Hello I come here, because really this case is a bit complicated, you mentioned falls in constant edit wars only for wanting to add irrelevant information. Try to explain in discussion and just ignore the messages that leave you, I'm starting to believe that this is WeirdPsycopath locked user, since the two accounts edited in the same way, at least not quite understand how to request a verification of account.

Diff

• Lo que la vida me robó: Your issue is irrelevant in this article, I explain in their discussion and what all it does is ignore my messages
• His only edit summary in the article "Lo que la vida me robó" these have been: Relevant information for Erika Buenfil (Televisa). Jorge Horan, Chema, Milán...¿Quién eres tu?
• Osvaldo Benavides, This money all content, giving in your edit summary "irelevant informations
• Mi corazón es tuyo, This article also try to do the same

About the article "Lo que la vida me robó" explain it 2 times and the only thing the user does is ignore my messages. Do not know which is the problem of this person, but at all attempts to communicate or reach consensus on anything.--Damián (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add this message left by WeirdPsycopath in discussing Mario [5]. I also add the user deletes the messages left for me, because I do not know why or why you do this.--Damián (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that the blocked editor User:WeirdPsycopath is the same person as User:Mario252. Same style of editing and the same interests. Caden ^cool 00:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have time to fully investigate, but if you look at this: [6], you see all the articles they have in common, which is extraordinary considering how few edits Weird has. Find two edits in one of those articles where they are doing exactly the same thing, or helping each other edit war, you likely have a winner when combined with other factors. Old fashioned SPI investigating stuff. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are the same person, because it is very strange that both defend the same point. What is clear that this person brings days falling in edit wars, ignores messages are left in their discussion which was also WeirdPsycopath and even delete messages from your discussion to erase any evidence, it is clear that the user reads all messages that have been left in their discussion, but ignored. I've reversed several articles and even I explained that revierto editions, but it does not seem to care.--Damián (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor rarely uses an edit summary and has ignored repeated requests (even one from me in English and Spanish) that he engage in discussion regarding his contested edits. We know he is aware of these requests because he regularly deletes them from his user talk page. He has made 342 edits to article space but none to article talk space. Perhaps a topic ban is in order if he is unwilling to engage in discussion? Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Damián80 filed a report at WP:AN3. They didn't notify Mario of the report. No one has notified Mario of this report. I know Mario deletes everything put on his talk page, but still ... I've notified him of both.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to leave messages on your discussion, because simply ignores and deletes.--Damián (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preference or not, it's a requirement. I prefer not to pay taxes, but sadly... the panda ₯’ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Mario252 for edit warring. No prejudice to this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently affected articles:

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainer Woelki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archbishop of Cologne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current discussions:

• Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne#Woelki has not yet been installed and is not archbishop of Cologne until that time
• User talk:Elizium23#Archdiocese of Cologne

Users involved:

• Jamesbondfan (talk · contribs)
• Aa75253 (talk · contribs)
• 124.150.17.249 (talk)

Past discussions and affected articles are available on User talk:Elizium23#Appointment of Catholic Bishops. The chronic problem here on Wikipedia is that Catholic bishops are put into their offices before their installation dates. This is analogous to a Presidential Inauguration, in that the bishop does not have possession or control of the diocese before that time that he takes it. Unfortunately, the news media makes a lot of noise when the appointments happen, and less when the installations occur, and so the tendency is to report the news as if it has already happened. Further complicating matters are unreliable sites such as gcatholic.org and catholic-hierarchy.org which don't make the distinction. This is an intractable problem because it is spread out over many articles, over a long period of time, and many editors who aren't regulars. There aren't enough regulars available to patrol here as I've tried at least twice on WT:CATHOLIC to generate consensus. The last straw for me, which brings me here today, is a profanity-laden accusation of vandalism and personal attack by Jamesbondfan. Quite unnecessary and over-the-top. I have always sought to uphold policy and be civil in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your first example, at least, it says so-and-so "2014-present". I assume what you mean is that it's some later date in 2014. Maybe if the specific date were given, it would clarify things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of a future bishop does not belong in infoboxes, lists, or succession boxes, or otherwise portrayed as current in the article. It's fine to talk about the appointment in the article prose. But doesn't it seem a little ridiculous for a space that's supposed to list incumbent officers to include a future date? Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is being added is most absolutely not "speculative or unconfirmed" data. That's what WP:CRYSTAL refers to, not the misplacing of data - and that's all this is. The editors merely misunderstood the difference between the announcement date of an installation and the installation date itself. I don't agree with expletive-ridden replies, but you wouldn't have got one if you'd explained the issue to Jamesbondfan instead of templating him with a completely inaccurate template. Again, the problem here is not that the information was speculative: there was an official announcement. --NellieBly (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer, I can use the "factual error" template to be added, because this adding to lists and infoboxes as "already in office" is plain inaccurate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you enter the date the guy is scheduled to start the job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what i did! i translated the cologne release into english and that's what i got! --Jamesbondfan (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)--Jamesbondfan)[reply]

It shows Woelki as the current officeholder. Is that correct? Or is the previous guy still in there? Or is it technically "vacant" at present? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Canon Law: Diocesan Bishops; Code of Canon Law: The Vacant See. It's presently sede vacante. What happens is that the outgoing bishop tenders his resignation to the Holy See and it's accepted nunc pro tunc (now for later) and he continues as bishop while a search is undertaken. Then the appointment of the new bishop is announced, and typically this goes together with the acceptance of the outgoing bishop's resignation. At that point the see is vacant. The incoming bishop retains his previous post and his title of e.g. "Archbishop of Berlin" but his powers are limited to that of a diocesan administrator. See also, Appointment of Catholic bishops. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if the guy has not actually assumed his new duties yet, then the article should say "pending" or some such. Like a newly-elected US President is the "President-elect" until he assumes office on January 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the infobox reflect the actual state of matters instead of a future one? Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should state, somewhere within it, that so-and-so is scheduled to take office later this year. Currently it doesn't, and if you just say "vacant" in the infobox, without an explanation, the article is uninformative. The explanation you gave above, about how it works, should be incorporated into the article as a generic explanation, and then add the name of the guy who is the "pending" officeholder. Then it becomes informative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the news can be discussed in the article prose. I have never opposed that. But I don't see the point of cluttering up what is supposed to be a current, factual list or infobox by putting two things into it. If it's sede vacante until the next installation then read the article to find out who is incoming! Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not actually in office yet, he shouldn't be stated flatly as the office holder. But I don't see why he couldn't still be in the infobox, with an abbreviated explanation, so that the reader knows immediately what's going on: vacant (so-and-so pending). Something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because an infobox is for current, concise information, not to cover all the possibilities. He has no powers of office yet. Do you also suggest, in the BLP of the bishop, to write both offices everwhere with (current) and (pending) next to them? Elizium23 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the infobox is to inform the reader. If I want to know who the guy is, the word "vacant" without an explanation is useless, and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Rule number 1, which trumps everything else: "Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this was wrong, then? Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about this stupidity from 2008? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference: there's a much longer period of time between the appointment and the installation of a bishop (months, sometimes) than there is between the appointment and the swearing-in of a US Cabinet minister (hours to days) - and not even a micro-instant between the end of one Presidential term and another. But we shouldn't be templating regular editors in any event whatsoever for a good-faith mistake. --NellieBly (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Installation of foo scheduled on" whenever or "installation pending" or similar are options. Again, though, I think calling attention to this at WP:MOSBIO would probably get some help. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Has anyone ever tried to get MOSBIO to address all announcement/installation discrepancies in general? I imagine there are at least some others, and I think maybe having clear guidelines what to do with these matters might help. Maybe having uniform infobox standards for announcement and installation (or similar) could be made too. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that US Presidents are not a good comparison; a better one would be British (and other) monarchs, whose reign is dated from the day they succeed to the throne, even though their coronation will take a few months to organize. In practice the bishops appear to get their feet under the new desk pretty immediately, whatever canon law says, and I'm inclined to think we should generally ignore the fact they are not formally installed yet, on grounds of substance over form. Mind you there used to be cases like Spearhafoc, apparently appointed as Bishop of London in 1051, but never formally installed for political reasons, who eventually got fed up and vanished with the diocesan treasury, which he had been controlling. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't. They still have their previous office to take care of. Take the common case of a priest elected as bishop - Wikipedia immediately dubs them bishops, puts them in bishop categories, gives them a bishop infobox, and they're not even ordained yet. They're canonically incapable of "getting their feet under the desk". And so is an incoming, transferred bishop. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please remind User:TheRedPenOfDoom that it is inappropriate to edit another user's comments on a talk page?

