There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [20]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are three avenues you may want to take. First, if one of the editors behaves disruptively, he or she can be reported here or at 3RR Noticeboard, depending on the situation, or eventually even at arbitration enforcement. I would say there is very little chance for smth to happen - for example, once I was trying to deal with the editor who was adding {{fact}} templates to figure captions, and wanted to get references for the Constitution of Russia (you know, with ISBN etc), and I could only get him blocked from the fourth attempt, and my first attempt resulted in someone lecturing me that this is a proper behavior, and I am attacking a good-faith user. Furthermore, if this is a purely content dispute (and if you ask me, I would say it currently is), WP:DRN is at your service, and then mediation. I am not really looking forward, since you are in minority, and the majority can simply ignore the dispute resolution attempts, but you can try nevertheless. Finally, the most difficult route, which so far nobody tries to take, is to take every single source and get consensus elsewhere on whether the source is reliable in this situation. For example, if you think RT is a reliable source - take it to the corresponding noticeboard, insist that it gets evaluated, and if it is concluded to be a reliable source as far as Ukraine is concerned, info from RT can be added to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad idea about the RS noticeboard. Thanks!!! USchick (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But always do the search. This particular source was discussed numerous times, most recently here and becomes less and less reliable every day. Disputing questionable sources on the RS noticeboard is enormous waste of time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that RT is generally fairly trustworthy, and is most trustworthy where it reports on things that are not directly connected to Russia, and most useful when those trustworthy reports concern news stories that are deliberately under reported (or not reported at all) by media sources in the US (or, in Britain, by the BBC). It quite clearly delights in pointing out the biases and untrustworthy nature of some US and European reporting on some issues, which sometimes means it misses the point in its reporting, emphasizes the wrong things, and gives that reporting an unprofessional and rather amateurish tone. I think the idea that a blanket "trustworthy" or "untrustworthy" label can be given to a major media source that reports on many different subject areas in many different countries is always going to be unsustainable, which is why that particular discussion was called "a giant waste of time". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (diff) 10:13, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Turn the debate it into an RfC so that a broader consensus can be sought)
• (diff) 12:27, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (→‎Moving forward: I never put forth an RfC. Don't use my wording with an RfC.)
• (diff) PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• (diff) 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

From the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

I have never been put in a situation before where an editor claims copyright on wording such the proposals for general sanctions to prevent an RfC being held on whether those general sanctions are acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. But how else is one meant to understand I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you.

I think that the proposed general sanctions are badly drafted because the UK is not defined and potentially covers hundreds of thousands of articles. If one looks at list of general sanctions they are tightly focused on an issue or on a specific area, this proposal is neither. Therefore I think that a decision on whether to impose the sanctions should not be restricted to the dozen or so editors who have expressed an opinion so far.

Now that there is a definite draft I think it should be put to the community via a widely adversed RfC. User:RGloucester had twice reverted my attempts to start an RfC and seems to be determined to continue to do so. I think that this is unreasonable and I would like to see what the consensus is here at ANI is:

1. On whether the language highlighted in Green is reasonable
2. Whether it is desirable to hold an RfC on such a wide ranging (and I think badly drafted General Sanction)

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are an informal process, as it says at the RfC page. Such a process cannot be forced upon a proposal by one heavily-involved editor. You've expressed your objection to the proposal, as is your right. However, that does not overwrite the views of other editors who do support the proposal, and do think that the UK is adequately defined. Your one objection does not trigger an RfC, nor does it overwrite the standard procedure for establishing general sanctions, which is to start a discussion at WP:AN. There is no reason why this proposal is any different from any other general sanctions proposal. I will not take part in any farcical RfC requested at your behest. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will not accept one editor's insertion of an RfC template before my words, without my consent. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, I can't see any evidence of anyone 'claiming copyright' on anything. What I can however see is an out-of-sequence construction of a RfC around a comment made in another context. I'm not surprised that RGloucester objects to you misrepresenting his posting in this way. If you think an RfC is merited, start one in the appropriate manner, in your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the general sanctions proposal is to stop the bizarre disruption of UK related pages by advocates and opponents of the metric system of measurement in the UK. Both sides have often paralysed a series of articles, whilst converting backward and forward to / from their favoured measurement system. A clear consensus had formed at WT:MOSNUM there was a need for this, there was a clear consensus at WP:AN to enact it and now progress is being prevented by PBS in what I can only describe as filibustering. This wasn't an RFC, it was refactioring another editors comments - something that in normal circumstances could well lead to a block. It is a bizarre demand by any standards that you be allowed to refactor another editors post to become an RFC; so much so that I question whether PBS still has the WP:COMPETENCE to be an administrator.

1. Yes the proposal is reasonable and there was no need to forum shop it elsewhere.
2. No, I don't see a need for an RFC on the proposal. WCM_email 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump If the statement "I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours." is claim of copyright, then what it it?

