that title by Dicklyon (talk · contribs). He should've known not to defy the RM result. He should've given up, which would've been the right thing to do, or should've filed a move review or RM. This is absurd. The articles need to go back to where they were. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to revert Dicklyon's and my moves of these articles from lowercase "station" back to uppercase "Station". (e.g. move L'Enfant Plaza station back to L'Enfant Plaza Station) since obviously they're against consensus. I didn't realize it until another user brought up the issue at my talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Genius it's the responsibility of you and Dicklyon to revert your own moves> GregKaye 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could, but there are some pages that I can't move. Epic Genius (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think another point to make is that an admin moved the Greenbelt station page after a request at WP:RM for uncontroversial moves, despite the fact that it was clearly controversial, there having been numerous RMs and an MR. Surely there's some duty of care for admins to check that "uncontroversial" requests are actually uncontroversial (e.g. by looking at the talk page for RMs) in order to weed out editors looking to game the system after they've failed in other avenues. @Epicgenius: you should be able to move the pages back yourself, unless someone has tagged the redirects created by the move (sadly there are some editors that do this in order to prevent moves back) – certainly the L'Enfant Plaza station should be moveable. Number 57 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The re-moves are proceeding rather slowly on my end, so I may need help with the re-moving of the articles. Admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station to Potomac Avenue Station. Epic Genius (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how you consider moving back to the least favored titles as progress, but I'm going to step back from this mess now that you've taken that on. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made that mess? We both commented at WT:USSTATION and you supported the move to lowercase titles while I opposed it. The !vote ended with a decision of no consensus. Yet you moved the pages anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you followed up and moved the others, the controversial ones that I had skipped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I corrected my stupid mistake of wanting a uniform naming convention. BTW, I only moved five or six of the articles that you skipped, so that's hardly a strong point. Epic Genius (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station back to Potomac Avenue Station because we now have Potomac Ave Station and Potomac Ave station due to a naming error. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) There is a RM in progress at Talk:Potomac Avenue station. Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon and mass moves

Let me quote what I wrote at a recent AE request that failed because the scope of the applicable DS apparently didn't cover this matter.

I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

I suggest that all users that comment here read the AE request, which is laden with evidence of similar mass changes by Dicklyon. In many cases he is correct, and in many cases he is incorrect. In either case, he has no concern for consensus and is content to flout it. Something needs to be done. This mess is evidence of larger procedural failings in Wikipedia processes, and proof that Dicklyon simply hasn't got the message. A user proposed at the AE request that Dicklyon be banned from moving pages outside the RM process. I now agree with that notion. Whilst the matter is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, the community may impose such a restriction. I believe that enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – as proposer. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also recommended an interaction ban between us, which would be welcome relief. If you're going to stalk me and try to get me sanctioned, you should at least find moves that are not ones that you supported; makes you sound kind of lawyerish, at best. And note my good-faith efforts to resolve the problem, as linked above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reverted change to the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) was not a good-faith effort to resolve a problem, but appears to have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted as much. He described it as "provoking action". RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it's never OK to try to provoke action? Or that no action is need here? Or what? Is it always wrong to make a point? Was my edit in any was disruptive, in changing the naming convention to reflect actual practice? Why don't you think of a constructive way to work on the problem if you don't like my attempts? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester , Dicklyon while valuing both of your contributions on different issues I would prefer to see one or both of you banned or topic banned than for you to have an IBAN in place while still being able to work on the same articles. GregKaye 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I beg your pardon. I saw the RM/TR request, as that's on my watchlist. I also had the Greenbelt Station page on my watchlist, as I participated in a previous RM there. I participate in many RMs. Once I arrived at the page, It quickly became clear that a disaster was occurring. "Good faith efforts to resolve the problem" mean little considering that you knowingly caused the problem. Please explain, then, why you moved the articles directly after the RM was closed against such a move? What in your mind gave you the right to do such a thing? RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall supporting the overturn of the botched RM that created the mess in the first place? See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. My opinion on that matter remains the same. That does not mean that one should circumvent consensus. That battle was lost, and the page should've remained where it was. There is no excuse for making a mass move of tens of Washington Metro station articles directly after a move discussion closed as "no consensus". You've already been warned about making mass moves plenty of times. From a purely strategising perspective, it really didn't make sense to make these moves directly after the RM closed, when you should've known that there would've been scrutiny on the articles in question, and that your moves would likely be reverted. Given that you've been around the block a few times, that you're no mass move virgin, what exactly compelled you to make these moves? Was it to make a point, as with when you essentially vandalised the WP:USSTATION guideline, and then edit-warred with a user to "deride the project"? RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do trout me for that pointy edit. It was a pretty good point though, wouldn't you agree? Not vandalism at all, but an embarrassing reflection of actual practice that people seem unable to deal with and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a restriction on moves without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a temporary restriction, with the length to be decided later. It's obvious that Dicklyon has done this repeatedly, moving pages against consensus (or the lack thereof). Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious? Without evidence? Where have I moved pages against any consensus or against any lack of consensus? Certainly there was no consensus for these articles to have uppercase Station (if you think there was, please try to find it and point it out). Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... let's see. On Talk:Greenbelt Station, the 2nd move request closed as: Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution at 00:29, 6 April 2015. Then, you performed 81 moves that were specifically against the non-consensus. One time is an oversight, two times is probably a mistake, but 81 times is far enough. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the AE request. He has done this before, and has been warned about it before. A notable example that was found in that request is the case of the Blackfriars Massacre. Here is what I had written in the request:

Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue".

This is not new behaviour for Dicklyon. I asked above, why, Dicklyon, did you think that making 81 moves like this was acceptable? You've been warned about it before. You must've known you were going to be reverted. Why did you do it? RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it to try to resolve the problem (which you had supported doing); I was surprised to see the reverted by Epicgenius, especially after he originally jumped in to help complete the process. Most of the people who opposed fixing this said "weak oppose"; there was no significant support for the idea that leaving them at capitalized Station would be better, so I thought this might actually work. When processes fail, one needs to look outside standard processes to try to fix it. I can remind you about how the process failed here again if you need. Your reluctance to let me attempt to fix it still baffles me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because I originally didn't see the closed RfC. After I saw it, I reverted myself. Epic Genius (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, I see, you literally meant "against non-consensus". OK, guilty of that, but not of moving against consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RG, it's not clear why you think your warring behavior on Blackfriars massacre is so much better than mine, or why your having it moved back to improper capitalization settles the matter. The article does not cite a single source that capitalizes it, and does not use caps in the article, so why the caps in the title? We can still fix this, but your insistence on a full RM discussion on each thing you over-capitalize has been a pain, and I haven't gotten around to this one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added some sources to Blackfriars massacre, since it had none, and moved it to lowercase again since the sources don't support an interpretation as a proper name. Let's see if anyone is bothered by this. Please don't claim that there was ever an examination that ended in a suggestion that it should be capitalized; it has never been looked at, except by me, and reverted by you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It was part of the mass RM. There was no consensus to move the page at that time. You have made a bold move yet again, skipping the discussion phase of WP:BRD, forcing through your own changes without regard for standard Wikipedia processes. This utter disregard for the RM procedure has not gone unnoticed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: First of all, I don't understand how you could construe a move discussion closed as "not moved" as meaning anything other than that there was no consensus to move the article. I've pinged the closer, so he can provided his opinion.

Second, I reverted your bold move per WP:BRD. The burden of evidence lies on the person making a bold change, not the person maintaining the status quo. An RM involving the article failed, just as in this case. There clearly wasn't any consensus for you to come back and do the same thing gain, modifying the redirect so that no one could challenge you. I did not "over-capitalise" anything. I did not write the article. I did not place it at the capitalised title. That was the stable title for years, and I simply restored it pending justification. Your attempt at gaining justification in the RM failed, and you never filed another. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course we all understand that. It was very explicit in his closing statement where he said we're still no closer to consensus. My point is that the capitalized Station left them even further from consensus that moving them to lowercase would. The lowercase station did at least once achieve consensus at the original Greenbelt move, if you recall, but then the RM got editted and the closer didn't notice and closed to uppercase by mistake. If you know a process for trying to get this fixed finally, please do speak up since my attempts (MR, RM, just doing it) are still being thwarted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already fixed. The move review determined that there was no problem. The second move request was closed as "not moved". Accept that consensus is against a move, and find something else to do for a while. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. No such determination was made, and the recent closer said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." It's very clearly unresolved; why won't you help fix what you agreed needed to be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to resolve the problem. That's why I'm suggesting that you be banned from page moves outside of the RM process. This will resolve all of our problems. It will allow the moves to be carried out, if they are justified, and it will allow the endless disruption of mass unilateral no-consensus page moves and reverts to end. I hope you realise that even when you are right, your approach destroys any credibility you might've had. Other editors have told you so. This needs to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for prioritizing my credibility over the real problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. What I see from the links here, and from other recent threads on this subject, is that Dicklyon's been attempting to impose his preferred style, regardless of what the vast majority of editors think and wish. It looks as if he cares more about The Truth on formatting/capitalisation/commas than about collaboration with others. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I have only been trying to correct the flawed RM that capitalized these station articles against the clear support for lowercase at the original RM (see this diff for how that RM got perverted before being closed wrongly). And it is not my preferred style; my preference would be to go back to before the attempt to meet the new WP:USSTATION guidelines, but my impression was that those guideline have consensus, so I was not going to fight that. Just looking for a way to fix the error, or get some attention on it from someone who can. Is anyone listening? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, and you filed a new RM for that. It was closed as not moved (emphasis not mine). So you shouldn't have moved the pages, yet you did anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you have said truth now. By any reasonable standard of normal process, I shouldn't have moved the pages, yet I did anyway. Acknowledged and explained in detail already. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To demonstrate the clear callousness and lack of WP:HEARing in Dicklyon's heart, one must only look at the Blackfriars Massacre article I mentioned above, now having been promptly moved to the lowercase in defiance of the previous RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder is there is any substantive objection to this move now that it has sources and it's more obvious that sources support lowercase. It has never been examined in an RM, has it? I can't find a place where anyone has mentioned it in an RM besides me, in a withdrawn RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide substance, not the other way around. Regardless, it was examined in an RM, the mass RM at the Watts Riots talk page. There was clearly no consensus for the move. The close wrote "closing without prejudice against reopening move requests individually or in small groups as described below. Editors who contributed to this discussion should be pinged to alert them to any subsequent discussions". Where did you notify all of the editors that participated in the mass move of the change to Blackfriars Massacre? Where is the discussion? How many times must you be reverted? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The substance is there, in the references. The discussion at a previous RM does not exist. Nobody but you has expressed an opinion against this move, and even you have not made any specific claim of a reason, as far as I can find, just a revert edit summary claiming "English failure". Most other massacres and riots were lowercases after being brought to RM; this one was not brought to an RM where it was discussed, just the original multi-RM that was withdrawn over objection of too many to look at. Such are simple facts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of editors took issue with the basis for all the moves, let alone this one. There was clearly no consensus, and regardless, you did not follow the process set about by the closer of the mass RM. Please revert your non-consensus change (again) and start an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody objected but you, and you've move warred it again to the uppercase title contradicted by the sources. Just saying... Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "war" anything. The stable title for years is the default title. There is no consensus for a move, and you've not followed any of the appropriate processes. You are ignoring the "D" in BRD, and you are ignoring the previous RM result. Read the RM, and read the objections of editors left and right. Read the statement by the closer. This behaviour by Dicklyon is unacceptable. He has now just moved the article again to his preferred title, contravening the RM, and has modified the redirect to prevent reversion. Dicklyon is so bold as to continue this behaviour amidst an ongoing AN/I thread on the same behaviour. This is a clear message to the community on Dicklyon's part. He doesn't care. He'll do what he wants, regardless of any processes, consensuses, guidelines, or policies. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support any and all restrictions to Dicklyon's mass moves, moves against consensus, and generally disruptive, callous and arrogant behavior toward other editors. Red Harvest (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I just left the following on Dicklyon's talk page:

:::4 2 move reverts in one day at Blackfriars massacre, plus "freezing" the move in place with an edit to the redirect, all while there is an active ANI thread about your moves, plus a long history of edit warring blocks, including two recent ones... something has got to give. I was all set to block you for 3 weeks until I saw CBW's comment here. Although I don't think your participation in a discussion about this is that important a consideration (because whether it's lowercase or uppercase doesn't matter), I'll defer to CBW's judgement.

However, you should be aware that I will block you from editing if you revert anyone else's page move (or revert their revert of your page move) on any page in the next 3 weeks (the duration of the intended block). So that's a 0RR restriction for page moves in April.