• Original edit to User:Nowa's comment. See second paragraph for removal of “:”
• Second edit to User:Nowa's comment
• Third edit to User:Nowa's comment. --Nowa (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen and I have simply made it so the photograph does not display on the talk page. Nowa needs to stop adding the photos across the project where they were removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with Ryulong. This is nothing. Not even a tempest in a teacup, it's the ripple from a pin dropping. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I would argue that given the questionable copyright of that image—given it's a self-licensed image of himself, but not a selfie—there's no way in hell it should be displayed on a talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an image is either non-free or controversial in some way, changing it to a link by inserting the colon is not just preferred, it's a requirement. Hence the editor was right and within the rules, to edit the other editor's comment to insert the colon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that Horvitz can't make useful contributions. Contrast this with the work of User:David Shankbone, who has also had some controversy, but has also contributed many, many good-quality photos, and knows which side of the camera to stay on at any given time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of those cases where I would suggest to defer to the wisdom of other editors and add the : mark. The file is up for deletion as a copyright violation. Three people have indicated on that talk page that the : belongs, this IS an article talk page, consensus applies. This is an editorial issue, not something an admin needs to get involved in. Unless you war to remove the : mark against consensus, that is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he has been warring, to some extent. If Nowa is neither a sock nor meat puppet of Horvitz, he's certainly doing a good imitation. Ironically, I don't think there's really any hard rule against self-portraits in Wikipedia. If Horvitz had uploaded these things strictly to put on his user page and/or he had properly identified what he was doing, it probably wouldn't be such a big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside any sock concerns as I don't see any evidence to warrant an investigation, I did leave a message on his talk page that should clear up any misconceptions about "status quo", a phrase that has little meaning on a Wiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose topic ban I recommend that a topic ban be applied so that Nowa (talk · contribs) performs no further editing or commenting regarding Horvitz or images that are probably intended to display pieces of Horvitz's body in Wikipedia. These edits from 17 July 2014 show Nowa adding such "look at me" images: diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff + diff to eight different articles. Per not bureaucracy, let's not debate whether there is proof that the appendages belong to Horvitz—it's clear that even if they aren't, Nowa is trying to make some point that is not related to improving the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• it seems clear that Nowa is either Horvitz's agent acting directly on his behalf to continue his "art" campaign on Wikipedia or or acting in such a manner that it is indistinguishable from him/his agent and certainly WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recent issue with Nowa, so maybe a topic ban is premature. But I have to say that his involvement in the David Horvitz topic area is almost uniformly negative. He either makes light of the disruption by David Horvitz or edit wars to keep his images on Wikipedia. Therefore I support a topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nowa's behavior. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh a spanking. A spanking!--Nowa (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked two weeks for trolling. I have zero patience for that, and the community shouldn't have to tolerate someone antagonizing for fun. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that any admin reviewing should note all the intentionally disruptive edits, snide remarks and obvious intent to antagonize the community. It isn't the individual edits, it is the trollish behavior and delight in taking up what could be useful time. Anyone who takes joy in causing disruption doesn't belong here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Dennis. It's comforting to know that even you, with the patience of a saint, can get fed up! BMK (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do people think? The two-week block will expire. Do we rely on Dennis for the future, or is a topic ban worthwhile? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, WP:Boomerang. Well seeing as how most of his involvement in the last David Horvitz ANI discussion was either trolling or playing the Devil's advocate, and his reinsertion of these images, I say a topic ban is appropriate, as his behavior is only getting in the way of dealing with the problem at hand. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm usually fairly hardline, but I'd say let him come off the block and see what he does. The amount of WP:ROPE he's given should be extremely short. If he avoids the Horvitz situation, fine, but if he plunges in again, I think a topic ban would be in order, and I believe the community would agree. BMK (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is my line of thinking as well. The two week block is a rather sharp block and was no accident nor overreaction. It is to give the maximum opportunity of not having to block again. There is plenty of room for fun, laughing and jokes at Wikipedia (but preferably not at ANI). There is no room for lolz, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguar has blanket changed the English variant on around 100 pages by script without any sort of justification. See his contributions. Changing the variety of English used without any justification, much less consensus, is in clear violation of WP:ENGVAR, the policy he himself quotes.