@Wee Curry Monsternon one is proposing to "forum shop it elsewhere". I did not redactor anyone's comments indeed if anyone refactored anyone's comments it is User:RGloucester for removing text -- but given the circumstances that is not a question that needs addressing. The question that needs addressing is does one editor have the right under the relevant policies and guidelines to prevent another editor starting an RfC with claims of ownership over both a process and text that that editor states they own? -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get anywhere with this "line of questioning", I can assure you that. This is starting to look like pure badgering. RGloucester — ☎ 12:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to push this forward to some sort of conclusion, and again we're going down a side issue Doesn't "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." that appears under every edit window have relevance here?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Havin been party to the GS discussion, I found it decidedly odd that PBS would unilaterally try to wrap an existing discussion into an RFC. As Andy says, PBS, just start a new RFC. RGloucester has stated their objection to your use of their words in the way you wish. You may have the legal right to edit any text on wiki but wrapping RG's words into your RFC when he's indicated his opposition would be ethically wrong.Blackmane (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I think someone uninvolved might consider closing this and the AN discussion possibly as well, if he finds consensus has been reached.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: If you think you can add the RfC tag to his proposal and then have it take at least a week (and default of a month) before closing, you are wrong. If you just added the RfC to try to get more interest from other editors, I can understand that, but if he doesn't want it to be an RfC, the RfC tag should be removed from his request and start your own. He cant stop you from creating your own RfC thread using whatever words you wish. But don't expect him to stop the building of consensus for his proposal and wait for your RfC to finish (by the time the RfC finishes it is unlikely to matter anymore). --Obsidi (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm starting to get quite fed-up, here. PBS has now started a new "RfC" at WP:AN#RfC: General actions over systematic changes of values from one system of measurement to another. Instead of making his own proposal, he copied mine as I told him not to do, clearly in bad faith. This is absolutely absurd, and I don't know why it should be tolerated. There is no reason why I should be badgered like this. I followed the standard procedure for general sanctions, I worked hard with many editors to ensure that their concerns are dealt with. That's why I have consensus in that AN thread to establish this proposal. It doesn't matter, what I've done, however, because some lone-wolf guy called PBS can come in here, assault me for trying to resolve a serious and long-term problem, and destroy my proposal. Now we have a duplicate joke RfC, and there is nothing I can do about it. I'd like to seek sanctions against PBS. Perhaps he should be blocked, perhaps admonished. I don't know. But this is clearly unacceptable behaviour, and behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. It is childish, and stupid. Please close this farcical RfC, and do something about PBS's behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: What is your problem with him starting his own RfC? It doesn't stop you from continuing to do what you were doing before. --Obsidi (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His own "RfC" on the wording proposed by me, disregarding the ongoing discussion that we've been having above, all the input people have put in there? His own "RfC", requested unilaterally by himself as a bureaucratic block on my proposal? His own "RfC", in defiance of the standard process for general sanctions, which is to have a discussion at WP:AN? His own "RfC", an attempt to force his opinion on everyone else because he just doesn't like the proposal? His own "RfC", despite my telling him explicitly that I don't support such an RfC, and that I didn't want him to use my proposal for his own purposes? It is not a legal question of copyright, but one of ethics. This is pure bad faith behaviour, essentially badgering. There is absolutely no justification for this behaviour at all, especially coming from an administrator. It is pure disruption. If he wasn't an administrator, he'd likely be blocked for such behaviour. He's likewise topic-banned editors for doing similar things in articles under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions. The fact that this nonsense is being tolerated by the community is absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is "bureaucratic block on my proposal"? They operate independently. If your proposal gets consensus, it gets closed and enacted. At that point in time the RfC becomes moot (as already enacted), and gets closed for that reason. Doesn't stop or block you at all. --Obsidi (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. There are now two discussions about the same proposal, one of which is illegitimate. Nothing can be done with the upper proposal until this "RfC" is closed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You proposed something using the normal process, and he proposed something using the RfC process. Same words/different words, doesn't matter, two different proposals. Normally fractured conversations like that are bad, and we like to merge into a single process, but if people cant agree, then there is no requirement of having only one. I don't see how the RfC prevents someone from closing your proposal (assuming it has a consensus to be enacted).--Obsidi (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is called Wikipedia:Forumshopping. It is bad, pure and simple. People do agree: everyone except PBS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think its forum shopping, he isn't asking to override your consensus (at least from what I can tell), by going to another forum. He is trying to get input from other outside editors, using a process that probably in my opinion isn't going to work (because of the time an RfC takes), but that's all it is. He isn't asking that your consensus be overturned because he didn't get the answer he wants. When your discussion closes with a consensus (assuming you actually do get a consensus), then the RfC should be closed. --Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. He thinks that the comments made in the discussion I started were not "wide enough", even though plenty of other general sanctions have been established with less participation. As such, he is unilaterally opening an RfC so that he can do whatever he can to stop the proposal, even if only temporarily. He is saying, essentially, that the discussion I started isn't good enough, and that there is no possibility for consensus without an RfC. That's exactly what he said in the thread I started. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: He says that it is "not a well watched page" and that he would like to see a "well advertised RfC" and that he created the "RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought". Maybe its ambiguous on exactly what he meant to do with the RfC (override whatever consensus developed without the RfC or just gain a wider audience viewing it). One is clear forum shopping, the other is just trying to get more eyeballs on the topic that might be interested in it. Best to ask PBS what he meant for the RfC, to clear things up. --Obsidi (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doens't matter whether it is a "well-watched page" or not, because all other general sanctions have been drawn-up there, and that's the standard procedure. I followed that procedure, and I should not be punished for doing so. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in a little late, but I must say I found that a quite extraordinary argument. According to the most recent database report, WP:AN is number 18 most watched page on Wikipedia. If that's "not a well watched page", what is a well-watched page? Kahastok talk 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, you followed the procedure, and that is the procedure, and with consensus can be closed and add the general sanctions you proposed (with or without the RfC). I just disagree that makes the RfC improper as I don't think it stops or prevents or in anyway interferes with your proposal (if that is what is being proposed by PBS that would be forum shopping). If he wants more people to view the suggestion, that is fine, if he wants to override the consensus with the RfC that would be improper. --Obsidi (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I followed that procedure, and I should not be punished for doing so." Why you should think that an RfC is a punishment is beyond me. although I do see that your claim of ownership over the wording is an indication that you do not see this as a broadly inclusive process. There is no time limit on the process of deciding whether to introduce such sanction. It is better to have sanctions with wide support than narrow support. I do think that the proposed sanctions, which I think are badly drafted, could be interpreted to affect 100,000 of articles and therefore potentially thousands of editors, so I think that the proposed sanctions should not be embarked upon after a discussion between less than a score of editors, and the easiest way to make sure that does not happen is to hold an RfC and see if a broader consensus supports the narrower one. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you think, PBS, doesn't matter. You do not have ultimate authority to decide whether an RfC is required or isn't, or whether some kind broad consenus is required or isn't. You have no authority, because you're involved, and you're pushing your own point of view as far as it can go. I am closing the RfC, now, because I'm tired of the inaction, and because I won't let this farce continue on my watch. If someone else wants to support me, fine. If not, fine. I will not tolerate this nonsense, nor will I allow you to think that you can get away with it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got to say that is the first time I have seen an RfC closed as: "Closed as farce based on bunk PoV pushing" [27] (especially for such a neutrally worded RfC). --Obsidi (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality isn't about wording, in this case, but about behaviour. PBS does not get to have outsize impact on the discussion because he feels like it. He doesn't get to repeat his position across multiple forums. He doesn't get to split the discussion. The only reason he opened an RfC is because, as he said, he "doesn't feel" like the extant discussion met his own personal standards, or supported his own viewpoint. I apologise to PBS if that is the case, but his feelings are not based in policy or guidelines, and have no relevance. No other editor would be allowed to filibuster a proposal based on his or her feelings, nor should PBS be allowed the prerogative. He expressed his opinion very well in the existing discussion, and for that I'm thankful. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premature close of the RfC

RGloucester has closed the RfC I initiated. As is clearly an involved editor RGloucester, this is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Particularly as the wording in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding states "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." I do not wish to edit-war over this issue so could an uninvolved administrator please revert RGloucester's premature close? -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of that, can we please have an uninvolved administrator sanction PBS for consistently disrupting this discussion on general sanctions for the sake of advancing his own point-of-view? RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, PBS has been utterly disruptive in this matter. I'm tempted to suggest a topic ban is appropriate, he has bulldozed the discussion over the comments of others and totally dominated any attempt at consensus building. WCM_email 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly involved so I would rather not do it myself. That said, the RfC was closed. There is a procedure to follow when reviewing the closure of an RfC [28]. I would focus on "if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area." --Obsidi (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was not legitimate to start with. The better way to put it would be "no RfC was ever opened". He placed the template, but it was not really any kind of RfC. Just a farce. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want people edit warring in/out RfCs? With one side saying "there never was an RfC". That's not how things get handled. He created an RfC. You closed the RfC. He can ask for review of that closure. --Obsidi (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no RfC. It was farce. An exercise in absurdist theatre. The "RfC" was a figment of PBS's imagination, used to advance a point-of-view. RfCs are an informal process. They are not a bureaucratic block, nor are they required for anything. Nor is it acceptable to use an RfC for the purpose of forum-shopping, nor for the purpose of splitting a discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [29] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

As a party to both recent ANI's, it would not be right for me to offer an opinion, however I offer the following additional information. These diffs show the edit history of UrbanVillager: … … Global[30] … … Commons [31] … … German [32] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [33] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [34] … … Italian [35] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [36] nb complaints about block [37]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [38] … … Romanian [39] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [40] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [41] … … Serbian [42] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently. Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [43]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be.

I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [44]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three of us were working on the Paris article (about to lose its GA status), and User:Metropolitan reverted all[45]. This in ignoring all talk-page discussions (and talk-page comments after first revert), threatened a revert war[46], and acted on it.[47][48]. Sorry for this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I reverted the first revert, then the second (hoping talk-page message would help bring reason), but I'm done now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me from your description what the nature of Metropolitan's first large edit [49] was. I can see it was shortening the article substantially, but then, other editors had also been cutting content, as there seems to be a general feeling the article needs pruning. You say he was "reverting all" of previous edits, but what exactly was lost, and to what older version was he going back? Also, in the talkpage discussion, he seemed to be offering to manually reinstate some edits of yours that you had been doing in the meantime [50]. Did you ascertain what edits he meant by that, and whether that would have met your concerns? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the Lede that had just been cut (not by me) for one thing, and other fixes that had been going on all afternoon. The article order is different, but the content is basically the way it was before we started. And the order change is in spite of all the discussion about it that had been going on since a week now. One can't just force themselves like that, that's no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what edits he will be replacing. Do I have to go through all my fixes again to make sure nothing was missed, if they are indeed restored?