This is in lieu of blocking for the single incident mentioned above, not as closure of the wider-ranging ANI thread. Another admin, who spends more time reviewing and closing that thread, may determine that additional constraints are necessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the last sentence; this is not closing this thread, it's an FYI for people participating in this discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I'm an idiot and miscounted; it was actually 2 move reverts yesterday, the other 2 were in March. Apologies to Dicklyon. Still, I think 0RR is still justified, and I'm pleased to see Dicklyon has agreed to it on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would of course be much better to apply the same restriction symmetrically to the other warring party. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "warring party". I did nothing other than revert your change to the Blackfriars Massacre article, which was against a previous RM consensus. You still haven't started an RM to gain consensus. What's more, the particularly slimly way you started moving this article again after I made explicit mention of it above does not bode well for your character. I have never initiated mass moves to a preferred style. Never. All that I did here was revert a change that had no consensus per WP:BRD. I never made any bold moves. Zero. I am not the problem. You are. Do not attack the people that are forced to clean up your messes, as you did to those that were forced to restore tens of "S/station" pages in line with the RM result there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very "slimly" of me. As we discussed above, you had claimed to have "fixed" and "settled" something by reverting my move. You called attention to the state of it, which you had left broken. So I fixed it again, and said let's see if anyone besides you objects; you didn't give anyone a chance, so we still don't know. We could do an RM, but it seems like overkill for such a simple fix, don't you think? Not every simple fix needs to be made controversial, though you keep stalking me and doing that. Why do you want to capitalize things when so few sources do? Why do you assert "English failure" when things are rendered in the normal case used by sources? Like I said, you yank my chain, I yank back. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, or that it's not a bit disruptive, just that you are part of this war, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was resolved. After the first revert, an RM was properly opened by you. There was no consensus for a move, though the closer set out a process by which moves at individual pages could be carried out. You did not follow that process. Instead, you came back months later and tried to move the page unilaterally again, against consensus in the RM. All you needed to do was follow the procedure set out by the closer, namely starting an RM and notifying all participants in the mass RM. If you had done that, there would've been no problem. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. There was no consensus at that time, and the closer suggested a process that I did not follow for this one since the result would appear to be uncontroversial. I have now opened that RM; perhaps you're right and it will be controversial. Seems like just a waste of time, like the 26 ohters that needed RMs to fix the over-capitalization due to your objections, but let's see: Talk:Blackfriars Massacre#Requested move 9 April 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Dick has to learn that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is childish nonsense and he must learn to abide by consensus. His reading of guidelines is not automatically right, as he seems to think, nor is his behavior in any way collaborative. He should be required to use the RM process for any pageoves and abide by the consensus decision regardless if he agrees with it or not. And he must also not come back three months later again just to try to get the answer he wants if consensus disagrees with him. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to the childish nonsense part with respect to my recent behavior (or at least that being an acceptable interpretation of my out-of-process attempt to fix a problem), and to my reading of guidelines not necessarily being right. But as far as I know I have not dis-abided any consensus, nor come back to mess with something after consensus was achieved; if you think I have, please point to where. Nobody has shown such a case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban him for two hours, that'll teach him. As I've said before (under oath, with Goddess as my witness - or was that a dream?), Dicklyon does good work on Wikipedia, and when he stirs the pot the pot stays stirred. Some mistakes and an adamant attitude, sure, but in the process he has done hundreds if not thousands of good page moves which haven't been questioned, probably considered himself on a roll, and when a few 'Stop' signs pop up he plows right on through them. Given that he's likely learned a little more about 'Stop' signs, I would say that a ban of any length of time be limited to a very small length of time, and maybe ask him to not make controversial moves with a little wider perspective of what might be controversial. But a long ban, as has been implied? In almost all instances, give or take a few capital letters, Wikipedia is better with him here. Randy Kryn 00:06 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: No one suggested a "ban" in the sense that you're talking about. The only thing that was suggested was a ban on making page moves outside of the RM process, which would allow Dicklyon to continue to work in his chosen topic areas without the significant disruption caused by unilateral mass page moves. I do not want Dicklyon "banned" (blocked) either, and recognise his contributions to the project. That's exactly why this solution is the best, as it will ensure that he follows the proper procedures, making his edits beyond reproach. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good,'and never mind. Randy Kryn 00:12 10 April, 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban from moving pages outside of the RM process. Keri (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unilateral lockup - it is clear that there are several parties involved in the protracted tug of war, but two stand out in particular as being recalcitrant. It seems rather disingenuous that one party in the ongoing dispute is seeking to outmanoeuvre another by having a unilateral move ban imposed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Is this a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester? It looks like it. In my view, RGloucester is the disruptor—he has a personal dislike of downcasing, and has stated at MOS he wants to see upcased titles generally, contrary to our long-standing practice. This is taking the campaign far too far, RGloucester. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against downcasing, when it is done with community consensus. Without it, there is no justification. I cannot be a disruptor. I have not made hundreds of mass moves against results in RM discussions. I haven't. Never. Who's done that? That's Dicklyon. I have never capitalised an article. Not one. Who's removed capital letters from hundreds of articles, even ones where an RM result rejected that removal? That's Dicklyon. I do not want "upcased articles". There is no evidence of me ever having made such a change. I've started many articles with lowercased titles. All that I want is a level playing field, not one rigged by one editor and his associates. I hope other editors are aware that two above editors are part of a longstanding group, together with Dicklyon, and that they may well have had an influence on the present behaviour. I'd also like to inform that "Tony1's" canard about "longstanding practice" is incorrect. Please see the section below, where it is made apparent that the present wording was introduced unilaterally by Dicklyon in 2011, with no community consensus behind him. It just so happens that other two most strident editors at the time of that change were these two editors. I'd also note that both Tony and Dicklyon were parties to an ArbCom case related to such matters. There is a long pattern here, and it doesn't involve me. In so far as "harassment" is concerned, I was made aware of this thread because AN/I is on my watchlist, and because I had the Greenbelt station page on my watchlist. I had previously participated in the move review there, and in other USSTATION moves. There is a clear problem here. Editors can choose either to listen to Tony and his ilk, or one can look at what uninvolved administrators, such as Nyttend, have said. It is clear that the present problem has very little do with me, if anything. Do not let a group dominate Wikipedia processes. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to correct Tony a bit, while thanking him for his support. He is right that this is "a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester", as should be evident from the box at the top of this section, quoting his last failed attempt to shut me down. And he's right that RGloucester is on record for his "personal dislike of downcasing", as well as for statements of support from God in his effort to capitalize things he considers to be proper names. But the issue here is a bit different, since it's a case where he stated his explicit support for downcasing to fix the procedural error that capitalized these station titles, twice. The point is that even though he supported the substance of the case fixes that I did in my admittedly out-of-process moves, he took the opportunity of this incident report to pile on and complain about everything he could in another attempt to get me stopped from doing the sort of routine and usually uncontroversial moves that I usually do. If you look back at all my case-related RMs since December, you'll see that almost all were necessitated by his reverts of my routine fixes, and that of those the vast majority finally settled in favor of lowercase, since that's what both the sources and our MOS and most of our editors support. Have I taken him to task for challenging these and causing so much work by so many to fix what was so obvious? Well, maybe I complain a bit, but it's his God-given right to drag me through the process, so he does.

Anyway, having stipulated that the basic accusation of out-of-process moves is true, and having accepted a voluntary ban on page moves through the end of April, I'm back working on an RFC process to get this fixed the way both of us supported (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions where he now claims there's no problem). I have refuted the accusations of those who say I have made moves "against consensus", which nobody has been able to show; in the particular case of my out-of-process moves, there was a clear plurality for lowercase over uppercase, and enough other distractors that the closer declared it far from consensus, which is fair. But lacking consensus there, maybe we should go back to the last time we had anything like a consensus, which was unanimous here, and fix it. But my long-time enemies RGloucester and Born2cycle oppose fixing it, just to annoy me I think. What do you think? Should we go ahead and punish me some more for my efforts, or is working with these guys punishment enough? Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. Talk about WP:ASPERSIONS. My request at AE only "failed" because of the scope of the DS. The evidence was valid then, as now. I am not "stalking" anyone. If you stopped causing disruption across so many pages, we would not be here. As I asked before, what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves? You still haven't answered. The only thing that I can think is that you wanted this kind of dust up to occur. You must've known what was going to happen. Regardless, now that we're here, the evidence is clear. Your moves are neither routine nor uncontroversial. This not a pile on. It is not my fault that your behaviour has been below par, and blaming me for your own problems indicates a lack of responsibility on your part. You are wrong to say that most were "settled" in lowercase. Many were rejected, and others were supported by myself. In other cases, as with the Watts Riots move, you only succeeded after launching multiple RMs in quick succession, tiring out those that were forced repeatedly oppose you. You moved against consensus. The consensus in the RM was to "not move". If you wanted to move the articles, or disagreed with the closure, you should've filed a move review. What is so hard to understand? I agree, those articles should've been lowercased. However, consensus was against it. This is more ignoring consensus on your part. You've done this since day one, and there are pages of evidence as such. You have railed on about "zealots" and people who oppose your "routine" moves. I think you need to understand that your moves are not routine. The fact that most of them are carried out on the basis of one small line of text that you yourself inserted into the MoS without any kind of community backing says a lot about your character. If you want to make moves, please do so in the manner that everyone else is required to do. I may take my orders from God, but you don't take orders from anyone. You simply do what you want to do, regardless of consensus, and rail on about "zealots" (more recently) and about "domains" (in 2011). Never mind that the 2011-era comment was made right after you yourself inserted a no-consensus phrase in the MoS to give yourself a leg up in RMs. I wonder, at that point, who was actually part of a "domain" or a "local consensus"? The actual consensuses of editors at article talk pages, or the unilateral MoS change by Dicklyon? RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, he did not accept a "one month ban on page moves". He is referring to the restriction imposed by Floquenbeam, which is WP:0RR on unilateral page moves for one month. Floq explicitly said that this was not a substitute for the closure of this discussion. Again, the only thing being asked for here by me and other editors above is a temporary (maybe 6 months) ban on unilateral moves. Dicklyon would be free to move pages through the usual RM channels, as with everyone else. His attitude is clear, the evidence is clear. Let's curtail the disruption and get back to work. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an indefinite topic ban from page moves - absolutely fine to use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, regrettably. This is disruptive, and apparently it isn't going to stop. No problem with starting move requests through WP:RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTF do you mean by "it isn't going to stop". It has stopped some time ago. What are you referring to? Look at all the good-faith discussion and attempts to resolve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please continue engaging in good faith discussion and problem resolution, as well as the RM process. But the mass moves are disruptive and it's a pattern with you. Your comments suggest it's not going to stop, so unfortunately preventative steps need to be taken to preserve everyone's sanity.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite topic ban on page moves, RM is fine. Enormous amount of recent discussion (dozens of threads on boards and talkpages) related to this one user's single-minded approach to MOS issues. User has been blocked several times recently for this approach. I have yet to read a statement by Dicklyon accepting any part in this set of conflicts. It's always somebody else's fault, and editor seems often to unfairly characterize and personalize discussion. BusterD (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Buster, "dozens of threads on boards and talkpages" is not misbehavior. Especially on talk pages. Please either strike "boards" or say what you're referring to; if it's just RGloucester's harrassment campaign against me, that's not something I should be dinged for, don't you think? And if you read below you'll see that I have completely admitted to the wrongdoing of which I am accused, along with an explanation of why, which, yes, does include discussion of some faults of others. Are there parts of that account that you think are unfair or inaccurate? Please say; your vague accusations are annoying. As for the 2 blocks in the last 4 years, one was Dreadstar blocking me for reverting his hatting of a discussion I was trying to participate in (nothing to do with the current accusations; this edit in an RM discussion unrelated to MOS); the other was an edit war with Randy Kryn, short of 3RR, on some case issues that ending up being settled by the community the way I suggested; I'm not saying I should have done those things, but these blocks do not really support your accusation of "blocked several times recently for this approach". Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I offer into evidence Dicklyon's above response to my support of the proposal, personalizing and mischaracterizing my comments. My mention of the multitude of discussions relating to this user's choices was not intended to represent misbehavior, but instead clearly demonstrate the editor cannot accurately judge whether a move will be controversial without discussion. I have no reason to doubt the editor's good faith, but his judgment as it regards page moves has been shown to be poor. I'm not saying the editor can't move pages; I'm just saying he needs outside opinion in order to successfully make that call. BusterD (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's some evidence! Thanks for clarifying that you want to punish me for bad judgement and for engaging in RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I rest my case and appreciate Dicklyon's assistance in making it. My interest is neither personal nor punitive. My interest is in preventing all the move wars caused by his rapid, undiscussed pagemoves. I'm clearly not alone in my concern. For the sake of moving this discussion forward, I'll deign not to reply further to Dicklyon's hectoring. BusterD (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restriction from page moves without a RM discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for closure – Would an administrator please close this longer-than-needed mess? RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if a ban of some sort is enacted, an admin should log it to WP:EDR. Epic Genius (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves?

I thought this was asked and answered, but RGloucester insists in his tirade above that I explain myself better. So I'll try.

A couple of points:

1. I agree that these were out-of-process moves, a case of WP:IAR on my part, for sure, as I have amply admitted.
2. I am not sorry I did it; possibly I'm stupid about that, but I did it in good faith.

So what compelled me, and why am I not sorry? Am I just pushing a personal preference for lowercase? Did my move cause any trouble? Let's look closely.

What "compelled" me was a combination of a need and an opportunity:

• The need was based on the original corrupt RM discussion that moved these pages to uppercase, and the raft of other RMs that cited that one as precedent and closed without waiting for the move review, even though I had asked for a hold until then. The corruption was very simple: this edit by BDD converted the support for lowercase to look like support for uppercase.
• The opportunity was based on the recent RM that closed with no consensus, but in which by any measure the lowercase was favored over uppercase; the lack of consensus was specifically "weak" opposition from BDD and two seconding that, and from a couple who were evidently not paying attention and saw the situation as "not broken", and from those who wanted a different kind of name like before the moves to uppercase Station, rather than either upper or lower case. So now we have a situation where the support for lowercase is clearly still strong compared to uppercase, and a list of red links sitting there ready to implement the recent apparent consensus decided at WP:USSTATION; even RGloucester registered his support for fixing this to lowercase. So, there was an opportunity to just do the moves on most of them, which would implement the majority will on the case question, and see if anyone would object.

Given this need and opportunity, and lacking any prospect of getting the usual RM process to do anything sensible, I felt "compelled" to make the moves. So I did. And I also started conversations about what I did, both below the closed RM and on the corresponding naming conventions page, in case anyone wanted to either help or object. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what happened? At first, the only one who showed any notice was Epicgenious, who jumped in and helped, in his usual unaware naive way, causing trouble as he had done before in the other direction on 5 Jan. (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Determining_official_station_name]). By taking his consistency campaign to asking for "uncontroversial" moves at WP:RM he provoked WP's immune system to react to this out-of-process change before we could actually see whether anyone who cared about the articles would react. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Greenbelt "s/Station". So, busted! Here we are, having given RGloucester more ammo to complain about me, even though this time it is just a technical IAR type thing in implementing a fix that was favored by him and by the majority of those who expressed an opinion on the case problem.

What trouble was caused? Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. And a bunch of us spent a lot of time at AN/I. For that noise and distraction I apologize. But not for my attempt to fix a problem that has been oddly intractable so far.

And what next? Will all this attention bring any neutral and knowledgeable editors to actually look into the problem and try to help fix it? Or will I just be punished for trying? For all those who buy in to RG's bullshit and want to help him shut me down, consider contributing instead to a solution of the problem I was trying to work on, at the new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. However, for an editor as well versed in the RM process as you, I cannot see how you thought this was acceptable. I still cannot see what the problem is. Yes, I agree that the original RM was flawed. However, the move review determined otherwise, and that's that. The process did what it did, and the result should've been accepted. However, you filed a new RM. Not surprisingly, this resulted in more stalemate. Fine. There was no justification for the subsequent unilateral move. You must understand, Wikipedia has a long history of successive requested move proposals, usually with a significant period of time between them. Your friend Born2Cycle has often been a "participant" in such discussions, so imagine you must be aware of them. You never wait, however You simply ram through your changes, and that's your problem. You think of the articles' "incorrect" capitalisation as an urgent problem that must be dealt with now, when it isn't. If you actually followed the standard processes, your moves would never receive this much attention. If you waited a few months and opened an RM, perhaps a new consensus would develop. Perhaps, in the meantime, you could go to WP:RS/N, where they'd certainly verify that station sign pylons should not be used for these matters. There are a thousand potential options in the Wikipedia toolkit, and most people follow them. Why can't you? That's exactly why the proposed restriction is ideal. All it does is ensure you follow the procedures. If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me. There will be no ramming, merely the usual Wikipedia processes. That's what we need here, that's why I've proposed, and that's why I believe it should be enacted. It will do no great harm to you. In fact, I imagine it will assist you in your drive. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the move review determined otherwise" is false. Stop making shit up. See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December. I withdrew it after two months of not being able to find an admin to close it, after trying at requests for closure for a month or more, and after Calidum complained that it was still open when we tried to move on. It was after another two months of not being able to get an admin to close the new RM that I made my "stupid" move. And "If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me" is just a lie. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reviewing that Move Review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December, I see that the original closer proposed: "I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having 'no consensus' default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasu". Now I feel doubly stupid, as I could have just asked the new and old closers to look at this and do the right thing. I'll ping them and see if they will now, which would resolve all this. @BD2412: @Dekimasu:. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It "determined otherwise" in the sense that it was not closed in favour of our view on the matter. Leaving it be would've been a wiser decision. As I said above, patience is a useful virtue in these matters. As for the words of Dekimasu, I'm not sure anyone agreed to that. If it were to be done, it should've been introduced at the start of the new RM. We can see what others say on that matter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I treasure your hindsight about what would have been wiser and what some good virtues are, but why not just take this opportunity to support a resolution? Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. OHMYGOSH!!! I have contributed to the problem?!?! I really didn't know that!! Wait, I thought it was supposed to just be a RM two RMs four RMs and three RfCs!!!! Total time spent moving the articles both times: 30 minutes. Total time wasted at AN/I instead of doing something useful: countless hours. Last I checked, this was just a guideline, not a policy, so while it should be followed, it doesn't need to be enforced like the end of the world. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed by moving things without knowing what was going on. First to uppercase, then to lowercase, then you felt compelled to go to uppercase again. Without having any opinion of your own, you caused a lot of thrashing in the pursuit of consistency, for the sake of your template. No big deal, just pointing out that I don't feel sorry for the time you wasted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out the specific phrase how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. No big deal, just pointing out that you still moved against decision. Epic Genius (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, as I admitted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing error?