If he wishes to justify the blanket changes, it also seems more fitting to have a centralized discussion rather than a hundred separate ones (although I recognize that this is an unusual place for it). I have reported it here as such a staggering number of changes would be difficult to revert without a rollback tool. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Canadian articles I checked, at least, Jaguar does not appear to be changing the English variant so much as ensuring they consistently use EN-CA. I am not seeing anything problematic in those examples. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo, my justification is that all the articles I edited were either Commonwealth Realms, former British territories or any UK related product that used British spelling. Belize, for example, is a Commonwealth Realm and uses British English (there's no such thing as Belize English). I also edited Canadian related articles and implemented Canadian English into them (Ontario, Quebec, Totonto etc) so my reasons for this are 100% justified and correct? The policy I quote you mentioned is an automated edit summary provided by the script. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Canada and the Commonwealth, I have no issues, and I should have been more clear about that. Many others are clearly not Commonwealth Realms, and they clearly have no strong national ties to the UK. Belgium, for example, is not only not in the Commonwealth, but the article has always been in US English, and consensus is to leave it like that, not that you checked. Other obvious examples, include Brazil, Russia, South Korea, YouTube, television and World War II. Not only is there no obvious case to be made for changing these, but you didn't even attempt to make the case. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War II has always been in British English, YouTube was a mistake and I admit that, television I'm not sure why, even though it ties with being invented in Scotland I guess? And the other countries have no consensus? There's no policy saying that they shouldn't be in any variant of English? To be honest I didn't think anyone would even mind - it's only a few characters of changes (colonize to colonise for example)? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is a very clear policy, it's WP:ENGVAR, the one you quoted yourself. I suppose you didn't read it at all if you thought changing the English variant was legitimate. I invite you to clean up your mess by reverting each and every one of your non-Commonwealth edits, and to begin a discussion about why it should be changed in the cases where you think it should be. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Some of the changes that you made do not seem to be supported by WP:ENGVAR. Most topics should stick with whichever version of English it was first written in. Only in cases where there are strong national ties is it appropriate to switch from one variety to the other. For example Belgium is not a topic with strong national ties to Britain and therefore would not use that variety of English if it was first written in American English. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" [18], perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo Priest, did you try to discuss this with Jaguar before bringing it here? From my limited review I can see no indication that you even tried. It is best to try to fix the problems between the two of you before complaining here. GB fan 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan, I did not, as explained in my initial post. I realize it is somewhat unconventional to begin here, but it seemed to be the most elegant solution. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: After looking only at the top of your editing history, I've reverted you at Italy and Argentina, where a search of the history established in both cases that the earliest identifiable English variant used was U.S., and there is no association with the UK that would warrant the use of British English. As others have said, this is part of the ENGVAR policy, and you should have familiarised yourself with the entirety of the policy before implementing a script. Also, I suspect you are unaware of Oxford spelling, which is used far more on Wikipedia than I had expected. This is an area that is far less cut and dried than you appear to think; I don't think it's a good area for automated scripts. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I'm a A-Level student and I took English Literature and Language - I'm aware of Oxford Spelling. Trust me, I've read through WP:ENGVAR and I understand the policy. In fact I understand it better now - the script is also manual, I have to edit articles myself. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption

Jaguar, having had it explained that changes require a consensus, or strong national ties, has continued unilateral script-based changes of the English variants. See his contributions again. Among these are the Suez Crisis, which Canada and the US were also involved in, and Suriname, with no clear logic at all.

At this point, I move that he be blocked, at least from using a script, and that he undo all of the script-based ENGVAR changes he has done. In cases where he thinks it should be changed, he should begin a discussion about why it should be changed, and in no cases make such a change unilaterally. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to figure out why he changed Suriname, other than a desire to remove all USENG from neutral articles, which would be against policy. Jaguar, you've never been blocked and have almost 20k edits behind you, is there a compelling reason to not block you now? I hate to be the first, but you appear to be giving the finger to the community here by immediately going and modifying articles against policy while the discussion is ongoing. That is, by definition, WP:DE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo, are you kidding me? Disruptive editing? Is that what you seriously think? I can't even believe I'm being threatened to get blocked - the thought of it is just like what? Suriname is a former Netherlands colony, it gained independence a few decades ago and by then some of it was known as British Guiana (neighbouring French Guiana today). I was going to do Guyana instead, but accidentally mistook Suriname for the British colony - they were historically tied. That warrants British Spelling. My recent contributions are not 'disruptive' and far from it, I'm just trying to place British English into its correct articles for a change, maybe I have made a couple of mistakes then, Japan, Argentina etc. Now I have been told that the original English should be kept in the articles I will happily leave them be. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here is the problem Jaguar, you are going about this in a way that forces multiple people to watch your edits to catch things like Suriname and Suez Crisis, neither of which requires British Eng. Had they been started with it, fine, but changing the style of English on article that do not demand it IS disruptive, as is the way you are going about it. Some of your changes are obviously fine and even obvious, like Commonwealth of Nations and Greenwich Mean Time. Let me help you out a bit: If it isn't painfully obvious that the article should be in UKENG, like the two I've linked here, then ask on the talk page first. The fact that you mistook Suriname for a British Colony is the problem, your mistakes are the problem, you are erring on the side of "made the change" when you should be erring on the side of "don't make the change". I mean seriously, you made TWO such errors in the amount of time I took to type this paragraph, while it was being discussed at ANI. That is not a show of good judgement. I am wondering if Yngvadottir was correct above, and maybe the script should not be used. It is a convenient way to get in trouble and rapidly make lots of mistakes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has already been mentioned above, you (Jaguar) don't seem to understand the concept of Oxford spelling. The "-ize" suffix is not and never has been incorrect in British English, and is standard in publications ranging from the Times to the Oxford English Dictionary. You continuing to make these changes is getting well over the line into disruption. Mogism (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not kidding you Jaguar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you did not intend for your edits to be disruptive, but that is certainly the effect. I see that you have a long track record of positive contributions, which is in part why I find this so puzzling. Certainly, you know the importance of consensus when making controversial changes, especially when it was just explained to you.