I've been making restructuring propositions since a week now, and have avoided implementing anything major until consensus is reached, but Metropolitan hardly took part in it at all. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm currently trying to bring back the edits, I didn't expect everyone to edit so intensively the article while I was working on the new structure. I'm trying to keep on track what people have done but it's not so easy. If the editors want to bring in the contents they've edited in the last hours, they are of course welcomed to help me out. Metropolitan (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't seem to understand that we shouldn't have to go through all that work again. You should have let us know what you were up to, at least. And even now that you know what you've done, you're not willing to redo your restructuring (that we have not yet discussed) from where we left off, and you revert twice to protect your error, to boot. That is no way to edit. The best thing for you to do is put the page back the way it was when SiefkinDR left off, and tell us what you want to do on the talk page - like the rest of us! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if all you've done is restructuring, then that shouldn't be a problem for you at all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have restored back the Lede to the state is was after last edit from SiefkinDR at 17:49, 2 November 2014. Is it good? Metropolitan (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still you don't understand. I don't know exactly what my edits were, and I haven't a clue what the others have done, all I know is that the double links I removed and picture size-position are right back where they were when I started, so that means that their work is reverted, too. And you still won't accept outlining your changes for the rest of us before making them, although you know full well that we're discussing that very subject! This doesn't matter? That's the message you're sending, and your repeated reverting just reinforces it. That is no way to edit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, as far as I can see none of my edits today have been replaced. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy (expletive), the admin who I asked for advice on how to save the article's GA is at the article correcting the mistakes, mistakes I had already corrected, for me. Even those were reverted! Now add embarrassment to the lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it took me a long time but I've scanned every single edits from the afternoon and I took good care to implement them back in the article, here's a link to the diff: [51]. It was not my intent to revert those, I couldn't know you would work in the article at the same time as I would. Sorry again for that. I hope the problem is now solved. Metropolitan (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris again, needs to stop

I've stayed out of editing Paris but keeps it on my watch list. I hoped things would improve after Fut.Perf.'s intervention but I must say I'm worried both by the continued edit wars [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] and related arguments on the talk page. I'm not commenting on who is right and who is wrong, but it just cannot continue like this all the time. Apart from the edit warring, I'm also a bit concerned by the massive deletions of sourced content with very little discussion about it. To take but one example, the history section used to have a paragraph about the Paris massacre of 1961 a highly notable even that was removed [57]. I'm not here to point finger at anyone or take any particular side, but there is far too much contentious editing without discussion, edit warring and confusion. I'm sure all involved editors have the best motives, but there seems to be something about Paris. Nobody wants to see the articles locked again, but I'd recommend the admins to consider putting in place restrictions on deletions and reversions. I've lost time of how many times Paris has been at ANI, something should be done now.Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of history gone, I hadn't realised. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been filling the talk page with propositions and invitations for discussion - and haven't, aside from adding a short section, been working on content at all, but fixes and layout (still not restored) because of the RGA message today. It's discussion-ignoring/work-effacing 'editing' like this that is the problem, because it shows disdain for other contributors and places the focus on the contributor imposing themselves and their own opinion instead of focusing on/discussing content with others. I personally don't care who did what in the past, as long as they're working in the interest of the article - I was actually enjoying working with the others until this happened. I still don't know what was changed today, though - I haven't had time to look because of this. But suddenly, yet again, it's no fun anymore. I left this article years ago exactly because of behaviour like this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: :This new case brought at AN/I by ThePromenader (the 4th time ThePromenader brings a case at AN/I against another Paris article's editor in the space of a month and half) is clearly against the rule set by the administrator Fut.Perf. that no editor with five or more contributions to the Paris talk page should accuse another editor at AN/I: [58]. Please make this stop. The atmosphere in the Paris article is deleterious precisely because of these repeated accusations and strings of complaints at AN/I. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true, this is only my second-ever ANI report since I joined Wikipedia ten years ago. And I've seen Sunrise's restriction being taken advantage of more than anything. By the way, my layout work from today still hasn't been restored. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, that's not true, there were a couple more a quite a years ago - and always because of the misbehaviour of the same person. Look familiar? [59] THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ThePromenader and Der Statistiker, I repeat that I'm not commenting to point finger at anyone. I am sure that you both and all other users at Paris right now are there for the right reasons and do what they think are best. My concern is about the article, and I don't want to make it personal or take sides. Nobody can deny that there have been far too many edit wars at Paris, far too many arguments and far too many discussions at Paris and at other forums. It reminds me a bit of Jerusalem in the sense that edit wars and arguments between long-time users take up far too much time not just at that article but elsewhere as well, and I wonder if it would not be appropriate to put in place similar rules as those we've had at Jerusalem for a long time already.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a rule, which says that no editor in the Paris article with more than 5 edits should make any accusation against other editors, or criticize other editors, on the talk page or elsewhere, and especially not open any complaint at AN/I against any other editor. This rule has been broken several times already. If the rule is not enforced, I can't see how any measure of peaceful cooperation can be restored in the article. And comments such as "Sunrise's restriction (is) being taken advantage of more than anything" (see above) certainly do not help to restore a peaceful cooperation in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, User:Jeppiz, you've been nothing but helpful. But I invite anyone to examine what's going on there quite thoroughly. And for the rest: My disengenuousity metre is tipping, that coming from someone just exiting from a block for taking advantage of (disregarding) that very rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've said more than enough here, unless I have to debunk any further tu quoique accusations against me: concerning that, please see the diff I left just above for my past need for administrator attention. It's quite revealing. Wait, here [60]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a large number of edits reverted without notice by Metropolitan when I shortened the lead and history section. I appreciate that when he was told that Metropolitan did finally put them back. Looking back at the history of this article, it seems that there has never been a period of peaceful cooperation in this article. There do seem to be some editors with a specific agenda about how Paris should be described who delete anything that doesn't agree with it. That's not of course how Wikipedia works, and I think that should stop. Accusations against editors have to stop, and deletions of text without any discussion also has to stop. I suggest editors should give notice on the talk page if they are planning any significant deletions or additions, so they can be discussed first, and there should be agreement in advance on where the work on the article needs to be done.Can we try that? This article still needs a lot of work to improve it and we need to get going. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behavorial warning from admin Fut.Perf.

On 23 October 2014, Fut.Perf. was addressing us a message that we "should all stop, immediately, to fight with each other on this noticeboard"[61], a threat that would be "gladly enforced with blocks at any moment".Jeppiz and ThePromenader didn't respect that rule here. They are totally unable to tell me what is wrong in the new contents structure, but simply state that during the tiny hour I needed to reorganize the thing, they've done edits that couldn't be brought back without reverting back the whole contents structure.