By the way BD2412, though I do appreciate your good-faith effort in closing this thing at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015, the longest ever backlogged RM item, probably, that nobody wanted to touch, I do think you got it wrong when you said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." If you look closely, I think you'll see that we are indeed quite a bit closer on how to fix the chaos that BDD created with this ubelievably stupid and out-of-process edit back in December that caused that RM to close to the opposite case of what most of its supporters supported. In the recent RM, you can neglect the ones who were complaining about their dislike of the WP:USSTATION guideline more generally, and take it to just be about the case fixing question as intended (that is, ignore the objections of DanTD and SmokeyJoe, as well as the spurious procedural objection by Calidum, as orthogonal to the question that the RM is about). Then consider the objections to lowercasing. BDD himself wrote "If a bunch of editors agree with me, cool, but otherwise, I don't want the closer giving this comment too much weight." This was followed by two more "Weak Oppose per BDD" (one even struck out his Oppose to change it to Weak Oppose). The other three opposes seem to prefer uppercase, but give no coherent reasons; just "NOTBROKEN" and "local differences". Obviously "NOTBROKEN" means they haven't been paying attention, since the process that capitalized these was massively broken.

Six respondents supported fixing the case error per WP:USSTATION, backing out of the original corrupted RM. On the basis of either numbers or strength of argument, it is clear that we are closer to a resolution to fix this.

In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic.

So, DB2412, any ideas what to try next to get out of this mess? Are you suggesting we just leave the massive breakage that BDD caused by changing case in an RM after people had supported his original proposed move to lowercase station? I did try to modify WP:USSTATION to say we would just leave it broken, but that got reverted as the pointy snarkiness that it was. Maybe you can come up with something better, like revising your close to put an end to this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate way to challenge an RM result is to file a move review, not to write essays at AN/I or unilaterally overturn the closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and we saw how well that worked last time, when after weeks of comments and weeks of request for closure we abandoned it since that WP:MR is a deserted wasteland where nothing happens. Are you suggesting I try that again? I could, but I'm told it's polite to give the closer a chance to rethink the close first, so here we are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that you follow the established processes. If you had questions about the closure, you should've asked the closer on his talk page. You should not've moved 80 some-odd articles against that closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of should'ves. I already confessed to ignoring some rules and making a bunch of out-of-process moves. So if you have no substantive reason to think anything I did was actually a bad thing, and it's just about following rules, move along. You did after all support all these moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone argues for something per support in a guideline, it is perfectly reasonable to counter by criticising the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, and I am not objecting to your objection. Just noting that since it was orthogonal to the question, it does not necessarily detract from resolving that problem; it still leaves the problem you object to, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. OK. Good. There's a lot of fuss, and I am not entirely sure what fuss this one is. You pinged me, but I am not sure if you are asking for my input? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, there were legitimate arguments on both sides of the proposal, including citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that "Station" was part of the proper name of the locations. Where the policy allows for flexibility in light of the evidence, and the evidence is inconclusive, then you need consensus to effect a change. In this case, there were eight editors supporting the proposed move and eight editors opposing the proposed move, which is hardly consensus for any change of the status quo. bd2412 T 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you may have hallucinated the "citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that 'Station' was part of the proper name of the locations"; if I missed it, can you point it out? But my main point is that we ARE much closer to a consensus to fix the problem that BDD's outrageous out-of-process subterfuge created, even if there's not quite a clear consensus yet; which is why I attempted to resolve it by an out-of-process fix. Thanks again for closing it anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, please tone down your language. You seem to be the only one fuming about my "outrageous" "subterfuge", which in fact was a good faith edit based on the course of that original discussion. Please keep the pejoratives to yourself. You'd think I was committing BLP violations left and right, not preferring a different capitalization than you, where both forms are acceptable. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to suggest that I thought it was not done in good faith, or that it was subterfuge, but it was invisible to the closer who didn't see the switcharoo there. It was outrageously out-of-process to convert the support for lowercase station to look like support for uppercase, and it caused the mess that we are still unable to find a way to recover from. Yes, I am the only one fuming, and I'm only fuming because I'm weak and fall for RGloucester's baiting and thwarting my every attempt to make progress. I think maybe I'll just start ignoring the station mess, and let you all live with this stupid thing you did that became precedent for continuing overcapitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, if you really feel that these articles should be moved, file another RM or move review. Don't unilaterally move the pages, and don't move them against consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hear how stupid you're being with those admonitions? Obviously the RM process did not and cannot be the fix here, due to the continued confusion caused by people who want to use it to discuss other problems than the one I am trying to fix. And the MR process never does anything. And I would never move pages against a consensus; never have, never will, so stop implying I would or did unless you're going to show where. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for me, I put in earbuds while editing Wikipedia. And a non-consensus is still a consensus to "not do anything". Nothing to do unless you want to have a new, useless, protracted RfC about what the new names for the articles should be. Epic Genius (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, a failure to find consensus is not a consensus to "not do anything"; never has been that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closer has made clear that "not moved" means "not moved". There was no consensus in favour of move, meaning that a move should not've been carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed and stipulated that I shouldn't have made those moves, per normal processes. But I did not move against any consensus. There was no consensus to move, and no consensus to not move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read where it said "not moved" in the RM? This means that there was since there was no consensus to move, there was a lack of consensus at all, which follows that the next decision would be not to move. Epic Genius (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the earlier question, it was noted in the discussion by User:BDD that the fully capitalized form is used on the pylons, for example the one pictured to the right. Whatever interpretation may be given to this, it is a legitimate basis to believe that this is the proper full name of the station. bd2412 T 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, "Federal Triangle" is the only actual proper name. The station named "Federal Triangle" may have the "Station" in its name capitalized in some sources, lowercase in other sources, and missing altogether in yet other sources. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, hard to fathom that anyone fell for or repeated that idea that the pylon makes it a proper name. What next, articles on Police Station, Nurse Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, Eye Wash Station, etc. that I pointed out on signs at the USSTATION RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said at WT:USSTATION. Nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're saying that appearing capitalized on a sign does not make them proper names? What was I thinking? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. This is not the correct venue for discussing the RM result. Either file a new RM or file a move review. Do something. Discussing it here accomplishes nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Do something" is what brought us here. Why don't you open the next RM or MR? You want this fixed, too, don't you, as you said in a few places already? Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic. To be clear, no I was not "frantic", I just wasn't notified of the RM's closure and rushed to correct my error. The mass renaming has little to do with the template, just that it creates a lot of holey redirect loops for no reason. Epic Genius (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

User:RGloucester, I started a new section because this was about my actions rather than yours or Dicklyon. If I had seen this edit that User:Dicklyon made then they too would have got a follow up warning. As to being templated I really don't care if people want to use templates or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Dicklyon is the origin of this whole calamity

Having read a comment by Randy Kyrn, I decided to do a little digging and see how the present lead of MOS:CAPS came to be. I was shocked at what I found. The sole justification used in many of Dicklyon's moves and elsewhere was added by him, was never put to a community RfC, and clearly had no consensus in the relevant but brief talk page discussion. I would remind editors that the WP:CONSENSUS policy requires a very strong consensus for changes community guidelines. How the heck can what's been going on here be tolerated? It seems as if subterfuge has been ongoing since at least 2011. Dicklyon has abused Wikipedia to promote his own preferences. He likes to claim that an item must be "100%" capitalised to remain that way, as that's how he defines "consistent". Guess what, he's the one that authored the sufficiently loose "consistent" phrasing, so as to ensure that he would always have success. This is gaming the system, if I've ever seen it. Please, tell me what there is to be done about this. These mass moves, carried out by him, are based in a sentence written by him, one that was never approved by community consensus. This pattern of behaviour shows right through. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion that you linked, you'll see that I never advocated a 100% sources criterion. "Consistently" was clearly accepted as meaning significantly more than "majority", however, as should be clear there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "clearly accepted" as anything. There was no community discussion on this major change to the guideline, nor any advertisement. Even in that individual discussion itself, ignoring community consensus, there was no clear consensus to implement the change, and no consensus as to what "consistently" means. In other words, it is just loose enough to allow you get away with whatever the heck you want, to the point where it might as well be a "100%" requirement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a major change. The avoidance of unnecessary capitalization dates from 2007 or earlier. This minor change took out an odd section inserted in 2009 by permabanned editor Pmanderson, as the discussion link clearly shows. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major change. The question is not whether we should avoid unnecessary capitalisation, as everyone would agree with that principle. The question is: "What is unnecessary?" Your change introduced the "consistency in sources" wording, which was never present before. In the Pmanderson 2009-era wording, the lead merely said to consult Wikipedia:Proper names. The addition of the "general principles" section took place here, and merely said to "follow common usage", which is a much more sensible and usual wording. Prior to that change, the page said nothing about "consistency in sources" or "common usage". In fact, the only guidance about what was a proper noun was "consult Wikipedia:Proper names". Your change completely changed the guideline, and also essentially depreciated another guideline, i.e. Wikipedia:Proper names, which is no longer even linked on the MOS:CAPS page. This is a travesty. It is pure gaming the system. The fact that no one has caught this until is amazing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor change, and a measured compromise between the anti-MOS types like Pmanderson who favored "follow the sources" and the more theoretical and principled types like Noetica who favored a more strict determination of what's a proper name. Noetica tried to change it later, in a time of relative turmoil, and found a backlash for it. Pmanderson fought him via a sock puppet after being banned, and htat didn't work out well for him. The "consistently capitalized in sources" concept was discussed on the talk page, before and after the change, and found no real objection. I think it was a pretty successful compromise, though I agree it has its problem in its ambiguity of interpretation by people like you who take 50% to be "consistently", which is clearly not how it was interpreted in the conversation at the time. Feel free to propose some other criterion for how to decide when caps are unnecessary, but do not accuse me of anything but implementing consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the community RfC for this change? What uninvolved person assessed consensus on the talk page? I'd say that any of the administrators here who looked at that discussion would not've closed it in favour of this change. It clearly did not meet the level of consensus required to change a major guideline. It was not "measured", it was not a "compromise", it was not "minor". The fact that it is not "minor" is made apparent by sheer amount of unilateral moves you've made with solely that wording as your justification. You have gamed the system from then. You added a change without any kind of consensus, certainly not the kind required for a change to the guidelines, deprecated another guideline, and then went on to make tons and tons of unilateral page moves on the basis of that change over the course of years, using that wording as your sole justification. There was no consensus for this change, and it should be removed. The old version should be restored. There is no way that this can be viewed as anything other than an attack on the Wikipedia community and consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The actual calamity was started here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I'd rather the two of you either kept it on your user talk pages, or avoided each other. When it starts getting out into project space, it becomes disruptive. — Ched :  ?  11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with me. I posted it here so that all the project could see the travesty that has been caused by Dicklyon, since 2011. What will the community do to fix it? The evidence is plain to see. The system has been rigged. Please, administrators, fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester—I wish you would desist from this incessant campaign against Dicklyon. It is astounding how far you will go to discredit factual evidence concerning sources ... and then the meaning of the opening of MOSCAPS ... anything to "win" your argument. Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't an argument. I don't need one. The evidence is clear. The system has been rigged with no consensus changes to the MoS. I'm not the one mass moving pages to decapitalised/capitalised titles. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some further review of the previous close

User:Dicklyon has pointed out that the December 2014 close, while based on a consensus for the pages to be moved away from their titles at the time, did not establish a clear consensus as to whether the target pages should capitalize "station". I would propose a broader RFC to determine that question, which does not assume a preference for either. Granted, those are a bit harder to close, but there should not be a presumption of a default were there is no longstanding title. I know that sometimes it seems like we retread certain issues tirelessly, but there is value to getting the most thoroughly vetted result. bd2412 T 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revert all this mess and move back to the titles as of December 2014, before the RfC, then host another RfC. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the fairest and soundest way to do things. bd2412 T 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be consistent with the RFC ongoing at WT:USSTATION#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, but not with the result of the original move and move review.

I went further and pointed out the words of the original RM closer, in that Move Review. He wrote:

Closer comments: I am not able to be very active at the moment, so it's good that so much discussion was able to be done here; I don't mind that this wasn't discussed with me beforehand. At any rate, I do not have particularly strong feelings about this. The proposal was changed with 5.5 days left in the request, and no one objected over those 5.5 days, but it does seem like it would have been helpful to ping the editors who had already expressed opinions. If a single page was involved, relisting would seem to have been an option, but moving all the pages back and reopening in this case seems like a lot of work for questionable benefit. I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having "no consensus" default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasu

If I had recalled at the right time and pointed this out to BD2412 immediately after his close, he probably would have amended as no consensus and thus revert to the original intent of the previous RM, which would have fixed things. But I spaced it, as we all know by now. So, we have these options:

• BD2412 can summarily amend his close based on this. Easy; then we're done.
• We can do a move review of BD2412's close and see if we agree that it should be amended; harder, as move reviews seldom go anywhere and have a hard time getting closed.
• We can complete the RFC I started at WT:USSTATION#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions and implement whatever fix is most supported there; this takes an admin with a willingness to help. It looks like it might be a revert to the original parenthetical (WMATA station) names as Epicgenius suggests above.
• We can complete the RFC and based on what we learn, then open another RM discussion. This is unlikely to have a different outcome from before, since there's a strong consensus to move, but a mix of which directions; nobody likes the present mess (nobody being primary B2C).