I am also quite serious about you cleaning up the massive mess you have left. Hundreds of script based edits, many of which are no longer the most recent and not easily revertable, are a massive burden to undo. At this point "I will leave them be" amounts to "now that things are the way I want them, let's keep them that way". Once again, in the cases where you think there is actually a good rationale, make sure you actually provide it and first obtain consensus (after reverting your unilateral changes that is). In the case of Suriname, for example, the only logic was an implicit 'makes sense to me', and you even had the audacity to tag it to say that it should stay British English in the future. So once again, seriously clean up the massive mess you have made. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, let's be amply clear. "The UK was once involved historically with the subject" does not constitute a strong national tie. Oreo Priest ^talk 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • On what bases was the variation of English changed form US to British on Sudan, Suez Canal, Suez Crisis, Poland, World War I, World War II among others. You have never provided an explanation or pointed to a past consensus as to why the variation of English were changed. One could say that these edits are nationalistic in their intent. —Farix (t | c) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo and Farix are completely correct here. If you could use that rationale, then everything about America that is east of the Appalachian Mountains would use UK English, which happens to be where I hang my hat. I don't think you are intentionally trying to be disruptive either, but WP:DE isn't about intent. Whether someone is intentionally disrupting or just needs to be smacked with a clue bat, the end result is the same. In this case, I'm recommending the clue bat. You seem to have a misunderstanding of when to switch to UKENG and when to leave it completely alone. Before you do any more of this, you need some mentoring or something, so we don't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suez Canal and Suez Crisis should normally be in BE it seems to me, on special connection grounds, as the British were the only major Anglophone players. I can see a case for Sudan too - essentially a British invention in its modern form, and a in effect British colony for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have self reverted all of my edits regarding non-British related articles, except from Norway. I don't know why, but neighbouring Sweden was already written in UK spelling, so I've left Norway out. Everything else is UK-related. World War II was already British Spelling, I did not change it. I took that as an invitation to convert World War I to UK spelling, so you can revert me on that if you want, I'm going to leave it. The mess isn't as massive as I thought, less than 100 edits and only a handful were mistakes which I've mostly corrected now. My intentions were good, I didn't mean to be disruptive in any way. From now on I will stop using scripts for non-UK related subjects (save Canada). ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jaguar: I wish this were true. Of over 100 edits, you only reverted 8. You changed South Korea back, but not North Korea. Minecraft remains at UK English, again with no explanation given, as does television. Suez Canal, Spain, the list goes on. You have also made no effort at justifying why you think any of the remaining articles you left where they were have strong national ties to the UK. Please check WP:ENGVAR to see examples; in short the connection must be incredibly strong and incredibly clear. Please don't stop with this token effort, but finish what you started. Oreo Priest ^talk 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is really not a bases to ignore WP:ENGVAR, however, there are far more articles that still need to be reverted. Remember that the key words are strong ties. Not just any kind of ties that are remotely connected to either the UK or US. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very serious about getting some mentoring from someone who knows ENGVAR inside and out. What you are attempting to do is fine, but you have to realize that Finland might be USENG while Sweden is UKENG and the reason is that the original version was just written in that version. Neither version of English is preferred for these articles. In a few select circumstances, one version or the other is more appropriate but most of those are already changed over except for a few words that need cleaning up due to us Yanks editing Brit articles and vise versa. If you see an article that you think needs to be wholesale converted, odds are good that you are mistaken. You say you have started reverting, but as Farix points out, you really need to examine all the edits you have made, or maybe make a list and let someone else look and objectively say if it needs reverting. That is a very time consuming task, unless you have a script to convert UK to US English as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jaguar: I'm not going to get into qualifications with you because it's not really germane plus I don't want to out myself! However, your responses here suggest that you still have not realised that not unnecessarily changing the variety of English in which the article was originally written is part of WP:ENGVAR. In fact it is its essence: the guideline was developed to prevent destructive edit wars based on individual preferences. It does not matter what variety of English Sweden uses; Norway appears to have used U.S. English from the start (things are complicated by an import from NostalgiaWiki, but I find "aluminum" in 2010), and failing consensus on the talk page that there is a compelling reason to change, the guideline says leave it be. At World War I such an argument has been made on the talk page, and I've expressed my opinion there. I suggest you do too. However, the diff of your change at World War I provides what I consider a decisive argument that you should not be making script-assisted edits in this area, because apart from the issue of policy, you are not verifying the changes acceptably. You changed [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|Momčilo Gavrić]] to [[Momčilo Gavrić (soldier)|motherčilo Gavrić]]. Stop using the script. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not have to repeatedly come here and have you revert your switched from American English to British English (because you are only reverting article that are being brought up in this discussion). This is further compounded by the fact that you did not explained why you made the switch for each article, which means that all these switches are suspect unless they are blatantly obvious. It's one thing to say, "harmonizing language to established WP:ENGVAR", or "Novel by a British author, using British English per WP:TIES". But by the appearance of your edits, you seem to have taken the position that if the subject doesn't have strong US ties or has very week British ties, it should use British English. However, this is not what WP:ENGVAR says. —Farix (t | c) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just floating an idea here...

I know this is not the place for this idea to be extensively discussed, let alone decided, but I do want to mention the idea that perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about mixing different version of English in our articles. I grew up reading both American English and British English books, and as an adult I worked on many productions of British English plays, so it's never really bothered me to see "colour" and "honor" in the same article. Since we carry articles in a variety of different type of English, I think the presumption is that our readers can deal with reading those different versions when they switch from article to article, so why should it be so important to keep them segregated within an article?

Mind, I'm not saying that ENGVAR shouldn't be enforced when ignoring it becomes disruptive, as in this case, I just don't think that mixing varieties within an article is all that big a deal, unless something specific is impeding the ability of the reader to understand the article. BMK (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like --v/r - TP 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that there are differences of grammar and word usage, too. (These are more evident with Indian English, which many of us not from that part of the world are less familiar with.) It's an imperfect world, and the encyclopaedia is full of more obvious errors such as apostrophe errors, we have an imposed usage with respect to quotation marks and terminal punctuation to prevent fruitless edit-warring over that issue, and links can do a lot to help the reader (as with billion, truck, football) but for precision and clarity, I think we need to recognise that the different dialect groups do differ, and mixing them increases the potential for confusion rather than mitigating it. We can't impose "world English" even if we wanted to. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be concerned about those things, but it's relatively simple to write "truck (lorry)", "football (soccer)" or "billion (10⁹)" in places where ambiguity needs to be cleared up. I think it's an erroneous assumption that simply having the article written in one version of English is going to clue in the reader as to what meaning they should give those words, especially if they're read out of context, as is often the case.

Again, I'm not saying let's wipe out ENGVAR altogether. It's entirely appropriate that articles about Indian subjects use Indian English, I'm just saying let's not lose sleep when versions get mixed, especially in articles for which there is no logically preferred variety. BMK (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't lose sleep, no, and I sincerely hope no-one does. But the usefulness of having a rule in this case is that it resolves disputes. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is spot on. Unless the changes are blatantly disruptive. I read things daily that are a mixture of both forms of English, but if someone wants to go into articles and make them one or the other I see no issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A gigantic trout to BMK for this outrageous suggestion—what will the good folk at WT:MOS do if there are no rules to be enforced? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They'd have time to take us all out for a beer! BMK (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time

I don't think the disruption is intentional, but that doesn't make it any less problematic. I also don't think Jaguar really fully accepts the responsibility for the script's use either, in spite of a number of people trying to explain. I'm left with only a few tools in which to deal with this problem, and "ignore" isn't an option. I don't want to go so far as to ban ENGVAR as a whole and think that perhaps he can learn it in time, thus I propose:

Jaguar be banned from using any automated script or tool relating to ENGVAR, broadly interpreted, through Dec. 31, 2014. Manual ENGVAR edits would not be affected. Jaguar must also participate in cleaning up the damage done to the satisfaction of the community. Violations of this ban would be dealt with using escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I came here to ask on what rationale he changed Minecraft to Oxford spelling, and in what way the structure "in order to" violated the rules of that variety of English. This script needs to go back on the shelf and the editor needs to talk through the issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest just deleting the script. While it may be helpful in some respects, it yields itself far too easily to abuse and rash actions that most of us consider disruptive—such as this case. It is the hammer that is always looking for a nail. If a similar thing happened with AWB, they would have had their usage of that editing tool pulled. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I know I could be fighting a lost cause, but I must get this point out - perhaps this is being taken too far? Is there a possibility that we could be getting carried away with the problems of the script? As far as I see it, the script itself doesn't need to be re-evaluated and neither do I. I've already reverted the non-UK articles I've implemented the spelling in, so what is the point of these sanctions? So that I can never do it again? What if I just say that I will never use the script for non-UK and non-Canadian articles? I already have done, so why the sanctions? Will it get us anywhere? I will accept responsibility for what I've done, but I disagree with these threats of escalating blocks. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  North Korea, Israel, Iraq, Syria, China, Egypt, Kenya, Belize, South Sudan, Russia, Television, Computer, and Personal computer are all non-UK articles that you converted but have not reverted back. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Farix, did you check them? I have reverted all but three back! Belize and Kenya are English speaking countries and they use British Spelling! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What about Personal computer?--v/r - TP 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just reverted that one back. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great proposal. Though I do think that he should be allowed use of a US English ENGVAR script to clean up the damage. (I strongly doubt he will go overboard with this one.) Oreo Priest ^talk 22:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If you mean under your personal supervision for a day or two, then that would probably be fine, but not on his own. He still hasn't shown an understanding of the policy in general. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand both the policy and all what you have told me. In a nut shell, stick the national spelling to their respective national articles. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Question Editing with a script is not a subject with which I am at all familiar, so this is clearly a question asked from a position of ignorance: Is the problem the script itself, or in Jaquar's misuse of it? Would the exact same script used by someone with better judgment be non-problematic? BMK (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Even when you use a script, you are responsible for what that script does. If it screws something up, you don't blame the script, you blame the user. Here, the script made errors that he didn't check, PLUS the script is helping him make judgement errors at an accelerated pace. The problem is still Jaguar and his judgement, and removing access to the script may keep him from getting blocked or topic banned altogether. He still needs to learn ENGVAR, as his understanding of it is very, very flawed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions! I know that after I say this I'm just going to get hit with a lot of recoil - but let's step back and take a look at what I've actually done with this script. It's literally not a big deal - the script changes a few characters of a few words in a article (ize --> ise, or --> our, o --> oe) and whether or not people see it as disruptive, it just isn't! I've already reverted the few bytes worth of extra characters I've put in a few non-related UK articles. What's the point of these sanctions and criticism? The script is literally changing a few "bytes" of characters, I don't endorse the changes to non-UK or non-Canadian articles, but people are getting too carried away. I wish I'd never edited Belgium and none of this would have ever happened. And now I've said that, I'm ready for the abuse... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 09:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows that you still don't understand the scope of what you did. You weren't merely "changing a few bytes". You were changing the vary language that was being used on the articles. The reason for it? You didn't—and have yet to—give one and you were doing it on a massive scale. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that you don't make such changes unless (a) you get a consensus or (b) the article clearly has strong ties to the UK. Even when you claimed to have reverted all of your mistakes, editors had to repeatedly point out more articles to you. You only reverted an article when an editor specifically pointed it out to you that you should not have changed it. —Farix (t | c) 10:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Quite apart from the issue that you have been ignoring the essence of WP:ENGVAR, which is do not change the variety of English without good reason, you allowed the script to change a person's name in World War I. You were not responsibly monitoring the changes it made. I'm sorry for the emphasis, but you have been told this, and it matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

BC has declared (in a way) a conflict of interest with regard to, "extensive work I carried out on the A2 milk article". BC has not declared who paid the "fee" in question but has suggested that as their contract or agreement didn't specify "promotion" in particular, they are exempt from the provisions of WP:NOPAY. Nonetheless, the original "extensive work" constitutes this major rewrite of the article in line with this draft.

That edit did a number of things -

• It increased the prominence of "fringe" claims (including the suggestion that A2 milk might diminish the symptoms of autism)
• It introduced (twice) a story about the mainstream milk industry trying to "discredit" A2 products
• It introduced a story about a rouge operator fined for making dishonest medical claims, described by the edit as "a small Queensland start-up" but by news media as "one of A2 Corporation Ltd's major licensees in Australia"
• It inferred scientific and medical concerns with regard to A2's competitors (the makers of regular A1 milk) framing each claim as being backed by strong science thus forcing "denials" from milk producers, framing "adverse effects" as being "disputed by some scientists" rather than those adverse effects being assertions from a handful of fringe scientists (as they are).
• It listed a number of studies on (non-human) animals with regard to a particular element of non-A2 milk, inferring danger to humans if extrapolated (without acknowledging that no such human trials had been conducted).
• It introduced a suggestion (in Wikipedia's voice) that regular milk should be compared to opioids or narcotics by comparison to A2 Milk.

...and made a significant number of other changes. The edit was reverted but then reinstated by BC after they "reinforced" their position on the article talk page. This has been a fairly consistent MO since - BC posts what he/she believes is a strong argument against a particular criticism on the talk page and then shortly thereafter reinstates a section citing no immediate argument with their claim.

Whatever the arrangement with BC's employer, BC's original edit, edits since and draft article are all obviously designed to promote A2 Milk in general and the a2 Corporation in particular. BC should absolutely be held to the provisions of WP:NOPAY at a minimum and be confined to editing the talk page with {{Request edit}} templates. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am a consumer of A2 milk, which is now a leading milk brand in Australia, and am interested in the subject of why it is different to normal supermarket milk. The article on A2 milk on Wikipedia was a stub and flagged for poor grammar, poor construction and poor sourcing. Considering (a) the market share it has in Australia and its entry to the UK and US markets, and (b) the conflicting views among scientists on its potential health benefits compared with normal milk and (c) the range of news stories and serious television coverage it has received in New Zealand and Australia, I considered I could, with extensive research, greatly improve the article.

I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version.[27].

A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".[28]. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.[29]

Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. [30] That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.

I have zero confidence in this system working because of the collection of hostile editors who are acting as gatekeepers.

On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing".[31] Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again[32] claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.

On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". [33] This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.