It is impossible to work for the good of the Paris article with them around. Each time other contributors are interfering, they are unsatisfied and go whine at the administrators noticeboard. It pains me to say so but there is no other way at this stage than to make apply the warning initially announced by Fut.Perf.. I'm quite depressed to tell you the truth, as a lot of work is needed to bring back some encyclopedic value to the article, and it's next to impossible to do so if we're brough to the AN/I at every single significant edit. Metropolitan (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That rule has been abused from the get-go; the Paris talk page (and the Journalist obliged to respond to false allegations there) is proof enough of that. If the complained-about really had something to complain about, they would open an ANI of their own, and not just seek protection from complaints through a 'no name-calling' rule. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What really is a problem is, because of a cursory glance, false and valid complaints seem to have equal validity: this really seems to work, and that too is being exploited. I know you're overworked, but someone with a bit of time needs to look into this. And I'm sorry to ask for it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't share at all this opinion. The journalist message was on content-only. I have the feeling the Paris article has largely improved since Fut.Perf.'s initial message. Many edits from various contributors, including yours for the matter, have changed the article for the better. There was just no need to open an AN/I file here. Now there's still major works to be done in the contents of the article, which still reads more like a tourist brochure than like an encyclopedic article. It would be good if we would focus on that instead of bickering. I still hope that we prove ourselves able to work together. Metropolitan (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since Fut.Perf.'s intervention, I've stayed clear of any personal discussions both here and on Talk:Paris In my comment above, in an already existing thread, I explicitly made it clear I did not comment on anyone and did not call for actions against anyone, I just suggested we may consider WP:1RR on Paris. I named no user, accused no user, I did not comment on the content and I did not call for sanctions for any user. For Metropolitan to then accuse me of breaking rules (what rules did I break?) is not that nice. As I was explicitly named, I've answered and leave the discussion. I'm uninvolved in this conflict and will remain uninvolved. For my part, the discussion is over.Jeppiz (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've carefully restored every single edits wrongfully reverted during the edit conflict of this afternoon. Here are the diffs [62][63]. So indeed, I hope everyone agrees this case is now over. Metropolitan (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you actually made a point of not restoring my edits - only mine, it seems - and another contributor re-did my language corrections and the layout is the way it was before I started working (even the few images I removed replaced). I've lost track of the rest, and I can't be arsed to look - I shouldn't have to, and that's what's not being understood here.

I hadn't realised that you had made so few contributions to the article [64] and that this is actually history repeating [65] (again ignoring talk-page discussions, but you didn't steamroll anyone's edits that time - AFAIK) - usually your role was backing Statistiker's (as Hardouin) edit-warring. And you have a history of telling everyone to stop reverting while you yourself revert [66] - it's the disingenuous equivilent of one little kid trying to steal a toy from another little kid while shouting "You're gonna break it! You're gonna break it!" when kid trying to keep his toy resists.

And when I look at the changes, am I going to see "metropolitan area" inserted everywhere, even for economy where it is factually impossible? Yep [67], even under the title "restoring the promenader's edits" where none of my edits were being restored at all. The disingenuousity here is astounding, but it's obviously working.

The core problem here is that a few from a certain skyscraper forum have made the Paris article their WP:BATTLEGROUND mission to "erase the touristy view of Paris" and use its high readership as a soapbox for their counter-reality "Paris is really a skyscraper-filled metropolis" POV (and anyone opposing this drive is 'against' them). Just a look at the past conflicts make this obvious. If no-one is going to understand this, or take the time to look a the problem, then these problems will continue. And they've got Wikipedia and its admins figured out to a tee, as it's been working since almost ten years so far. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How far back are you talking The Promenader? It looks like your first recent edit was on October 31st and the article has shrunk about 10k characters so I don't know what edits you are talking about. You do need to drop arguing about edits from a year to almost a decade ago and let it go. People really do need to use template:construction or have an RfC on the different structures or something. Given the notoriety of this type of article, I think asking everyone to use the templates (with the section parameter) when rewriting entire sections isn't too far-fethced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrative Staff:

Bobrayner is, for the upteenth time in over two years, pushing his pet opinion pieces (which he calls "reliable sources") on Argentina-related articles and arbitrarily deleting referenced facts and news every chance he gets. Bob Rayner has been pushing POV on articles related to Argentina (and elsewhere) since at least 2012, deleting mention of actual, sourced events, and misrepresenting opinion pieces and wishful thinking in the form of snarky op-eds from at The Economist (well-known for its highly opinionated editorials), or obscure sources like Seeking Alpha, as fact.

He's also fond of blanket reversals - even to unrelated grammatical and other minor edits - while deleting mention of actual event and replacing them with his favorite opinion pieces, some nothing more than bad-faith predictions by the business press (definitely not RS) and all highly biased. In the case of Renationalization of YPF, for instance, he's been cut-and-pasting op-eds as if these were factual edits, while deleting real news involving Chevron and Morgan Stanley, etc. for no reason.

Other examples include: here, here, here, and here.

I don't edit much anymore, but I do like to keep an eye on some of these articles as they make easy targets for POV-pushers like Bob Rayner. I had hoped to avoid bringing this up; but I've been dealing almost single-handedly with his deletions and bad-faith editorials for three years now. Please help if you can.

Thank You. Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were just warned for edit-warring whilst logged out, then you stalked me, reverting all my edits? Oh dear.

I think this edit speaks for itself. No doubt there are some people who really want to believe what INDEC says, but umpteen reliable independent sources say that it's wrong. Calling anybody who disagrees with you a "vandal" won't change that. Hammering the revert button won't change it either. On wikipedia, we should follow what reliable sources say, and the sooner you stop reverting - or have the ability removed - the sooner articles about the economy of Argentina will reflect reliable sources. And when other editors warn you for systematic copyright violations, writing it off as "garbage" is not a good move either. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To me this appears to be a dispute on which sources are more reliable. Sherlock4000 seems to favor the Argentina government figures, while saying the Economist is unreliable. bobrayner seems to be saying the Economist is reliable but the Argentina government is not. I would suggest you both discuss this at the thread that bobrayner opened up here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#INDEC and if you get consensus there and if whichever one of you is not on the consensus side continues to add non reliable sources, then you come back here. Can you, Sherlock4000, point to a prior WP:RSN consensus decision on this that I might have missed? --Obsidi (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There has certainly never been an RSN thread which supported the use of INDEC. However, although that's near the heart of our disagreement, the problem does cover more than just reliable sources; Sherlock4000 has some problems with stalking, personal attacks, and copyright too. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Obsidi. Regarding his INDEC edits, he not only added editorials whose bias and unsuitability as RS speaks for itself ("Don't Lie to me Argentina" by the opinion magazine the Economist!?), added nothing that wasn't already under the Controversy section of the article. Besides being argumentative at best, he's blatantly trying to give controversies undue weight, while the "sources" themselves were mostly mere editorials and added nothing to what was already there.

Then there are these two gems of the world of bias ([68]}} and [69]), which Bob pushes constantly just to trumpet your personal view that the renationalization of YPF was just to create a "feeding trough for her political cronies" and a "symptom of weak government institutions." You know, the only other time I recall another editor noticing this, it was to warn him that he was parading op-eds as fact and that the opinions of a random Economist correspondent do not meet notability guidelines and cannot be presented as fact. These types of opinion piece were usually added, by the way, while deleting mention of real-life news - and so often I've lost count.

Then there's the question of the mass deletions, like here. Whether or not you think the data is reliable is no reason to arbitrarily delete them; in the U.S. for example it's widely believed that consumer price inflation is understated as well, but that doesn't give editors the right to delete EVERYTHING the BEA publishes (even completely unrelated things, like import and export percentages, as you've done in this case). I might add that where there has been controversy (mainly regarding inflation data) I took care to add notes to that effect.

Finally, I should add that, as Bob knows very well, I was not edit-warring while logged out, since to do that I would have had to been using BOTH ip address AND a log on while involved in the same series of edit reverts.

Considering all this, Bob, it would seem that you have a real problem making constructive, neutral additions to anything having to do with Argentina - particularly on economics-related articles. Again, I hate bothering others with things like this; but this has been going on since at least 2012, and I no longer think it would ever stop unless I brought this up to someone's attention.