So, suggestions? Actions? BD2412, if you take step 1 we're done for now, and then Epicgenius and others who want to roll back USSTATION completely can have a clean go of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to "roll back" the USSTATION guidelines. The matter of whether the articles should have upper or lowercased titles is separate. Deprecating the USSTATION guidelines would require a widely-advertised RfC on that question alone. As such, this hasn't happened. Keep in mind that RfCs are supposed to run for thirty days. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contemplating an RFC as to those guidelines, but as to the treatment of stations in the DC Metro system. Despite the absence of a clear consensus in the move discussion, I am uncomfortable with the fiat of Wikipedia deeming these the proper names of these stations without really having a clear consensus one way or the other. To be clear, I don't think a change to the close of the previous discussion is warranted, as the close properly described the absence of consensus to move. I think what is needed is a new and broader discussion, with all of the relevant evidence being laid out beforehand, and no presumption being given in favor of one title or the other. I also do not think that it is necessary to move these titles to any particular waypoint during such a discussion, so long as participants know that the current titles hold no precedential value. bd2412 T 18:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no support for those titles as the proper names of the station; that's why a fix is needed. You are in a position to summarily fix it per the originally unanimous support at the first RM and the opinion of the original closer that it should be fixed to lower case if no consensus was found for upper case; that is, amending the outcome as suggested would be consistent with your finding of no consensus. Very few would object if you fixed it at this point (just B2C maybe). Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that an RfC is an acceptable idea, but that the likely result would be what we've already seen: a stalemate. It might be better if USSTATION was simply amended to prefer solely capitalised or solely lowercased "station" appendages. Note that the British station guidelines specify solely lowercased appendages, even for major stations like Edinburgh Waverley. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is necessarily sound policy to impose consistent capitalization on things that are inconsistent in the real world. If one system uses "Station" as part of the proper name of its stations, and another does not, then that should be an overriding consideration. Are these British station guidelines to which you refer guidelines within Wikipedia, or guidelines propounded by the British government? bd2412 T 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are Wikipedia guidelines. The government has no such regulations. We use universal lowercase of the "railway station" appendage. This may be because British railway stations do not traditionally include "railway station" as part of their official/proper names, i.e. "Edinburgh Waverley" is usually referred to as "Edinburgh Waverley", "Paddington" is referred to as "Paddington", &c. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is meaningless for the US. Any guideline that calls for decapitalizing Pennsylvania Station is completely foolish. It's simply is a proper noun in universal usage and the word "Station" must be capitalized of else Wikipedia is completely out of step with actual usage and looks dumber than a box of rocks. That's why a universal imposition one way or the other is I'll advised at best. That's why the USSTATION guideline is written the way it is. With that said, we really have an issue here of interpreting sources, not the phrasing of the guideline. But we also have an issue where in retrospect the guideline was adopted without road enough input from interested editors. At least that's what is seems based on the pushback. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Pennsylvania Station" in the DC Metro system. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean, BD? People will talk for the sake of talking, will spread negativity and hypotheticals all day, but will not actually object if you just do the fix that was clearly in order in the last RM and MR and again more supported than any other alternative in the recent RM. Just do it and put us out of our misery. In fact, when I just did it myself, nobody actually objected to the fixed titles, just to the process by which it came about. Am I right? As far as I see reviewing the complaints above, none were about the title being moved to lower case; the main complainant, RGloucester, was among those explicitly supporting those moves. The only complaint was that I did it without consensus. But if you look back at the history, especially in light of what Dekimasu said, you'll see that the real move against consensus was when they went to upper case, and as the closer who made that error he suggested reverting to lowercase if no consensus could be achieved in this second RM discussion. So that's where are we. You can fix it, and everyone will be happy (except those who would prefer to roll back USSTATION altogether, but that's an orthogonal issue). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make the discussion mean something other than what it meant, and I can't go back and "fix" the 2014 closer's close. I can only suggest a path that goes forward. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could easily follow the original closer's instruction to fix the caps error if the new RM did not result in a consensus to capitalize, which it did not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [92]
• [93]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_X
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CollXtion_I
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catch_(Allie_X_song)

WordSeventeen is continuously misrepresenting guidelines and persists that no primary source of information, even without interpretation, is not acceptable. Does not even bothering to check what he's saying; he keeps calling pages with over a thousand characters "trivial mentions", and will not cede to anyone's argument against that. Keeps calling archive.org radio interview archives and album art archives self-published material or unreliable/unverifiable (as evidenced in some of the brief summaries for reason of editing pages.) He doesn't even bother replying to me now. SanctuaryX (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first of those diffs (it was too treacly for me to want to look at the rest) so this should be taken as a throwaway comment not resulting from a careful examination. It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article. I don't think WordSeventeen's approach as described by SanctuaryX is ideal since I'd say there's a neutrality problem rather than a sourcing problem per se with those edits. The stuff I saw isn't contentious in the BLP sense so I don't think overboard demands for sourcing provenance are called for. The issue is that secondary sources document not only the factuality of the info presented, but also its notability (notability is what makes it encyclopedic instead of WP:IINFO). Under strict interpretation of the WP:RS criteria, primary sources are ok if they fill in details of topics whose notability is confirmed by secondary sources existing about them, that should also be cited. In practice if a primary source has something non-contentious that readers are likely to find relevant, I'm ok with using them without a secondary source in place, as long as the material's presentation in the article is brief and neutral. If that article were written more neutrally I'd say it is ok to use bits of those interviews as long as the info is uncontentious and there's not significant questions about authenticity or relevance. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is I just need to make it a bit less promotional sounding? Does that mean I should undo all the edits he did to remove citations etc and then fix the gushiness? The second diff only highlighted that I an archive.org page (for archiving of cover art) was removed for being "a primary source" (even though it wasn't). So which article did you find to be not brief and neutral? The page for Allie X, CollXtion I, or Catch? Or all of them? And so do I just let the AfD proposal play out? I tried to include as many secondary source information as possible, and I tried to keep the primary source things to straight-forward facts. SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) As mentioned I only looked at the first diff, which is about Allie X. 2) All articles should be written neutrally, which means not promotional at all, not "a bit less promotional". 3) I didn't look at the edit history except for the one diff I mentioned, but the current state of the article is in my opinion bad, full of irrelevant info like what brand of energy drinks the person likes. So yes, I'd say that that should be cleaned up. 4) Looking at the diff about the archive.org cover art, I'd say the main problem is that the archive.org link doesn't actually document the statement that sites it (it doesn't say when or where Allie X began her career). If the cover actually says that (say on the liner notes) and the photo showed it, I'd say it is ok under WP:ABOUTSELF since that particular info is not promotional etc. 4a) As a separate matter, if an album is notable (WP:NMUSIC) then we generally want the cover art to be uploaded to the Wikipedia server rather than linked from an external site. 5) If AfD's are in progress, then they will likely be decided completely on the basis of secondary RS, so the best thing to do is add more of those to the articles. Cleaning up the cruft is a mostly-separate issue but of course that should be done too. I hope this helps. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice 50.0.205.75 that you mention, "It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article." Another editor User:Miniapolis at the AFD for CollXtion I at [94] stated "Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)" and to quote User:Miniapolis again this time at the AFD for Catch (Allie X song) at [95] comments, "Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. User:Miniapolis". I find it ironic that the OP of this thread first named the thread AllieX but soon changed it to "Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?" In my view it is the publicity blitzer or blitzers that are attempting to game the system, and get free advertising right during the window when the debut EP is supposed to be released. For some reason the release date keeps getting pushed back. See here: [96]. Perhaps the publicity blitzers are waiting for the AFD's to close and get this messy ANI locked down. Who knows? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is but that was beyond presumptuous. Stop whatever your lttle vendetta is against me, please. The only reason I changed the name is because I misread what the guide said to name your complaint as. I reviewed to make sure I followed protocol. And for your information the EP is already released. Now stop playing the victim, and start following your own constantly spewed Assume Good Faith.SanctuaryX (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the OP SanctuaryX is in violation of WP:BULLY by the use of hidden text in an unacceptable fashion on the article Allie X. Please see this diff here: [97] OP has left hidden messages within the source code that say in short, DO NOT REMOVE, DO NOT DELETE, and DO NOT DELETE. The full hidden messages can be viewed in the diff here: [98]. The OP has even gone so far as to leave a hidden message that says, VICE Do not remove. Have contacted VICE editor to dissuade erroneous claims of unreliability. --> That is really a little scary. The OP has WP:OWN and WP:BULLY issues with the Allie X article to the point of being disruptive at the Allie X article, as well as its current AFD, and also at the other three articles which are cited at the top of this ani report, and their respective current AFD's. I would ask that the OP user SanctuaryX be blocked to prevent further disruption at the three articles and their respective AFDs. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize WP:BULLY removing them now. I apologize, that was in very poor taste. Though did I really violate it?"If there is any information that is constantly added, removed, or modified in any other way, and there may be a better alternative, hidden text may be used to let others know of that alternative. In this case, it should mention the alternative and point to a discussion, if one exists." I just didn't want you removing it again since it complied with WP:ABOUTSELF, which is something I noted and you failed to mention as well. Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you. I just hope that whatever administrator sees what's really going on here. Though I really do not appreciate you leaving out portions of that quoted text to make yourself look better. And there's nothing scary about me asking the editor of Vice magazine if they fact check, etc. And I have no OWN issues, anyone who looks around a bit will see I have told you many times I claim no owner ship. I poorly chose the word "my" in reference to an article to describe that I had substantially contributed. There was no intent of claiming ownership. I've told you this at least five times now. Please get over it.SanctuaryX (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I have bundled all three AfDs (not to mention !voting "keep"). And although I agree that SanctuaryX didn't use quite the proper method in ensuring that the articles would be retained (and I think they will), you really should let the whole thing go, WordSeventeen. That being said, we should let the AfD run its course; I don't think there's anything else ANI can do about this issue. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: @WordSeventeen: @Ansh666: I feel as if wordseventeen is in violation of WP:HA and WP:BULLY. He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again. It was VERY blatantly stated that they had been consolidated, and by Erpert, NOT ME. This random person, Ansh666, reinstated the AfD on Catch and CollXtion I for no reason. I have no evidence that Ansh666 is a sockpuppet but that makes me curious. This is getting to be ridiculous and very demeaning. I feel like WordSeventeen needs to be blocked from these articles. He is very clearly singling me out for no good reason. Please, someone who can actually do something, stop this nonsense. I am literally begging. Stop this before it gets any more deranged.SanctuaryX (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even when related AfDs are bundled, you generally aren't supposed to alter the AfD template, SanctuaryX—although I do understand what you were trying to do, and I do also see that it wasn't done maliciously. That being said...WordSeventeen, you really do need to leave him/her alone. (BTW, I doubt Ansh666 is a sock of anyone; s/he was just returning the template to its previous state.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in short form here, diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&diff=655786072&oldid=655700312

Also, please review this statement here at ani from user SanctuaryX:

He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

Yup, " if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

It is just more disruption caused by user sanctuaryX. I posted a warning about ALTERING a AFD template. Here is the warning on her page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to ALTER Articles for deletion notices, as you did at Catch Allie X (song), you may be blocked from editing. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not alter Articles for deletion notices from articles. as you did with Catch (Allie X song) Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead.

At the Catch (Allie X song) article the user SanctuaryX altered the AFD tag, changing the article name, date, and timestamp.

Later, User Ansh666 edited and adjusted the time stamp and numerical date to the original, and left the edit summary of (replacing tag) See the diff here: [1] WordSeventeen (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) diff [99][reply]

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: @WordSeventeen: Ok I'm saying the point is I never DID touch the AfD. It was still there. I did nothing. And if you notice his diff doesntactually link to anything . Look at the diff. This is my last edit compared to Ansh666. The AfD notice is STILL THERE and it is unchanged when compared to the original AfD nomination by WordSeventeen. [[100]] This next edit is WordSeventeens last edit compared to Ansh666's to the page. Notice that its got the same information on the notice as mine. [[101]] And finally notice on this last diff that his first edit to the page, this edit is the one in which he nomjnated it for deletion and it is compared to Ansh666's. The AfD notice was never changed by anyone except Ansh666. [[102]] His behavior is obviously malicious and full of lies, because while he could have made an honest mistake with not including the diff, if he had actually ever LOOKED AT THE DIFFS he wouldve noticed I didnt change ANYTHING on the AfD.He is now trying to extort me by saying I am personally attacking him on this noticeboard. He is again telling me to stop under threat of being blocked from editig on wikipedia. Well guess what? I'm not letting you extort me into letting you get away with your bad behavior. And he keeps cherry picking what I said. Like saying above in his quote that "If I ever try to remove the AfD for Catch or CollXtion I again," as the whole quote, even though immediately after I said that, I refuted that I ever edited it and explicitly stated the only edits ever dome to the AfD were done by Erpert, NOT by me. He is trying to slander me now. and Ansh666 didnt just change things for no reason, he also reopened each individual AfD and made them separate again. Why is no one stopping this? I haven't done anything wrong and everyone is just letting him try and screw me over.SanctuaryX (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I may: SanctuaryX never touched the AfD tags. WordSeventeen put up three different nominations, two of which were closed by Erpert procedurally in order to bundle the AfD. I changed the tag on those two articles such that they pointed not at the individual closed AfDs, but the main one which is still ongoing, per the instructions at WP:BUNDLE. (IMO, the discussions should have stayed unbundled, as songs, albums, and artists have different criteria, but that's besides the point.) Hopefully this clears things up. ansh666 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would a mutual I-ban be out of the question? SanctuaryX (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Wikipedia that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Wikipedia as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. They do not even understand the basics, and are brainwashed/too emotionally connected with these topics to edit sensibly. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I might consider restricting the ban to main space if the user adheres to his comment below and if others agree. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: at his block log I see only "17:58, 22 July 2005 Angela unblocked JoeM (Jimbo has unbanned JoeM. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026676.html)" Where can I see the original block and any discussion explaining the reason for the block? Also, what's up with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JoeM? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban at this time, based on JoeM's response below. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per below. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Wikipedia exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Wikipedia's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

The community forbids the editor JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you are not in a position to judge the reason he posted as he did and whether or not it was due to emotional instability, and you should not be doing so. Squinge (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming good faith, that was the best I could come up with. You got any better motives? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban at this time based on JoeM's response above, which essentially seems to be a voluntary topic ban for an unspecified period. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but ease of enforcement should not be our priority. Our priority should be getting an editor to edit constructively with the best good faith we can muster and with the minimum of sanctions. And if they're willing to do what the community wants anyway, there's no need for force. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that we've given him enough rope? This is merely a fallback to prevent him from drawing all the rope. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Wikipedia have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  A one-day block wouldn't be appropriate if he's not editing problematically now, as blocks are only for preventative purposes and it wouldn't be preventing anything. (And there's no such thing as a "block on topics mentioned" anyway - you're either blocked or you're not.) Squinge (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from archive. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk)
• Oppose per Joe's response. You cannot hold what happened 12 years ago against him - if anything, I'm stunned he remembers his handle and password. What Joe does need is a firm warning (which he has received and acknowledged the lesson learned here) and, in my opinion, a WP:MENTOR. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Overly harsh proposal. JoeM has demonstrated that he has taken heed of the feedback given to him. I think with an appropriate mentor JoeM will be able to contribute to his areas of interest but within the acceptable bounds. Mbcap (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I think broader wording may be desirable (see my comment above). It is clear from Joe's response above that he does not understand why a change of behavior is necessary ("too bold to build consensus" - he isn't a brave maverick, he's just editing disruptively). Moreover, I think his absence for the past week cannot be taken as evidence that he will edit neutrally in the future; rather, to me it shows that he either edits disruptively, or doesn't edit at all. Topic-ban him and see if he finds anything to do when he can't push his agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't see any JoeM edits that improve articles, and his edits create unnecessary work for those who would improve articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn and Jtydog have introduced Original Research (repeatedly) into Scrambler therapy, despite being warned that the material is OR.

• At 08:08 April 8th, Alexbrn first introduced the OR here.[103] This material is OR because neither of the sources cited discuss the strength of the evidence - they simply say whether the Scrambler system is effective or not. Please note, there has been some discussion about the actual terms used ("good" or "strong") but this is a red-herring - the point remains that the 2 sources do NOT discuss the strengths of the research, and that any comment on the strength of research has been arrived at by the editor, i.e. it is OR.