In short, a number of editors on the A2 page have now become obstructive and are, I suspect, editing the article -- and blocking my edits of the article -- in order to denigrate A2 milk as a form of pushback against my edits. In the current version of the article I see nothing that markets or promotes A2 milk, or makes false claims, or presents fringe science. This is what others claim is there and as a result are questioning my motives. I say again: I am now promoting A2 milk. I have read WP:NOPAY carefully and I am convinced I am not bound by its requirement to edit the article through the talk page using them as mediators. I have been working on Wikipedia for many years, have created, expanded and improved many articles. This one, to me, is no different. It was shitty, and I can improve it. And I have not finished: I am still reworking an extensive section dealing with the conflicting science findings and the series of reviews of published evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack - that's an assessment of your suggestion that while you've accepted a fee and have made promotional edits, you're not subject to guidelines related to accepting a fee and making promotional edits. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So help me here: what, in the existing article (the result of early collaboration and compromise), is promotional? Serious question. BlackCab (TALK) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Not much - that's the point. We successfully resisted your efforts to turn the article into a glowing endorsement of the subject and a stinging rebuke of its competitors. But those efforts (and your dissertation above) demonstrate that you are incapable of approaching this subject in a neutral manner. To be honest, I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them - your agenda seems pretty straightforward, with or without a pay-cheque at the end. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "we" had our "our" way the article would still be the shitty stub, which is what "we" (User:Bhny and User:Roxy the dog) reverted it to in a tag-team manoeuvre,[34][35] with a sham appeal to BRD. (Neither editor was willing to engage in meaningful discussion: Bhny immediately started his surreptitious canvassing campaign with misleading claims at two noticeboards; Roxy's contributions have been laced with sneering sarcasm.[36]). It was only the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing—who actually read my edit and reinstated material that was clearly unobjectional [37][38]—that took the article to what it is now. I accepted this. I accepted the removal of the "Digestive benefits" section. I accepted that the science section needed to be reworked. I made all this clear on the talk page. From that point more -- quite innocuous -- material was deleted; my subsequent attempts to discuss this and reinstate (a) a one-paragraph statement of scientific fact and (b) the fact that there is no consensus over the benefits of A2 milk have been met with obstruction, derision and abuse. I am doing all I can to collaborate. And Stalwart111's final little insult ("I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them) is yet another unwarranted attack on my good faith. Just examine my record. BlackCab (TALK) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through following further links from WP:PAID, I have located a June 16, 2014 update to the Wikimedia terms of use pertaining—for the first time—to paid editing. I have therefore updated the disclosure notice on my user page. BlackCab (TALK) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, if "we" had "our" way you would have complied with WP:NOPAY to begin with, proposed edits on the talk page and we would have avoided your initial attempts to turn the article into a marketing tool for your client. You didn't and we're here because you continue to believe those rules don't apply to you. And you forgot Jim1138, Second Quantization and an IP who all objected to various parts of your various claims. And your new declaration makes it clear you are being paid by a public relations and media management company for whom A2 is a major client. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this? Did they envisage that an editor who did so would consequently be subjected to such a tirade and a clear pattern of obstruction? But in the meantime I'll ask again, if Stalwart111 can just draw breath from his outpouring of venom and vitriol: what, in the existing article (the outcome of the collaboration and compromise achieved after the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing), is promotional? And can he please return to the article talk page and express a view on whether the sources I promptly and comprehensively provided in answer to his request support the paragraph he removed? BlackCab (TALK) 12:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, it's not a "tirade" or "venom" or "vitriol". You and your multinational corporate client are not the victims here. WP:NOPAY is very clear - "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as [... a] contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes...)". You fit squarely into that category. Why do you insist that the rules don't apply to you? I've answered your question - it isn't promotional now. But we've all been subjected to long and repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with us. WhatamIdoing? reinstated only 17,000 bytes of your 53,000-byte promotional edit. So about 35,000 bytes of promotional material was removed by the "compromise" you were forced to accept. And I've removed more since. And you've been fighting 6 editors on that talk page ever since. And you openly admit you want to add more. Either play by the rules or don't; your choice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this?" You can accept a payment, but you are still required to follow WP:COI and WP:PAY. "what, in the existing article" The more interesting question is, if no one had stopped you, what would the article look like? We know the answer to that: [39]. See WP:COIADVICE as well, particularly If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.. Second Quantization (talk)

Obvious promotional content is obvious. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And obvious collaboration is obvious. I have accepted without demur the edits made early in the piece. Now a simple scientific statement has been removed and will not even be discussed, and a claim has been inserted into the lead based on a cherry-picked source. And I am subjected to non-stop abuse. BlackCab (TALK) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCab, you're a long term and productive editor, so I don't understand why you've put yourself in this position by accepting a fee for contributions. Your edits to this article have brought forward a quantity of potentially useful sources and contributed to a more detailed piece on A2 milk. Whether these meet MEDRS is a live content dispute on the article talk page, which is where it should be. And the article as it currently stands is certainly a more comprehensive treatment of the subject than it as a few weeks ago. Its current form (thanks to various contributions)is not overly promotional, or is within the bounds of what can reasonably be argued out on a talk page.

However, it remains that you have a conflict of interest in editing an article on a company where that company is paying you to do so. This edit, at the least, contained material that other editors rightly considered promotional and lacking a neutral point of view. Increased scrutiny of these edits is not routinely harrassment, but part of the stricter examination of potentially COI paid contributions. You have appropriately declared that conflict on your userpage, though I think most people would dispute your claim that you are under no obligation to promote the product. Your PR agency is not funding your edits from a sense of philanthropy and whatever your independent intentions, it would be their reasonable expectation that the article you produce would be in the commercial interests of their client.

So: the declaration is great and in accordance with one half of WP:NOPAY. But there is a strong discouragement of paid editing, which is what you are currently engaged in. How about you now follow the other half of NOPAY and propose any further edits to this article solely on its talkpage rather than adding them directly to the article? Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Euryalus. If the article on A2 milk is to be complete and thorough, it still needs to cover its history: how and why it came to market. This is essentially a section that deals with the science—the initial concerns that led to someone to decide to produce a milk free of A1 betacasein and the series of scientific reviews that followed. I concede (and have done so all along) that the science section (as with the digestive benefits section) was a bit ham-fisted, mainly because I was unaware of a Wikipedia policy on primary sourcing (the findings of researchers, even in peer-reviewed journals) on medical issues. In the days after uploading the article, I realised a more diplomatic approach would be to do just that: create a sandbox, drop the intended copy there and point to it from the talk page and invite discussion.

The problem now is that the hostility towards my edits and me personally have risen to levels that make any collaboration next to impossible. As I have mentioned, there are still two outstanding issues on the talk page that cannot be resolved because editors are focusing on the fee (and what they see as my compromised position) rather than the content: (a) an innocuous (but highly pertinent) scientific fact about the release of peptides during digestion of milk and (b) an edit that seems to be a deliberate negative twist in the lead, based on a cherry-picked source. Really, what hope do I have of sober, productive collaboration? I am on the receiving end both at that page and right here, of unwarranted abuse and a very clear lack of AGF. It seems to me my chances of progressing on the article now are practically nil. Wikimedia Foundation created Terms of Use that allow what am I am doing. Other editors need to accept that and work with it ... and me. BlackCab (TALK) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a paid editor does not allow you to draw unsupported conclusions and put said conclusions into wikipedia articles. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The collaboration process involves accepting the input of other editors and I have done that. Whatever errors of judgment I may have made in my first venture into paid editing have been removed and I have accepted that. Other editors have now ceased collaborating and are focusing on insult, obstruction and in the case of Roxy the dog[40][41] deliberate provocation. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at AN/I logs and see that this user has been topic banned multiple times for things like this. I made my initial contribution [43] to Acupuncture. QG was quick to remove the edits in a very calculated and tenuous manner. I reworked the submission with a better ref and resubmitted. It was removed by another user. After that I did try to reinsert the material but for some reason got an undeserved edit warring warning from User:2over2[44]

Quack started harassing me almost immediately. He claimed that I reposted poor sources against consensus and then went on and on about the sources. He then started hounding me on my talk page which lead first request for Quack to stop hounding me about sources on my talk page. He did not comply with this.