Thanks, and all the best. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so your not arguing the economist is not a reliable source, just that he is using the economist blog articles as facts in WP voice. That I can more understand. You guys can dispute the reliability of the Argentina government over at WP:RSN. bobrayner can you please not source the economist blog entries as fact (those that are under the /blogs/ url)? (you are free to source them like any WP:NEWSBLOG though with attribution). But I am not willing to say he should be sanctioned at this time, especially when I see edits like this by you Sherlock4000: [70] This appears to be sourced by a non-blog economist article (along with a variety of other sources). Both of you need to be more careful about your sourcing from what I can see. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's basically it, thank you - and it's been going on for OVER TWO YEARS. I might add that the edit you pointed to (#107) was mostly the moving of the reliability controversy (not deleting it) to the "Controversy" section within the INDEC article, since Bob slapped it on the lead in an attempt to give it undue weight. The little editorial he added at the bottom of the article is also gratuitous, frankly, as well as repititious, as it just restates what had already been belabored in the Controversy section without adding anything new. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Economist is a respected and most definitively reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly just the Economist. For instance, this is an impeccably reliable source, published by a university press; there's also the IMF and the WSJ and the FT and so on; but Sherlock4000 automatically reverts. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Can you provide diffs? In any case, best would be to attract eyeballs to these articles using RFCs. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Obsidi and Cwobeel:

It's not that I'm trying to impose INDEC data to the exclusion of any caveats - on the contrary, I've added most of those caveats myself. If you'll look at the history of Renationalization of YPF, you'll see that he's deleting real news while adding opinion pieces - and had done so REPEATEDLY. He's using them as primary sources, but of course they're not proof of anything. These are just some examples: here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Sherlock4000. When I see an editor using edit summaries on reverts with "Vandal", "removing POV pushing" and other similar, it is a read flag right there. Opinion pieces are not different than "real news" (whatever that means); if properly attributed and if the sources are reliable opinions are 100% usable in articles. You may need to re-read WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument at least is lack of proper attribution as an opinion (at least for those that really are actually are marked as blogs and not articles by the economist), and just stated as fact, which they shouldn't do for WP:NEWSBLOG. --Obsidi (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is easily fixed, instead of "The expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions", use "According to The Economist, the expropriation is a symptom of weak government institutions." - Cwobeel (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, Cwobeel, because that's a nothing but an editorial - and a very nasty and biased one at that. Whatever objections there were to the renationalization are amply covered in the article; this would just be injecting a biased -and mistaken- op ed that contributes no real-world information at all. Furthermore, it's from an unknown op-ed writer ("R.A."?) and it's predictions (the op ed piece is over two years old) turned out to be dead wrong, since the firm has managed to turn a 6% yearly decline in output up to then into 3% growth in '13 and 15% growth in the first half of this year (something Bob repeatedly tried to delete, btw). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources can be biased. And Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth, we are not here to WP:Right great wrongs. Its from a professional at the Economist a respected reliable source. That's good enough. --Obsidi (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock4000, please stop misrepresenting my edits. Hopefully any other editor who takes the time to look deeper into this will see that I've cited more than one Economist article - and other reliable sources too. Writing it all off as one stray "editorial" or an "opinion paper" really isn't going to help, nor does it justify your systematic whitewashing of articles. It's clear to other editors that you and your IPs have been revert-stalking; it's clear that multiple other editors have warned you about copyright problems; and the new trick of claiming that you add caveats even though there are lots of diffs where you and your IPs did no such thing, well, that's the icing on the cake.

I should stop responding to any further comments by Sherlock4000 or their IPs here, since engaging is just going to increase the drama. bobrayner (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Bob. Good night. Obsidi, whether or not such editorials are reliable material is frankly dubious - especially since they're injecting no facts, just invective and someone's wishful thinking. What Bob's been adding -and on the lead, I might add, for maximum undue weight- are just someone's opinions, though, because those op eds rarely if ever had anything factual to contribute (certainly not the ones he used in Renationalization of YPF). He certainly has no problem deleting what Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote ([71]). Thanks. Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You came here to accuse other editors, but from what I see is that you may be the problematic editor. WP:BOOMERANG indeed. Heed the advice given here, and play nice. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so, Cwobeel - because Bob goes on about how he can't be bothered to reply? How did I insult him? He insults everyone by wasting everyone's time FOR TWO YEARS with his pet op eds about "feeding troughs" and someone's wishful thinking that buying back a badly-run company is "renationalizing their way to poverty". They turned it around in just two years!

Such edits contribute nothing factual, useful, or in any way accurate to the article at all, and in fact inject notions that fly in the face of real-world results. More so because he's trying to tack them onto the lead, for maximum effect. Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Bobrayner has been disruptive when it comes to other articles as well, especially regarding Boris Malagurski-related and Yugoslavia-related articles. So, it's no surprise that he's disruptive when it comes to other articles as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't helpful (and borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING). --Obsidi (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check this out and take appropriate action. I'm just going out of town and have no time to handle it.

I just deleted Phines "NOP" West. It connects to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines West, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phines A.H. West. The quotes help recreation of deleted articles, of course.

Phines "NOP" West was worked on/created by User:Johnwilliams000, User:Kellymillezzz, User:Delrayisit.

User:Johnwilliams000 created Joseph "808" Derivé (also worked on by User:Kellymillezzz). The refs that I can check do not seem to go to the subject. Joseph "808" Derivé leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Derivé.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fake - I can't find any sources to support any of the claims at Joseph "808" Derivé, and I can find resources to refute some. For example, this person is claimed to be the producer of Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song) (actually produced by The Phantom Boyz) and Loud (Rihanna album) (multiple producers, but not this guy). Some of the works mentioned have had their articles changed to say that Phines/808/Derivé is a producer, but there's no sourcing for it - see [72] [73]. There are lots of Google hits for Phines/808/Derivé but all look to be user-generated and I can find no proper sources. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph "808" Derivé Neatsfoot (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted G3 as an obvious hoax. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked all three of the above-mentioned accounts... based on their contributions, the quacking is so loud, I'm surprised that hadn't been done yet. I'm sure there are some sleepers, but I don't think a CU is needed at this time. I'll leave it to someone else to determine if the article Kehlani falls under the purview of WP:CSD#G5. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to deal with these repeated creations of "Phines*West" via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or other sort of pattern-matching protection? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Couple of things... First, a filter or blacklist on "Phines" wouldn't really be enough, as the latest hoaxing has switched to 'Joseph "808" Derivé' and '808'. Also, it looks like this has been going on since 2012 - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phines0001/Archive, and that there's an elaborate hoax been developed on a number of internet sites. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of blocked user User:Jim-Siduri have been trolling around for the past few days. Something about how there's two days left until something in his hoax religion. KonveyorBelt 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal, although it will only stop some of the throw-away account names used by this troll (who was formerly a well-meaning but deeply clueless editor until he was indeffed and became a troll). (Are his rants about 5 November in any way related to the threats of Anonymous to do something on 5 November?) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)I expect his rants are related to Anonymous; back in September a Jim-Siduri twitter account was posting in support of the group. Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no point, as he only edits from IP addresses - the apparent "Siduri" usernames are just hashtags included in the body of his edits. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: What he seems to want to do is post some "Church of Siduri" advocacy on Nov 5, and I think he's just piggy-backing on Anonymous the same way he's tried piggy-backing on gender gap, etc. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there is much point in an edit filter, given that it would only catch a small proportion of Jim-Siduri's socks. As for Anonymous, there is no link other than in Jim-Siduri's imagination - his 'threats' consist of nothing but claims that he is going to sue Wikipedia for not providing free publicity for his fantasy 'church', and that he is going to create a Wikipedia fork. Neither of which are the slightest bit concerning to anyone in possession of a few brain cells. I'm inclined to think that WP:DENY is an entirely adequate response, and that any action beyond this is only likely to encourage his delusion that he is somehow significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I only see one currently claimed sock listed at SPI with "siduri" in the name. I just blocked it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He's on a dynamic IP and creating an edit filter - "siduri", I believe is not worth it. I would prefer a CU on him and blocking his IP range. Meanwhile, we can add him to DeltaQuadBot's username blacklist. But I believe the bot's down. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a username filter as there are too few such usernames. Support an edit filter for 'siduri', allowed only for established users. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A thought... As Jim-Siduri has declared that "my friends and I want to put the "Siduri's Advice" video on the Siduri page within the next 48 hours (on #Nov5)" ([78]), perhaps a preventative protection of that page until Nov 6? Neatsfoot (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested page protection at RPP. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't argue against EdJohnston's choice of tools and duration. That should help with the immediate problem. As for the socks elsewhere, they are quite easy to spot, so playing "whack-a-mole" when they pop up is probably sufficient. As for filters, I'm neutral. I don't see the utility in it, but maybe just because I lack imagination. Dennis - 2¢ 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So. I tried to give some advice to this editor on their talk page, but it seems like they 1) don't care and 2) are using their talk page as a sort of ranty Facebook soapbox. I know I was being a bit jargon-y with all the shortcut links and stuff, but, seriously? I don't want to deal with this - can someone else try to talk to them or something, perhaps give a little warning prod to behave? Thanks, ansh666 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC) (I'm not watching, {{ping}} me if anything comes up.)[reply]