• At 16:08, April 9th, I made it clear why this is OR material.[104]

• At 16:21, Alexbrn described the sentence as "paraphrasing", however, the error of this way of thinking was explained to them at 16:42 here.[105]

• At 17:41, I removed the OR material leaving the edit summary "Original Research".

• At 17:43, Alexbrn reverted to include the OR text.[106]

• At 17:48, it was again explained this was OR.[107].

• At 18:16, I again removed the OR leaving the edit summary "Deleting original research"[108]

• At 18:19, Jtydog reverted to include the OR material.[109]

These are extremely experienced editors and for them to intentionally and repeatedly introduce Original Research in a medical article against WP:MEDRS guideleines and in such a disruptive way is extremely serious. They should both be issued with at least warning and a more serious action against Alexbrn as this was a repeated action on their part.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) __DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations relevant to this posting:

• Jytdog was not notified (I've done it now).
• The OP appears to be canvassing.[110]

Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow..this is so extremely misrepresentative. Jytdog has asked me not to communicate with them on their Talkpage. I was aware that raising an ANI meant I had to inform the users. I informed you. I was unsure what to do regarding Jytdog so I immediately contacted the teahouse page and got an answer. This is all shown here.[111] It also shows that at 20:14 I asked the answering editor to contact Jtydog about the ANI. At 21:41, Jtydog was informed of the ANI[112]. You are misrepresenting me completely. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this sounds like pretty harsh sanctions you're suggesting for what seems like an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The abstract of the first article says "further larger, placebo-controlled trial data are needed to confirm or refute their effectiveness." I think one could argue either way over whether that is equivalent to "no good data is available to determine whether it is effective". Couldn't you guys split the difference and paraphrase the source as "Additional trial data is needed to determine whether this is effective?". Have we gotten that polarized here? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 20:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that we summarise with "mixed results" here[113]. Apparently this was not OK and Jytdog reverted it.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small pilot study specifically tested the MC5-A Calmare device on 16 patients with refractory CIPN. The device, which is hypothesized to provide ‘‘nonpain” information to the cutaneous nerves to block the effect of pain, showed an improvement in pain scores (59% reduction at 10 days, with no reported adverse effects. However, a placebo-controlled, randomized, small (14 total patients) trial, published only as an abstract, was unable to demonstrate a benefit for scrambler therapy. "Mixed results" is as OR as what you complain about. You have a pilot study (apparently uncontrolled, since it doesn't say it was) looking at only ten days out, versus a randomized, controlled study. There are some good grammatical explanations for the word however in the userbox on my userpage; pls have a look at them. "Mixed results" is just as OR as what you claim in others' edits. Next time, pls, take this somewhere other than ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute that revolves around whether the sourcing's discussion of the quality of the evidence supporting the treatment can be fairly summarized as "good/strong" or not. I do not see any evidence on the Talk page of bad behavior by the accused. How is this low-level content dispute an incident that needs Administrator attention? Where have you tried to resolve the dispute using one of the WP:DR pathways, like asking at the relevant WikiProject, using WP:3O, WP:DRN or the like? You appear to have gone right from a little discussion at the article Talk page right to ANI.

For the record: I've !voted at the AFD for the Scrambler article, and have been in a disagreement with Chrissy at an RFC they started at Talk:Foie gras, but have not been involved in this particular content dispute. Zad68 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we have a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion here, mixed with a failed AGF-ometer, because what Dr Chrissy proposes instead looks SYNTH/OR-ish from here. The way around this is wording like that proposed by Formerly, or: "There is insufficient evidence for its use in treating neuropathic pain", which should avoid the tempest in a teacup about the word "good". This polarization/battleground is unhelpful-- this is fixable any number of ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia - I'm not sure what you mean by SYNTH/OR-ish - please could you elaborate?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you AGF, everyone is just trying to paraphrase. You want to do it one way, they want to do it another way. Your way is no less OR-ish than the text you object to. There is no good evidence; finding a way to say that is the problem, but claiming "mixed results" when the randomized placebo-controlled study found no benefit is misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not paraphrasing. The 2 studies made no comment on the quality of the research. If you are now saying that certain types of study are more powerful than others, then you are also guilty of OR. How do I know you have the qualifications to make such a judgement of scientific research?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the sources bothered to talk about things like what kind of study each was and how many participants they included? In fact at WP:MEDASSESS--right in the WP:MEDRS guideline itself--Wikipedia provides a hierarchy of study quality, see where it says "The best evidence comes primarily from..." following through "Roughly in descending order of quality...". Zad68 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that editors on here are allowed to judge the quality of scientific research and make statements about this in WP articles?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search me what the big issue is. The paraphrase is good (in mine or others' variants of it). DrChrissy alone insists on calling it OR (wrongly in my view, but - as I've said - I'd be happy to open up the discussion at WT:MED) and has I believe breached 3RR trying to zap it. So if there's a behaviour issue to be considered, maybe it might WP:BOOMERANG back to the OP ... ? I like Sandy's wording too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here. Please stick to the content of the ANI I have raised against you. Please show where the sources you used discuss the strength of the evidence about the efficacy of the system - what you wrote was your own interpretation of the sources and is therefore OR. This, and the repeated inclusion of the OR are the only issues of this discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, at ANI you don't get to control whose behavior gets investigated, see WP:BOOMERANG. Did you breach 3RR? Zad68 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have breached 3RR but that is not the issue here? Holy cow, DrChrissy, we all have more relevant things to do than settle playground squabbles over semantics. If you did breach 3RR, and then brought it to ANI, that says ... something ... at least about the respect you have for the time involved in the rest of the people who have to help sort this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have ultimate respect for the people on here. We are all responsible for how we devote our time to the project. If you do not have the time to participate here, then of course you are free to go elsewhere. This is not a problem about semantics. It is about an editor that made up a phrase in their head and decided to put that into a WP article and cite 2 sources to it as if they supported their OR__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, editors posting here (a noticeboard primarily for examining bad behaviour) should expect to have their own behaviour looked-at too. I don't believe my paraphrase was OR and have offered multiple times to widen the consensus at the Project noticeboard if you still disagreed. Meanwhile, it is you who has been advocating - on that same article's talk page - sourcing material to search engine results ... so really, this "OR" complaint is pretty rich. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn I was hardly "advocating" sourcing material to search engines, I was discussing this on a Talk page! Please comment on the subject of this ANI - why is your input to the article not OR? As the editor who introduced the material into the article, the onus is on you to defend why it should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: you're wrong. Frankly I'm sick of facing your barrage of misguided inquisition; dealing with it is a waste of time. I'll let you burn up the patience of others instead. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for your contributions.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not uncommon that complainants are being pursued and harassed by people who overly believe in MEDRS as the correct way to do it. The Banner talk 20:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, being harrassed by application of a Wikipedia guideline! Umm, aren't we here because DrChrissy decided to go to ANI with a trivial disagreement about what constitutes WP:OR? Looking over the history on the Talk page, one can see that there are some fairly serious Talk page guidelines by DrChrissy that could be contributing to the polarization of this discussion because the debate is being personalized.

• Accusations of bullying that violate WP:TALK: "Jytdog Now that you have removed the completely inappropriate COI template you imposed to try and bully another editor, perhaps you would turn your mind to answering my question about why Sparadeo F, Kaufman C, D'Amato S (2012) is not MEDRS compliant?"
• Suggestions that other editors are trying to "out" him. " Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)"

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am completely at a loss to see what this has to do with the repeated inclusion of Original Research__DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this ANI complaint, along with your behavior on the article Talk pages, constitues WP:Battleground behavior, and makes collaborative editing more difficult if not impossible. In fact, these personal attacks were even copied over to a discussion about a completely unrelated article.

• Proposed 24 hour block for DrChrissy for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, including violation of Talk page guidelines and rushing to ANI with a trivial disagreement about the interpretation of WP:OR Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 22:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that I do not wish that this ANI descends into mud-slinging about editors' behaviour. I would like it to remain focussed on the topic - repeated inclusion of OR despite warnings. However, if this line of diversion continues, I will provide evidence that one of the editors in the ANI is currently operating under a warning for their incivility and has used some of the most offensive behaviour I have ever encountered on wikipedia. __DrChrissy (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmmm...could the proposer please sign this - or are they wishing to remain anonymous.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: These edits certainly look very disruptive at a first glance. They were made:

1. After the article was proposed for deletion
2. Before the AfD dicussion (which is still ongoing) was concluded
3. Without any sort of prior consensus on the talk page

Since the AfD discussion has not yet concluded, I do not see the point in making massive, controversial edits to the article at the moment. It looks disruptive enough so that a temporary block for those who nominated the article for deletion and repeatedly removed the bulk of its content may be necessary. -A1candidate 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1candidate, this edit you just made at Scrambler therapy that introduces medical claims in to the article based on non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, among other problems, was wildly inappropriate and clearly against consensus. Zad68 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, your posting clearly does not belong here, but on the Talk page of the Article concerned. Please strike your comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, this talk page comment is ... well ... bizarre. Regardless the outcome of this article, could you please reduce such talk page behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the comment are you referring to?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy:, while SandyGeorgia can clarify if she meant something else, I thought your commentary such as "the website (which no doubt will be removed from the article soon)" [emphasis added] and "Oh, I happen to know Anna Olsson professionally (I wonder if you are fishing to out me)- I don't think she would really like being described as Trivia." [emphasis added] at the article talk page was unnecessary and unconstructive. I too would advise you to refrain from engaging in such behaviour in future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at this diff [114], it seems unusual that the refs previously used to claim benefit are later being utilized by a different editor to claim no benefit at all. Is there a noticeboard for looking at the specific references being utilized to see if the editors are actually accurately reporting what is in those references?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, WT:MED as I have repeatedly said. (Or any intelligent person can read & decide for themselves: really there is no need to burn hard-pressed medical editors time with basic stuff like this). Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Alexbrn, please refrain from answering questions not directed at you, if you are a "hard-pressed medical editor" and cannot answer it simply and respectfully. These sideways comments make reading through this information extra unpleasant. petrarchan47tc 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it is exactly because those ever so hard-pressed medical editors do not have the time to deal with basic stuff like this, is why I raised this ANI. I felt that repeated introduction of OR is so "basic" (please read "fundamentally flawed") that it should be brought to a wider audience, rather than encroach on the time of our hard-pressed medical "experts". By the way, how does one get onto this list of "medical editors"?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that you have stayed. Thanks - I have looked but I can't see what I have to do to be called a "medical editor". I thought ALL editors on WP were considered equal and that equal respect should be shown to all editors and their edits. Am I wrong?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It does appear to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND looking at the history of the page, But DrChrissy does not appear to be the only one involved in the battle. It seems strange to pick one editor out of the three that were reverting repeatedly over the last 48 hours for a block or ban. It appears that DrChrissy made 3 reverts but so were other editors reverting. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lot's of 'experts' weighing in...reminds me of the definition of an expert, which is someone who knows more and more about less and less until finally knowing absolutely everything about nothing! Why does this remind me of Jytdog and Alexbrn?--Pekay2 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the claim that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR is just silly. And bringing this is kind ... vindictive. drchrissy was not satisfied with the ANI where I was warned and sought to overturn the close at AN, which was snow-closed - see here) drchrissy has been kind of following me around (he doesn't usually edit medical articles for example) looking for fights to pick. This is one is ridiculous. Trout and close, please. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you focus on the content of this ANI. You made a reversion which re-introduced material into an article which had been identified as OR. This is contrary to WP policy. Why did you do this? (not a rhetorical question). __DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

really drchrissy. your analysis that summarizing secondary sources is WP:OR, and even bringing an ANI over it, is just silly and sad. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the following NPOV approach by DrChrissy: I think a much better way of stating it would be "There is evidence that the Scrambler system benefited patients (insert source), although another study found no beneficial effects (insert source). It is not our position as editors to judge whether the scientific evidence is "good" or "strong" or whatever. But then, I'm one of those editors who believes NPOV and UNDUE are of the utmost importance in an article. Atsme☯^Consult 23:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and in responding, when you are canvassed. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather silly to think a (talk page stalker) was canvassed. Isn't that how you and a few others always seem to end up wherever I'm involved? No canvassing involved. I've been watching ANI trying to understand the various disputes which raised my curiosity as to why Jytdog and a few others appear to always be involved. Coincidence perhaps. Who knows? Atsme☯^Consult 15:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing by the editors complained of other than an entirely appropriate application of MEDRS to a very problematic article entirely unsupported by reliable sources . The allegation of edit warring by the complaining editor would appear to be an instance for application of WP:PETARD Banks Irk (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, while Alexbrn and Jytdog might be getting frustrated with DrChrissy, it is the latter we see being disruptive on the article talk page and edit-warring in the article itself (he is at 3RR by my count). I point specifically to the suggestions from DrChrissy in this thread. "Show my the evidence that what I am doing is wrong" is a tactic as old as time. He of all people should know that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence; the prohibition against all forms of original research is codified at WP:OR which is comprehensive, but not exhaustive. Any experienced editor understands that what DrChrissy is suggesting is original research and even DrChrissy himself accepts as much later on (but argues that it "won't break WP" so he should be allowed to do it). He has tried several times to dismiss assessment of his own behavior here. There is an ongoing content dispute (most of his original compliant) and an ongoing AFD and so I don't think anything will be helped by the application of an Aboriginal artifact but DrChrissy needs to take a step back and breath. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been involved in this discussion on Talk:Scrambler therapy for a couple of days, and I do have a problem with editor synthesis of conclusions based on their review of specialized technical material (i.e. various medical studies). A small part of my input in that discussion:

How is it that "experienced health topic editors" are allowed to synthesize summaries with statements like "no good evidence," or selectively highlight certain results because they are from types of studies that are considered higher quality, without explicit explanation? We remain anonymous editors, and verifiability has to take that into account, we have no special expertise when it comes to summarizing.

And again, after more no direct addressing of the question:

Do we recognize "experts" at Wikipedia who can essentially override core policy and guidelines? It seems what is being suggested is that, as a general encyclopedia reader (and editor), in cases where special technical knowledge is required that I don't possess, I should trust self-confirmed experts in that area to synthesize conclusions for me (at least, in cases where no secondary review source is there to do that)? Is that not what "no good evidence" is, a Wikipedia editor's "expert" summary of specialized medical data?