Quack next started destructively editing Myofascial meridians and continuing to spew his toxic Fringe Bias. For the apparent reason of revenge, he gutted an article I was working on. Things have deteriorated from there.

I don't like conflict. I have spent the last few months working on Islamic State (militant group) and related articles and I haven't had a single bad experience. There's certain bad actors that serve no constructive purpose. They thrive on attention and only cause trouble.

I would like to propose an immediate block and have this put forth for review for ban. - Technophant (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of edit warring, the harassment link doesn't look like a personal attack to me. (Non-administrator comment) Dustin (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my talk page under "Friendly Warning". I asked him politely and firmly to stop bringing source issues to my talk page earlier. - Technophant (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So User:Technophant has added a bunch of primary sources here [45] among others and than reports QG when he brings it politely to his attention? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And looking further. In this edit they added content that does not appear to be supported by the ref in question [46]. Unless they come up with some good justification I am thinking a topic ban of User:Technophant from alternative medicine may be in order. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look that a ref Jmh649. It has a Title, date, author, and partial url. The partial url is a minor copy/paste error due to a flakey trackpad. I went and found the proper url and [47] the problem. - Technophant (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR NB filing WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Technophant_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_.29 - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best description of what has been going on is WP:Wikihounding. - Technophant (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're alone in thinking that, though. I'm afraid "going on and on about the sources" is an integral part of what we do at Wikipedia. It's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it's good that there are users who have the patience for it. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This editor looks an awful lot like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, topics, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, you know paranoia, ABF and attacking other editors are common as grass in this place, don't you? That leaves only the topics, which is hardly enough for a duck block. That's not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure the similarities are significant enough to persuade a checkuser to look. A CU has made a check at the Klocek SPI, but it's not closed yet, so maybe you'd like to add this account and ask for another check? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Technophant, it's not appropriate to take your isues with Acupuncture to multiple boards simultaneously. Your complaint at WP:NPOVN is technically about "a cabal of users hell-bent in making sure acupuncture is completely discredited" [48] while this report here is about QuackGuru, but the meat of them is exactly the same: your dissatisfaction with the users opposing your edits at Acupuncture. Please review Wikipedia: Asking the other parent: It doesn't help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. I'm not sure where this comment goes best, but, since you haven't linked to your other complaint at either of the noticeboards, I suppose I'd better put it on both. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Per the permission guidelines and the issue at large, I've brought my concern here for community review.

I've recently encountered a number of copyright concerns by Trident13 that I feel are egregious enough (at a minimum) to warrant the removal of his reviewer and autopatrol user rights. My first encounter of the issue was Trident13's close paraphrasing copyright violation at Soughton Hall. (Please see this Wikilegal post for addition information on close paraphrasing.) Upon further investigation, I found there are additional reports that demonstrate similar copyright violations. (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#LA_Models) Digging further into the issue reveals over 200 articles where Trident13 posted the content of copyrighted pages onto an article, used a NOINDEX tag or hid the text in comment lines, and then paraphrased the content. (See his move log. Most of the concerning pages were located in his userspace and then moved into the namespace. The majority are tagged with "into production".) This is an issue that has continued, despite being notified in October 2011. Some of these actions have been brought into question on COIN and Trident13 has not responded to the concerns in over a week.

In addition, Justlettersandnumbers, Jytdog, and Fuhghettaboutit have raised concerns of his failure to disclose possible conflicts of interest under the new terms of use. (See the COI case posted above).

There is a required level of trust and familiarity with our core policies to hold these rights. I don't feel that Trident13 meets these criteria. I would like to invite the community to discuss the proposal to remove these permissions and if any additional sanctions should be implemented. Any administrator assistance in the revision deletion of the affected articles would be greatly appreciated. Best, Mike V • Talk 06:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not endorsing the proposal, just making it simple to snout count. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

But Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE, and an issue like this doesn't even need support/oppose !voting the panda ₯’ 09:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Infringement

• Note As already stated, permissions are about trust, and I have removed them. The additional issue about blocking and other actions should still be under discussion the panda ₯’ 09:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote the above as a proposal as that appeared to be the intention of Mike V. I apologize if I made things more difficult or cumbersome. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Per DangerousPanda I'll rewrite the prior proposal as thus:

Proposal: Trident13 has violated the community trust by committing multiple acts of copyright violations and as such is indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if he has 200 copyvios and I can see them, I will just block him. That is one of those things that doesn't require a vote, as there is plenty of previous consensus on it. There are some COI issues at WP:COI but those don't bother me so much since the TOS for WMF sites recently changed. Copyright infringement is the most serious offense you can do here because of the legal problems and sheer expense to the Foundation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and we don't need "proposals" or !votes for everything. No need to set them up the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a ton of deleted contribs that worry me, but I can't do a complete investigation right now. I'm soon to be off to visit a relative in ICU, so pardon if I can't follow up for a while. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all's well Dennis! the panda ₯’ 11:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Dennis Brown, I see this CCI investigation, Soughton Hall (check the history), Michael Hogben, and maybe some others. Trident has a considerable number of contributions, deleted or otherwise, so sifting through them will take a little time. My first impression (which may change wildly as I search more) is that there are copyvio problems but nothing close to "200 copyvios". Again, there are lots of edits to search through so that's not a complete estimate yet. Justlettersandnumbers, you seem to be following this issue closely. Can you point us toward the specific articles and edits which you found, beyond those listed at CCI now? Protonk (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One example would be here. While the current article may not infringe on copyright, as it has developed over time by the community, the history still needs to be revision deleted. The articles found in the log above follow a similar pattern. Mike V • Talk 14:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BS that come's from this guys keyboard 'What the fuck do you think you are playing at? Stand back and let me fix the article, I don't have time to do it all multiple times. And never accuse me of being a vandal. This was agreed in talk.' TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you notify John (talk · contribs) about this ANI discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Yes he notified at WP:ANEW [49]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say where he reported him. And then there's this condescending post:[50] TheAirplaneGuy has been here for 4 years, and John has been here for 8. Maybe there's a long-standing feud between these two? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that this is the first time we have crossed paths... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that your signature is still pointing to your previous ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Also, the instructions at the top of this page are pretty explicit: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I was trying to drop a little hint to the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course I'm afraid. The following threats of unilateral blocking without benefit of ANI and redacting of editors comments were make in regard to an issue in which John is not an uninvolved admin. [51], [52] and [53]. If it looks like bullying... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the typical behaviour for an admin, but I was threatened with a block by John when I requested him not to remove sources, giving reason for the illogicality of his action. He chose not to discuss it but issued a threat to block instead - the exchange here Hzh (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAirplaneGuy: do you have diffs or links for the alleged bullshit? Protonk (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked TheAirplaneGuy for a day for 3RR vio (not just against John) after coming across this on the article. If an admin wishes to unblock TheAirplaneGuy so they can participate here with the condition that they avoid the article for a day I've got no issue with that (if they ask I'll do it myself). As I said at WP:ANEW I've notified both of the discretionary sanctions in this area with no prejudice to action being taken as a result of this thread. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notified John of this discussion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Should not the article be added to the list of articles under the discretionary sanctions?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Solarra for the notification and thanks Callanecc for the block. I don't have a lot to add. It was discussed and agreed at the article talk that the "reactions" section was over-stuffed with anodyne quotes. The article was tagged to reflect this. I started to work on summarising the important quotes this morning and was bloody annoyed to be repeatedly reverted by TheAirplaneGuy, in one case with an edit summary accusing me of vandalism. I said in my own talk how annoyed I was, then checked their contribs and saw they were blind-reverting most edits to the article, and were at something like 13RR for the day. Reported to AN3 and went about my business. --John (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that heavy edit warring is currently going on in the article, which involves at least four users (+/- 469 bytes reverts)--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I'm volunteering, but maybe it's time for full protection and a few admin to babysit the talk page for stuff to add? The problem now is that an edit can get to 13RR (or even 6RR in the event that was hyperbole) and it go unnoticed because of all the other edits to that same page. 72 hours should be sufficient. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that the information for the article is changing hourly, and in 72h the article will be hopelessly outdated. And asking for protected edit request will likely be unmanageable. I edited the article though and I am not in a position to protect it or to block anybody for edit warring in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've worked a number of these exact types of articles before with full protection. The only way you can do it is have good editors on the talk page rapidly building consensus and a couple of admins making changes to the article based on each consensus and nothing else. It forced people to use the talk page for each point, but it does require an admin or two always babysitting, around the clock. In some circumstances, it is the best way to deal with the problem, where POV and rapid edits are making it impossible to manage warring otherwise. If you block a half dozen people, you may end up making the POV even worse. I'm not saying this is the right answer here and will defer to your judgement, just that sometimes, hardnosed but monitored protection works, even if only for a few hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are admins available to monitor the page, may be one can indeed protect it for 24h or so.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is good cause to think it will work, as Dennis indicates, do it. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No way. I was taken yesterday to ANI for promising to block a single-purpose account for repeatedly calling the page protection (of the same page) "vandalism". If I protect it now, I will possibly be taken to Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone edit warring needs to be blocked. There is no sense in effectively locking down an article about a major current event due to a few people. -- John Reaves 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental dichotomy is between those who believe, as I do, that WP is intended to be an encyclopedia, and those who believe that it's a 24-hour rolling news site. Block the latter. Eric Corbett 22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly support the position of Mr Corbett in this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than people wanting to make Wikipedia a 24 hour news cycle. Some editors, like some of the world's political "leaders", are using this incident as an opportunity to say "the Russians are evil and must be punished" or "No, the Ukranians did it", long before we can be certain of either, or not. It's a classic POV platform, being misused in the worst possible way. Unless such editors are QUICKLY sanctioned EVERY time, some protection seems to me to be the only way at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing the point John Reaves, when the article is this busy, you might have to read through several pages to see the 5th or 6th revert in a day. Blocking everyone is problematic because you end up only blocking some of the people, leading to uneven enforcement. Sometimes, locking it down so no one can edit is exactly the right call, at least for a while, to bring sanity as well as force the editors to seek consensus on the talk page. We aren't cops, we are editors with extra tools, here to build an encyclopedia. Whatever stops disruption and improves the encyclopedia is the best move, and sometimes that is protection for a few hours, even if that pisses a few people off. Some of these people are just getting too excited but they mean well and are simply human. Blocking multiple people should not be the first tool you pull out of the admin kit. And Eric, that is exactly why protection isn't the end of the world when used properly for limited periods of time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points Eric and Dennis. I hadn't looked at it that way. I suppose we have talk pages for a reason! -- John Reaves 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article fully protected based on the discussion above. I've made it indefinite, since I don't know how long we normally do for a super-high-profile article like this. 24 hours? 48 hours? A week? Please reduce protection immediately if you're familiar with our normal practice. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would strongly oppose full protection of this page. This is an extremely important and quickly developing event. Even now, the page is in a relatively poor condition. Make 1RR or 2RR restriction for the page if you wish. This can be done because tt falls under EE discretionary sanctions. My impression: recent work with this page was relatively peaceful. Warn or block edit-warriors if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I also oppose full protection, this is an ongoing crisis full protection will make the article dated over time per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Information for this article is changing hourly, and within 12 hours, the article will be hopelessly outdated. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, maybe now some people will start to realize just how ill-suited crowd-sourced editing is for current/breaking events. Imagine in the olden days of actual journalism and beat writers, if 50 people had to share one keyboard to write 1 story. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I oppose full protection. A per-case PC2 may be used instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a thing with TheAirplaneGuy or other editors, but an actual event which needs many updates, see "Current Disaster" template on top of the article. So: Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cant the two just be topic banned for a week or so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

• Oppose This article needs to be updated quickly, it will be outdated in a few hours. And: it works, look at the page views counter, this article is the strength and core of the shrinking Wikipedia. Admins please accept not to having full control. Normalgirl (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think voting is appropriate here. See WP:NOTAVOTE. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, if you look at the other cases here, there are often votings at the end of the discussion. Even you actually "voted" here. And: its not the time to discuss several days carefully. Normalgirl (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We admins don't have "control". No admin has put in anything they thought was a good idea, only what the community clearly said passes consensus. And you are correct, this isn't about voting, it is about preventing problems by slowing the editing down to what is clearly passing consensus. Wikipedia isn't CNN, our job isn't to be the most up to date, just timely but more important, accurate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only admin !votes would be relevant anyhow. I see NG's point about the normal functioning of WP, but IMO it's simply the case that countless users will be coming here seeking to question, undermine, or minimize mainstream reporting and opinion on this event, and as I understand it that's not what WP is for. I started off wanting to say weak oppose (i.e. restore semi-protection, with reservations). But the meta-public debate about perspective and biases that is likely to occur here is, I think, something that WP usually takes pains to avoid. That is supposed to play out in op-eds, letters to editors, comments on news websites, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to help keeping this special article up to date. Normalgirl (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged as an A7 along with the seven subpages thus far created. Copyright violation is also asserted on the subpages. This sentence from the main page is disturbing: "In 2014, a copy of the BAR was reformatted and moved from the USDA-ARS webserver in Lubbock, Texas, to Wikipedia."

I have no idea what to do with these pages. Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself: the subpages have been tagged only with G12.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the pages. I tagged the main page as A7 because it is about an online bibliography that does not assert its importance. I tagged the subpages as G12 because they appear to simply be the bibliography that's been cut and pasted. Just wanted to explain my logic in case it wasn't clear. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]