Let me just make this clear to you; WP:ASSHOLE--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is in need of serious cleanup to return it to a non-soapbox state. The behaviour of the user appears to be short of civility and the above statement could quite possibly be a personal attack . Do we have a three strike rule? Amortias (T)(C) 21:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no civility on my part here, because the idiocarcy which is Wikipedia needs transparency, call it what it is a big lie, a dissonance machine, a waste of time, a welfare program to feed the weak minded. THERE ARE MANY FOOLISH INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY USING THIS RAG-TRIPE AS A DAY TO DAY FACTUAL REFERENCE. Until you edit this damn thing... you don't realize how fucked up and unreliable it is. This platform provides dissonance with an industrial strength platform for propagation. It is the definition of a computer virus. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They do seem very angry, don't they? I'll try to have a word. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No anger here;

My conclusion is that this technology provides a major societal disservice. The only parts of Wikipedia that are partially reliable consist of a few of the reference links, which for the most part are random in nature. Even the idea of secondary and primary sources is bizarrely-wrong as it applies to research. No, I am not going to feed something that is societally detrimental. I am more than happy to part company with Wikipedia.

More so than that. This is just a blatantly-evil construct as implemented. It has the unintended opposite effect of spreading ignorance not knowledge. Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lfrankbalm: If you want to go, go. If you want to stay, stay. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comment (yet) on the civility/ranty bits here, but why are we bothering to care what someone does with their talk page? Just unwatch the page. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There also being unconstructive on AFD's which was the original cause for concern if im correct. Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, I'm just taking every opportunity to push back against the community's recent habit of nosing into user/user talk pages of editors and getting offended by what they see. It's pointless and meddlesome in almost all cases (with obvious exceptions for blatant personal attacks, shit lists, etc.). Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What Amortias said is correct. After I attempted to give them advice about AfD, I got slammed with rants about how I was an asshole and Wikipedia is a breeding ground for ignorance, as far as I can interpret it. I have no real comment on the rants (other than that I don't think they meet WP:OWNTALK), but their uncivil attitude, including personal attacks, was concerning to me. ansh666 22:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the principle of leaving other peoples talkpages well alone the personal attacks and general soapboxing despite being advised against this does seem to be hitting every note of WP:NOTHERE. If they were just going on about something without throwing out at people who were offering advice etc it'd be one thing (that I would understand if let slide) but they just dont seem to be willing to contribute constructivley. Amortias (T)(C) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you on a personal basis.. Breeding ground for ignorance is quite correct. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, thank you. ansh666 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just encountered Lfrankbalm in the last few days, first at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Tonga people (Africa), where I was unsuccessful in explaining notability of bibliographies (but it's a pretty weird category of article, so that's understandable). Still, I noticed there and elsewhere problematic WP:POINT and WP:COMPETENCE (or WP:IDHT) issues. The most recent talk page message looks to be the first thing egregious enough to come to ANI, though, so I don't know if this is misplaced. I'm basically concerned he/she is engaging with article deletion processes unconcerned with applying/following consensus-based guidelines many people have linked him/her to. Dismissal of Wikipedia as something with value here and at the blog-like talk page suggest WP:NOTHERE. Some WP:AGF is in order as this is a new user (although an account with edits almost entirely at AfD, nominating things for deletion, and working on pages he/she thinks should be deleted suggests some experience), but the basics have been explained/linked a number of times and seems to fall on deaf ears.

• For example at this AfD he/she started comments with Delete Palestinians, see Gaza Strip, definitely use asymmetric tactics to cast themselves falsely as the victim through the absorption of collateral damage (unnecessary loss of civilian life)., later admitting the intention of using AfD as a forum. Shortly thereafter he/she created Israeli child killing apparently to make a WP:POINT about the stone-throwing AfD.
• !voting in AfDs with rationales like "subject-matter is irrelevant", arguing delete based on links currently in an article, no rationale whatsoever, various commentary. Most of the user's own nominations are with clear disregard or indifference to relevant guidelines (e.g. this article which a basic glance at the relevant notability guideline rather than personal criteria would have clarified the person's fitness for inclusion (criterion #3 even gives "royal society" as an example, which, while Canadian rather than English, is quite prominent in the article)). I don't know that any of this is block-worthy, but the efforts of myself and others do not seem to be effective.
• Devil's advocates/critics are a useful thing on Wikipedia, and there are some edits that show this user may have things to contribute, but needs to better understand how things work before engaging in things like page deletions. I have a feeling after this my help might not be wanted, but as it's not a personal thing -- lots of people jump into AfDs, myself included, without quite knowing how they work -- I'd be happy to answer questions if Lfrankbalm wants help before nominating something for deletion, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Believe it or not, the discussions here are quite positive in terms (of forming a perception) on the process. For the record I did not create the Israeli child killing entry, I simply redirected it to Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; as to tallest buildings in xxx it-speaks for itself ludicrous,Martin Daly was my mistake. ; as to the bibliography.... errh.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to take Rhododendrites up on their offer of advice on AFD's and have a look at your talk page to see fi theres anthing that might be considered a personal attack meant or otherwise that could be removed? Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've removed...much of their talk page (~7000 bytes), including everything that started this. I'm fine with that, though my comments did include some useful links. ansh666 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt believe it if I hadn't seen it myself but this could be a constructive non-blocking outcome from an ANI! Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it either. This discussion has been constructive from an overview-perspective. I am not quite as "fatal" in terms of my perceptions. In the first edit attempt, I attempted to do a minor edit on a "now deleted entry" to have every minor revision countered unbelievable resistance by a user abusing the process. I was viewing everything from that perspective. This discussion counters that in spades. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to User:Rhododendrites offer, sure why not..--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bung a welcome notice with some useful links at the top of your talk page if you want. It might be useful to point you in the direction of places for advice. I'd also suggest popping over to the teahouse if you have any questons as they are very good at providing advice. Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-thanks.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on their talk page regarding one of the AfDs that was contentious. For what it's worth, I did not get an insulting reply. That's good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I have caused a fire-storm here.. Would anybody mind "locking" NYS Ebike Law from further edits.. The entry is now correct to fact.. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that one would get through the process to protect a page we only lock pages to prevent vandalism and major disputes that are going to affect the quality of the article. You could add it to you watchlist to keep an eye out for vandalism if your interested. There may be changes or other information that may be pertinent that other users may be able to add to the section to improve it orad other relevent information such as legla cases that are relevent additional sources and other facts that help t improve the reliability. Amortias (T)(C) 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too have encountered Lfrankbalm recently, but all I know for sure is that he didn't understand WP:BEFORE before nominating Martin Daly for deletion. It seems I'm not the only one concerned about his behavior at AFD, though (see this edit). Also, I agree with Ansh666 that he has been misusing his talk page as per WP:OWNTALK. Jinkinson talk to me 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also concerned that Lfrankbalm does not understand the WP:ILLEGIT use of alternative accounts. For example, User:Renaissancego was created on October 21, 2014 and all edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira and Doug Casey overlap with Lfrankbalm. Adnarkey edited Doug Casey here and here between Lfrankbalm here and the IP Lfrankbalm regularly uses here. In addition to being similarly uncivil, all of these accounts have the unusual behavioral characteristic of often double signing posts: Lfrankbalm [79], Renaissancego: [80], Adnarkey [81], and Iotablue [82]. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance, but I am very concerned about the use of alternative accounts. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