FYI: I'm an originally "uninvolved editor" who randomly came to that page via AfD notice, and had never seen the handle DrCrissy or "know" that person. Personally, I wouldn't have brought this here (Ive hardly if ever been "here" before), as the discussion is ongoing in Talk, however, as of yet, I still haven't gotten a clear answer... I do get an uncomfortable walled garden feeling when multiple editors suggest that I bone up on specialized guidelines that are supplementary to the core policies and guidelines in order to edit certain content... --Tsavage (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a complete understanding of DrChrissy's motivations in bringing this wholly trivial issue to AN/I cannot be had without reading this recent AN/I report, in which Jytdog was warned for incivility, but DrChrissy tried like the dickens to get him sanctioned. This looks a lot like another attempt on DrChrissy's part to "punish" Jytdog. I suggest that the superficial complaint is strictly a content dispute, and should be thrown back to the talk page, but the underlying problem might be addressed by warning DrChrissy that he must co-operate with other editors instead of displaying what is essentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. BMK (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indication of OR The OR statement uses two secondary sources. In summary, 4 studies have been examined by the two sources. Three of these (Smith et al. 2010, Sabato et al., 2005, Marineo et al., 2012) recorded a beneficial effect of the Scrambler system. One of these (Campbell et al., 2013) failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect. This 4th study is the weakest of all 4 as the treatment is applied to only 7 individuals (Being a "placebo-controlled, randomized" study is pointless with such a small n!) How can "there is no strong evidence that it is effective in treating neuropathic pain" possibly be a reasonable and balanced summary of these 4 studies.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes don't really belong here, but it's not our call to say how weak or strong primary studies are (that's becoming original research itself). We just summarize what the secondary sources (i.e., reviews) say, which is exactly what NPOV calls for. If something is "wrong" in a particular review, we wait for other reviews to either call that out or establish what the actual scientific consensus is. I really suggest bringing this to relevant noticeboards or Wikiprojects as ANI is not the place for this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-collegiate attitude It has been suggested that I should discuss concerns more with Alexbrn and Jtydog. The problem is that when I have requested an explanation or evidence of a supporting policy or guideline of their deletions or edits, they simply stop replying. These are the diffs to 3 examples of this non-collegiate attitude and behaviour, here[115], here[116] and here[117]. The interaction problem is theirs, not mine.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last sentence is misleading, in view of the fact that your first diff shows that you made an unsubstantiated accusation of bullying against one of the editors you are complaining about (particularly here), and in view of what I and another uninvolved editor pointed out here as another example. The general feedback you are being given here is that you are engaging in battleground behaviour, and it should not be so difficult to see why. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Watching these interactions develop on the noticeboards, I agree there does appear to be a battleground behavior going on, but I'm seeing more from DrChrissy than anything. There might be a WP:HOUNDING concern as others like BMK have alluded to. Looking at these conversations, it appears DrChrissy really got wound up at the last ANI, and the posts after at least have the appearance of following Jytdog and others to other articles where DrChrissy doesn't appear to have a history editing. My few interactions with DrChrissy seemed to show the are typically a calm and rational editor, so this doesn't seem like typical behavior for them. I would hope a warning would be enough to disengage from this behavior and utilize content noticeboards, etc. rather than going after individual editors. If this kind of behavior continues, and interaction ban might need to be considered in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I raised this ANI against 2 editors. Alexbrn inserted the original OR and re-inserted it, despite my warning that it was OR. I was already preparing ANI against Alexbrn because they refuse to discuss issues (see here[118]. Jtydog joined in later in re-inserting the OR so it seemed the logical thing to do to include them too. This type of alliance behaviour is a pattern of behaviour established between the pair and it forces any editor with reasonable objections to appear to be edit-warring or even into 3RR.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the disagreement you are having with two editors is a content dispute. Can you actually point to where a consensus has developed to support your assertion that what is being inserted is original research? What attempts have you made to resolve the content dispute, and have you actually attempted dispute resolution? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing ANI It is amazing what a calm, articulate approach which does not seem hell-bent on destroying anyone who dares to use this ANI can achieve. Thank-you Ncmvocalist. I am new to this whole idea about disputes - I absolutely hate it. Your message sent me looking further into dispute resolution and I found there is a Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Clearly, that is where I should take my concerns. I will withdraw this ANI and thank ALL editors for their contributions. Ncmvocalist, you have done your good deed for the day at Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good move to withdraw your accusations of bad behavior based on your perception of OR edits. But, I don't think others in this thread are done yet discussing other topics, so this thread needs to remain open. Zad68 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually DrChrissy, while it's good to know that you had a read through that link now, it is worth bearing in mind that Zad68 actually already asked you that question about dispute resolution about 21 hours ago in this thread, but you did not appear to be responsive to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The "This type of alliance behaviour" comment seems pretty telling of the problem I'm describing. Both are medical editors that frequent related noticeboards and Wikiprojects. I even saw some of those discussions before you started editing the article as well, so to insinuate that multiple editors with common interests showing up is problematic or an indication of something improper seems to be an issue itself. When editors edit in similar topics, well they often will show up at the same articles. To an outside observer, you do appear to be approaching this in a bristly manner coming in with guns a blazing for some reason, so I really do suggest disengaging a bit and attempting to approach this more civilly.

Alexbrn and Jytdog do appear to be taking the standard approach we use at Wikipedia to summarizing scientific content. If you are unsure about that approach, this is not the board to discuss that. That discussion would belong a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN (we're talking about assessing WP:WEIGHT more than OR) or a Wikiproject like WT:MED as you've been directed to already. In the diff you gave, it doesn't appear you are being ignored, but just not getting an answer you either want or expect. That being said, I'd be terse with you too if I was being subjected to personal attacks [119]. If you want to have actual discussions on article talk pages, remember to follow WP:TPG, comment on content and not contributor, and avoid sniping like that. You can't expect people to want to work with you well otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact I suggested several times even before this ANI posting that DrChrissy take his concerns to WT:MED to broaden the consensus, but to no avail. For some reason DrC seems averse to the idea of going to WT:MED and has just now taken his beef to WP:NORN. As I've said WT:MED would be the best place, as the issue at hand is a essentially how to translate medical content into lay encyclopedic content - so naturally we would consult editors with most experience in doing that.

I can't help but suspect that the wretched influence of the WP:COIducks essay (of which Dr is a strong supporter[120]) is at work here, since it seems to be taken as okay to assume bad faith and view WP:MED-based editors as part of an unwanted "alliance". Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Add) And elsewhere DrChrissy has described[121] this ANI experience thus: "I have just suffered a major bruising by editors that just wanted to beat the crap out of me, rather than address the problem or indicate there might be other avenues of raising my concern". Which I would suggest indicates an unreceptive, unrepentant & problematic attitude. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn I have been accused of following and WP:Hounding Jtydog. I don't recall you ever having contributed to the talk page above before your last posting. Has someone given you the whistle to come and join in? Are you WP:Hounding me?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) @Alexbrn I requested here[122] that you strike your extremely misleading (perhaps a stronger word is more appropriate) comment about the way I raised this ANI regarding informing Jtydog. You seem to have forgotten to do this. Please give this your immediate attention - we would not want to mislead any admin thinking about closing this thread.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was correct. I notice (as do others I'm sure) you're not addressing the points raised, but hurling out challenges. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic that gets old very quickly. Alexbrn (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will let others make their minds up about that type of misleading edit. Another WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic that gets old very quickly is simply ignoring other editors questions. I asked you above whether you are WP:Hounding me - please address that question.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you all for the very valuable lesson I've learned reading this discussion because I naively believed that when an editor offered an olive branch after being given guidance or proper direction, we didn't beat them over the head with it. I once likened it to strikes of comments we didn't mean but posted in the heat of the moment, or the like. Wonder where I got such a silly idea. Atsme☯^Consult 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Atsme, The edit you replied to is a low blow. AlbinoFerret 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• this thread has gone stale. please close and trout the OP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jytdog This thread has become tortuous. I think to help the closer, you should state your exact reasons for why you think I should receive a trout. I have acknowledged I brought this to the wrong place. What else am I charged with?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, WP:HOUNDING Jytdog, WP:IDHT behavior, WP:Tendentious editing and WP:DISRUPTION by posting unfounded AN/I reports, for starts. BMK (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user apparently has a single issue that he is now concerning himself with, which takes a discussion from November 2014 (may have been an RfC) as his inspiration for changing the infobox entry of every atheist and similarly convinced person he can find to "religion: none". I questioned that choice on an article I happened to be watching, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as this person is notable because of her change of faith. His latest action was to post an approximately two-page (printed ones, remember those? ;) ) exposé of his motivations. In the meantime, I had contacted the closer of the debate who seemed to think the closure was less prescriptive than interpreted by Guy Macon. The twist is that Macon has now met opposition to his changes on several articles, and seems to be pasting the same boilerplate into the talk pages of all atheist/agnostic/etc. biographies where this has occurred. It looks to me like a situation that could spin out of control, and I didn't want to have to tell myself that I saw it coming and did nothing, so I'm raising a flag here. As far as my "involvement" is concerned, I'm not really interested in pursuing this debate any more, but for obvious reasons will not be posting advice or suggest sanctions or anything like that. However, like I said, in my view this could be a problem in the making. Samsara 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered this at Christopher Hitchens, and was inclined to agree with Guy that atheism is not a religion. The closing statement on the discussion notes: "There is also a consensus that the phrase 'Religion: Atheist' should not appear, being a contradiction in terms". Is your concern with this (which sounds pretty prescriptive to me) or rather with the way in which Guy is going about the task? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the title states, the concern is the posting of text blocks. The fact that this is happening in a growing number of venues suggests a certain likelihood to become disruptive. Samsara 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Guy's post at Talk:Christopher Hitchens was rather overwhelming. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: are you referring to the use of ""Non-religious" is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby." in the edit summary? Because other than that, the edits themselves don't look like a large block of text, but rather the removal of one or two words from the infobox. I can't see anything particularly problematic about the edits myself at the moment. It's probably worth having a conversation with the user on his/her talk page first as well - many disputes or worries can be resolved that way without needing to come here to ANI.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for the article talk page edits that add 13k characters. Cheers, Samsara 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear. The only issue is whether it's appropriate to post the same lengthy explanation on the talk pages of articles where he's met resistance. Based on a look at his history, it seems this text has only been added 11 times. That doesn't seem ideal but doesn't quite seem disruptive either. Still, imagine if e.g. Giraffedata copy/pasted his "comprises of" essay into the talk pages of every article where someone took issue with it :) Maybe the best thing for Guy to do would be to put the text on a page in his userspace or even as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, and point people to that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree that it would be better for Guy to link to this text if it's basically the same thing, rather than to post it to many different places. 11 places isn't that many, but it is starting to get up there. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that Guy should take a step back from editing the Religion boxes. If you take a look at his contributions, he has made dozens (hundreds?) of edits, including a couple of dozen reverts, to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheist" from infoboxes, on at least two separate occasions, at the end of last year, and again more recently. I personally think this is borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Even if Guy is right, is replacing "Religon = None (atheist)" with "Religion = None" really the most useful thing he could be spending his time on? Even if this is a true reflection of consensus? And I would personally dispute that anyway, see Talk:Johann Hari if you particularly care about the content dispute. But I think the issue here is more to do with conduct than content. The content dispute can hopefully be resolved by discussion and introducing a new field for non-religious spiritual beliefs. The way Guy has gone about his campaign suggests (to me at least) that he is too emotionally involved and should find something else to spend his time on until things have calmed down. The use of "shock and awe" cut and paste of a few thousand characters to multiple Talk pages on a disputed issue does not help.

Having been advised by Guy to consider dispute resolution I had been seriously considering raising the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on this page. Having taken a few deep breaths and looked at Guy's contributions history (and he's clearly a valuable member of the community) I decided there were more constructive ways to proceed.

My suggestion to Guy however would be to take a few steps back and consider how his actions might appear to others. Taking some time to concentrate on other Wikipedia activities might be a good idea. --Merlinme (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus. However, I'm inclined to agree that Guy copy-pasting the same talk page argument is a tad unhelpful, although using the same edit summary consistently IS a good idea, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute, vigorously, whether Guy's position has been backed by a large discussion. I've read the large discussion multiple times. I took part in the large discussion. I dispute Guy's conclusion, as do other editors. The summariser is on record as saying that they didn't mean the summary to be as conclusive as Guy is taking it to be.

But I don't wish to get into a discussion about the content here. I mean, I will if you want me to. (Have you read my response to Guy's cut and paste points, at Talk:Johann Hari?) But that is not why I am here. I am here more because of how Guy is behaving in the dispute.

S Marshall, the summariser who Guy is invoking in defence of his attempt to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheism" from the Religion box, even in brackets, has clarified their position here, at the request of Samsara: [123]. Essentially, S Marshall says that they did not think local consensus should be trampled over in quite the way Guy seems to be attempting. (My personal comment would be that in the case of "No Consensus", the "victory" frequently goes to the editor prepared to devote most time to the matter. Guy seems to be attempting to exploit that fact.) After that clarification, on the same Talk page, Guy did a 13,384 character cut and paste which ignored S Marshall's comments:[124]

At this point, I have to question whether Guy is actually reading the Talk pages he's cutting and pasting to. It seems to me more like a bulldozer approach than anything else.

I repeat, he should take a step back and find something else to occupy him with for the time being.--Merlinme (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it, Merlinme. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behaviour, and reminds me a bit of Collect. Returning to the original poster's concern: I don't think that Guy Macon's post is excessively long. I managed to read through it in a couple of minutes. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copy/paste edit summaries have been an issue. Pretty much everything I had to say on that specific matter I said here. The immediate response was just removing my comment without making any of his own but he did seem to stop that specific habit afterwards. Normally that would be the end of it but this is a pattern of his. He seems to think this is all somehow very clever and the only explanations I can think of is that he either doesn't care that behavior is an extremely unproductive way of going about things or that he actually intends to agitate. Neither is great. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kraxler's post, I repeat, I am not here because of the content dispute. There are other ways to resolve that. I am here because of the rather combative approach Guy Macon has taken to the content dispute. His approach seems to be more designed to cow into submission than persuade, and in my opinion is highly likely to start an edit war one of these days. I also think he's too emotionally involved in the Religion/ atheist content dispute, which probably leads to the style observed; and that is why I've suggested he take a break. --Merlinme (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. GraniteSand, there is a maximum number of characters for edit summaries, it's impossible to complain about their size. This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot. Kraxler (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some atheists who exhibit characteristics of atheism being its own kind of religion. However, an infobox stating "Religion=Atheism" is kind of pretentious. "None" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's relevant discussion on my talk page. I'm inclined to hope that Guy Macon will consider turning down the volume a little bit on this particular subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the level of hostility and attempt to shut down debate this subject seems to provoke in some people. To be honest Kraxler, I would include you in that. I have tried several times to suggest that it's the manner in which Guy has gone about his mission which I have a problem with, but you don't seem to accept this. Surely you can see that the rather provocative edit summaries are part of the problem, more likely to cause problems than help establish a new consensus? And 13,000 character paste dumps to talk pages without really engaging with what is on those talk pages aren't particularly helpful either. At Talk:Johann Hari, 25 minutes after Guy posts 13,000 characters to a talk page you say essentially "I agree": [125]; and then six minutes later, before anyone else has had a chance to reply, you more or less assert that anyone who disagrees is edit warring: [126] As I say, this seems more like an attempt to shut down debate than to achieve consensus.

There are very few areas of Wikipedia which cannot be debated at all. Other editors than myself have described the conclusion of the "Religion = None (atheist)" debate as controversial. The closer of the debate is on record as saying that in principle it might be possible for local consensus to override the conclusion of that debate; that it is not in fact as 100% "prescriptive" as you have suggested. And, most importantly, even if the conclusion of the debate was as clear as clear could be: it is neither necessary nor helpful to be so confrontational when looking to "enforce" a new consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from an out-of-town engineering project. I will post a more comprehensive reply tomorrow or the next day.

One thing I would like to mention is that an editor involved in a content dispute second-guessing the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion and deciding for her/himself what the consensus really is, as Samsara has done in the opening comment of this section, is a really. really bad idea. It essentially makes RfCs and other consensus discussions worthless if anyone who disagrees with the closer's summary can just analyze the discussion for him/herself and come up with their own consensus.

If anyone thinks that the closer blew it, the proper course of action is to go to AN and ask an uninvolved administrator who is experienced in closing contentious consensus discussions to reexamine the comments and write of a new closing summary.

More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

The blocked sock [127] modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock [128] modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here [129] about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, [130] the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles, [131] [132] [133] inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me. Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with 120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs) and Mkb764920 (talk · contribs) show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyAces489 accused a number of editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse of being racist saying they were biased against African American athletes. Besides the original comment, he made additional ones that were removed by Vanjagenije [134]. The SPI accusations are bad enough, but accusing a bunch of editors of being racists is a total violation of WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a WP:AGF Issue. Did they redact their allegations? Weegeerunner (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He could have made his SPI complaint without the nasty stench of a racism allegation. It was unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weegeerunner, you'll notice he not only hasn't retracted his allegations, he keeps spreading them (see below).Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply make a larger number of articles that consist of individuals who are African American. [135]. I pointed out the statistic that 6 of 7 articles nominated for deletion all at once were African American. Every article was deleted except for James Thompson (a black national champion in Judo) and Karl Geis (who happens to be white). [136].

Racism did exist in the martial arts especially in the 1960's and individuals formed federations to combat it such as Steve Sanders (karate). In AFD,I stated that racism existed in Judo [137]. To which I received a reply of "it didn't seem to stop other African Americans from reaching the Olympics. [138]. I stated that only 1 black person reached the Olympics during that period of the 1960's. [139] . Racial discrimination existed in the United States as we can see via programs like Affirmative action in the United States, John Carlos was kicked out of the Olympics in 1968 for protests against racism, the US Government was actively working against civil rights groups via COINTELPRO, even Olympic Gold Medalists suffered huge discrimination for being black and engaging in interracial relationships Milt Campbell. My point being that ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that many of the individuals werent given a lot of media attention to which can plausibly be attributed to discrimination. Fact remains that Racial inequality in the United States still exists. Now I am deemed a racist because I pointed out a statistic? Should I ignore that statistic?

I believe this is retaliation for putting up a Sockpuppet Investigation on the individuals (which wasn't the first sockpuppet investigation into the trio). They have accused me of being barely literate. [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. Have told me to "stick my head in the sand" [145] They claimed there was no indication of race in my articles [146] I stated the articles of individuals who are black are tagged with African American Portal. [147] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to get into the racism part of this except to say that CA489 has highlighted some... interesting... statistics and anomalies and from the outside, his interpretation those statistics doesn't seem way off-base. That doesn't mean those interpretations are correct but I don't think he's wrong to suggest it should be investigated. That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. The suggestion that editors have worked together to secure particular AFD results in this area is not new. In fact, it was the basis of the last sock-puppetry investigation which (while not drawing specific conclusions) did point out that there was a high degree of correlation between specific accounts in AFDs in this topic area, and we're talking now about some of the same accounts. This was admin Dennis Brown's closing statement there. Rather than do their damnedest to get some separation between the accounts and broaden their horizons to ensure that the same accusations couldn't be made again, it seems little has changed from the situation that concerned Dennis 3 years ago. Even in defending himself, one editor confirmed that, "yes when someone like [...] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article...". At a minimum, this is a form of WP:TAGTEAM which, while not sock-puppetry, is concerning. I don't think anyone's hands are clean here. Strongly suggest CrazyAces489 leaves the SPI to do its work - there's a fine line between raising legitimate concerns in an SPI and making accusations you simply don't have evidence for. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, are you saying the victims are too blame? That it's OK to call editors racist and bigoted if they vote to delete poorly written articles on non-notable African American martial artists? This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about CrazyAces 489 calling a group of editors racist simply because they voted to delete some of his articles.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. - I think I made myself pretty clear on that point. You need to perhaps have a look at this from the perspective of an outsider - a group of editors who have been accused of meat-puppetry in the past (with well-respected admins drawing the conclusion that there was at least some collusion) collaborate to delete a series of articles. Upon being called out for the "collaboration" part (and before any accusations of racism) one of the editors confirms he does indeed track and tag-team on some articles. So an admittedly collaborative effort deletes a series of articles - what do those articles have in common to warrant that effort? The particular personal attacks used in retaliation certainly don't help. Whether you meant to or not, the result remains the same. CrazyAces489's comments were not appropriate, but you guys aren't helping yourselves either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to just leave this alone but a couple points need to be made. First of all it is my name on the SPI title and I have never previously been part of any investigation - this constant referral to the previously investigated trio is nonsense. Secondly in an attempt to answer the allegation I described how some of the overlap could occur. I actively search out and comment on newly created martial arts articles and those put of for deletion and make sure they are visible via categories, project tags, deletion sorting. This is not tag teaming by any stretch but knowing the behavior of other long term AfD contributers making the search more efficient (if this is so wrong wikipedia should remove the user contribution tag). I certainly disagree with the one example I gave enough to make that pretty clear. Now to the allegations of racial bias - I challenge anyone to find any sort of bias of any of the people listed in that SPI investigation. They/I are long term editors with a very long history in martial arts AfDs. The person making the allegation chooses to write articles about African-American athletes (no issue there) that have questionable notability (where the issue arises) - and that and only that is the overlap. I am at a loss what the false accusations of Sockpuppetry and suggestion of racism are meant to accomplish - both are certainly upsetting.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazyAces489 has again missed the point. The discussion isn't about racism, it's about him calling a set of editors bigoted and racist without real proof.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused why we're allowing this to get so far off points. Hundreds of words about racism and the martial arts.....but nothing even sounding like Crazy retracting his allegations of racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He lumped many editors together in his claim of racism--a number of whom didn't even vote at those AfD discussions.Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked CrazyAces489 indefinitely for all this. Indefinitely because this was such an egregious violation of the WP:WIAPA standards, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." I'm open to an unblock if he's ready to repent or otherwise behave more properly. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Isn't this too harsh? CrazyAces489 has never actually called anyone a racist. He just pointed out that some articles were nominated for deletion by a group of users, and that those articles were about black people. I agree that this is a kind of bad faith accusation, but it's not really the kind that deserves indefinite block. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got indefinitely blocked in this incident, and he's done worse than you: why does he deserve a lesser sanction? I don't follow your reasoning :-) Speaking seriously, while the charge of racism is a problem, the big problem is the extensive accusations of WP:SOCK violations without any evidence whatsoever. We routinely block people for making a pile of "ordinary" personal attacks, and per WP:WIAPA, this kind of accusation is as bad, or worse, if made without evidence. Do you think I ought to unblock him completely, or reduce the unblock? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed momentarily, and I'll be offline most of tomorrow; any admin who believes it appropriate should feel free to remove or reduce the block without further discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a difficult case. I do believe the guy is here to try and improve things and there are article he's created which are going to be useful additions (though arguably the work required to bring those up to scratch offset the values somewhat). And I do believe there are elements of systematic bias which end up causing some of the articles to be deleted (That bias will be related to our policies and outside world factors), though much of it is that the subjects are at best borderline.

The racism thing to my mind (and I was one of the editors listed at the SPI) was undoubtedly an attempt to smear those being listed, as is the repeated referral to previous accusations against individual which led no where (the SPI, he's done the same to me in other contexts) (He also created and article on the racism topic synthesizing the same accusation of such racism on wikipedia)

But the real problem is the amount of time and effort to get him to see where the problem lies and adapt his ways.

• The unblock request for this he still doesn't seem to understand that casually mentioning statistics on race in an SPI case for that context is going to be taken as implying something, and could be deeply offensive.
• The Ron Duncan article, where a DRV last year had several editors point of the poor references, the same got pointed out again by at least one new editor in the more recent DRV. Yet when it came to another editor doing the heavy lifting to sort it out, he complained essentially it was all an attempt to gut the article to have it deleted, he readded the references which were removed to the talk page as "needed for later", it took a fair bit of effort to move him to the idea that the references were simply no good. And even in the last 24 hours he seems to still not really get it [148] again thinking others sorting out the articles were the problem.
• A few of his articles have gone the one event way, so we end up with him listing articles for deletion on that basis Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crispus_Attucks

I'm sure I can dig out much more, but all this is offseting the positive work he puts in. Really I don't think indefinite block is right at this stage, but he really really does need a mentor and some restrictions around certain actions without using that mentor. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the comments by Bishonen in the ANI (Questionable behavior by Niteshift36) got it right and I certainly did not expect an indefinite block. There is a cycle of victimhood that has developed (clear when one reads the request for block review) and now that the block has been imposed a cool down period makes sense. If it is lifted clear restrictions on article creation (must go through AfC) and zero tolerance for the type of accusations he has engaged in would be a good idea.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock on hold. Not having noticed the comment by Nyttend about being offline today etc (I only read the other ANI thread above), I put the unblock on hold and asked Nyttend about it on his page. Now that I've been advised of Nyttend's note about it in this thread, I'm planning to unblock without waiting for him, provided CrazyAces responds constructively to the note I've just put on his page. You make a very good point about the "cycle of victimhood", Peter Rehse; I hope CrazyAces will be able to break out of it. Compare also my earlier comments on my own page. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• I agree that an indefinite block was too harsh, but a shorter one might provide an appropriate cooling off period. CrazyAces489's argument that he never called anyone racist is, at best, disingenuous when he repeatedly (in at least 3 separate discussions) claimed the only reasons articles were deleted was because they were about African Americans. Even several independent editors said he was calling people biased. It's even more egregious because a number of people he included didn't even vote at those discussions. Clearly he needs to learn appropriate WP behavior. I've fixed several of his articles (one of which didn't contain a single complete sentence) by rewriting, correcting facts, and adding sources and his response was to accuse me of hounding him. I like Bishonen's idea of not allowing him to post any articles directly to mainspace--that seems like it would alleviate much of the problem. Given his combativeness and poor track record at AfD discussions, it might be best if he avoided them (either by mandate or voluntarily) until he has demonstrated a much better understanding of WP policies. Papaursa (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I was a bit surprised about the indef (though in fairness, indef means no set length. It can be a day or forever). Papaursa's comments are pretty accurate. When we tried to talk to CA about his constant use of sources that weren't RS's, and adding trivial lines just to stuff more sources in, his response was to tell us that "I create so others can work". When we tried to discuss that with him, his focus was solely on the number of articles he has created and refused to see that Wikipedia is improved more by some quality articles than by 3 times as many crap ones. I did make a suggestion to him on Bishoenen's page that I thought would really help him grow into a productive editor (to go through the process of trying to bring one article to GA status), but the response to it was mostly reasons why he didn't want to. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted, I was open to an unblock; I just wanted to ensure that an unblock was consequent on his agreeing to behave properly (or someone deciding that the block was improper), rather than him simply waiting out a definite-time block and coming back without understanding anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my English is not very good.

This person is keep undoing my edits.

First I make good edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:120.137.174.133&diff=prev&oldid=655757780) but she don't like the edit so she delete.

Every edit I make she follow me and undo my edit!

I try ask her nicely why (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=655756643) on her talk page but she threaten me about some lawsuit.

Then I make edit to other article that have 2 good refs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_running&diff=prev&oldid=655823479) but she still delete and ask me to use talk page because she don't like me.

So I did use the article talk page ! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Front_running)

Now why she still make up this story and report me? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=655856044) She never even look at the evidence I give on the article talk page !!

I see other admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) already tell her on her talk page not to edit war and insist undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.137.174.133 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

by the way she say I use IP??? this is static ip register to my company, I just forget to log on, this is my account. crazy!! Mkb764920 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you forgot to log in, you ipso facto an IP-editor. No shame in that, BTW, many IP-editors make useful contributions. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you!! Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, do you have any connection to User:David Adam Kess or his Japanese account? Because your use of English is quite similar as is your interest in Dark liquidity and Front running and both of you accused Kristina451 of stalking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is impersonation by the same person with a history of socking and proxy abuse. The blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs) previously tried to implicate David Adam Kess when he almost certainly was not involved. "David, Melissa and I agreed to stop WP:MEAT." [149] Kristina451 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She accuse me of everything now, no fact just pick fight. (;´д｀) ...like her edits. Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that person look like what we call a gaijin. （＾-＾） I never even accuse her, she report me on admin noticeboard first when I ask her nicely on article talk page and user talk page . did she edit war with mr gaijin before? i can expect because her user page got a lot of warning. [150] Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthBySouthBaranof has deleted massive sourced sections of both Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller that relate to the felony criminal conviction of Randall Miller. User sighted incorrectly WP:SUMMARY which would not apply to simply deleting material. Seems like a clear effort to remove only information related to crimes that are highly notable and sourced. Concensus on talk page is that there should be a spinoff from film page to one focused on tragedy and crimminal convictions. As this is a substantial effort the active editors familiar with complicated issues surrounding page had agreed on talk page to wait until completion of criminal trial, OSHA hearing and report by the FRA which could result in federal criminal issues. These edits have been done such that edit conflicts do not allow for a revert.DFinmitre (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do anything. This is a garden variety dispute, and there has not been enough time given to normal dispute resolution processes. No one (has yet) done anything inappropriate, except maybe the OP, who ran here seeking some sanction against someone merely on account of a single disagreement. Make your case on article talk pages, listen to the statements others make, and allow the consensus building process to work. Otherwise, I can't see there is any reason to do anything right now. It is really bad form to run to get someone sanctioned as soon as a disagreement begins. --Jayron32 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring an issue to ANI, you are required to notify the other editor, which you did not. I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof for you. However, as Jayron32 notes, there is nothing material to discuss here. This is a content dispute. Discussion on the article talk pages is still underway. You have provided no indication of conduct issues by the other editor. Read the dispute resolution policy. If talk page discussion is not successful, follow one of the various content dispute resolution procedures described in that policy rather than coming here about a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies for not notifying editor, thank you for doing that. Thank you to the admin that resolved this. The clear issue, and why I brought it here was that due to the inability to revert due to edit conflicts, there was no way for regular users to fix this without the assistance of an admin.