er, "LFrankBalm" sounds a LOT like L. Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz stories, but more interesting is his first post mentioned Wikipedia jargon right out of the gate . Could this be a possible secondary I.D ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I created an Id to address the issue and concern with the Gonzola Lira article, it was necessary to do a request for help regarding a user who owned the topic.. .--Lfrankblam (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the username similarity to L. Frank Baum to WP:UAA and the response was that impersonating someone who's been long deceased is not a violation of the policy. I guess it's a BLP thing. As for the alternative accounts, there are valid uses for alternates and it doesn't seem like this user is deliberately misusing them. The user has shown great willingness here to own up to their mistakes and reform; perhaps if they review the alternate accounts policy and retire whichever alternates they might be using inappropriately, we can let this one slide? Ivanvector (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were I you I would WP:Site ban this fellow, seriously If I had the intent (which I don't) to cause absolute chaos on Wikipedia you would be seeing absolute chaos on Wikipedia.... --Lfrankblam (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) BTW, I also reverted the redirect of "The International Man," on the basis it is the correct thing to do! Lfrankblam (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value ... here (diffs: [83], [84], [85]). After User:TU-nor offers genuine advice about how to improve the picture on the sidebar, he responds with mockery. This user has a history of disrupting anything to do with Cyprus. I don't even know where to start. Here is where he's persistently falsifying a source. Here is where he rants on about Armenians and Greeks unprovoked. Here is where he admits to OR, but insists on adding his imaginative map to the article. And this is but a sample. I think people have already wasted plenty enough time trying to prevent his harming the encyclopaedia; simply, this adds insult to injury. I don't know what, but something should be done. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the assertions of the IP editor. Wherever Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits, editors have to be close by to correct or delete the POV of his edits. My recent AE report on him got rejected due to an ARBMAC clarification by Arbcom on its applicability on Cyprus-related issues. I have linked to it here because it has a variety of links which show the longterm disruption this user has engaged in. Recently he hijacked the talkpage of Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia with loud walls of text supporting the edits of blocked sock Gasmonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and trying to push an OR map that he made which by the way has the filename File:UK SBA EEZ.png as compared to Gasmonitor's File:UK SBA EEA.png which was deleted, please see Gasmonitor's talkpage. He also comments in external forums  :

  Alexy flemmings • 12 hours ago Greedy Greek Cypriots think that they can steal the natural gas and oil of BOTH Englishs and Turks.They will awaken from their dreams very soon!

and then uses the forum as a source in the discussion. There are many more diffs available for personal attacks, POV edits, OR, SYNTH, you name it, but I would like to avoid overloading the reader. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "My recent AE report on him got rejected due to..."
  

Then why are you still holding the stick in your hand, WP:DROPTHESTICK.

From WP:DROPTHESTICK page:

If you have "lost" – sorry, hard luck. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't actually "win" because of... whatever.

Recently he hijacked the talkpage of Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia...

Discussing an issue in Talk page with other Wiki users is "hijacking" since when?

and trying to push an OR map

Discussing an issue in Talk page with other Wiki users is "try to push an OR" since when?

Gasmonitor's File:UK SBA EEA.png

Do you know UK is the abbreviation of United kingdom (very frequently used), SBA is the abbreviation of Sovereign Base Areas (very frequently used), ... If that user used EEA for Exclusive Economic "Zone", i.e. "A" for Zone, then definitely he would be incapable one since "EEZ" and "Exclusive Economic Zone" is the official standard names.

He also comments in external forums

We are in Wikipedia! To justify yourself, please use only the edits in Wikipedia. Do not travel the whole internet!

There are many more diffs available for personal attacks, POV edits, OR, SYNTH

See below to find the diff in which you said "Silly" to me! Look at also for your History Distortions part below.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if user Alexyflemming is indeed trolling. I have recently clashed with the filing party of some north/south Cyprus related issues. And in that, I noticed a severe preference from mr. IP for the Greek names of human settlements now in the remit of Northern Cyprus. I plain disagree with the accusation that Dr.K is an "Very Obsessive Editor" as he is clearly trying to calm down mr. IP. The Banner talk 10:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do provide diffs for this 'severe preference' and my needing to be calmed down. I can provide plenty diffs where you keep doing things you can't substantiate. Refuse to perform a technical move from Port of Gemikonagi, Lefke Cyprus to Port of Gemikonagi 'cause it'd 'complicate [the] procedures' of a merge proposal, but then proceed to move the destination page without discussing it with anyone? Check. Attempt to pass if off as a revert? Check. Crumble to pressure when asked about it and accuse me of bias simply 'cause my IP is in south Cyprus? Check. Revert my edits without explanation? Check check check. Now, please stop spouting nonsense. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not downgrade the comments and posts of other Wiki users like spouting nonsense. You are new to Wikipedia. I am here since 2010. Be respectful to every Wikipedian whether they are agree or not with you! Alexyflemming (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll speak my mind when I'm being denigrated. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alexyflemming: You, talking about being respectful to other users? Remember your message on my talkpage?: Armenians said billions of times "genocide" since 1915 just as Greek Cypriots say billions of times "invasion" since 1974 and I said One can bury his head in the sand like an ostrich till the hunter (truth) faces him.. Please, transmit my this message to GC fanatics (perhaps you may know some of them) along with USA Federal Court decision so that they can take their heads out of sands. And this is just one of your many personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear 213.7.147.34, here, a Wikipedian disagreed with you. He has the right to do so. I cannot imagine what you will respond to him if he said "silly", "paid supporter", etc. to you! You must learn the enduring and stomaching the criticism of other Wiki users. You must even protect your common sense in the case you are insulted. Do you know that even when I am said "silly", "paid supporter", etc. from disrespectful Wiki users, I still protected my common sense? You being very new to Wikipedia does not justify your behaviors of this kind!Alexyflemming (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And here is where The Banner introduces a redirect from the anglicised Turkish name for Karavostasi, even after his move was reverted, saying it's a 'correction'. He's either having difficulty practising diligence, or he's being very WP:POINTy indeed. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think ALexyflemming is trolling, but he's definitely out on a mission and not here to build an encyclopaedia, as I noticed in a recent discussion I had with him on Talk:Akrotiri and Dhekelia, an article where he was edit-warring to get a self-made very POV and totally OR/SYNTH map into the article. Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know what you want to call this, but I though trolling was apt. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not an artist to inquiry to artistic value of the painting, I thought that there may be some Greeks who will not enjoy that as@ in such a main template. Any idea? As@ is in the center. Full balance! If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him...Alexyflemming (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

…

If I were (in place of) Greek Cypriots, I would not put that mosaic. I am sure the Helen culture in the Cyprus island has more artistic mosaics than this one. If they regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course.Alexyflemming (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thomas.W, what is more natural than Wiki users may think differently in things in discussion. What you call as edit-warring to get a self-made very POV and totally OR/SYNTH may be really so, may be not. But, does this justify the use of the insulting swearing words towards other Wiki users (Dr.K. said "silly" to me, Neo ^ said "paid supporter" to me)?Alexyflemming (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your constant POV-pushing and the walls of strangely formatted text with odd indentation you add everywhere, combined with your total inability, or unwillingness, to listen to others, make other editors frustrated. Besides, neither "silly" nor "paid editor" are swearwords. Thomas.W ^talk 12:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this make us have to approach the usage of "silly", "paid supporter", etc. as something very normal? I want to emphasize the importance of politeness. Look what IP213 wrote above: "I'll speak my mind when I'm being denigrated" to justify his usage of "spouting nonsense". This is what I wanna say and show. People must approach respectfully to each other even in the cases where they strongly opposes each other! "Silly", "paid supporter", "spouting nonsense", etc.. If we (the Wikipedians for more than 5 years in WP) do not do this, who will do it... Alexyflemming (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Respect isn't confined to abstaining from uttering fairly innocuous non-curses. Do you think derailing discussions by refusing to follow talk guidelines when you've been told many times not to is respectful? Do you think edit-warring over the inclusion of a quote you've falsified across ten or so articles is respectful? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After User:TU-nor offers genuine advice about how to improve the picture on the sidebar, he responds with mockery:
  

Read the responses given very carefully. Read what I wrote: "If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him". I considered a Turkish Cypriot might put it there. Hence, I requested TU-nor to check it. There is no mockery.