This can now be closed as resolved. Thank you. 76.97.45.210 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "vandalism" involved here. The article in question was far too long, far too detailed and violated NPOV in several areas. The reporting user is effectively a single-purpose account with an axe to grind and a clear advocacy interest in this issue. For example, they have repeatedly made unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about people related to this event, have called such people "cold-blooded murderers", "sick sick people", etc. This is not the behavior one expects of a neutral Wikipedia editor interested in creating articles which accurately and dispassionately describe events. It is clear that they have some sort of vested interest or deep-rooted personal feelings about the issue. While those may be understandable in the wake of a tragic workplace accident that could and should have been avoided, Wikipedia is not the place to further such a campaign, nor is it a place to express displeasure or hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed the issue at Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller from a report at WP:BLPN. As NorthBySouthBaranof has hinted, there are SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to punish a living person (albeit, one imprisoned for involuntary manslaughter) and further eyes on the articles would be useful. The issue is that a person working on a film was killed and the director has been held responsible. The SPAs want to trumpet the details of the director's problems, when the correct approach is to write an article on the incident, if WP:N is satisfied. If a separate article on the incident is not warranted, the articles on the film and the directory should not be turned into fake articles on the incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DFinmitre is now accusing good-faith editors of vandalism and requesting that others not edit the article without his permission. I think someone might have to explain WP:OWN and WP:NOTVAND to him. I doubt he's going to listen to me or NorthBySouthBaranof, as he considers us vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin, but I just left DFinmitre a personally written message on their Talk page about that Talk:Midnight Rider (film) message. So consider the editor warned. Hopefully, this will cause some reflection on DFinmitre's part. --IJBall (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User: 213.164.7.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Synthesizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Revision: 655672937 on 12:58, 9 April 2015‎ (UTC)
• Summary of editing: "English, slight clean up"

This IP user continuously pretend to fix the bad English on above article since several months ago, and he always summarize his editing as "English ..." (i.e. "fixed the bad English". see summary fields on his contribution page). However, his above editing is clearly not in the scope of grammatical correction nor rewriting of expression, but in the delusional rewriting without reliable sources. I have already pointed out the issue on his talk page [151]. However, he don't admit his mistake on the summary field, and even not admit the falsehood on his rewriting [152]. As a conclusion, his above editing seems an intentional vandalism. I need a solution to handle his bad faith editing. --Clusternote (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This IP user started the reverting war on above article [153] before reaching a consensus on his talk page, thus I've reverted it as vandalism [154]. --Clusternote (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, reverting that isn't fixing vandalism. At best you can call it disruptive editing, or editing against consensus. And I'm guessing from the mdash in the text you restored that they were undoing your edits? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this is not delusional rewriting but correcting seriously deficient English--is this one of the edits you mean? (It corrects a verb error--I noted a few verb errors in your complaint as well.) This edit is an improvement (it corrects your earlier edit), as is this, and this. I don't think someone needs talk page consensus for grammatical corrections. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your valuable advices before editing the article... I will try to re-examine my editing by following your advices, from now! --Clusternote (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clusternote, you know a lot of useful stuff; this IP editor knows a few different things. It's from the collaboration that we get decent articles that make this encyclopedia so worthwhile. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Sorry for my late response. After then, I tried to examine and response for the points indicated by you. And, I've recognized that at least I should thank to the users who try to fix my bad English, because sometimes I can't enough recognize which point is grammatically incorrect (it is cause of this issue). Thus, I want to reduce the grammatical issue on my posting, and I'll try to improve the cooperative manner. Many thanks. --Clusternote (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at WP:AIV

85.211.129.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This one is rather complex case. This user flat out ignores previous warnings about requiring sources for future dates of upcoming television broadcasts. This has been going on for months now, often changes IPs ever week or two, without the user ever discussion their edits with others. Because this a range block may be required. Has previous edited using the following IPs (not complete).

• 85.211.195.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.129.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.143.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.203.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.143.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.193.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

If this was a logged in account, the user would have been blocked long ago under WP:COMPETENCE. I would like to thank KirtZJ for adding some of the IPs in the original AIV report. Jayron32 suggested that this be moved to ANI because of the need for a range block. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide--but hey, I guess this is what we do these days: listing future TV broadcasts. Does anything need (semi-)protecting, or is a rangeblock enough? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How feasible is a range block? Because otherwise, we are taking about semi-protecting some 20 articles and they do get plenty of productive edits from IPs. —Farix (t | c) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP still continues to add unsourced future airdates despite warnings and this very topic.[155][156][157][158][159] This demonstrates the editors unwillingness to discuss their troublesome activity with other editors. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after inserting a editorial note that future air dates must have a reliable source, the editor removes the note and add a future air[160] effectively sticking a big fat middle finger at the verifiability policy. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any action going to be taken here or am I just waiting in vain? The editor still continues to add unsourced future air dates to articles.[161] I even started a discussion at the Village Pump and consensus was categorically against such dates and I even invited the IP to the discussion.[162] But no comment from the IP whatsoever nor even an acknowledgement that what they are doing is clearly not supported by either consensus or Wikipedia's policies. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would post it here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally posted at AIV, but was referred here because it was too complex. Everyone is just passing the buck around. —Farix (t | c) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 has been following me around, talking mad trash, and accusing me of general malfeasance. He wont stop. He has disrupted the article I am editing and is now encouraging other editors to get in my face. I tried to talk to him but he wouldnt listen worth a damn. Bottom line, will someone tell this guy to just LAY OFF?? Sorry but dont give me a shit sandwich and then tell me it tastes like French Vanilla ice cream.

Ok here is the first link where he accuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=655748010

I tried to talk to him and he just basically told me to pound sand and that he wouldnt listen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655748010

Then one of the bosses erased his garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655749664

But he wouldnt stop with the trash talking. I asked one of the bosses about making A complaint but decided to be COOL about it and not do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cavalierman#Complaint

But again he wouldnt stop with the garbage. THEN listen to this! He accuses a DIFFERENT editor (capitalismojo) of using socks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22&diff=prev&oldid=655864877

The other editor who is very respected on wikipedia is rightfully scandalized and defends himself. Then when I go to the other editors page to tell him what a nutjob Flyer22 is he gets mad at me! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capitalismojo#Flyerr22

All I want is for Flyer22 to keep my name out of his mouth and if he has A problem with me then come to me about it and discuss it like adults. And stop posting shit about me at the articles I am doing!

Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother! Not this again!! --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above an example of "discuss it like adults"? Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanting to know more on this matter can see here, here, here and here. Whether or not Cavalierman is Cali11298 (talk · contribs), I noted that he is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia; he isn't. I did not call him a WP:Sockpuppet, even though I'm certain that he is one (of whatever registered editor, whether he is using a WP:Proxy or similar "protection" to keep from being connected to the master account). In my opinion, that he is so concerned with what I'm stating on my user talk page, and pursued me on this matter (despite being advised not to on his user talk page), points to truth in my words regarding him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person is obviously very ill. All I am asking is to please stop him from harassing me. That's it. Just leave me alone and stop accusing me of things I didnt do. Cavalierman (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this complaint is remarkably similar in its adolescent quality to the previous one made by Jhamilton303, in an AN/I report that's probably still above this somewhere. I'd venture that they're connected, and I'm heading over to the SPI to say so. BMK (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of Cavalierman, his request in itself seems quite reasonable. Why can't Flyer22 investigate him for sockpuppetry without interacting with him in any way? Just build a case and quietly present it to the responsible authorities. Saying "You are a sockpuppet" will provoke pushback from sockpuppets and non-sockpuppets alike. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22:, why does your userpage contain instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? Samsara 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Are you seriously suggesting "if you see a "new editor" making superficial edits to an article (such as WP:Dummy edits) in a row (meaning at least ten edits), you have likely spotted a WP:Sockpuppet or a different type of returning editor." equates to instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any incident here to be resolved. Flyer has ( civilly) identified a pattern of behavior that seems very much like a known sock master. I have looked at the edits and previous sock investigation and am inclined to agree. That doesn't constitute an incident to be resolved by admins. Suggest speedy close, also check user to examine. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unfortunate that she refers both to circumventing autoconfirmation and the creation of sleeper accounts, and apparently directs suspected or confirmed abusive users to her page for further information. What good reason is there for putting this material there and directing these people to it? Ignoring this simple query does not bode well. Samsara 09:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We alread told you, Samsara: the info there is how to detect bad-faith autoconfirming puppets for the sake of thwarting them, not abet such people. OK? See what we're saying? Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unfortunate that you began your "simple qery" by accusing Flyer22 of providing "instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation". You might do better to drop the ominous and even threatening tone of "does not bode well", apologise, read all of the explanation Flyer22 already provides on her user page and the comments from other editors above, and once you understand and can sympathise with Flyer22's approach, ask for a constructive discussion. NebY (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo:, whoa there pardner, let's not be so quick to close. Rather than (or in addition to, if y'all want to spend the resources) a sock puppet investigation, how about a general boomerang block on User:Cavalierman, uppet or no? Among the many bad things he's said just here is "This person is obviously very ill", which goes wayyyy beyond being uncivil to actually being hurtful (or trying to be). Also, I think we can assume that if he's attracted Flyer22's attention he's up to no good and probably on some pretty sensitive subjects. We don't need people like this. Get rid of him, and now's your chance. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: I disagree strongly. Cavalierman (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Well, that's a refreshingly calm response and a step forward. Keep it up! Next: are you gonna apologize to Flyer22, there? Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Disagree. As much as Cavalierman is annoying the fuck out of me, banning him on the theory that "If he's not actually sock puppet, oh well" is contrary to our high-minded principles. He has displayed some ability to learn from his mistakes, which could either be genuine or craftiness. If checkuser reveals no evidence of sockpuppetry, he can only be banned for actual policy violations in the normal way. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}} - This thread relates to this very recent one. That was handled expeditiously, and resulted in the uncovering of three socks; it would be nice if this one were dealt with quickly as well. The SPI can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very  Unlikely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Eat shit. Cavalierman (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your ping didn't work, since I have notifcations turned off.

Well, now we know 2 things about you: (1) You're not a sock of Cali11298, as least as far as CheckUser technical evidence can determine, and (2) You exhibit no class whatsoever. BMK (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing, (3) You probably need to read WP:NPA. BMK (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic IP editor 76.167.232.59 has been performing subtle vandalism in China-related articles, and has been disruptive site-wide despite being warned multiple times by different editors. They make inappropriate changes to Chinese romanisations (for example, changing "Xueqi" to "Hsuechi"), edits which ordinary non-Chinese speaking editors may not be able to pick up and notice. China-related articles have a standardised format for romanisation (see WP:MOSZH), and this editor is intentionally attempting to increase the workload of editors by making subtle incorrect changes that deviate from the Manual of Style, or otherwise are simply wrong. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How certain are you (or can you prove to us) this is a deliberate attempt to ruin Wikipedia, rather than a good-faith, but badly executed, attempt to improve Wikipedia in the mind of that particular person. Are they, perhaps, working from an alternate Romanization scheme, which perhaps Wikipedia doesn't use, but which that person doesn't know, and is thus doing what they think is right? [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism is 100% about intent), and unless you can show that the user intends to harm Wikipedia (rather than being merely mistaken about the proper way to do things, or disagreeing with established conventions earnestly). While both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIR violations are blockable offenses, they are still not vandalism, providing something like a CIR block requires proving a long-term pattern of cluelessness and many attempts to educate the person in question. --Jayron32 05:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked before, check their history. A genuinely good-faith editor would seek clarification after being warned as many times as they have been, rather than ignore everything and continue on as if nothing happened. In addition, this user removes simplified Chinese text from templates on-sight (see diffs [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169]), and called Soong Ching-ling a, quote, "lover of communist bandits" (see diff), which makes it very hard to assume good faith. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complimenting Benlisquare above, the "hs-" romanization is more common in Taiwan, in say Hsinchu (which will be Xinzhu if we are using the system common in mainland China the pinyin system as stated in WP:PINYIN). The removal of simplified Chinese names from Chinese subjects who has little affinity with the mainland might be warranted by certain considerations (but would need extensive discussion and widely accepted consensus first hand). But blatantly changing of a quote that sources easily support to potentially attack a person may indicate we are seeing a rather POV-pushing fellow here that does not like the Chinese Communist Party very much. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC) + 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) conducted mass (~100) reverts to reinstate a flag after it became clear that his proposal to do so failed to gain support from other Wikipedians at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu. I believe admin actions are needed to stop his disruptive editing practices. --Nanshu (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had intended to revert your mass removal of the flag as a "Wikipedia hoax" the moment I saw it, but I wanted to discuss it with you first. I have every right to revert you for removing a "hoax" when it clearly is not. The RfC (which failed to gain support in either direction) is about wether we should keep or completely remove the flag after you challenged its legitimacy. Note that I didn't revert all of the edits concerning the flag, and none of the edits concerning another flag. The flag appeared in some infoboxes and should be removed per WP:FLAG (BTW Nanshu, you should've removed the Japanese flag too), and the second flag is possibly a Wikipedia hoax (shown by Nanshu's sources). I was in no way making disruptive reverts anymore than Nanshu was making disruptive edits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an updated incident report.

• Sturmgewehr88's proposal to reinstate the flag failed to gain support from other Wikipedians. Yes, he failed (Now Infinite0694 voiced against his misuse of new sources I cited[170], and the situation became even clearer). He didn't even put a notice of mass reverts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu, a sign of his intent to downplay the unfavorable discussion. Given the situation, we can decide that he is trying to override the discussion by force. He thinks that he can accomplish his goal by editing much more frequently than others. He poses a real threat to Wikipedia.
• The most important point relevant to ANI is stated above. The following should be regarded as supplementary information.
  1. In the above, Sturmgewehr88 tried to equate his mass revert with mine. That's a pretty thin excuse. On April 2, I added lots of new materials to the Commons image description pages. With these, I had a right to be bold. By contrast, Sturmgewehr88 requested comments, which is not bad. But once the situation became unfavorable to him, he openly ignored the discussion. He is challenging the way Wikipedia works.
  2. He still ignores the two points I raised in the discussion. (1) We have a secondary (not primary) source in which the author concluded that he was unable to find contemporary sources in which the phantom flag was used as a national flag.
  3. (2) We should not give undue weight to the flag. In my opinion, it can appear at most twice. One is dedicated to the mystery about the flag and the other is about the reliability of Wikipedia (there is an external source on the meta discussion). He should have made a convincing argument for its use in hundreds of articles.

--Nanshu (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Updated incident report"? The only "real threat" I pose is to you and your POV pushing. I'm not letting you have your way so you're labeling me as a disruptive editor. After all, how can someone with "no talent for historiography" dare challenge you, an "expert". Again, the RfC has failed to gain consensus, but not in the sense that you're insinuating here. No one but me has addressed the actual topic of the RfC; Infinite0694 claimed that there are no RS concerning the flag, and Prosperosity said that a betterknown symbol should represent WP:RYUKYU. No, I didn't leave a notice about my reverts at the RfC, I left it at your talk page if you didn't notice. You do have the right to be bold, but I have the right to revert and challenge those bold edits, especially in this case. If you label something as vandalism when it is not, I can revert you; is there some policy or guideline that says I can't revert you for mislabeling something as a hoax?

And I'm trying to "accomplish [my] goal by editing much more frequently than others"? Well, considering that my goal is to improve Ryukyu/Okinawa related articles and I edit almost every day, I wouldn't deny that. You, on the other hand, don't make a single edit in over a month and suddenly reappear with walls of text and 100+ edits with the same edit summary. And you accuse me of doing such.

Your secondary source doesn't deny that the flag was the national flag and only was aware of a single primary source. The flag has no place in an article about Wikipedia's reliability; how can this be a "Wikipedia hoax" when there is a source explicitly stating that the flag is the Ryukyuan national flag from 1854? Wether you think it's reliable or not, the date alone proves that some Wikipedian didn't just make up the flag and/or inserted it to intentionally trick others. Because it is a national flag, it already has the proper WP:WEIGHT.

And I'm challenging the way Wikipedia works? You rarely answer questions or comments I leave on your talk page (WP:WQ says "do not ignore resonable questions"), and, since you too have failed to gain support at the RfC, you've opened an ANI thread to have me blocked instead. Besides, I didn't know a 0RR was in place for edits concerning the flag? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no responce from other Wikipedians, I requested for comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A "national flag" without secondary sources. Time is up today... --Nanshu (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanshu: So now you're resorting to forumshopping? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented (apart from me, now) because you haven't made it clear what sort of admin action you are seeking. Blackmane (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]