This user has a history of disrupting anything to do with Cyprus:

You are just describing yourself! There was a very determining single "case action" part in "Cyprus dispute" Wiki article since 2011. Once Greek Cypriots lost the case in October 2014, You (IP213) immediately removed it without any consensus! Even though you also edited the very same case action part, you eventually noticed that it is in no way to the good of Greek Cypriots and removed it!. That said, you (IP31) and Dr.K. removed the decision of the USA Federal Court from Northern Cyprus article as well though there are strict objections from other wiki users (Alexikoua, [[[User Talk:MelbourneStar|MelbourneStar]])). This is not the way we do things in WP: Record whatever good for Greeks, delete whatever existed against them. Digest every good and bad things and accept them to be written in Wikipedia.

Here is where he admits to OR, but insists on adding his imaginative map to the article:

Who admits OR? Do not put the words into my mouth that I did not say. I even showed another map related with the article. That map was drawn according to international treaty btw Rep. of Cyprus and UK.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wrote "If a Turkish Cypriot put it there for devilment, shame on him". IP31, you are putting the words into my mouth that I did not say, and removing some parts (here: "for devilment") of my words to justify yourself! When you bring a case here, reflect everything as they are!Alexyflemming (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So let me get this straight, you think a Turkish Cypriot might've put that mosaic there to spite Greek Cypriots because the mosaic depicts a bum? Words fail me. No, nobody is this stupid. You're trolling. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not hide my relevant posts, and do not bring here whatever suits you! Read, read, read carefully what I wrote:
  

If I were (in place of) Greek Cypriots, I would not put that mosaic. I am sure the Helen culture in the Cyprus island has more artistic mosaics than this one. If they regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course.

(with edit summary: "If Greek Cypriots regard that especially that mosaic represent their History better, then that is their business, of course").Alexyflemming (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban

Giver their record and their apparent unrepentance, I suggest that Alexyflemming is banned indefinitely from editing any page remotely concerned with the island of Cyprus. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A counter proposal would be to serve you with the same type of topic ban for the same reasons. The Banner talk 17:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific examples against this editor, please provide them in diffs, but I don't think you have followed the IP editor's contributions carefully. He is a neutral editor who has come to my talk to correct the opposing to Alexyflemming POV of other editors on the article of EOKAB. He has, in consensus with other editors, corrected the disruption of the Alexyflemming SPA many times. He has also contributed greatly to Cypriot municipal onomatology and he has done a lot of work in that field. He is an expert and Wikipedia needs editors like him/her. He needs congratulations not a topic ban. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Obsessive Editor User:Dr.K. and His Continuous POV edits

I know User:Dr.K. since 2010. He is older than me in WP. Though that I observed various his misbehaviours in various ways. He continuously struggled to block me. I think the reason is my neutral and objective stance on Cyprus dispute and related articles. As far as I see, I am not the only Wiki user who faces this behavior from him. He forgets very important and inevitable rules of Wikipedia. I will give this rules in order in the following and then I will list my related proofs.
1. Wiki users must be polite towards each other in discussions and talks irrespective of our thoughts and ideas.
User:Dr.K. frequently omits this simple rule, and frequently uses impolite language whenever he sees a Wiki user that thinks opposite to him.
User:Dr.K. said "silly" to me! Even though this, I protected my common sense, and did not use any offensive language towards him (Language reflects people!). Later, he apologized from me. But, then again he used "silly" towards my thoughts and idea in my posts. I again protected my common sense.
2. Dr.K. sees me as an "enemy" and acts very offensively:
Dr.K. tried to block me for the first time in 2014 January and his baseless claims were all rejected.

Dr.K. tried to block me infinitely many times. I forgotten its number! (The content of the diff of this link is below; see the obsession.)

3. In their last effort, Dr.K. and (some Wiki users with no Wiki username but only IPs) tried to block me with the pretext of "violation of 3RR". Although they are the violators of 3RR, I was blocked! During my blocking period, they continued to insult with every word they think. They even said "paid supporter" to me!
4. Dr.K. does not like me since I reveal his distortions to the history:
a. (09.02.2014) "hiding the name of the principal initiator of that war";
Dr.Κ.: "The term "1974 Cyprus War" is misleading because it hides the name of the principal initiator of that war, which is Turkey"

b. (03.03.2014) island nation of Cyprus;
Dr.Κ.: "Historically, the island and the island nation of Cyprus have been considered to be the same."

c. (03.11.2014) "forcible eviction".
Dr.Κ.: ""Northern Cyprus" ....is the result of forcible population evictions".

Alexyflemming: The disproofs:

Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Greek Cypriots in Agios Andronikos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Greek Cypriots in Agia Triada chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Asomatos chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Karpasia chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Maronites in Kormakitis chose to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Turkish Cypriots in Lemmossol chose to stay in southern Cyprus in 1975, and now living in Cyprus in 2014. All the rest chose voluntarily to switch the sides in 1975 according to "Voluntary Population Exchange Agreement on 02.08.1975" between Turkish and Greek Cypriots (Third Vienna Agreement) under the auspices of United Nations. i.e. if all of the Greek Cypriots in Kyrenia had chosen to stay in northern Cyprus in 1975, and all of them now would be living in Northern Cyprus in 2014. Since this is so, the Greek Cypriots (who want to return Northern Cyprus) were/are/will be always rejected wherever they go: USA Federal Court (09.10.2014): "..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM here that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots...." The news of the decision of the Court: (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm The website of the case of the Court: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 The decision of the Court.....: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 NOTE: Previously, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Greek Cypriots' request to return Northern Cyprus. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (27.05.2010): (Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]): “The houses which the Greek Cypriots left in North Cyprus are not their homes any more because they have lived almost for all their lives in another place and they have no concrete and persisting links with the houses they claimed. Therefore Greek Cypriots have no right to return to the North.” Sources: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Asproftas"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98684"]} http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{"fulltext":["Petrakidou"],"documentcollectionid2":["CASELAW"],"itemid":["001-98688"]}

• This is yet another demonstration of the cluelessness and personal attacks toward me, of this editor. He is brought at ANI by another editor, his disruption is demonstrated from the discussion above this section by two other editors, yet he adds another of his useless walls of text, concentrating on me and personally attacking me, using nonsense arguments. This disruption has obviously got to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have blocked the user for long-term disruption. Please see user talk page for more info. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And Alexyflemming has now posted a 14.3 K "unblock request" that isn't an unblock request, since it doesn't address the reasons for the block, but a further wall of text promoting their POV views. Thomas.W ^talk 21:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of his unblock reasons: A. Diannaa, yes, it is "Cyprus", not "Cypress", referring to a typo by Dianna, which she had already corrected before his unblock request. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short background: long term troll/vandal, adds pictures of random ceiling fans to articles, or tries to link to youtube videos of fans, sometimes compares people who remove the pics to Adolf Hitler, or misspells their names (perhaps changing a syllable to profanity).

See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes.

At the latest SPI, User:McDoobAU93 raised the idea of contacting Beals's ISP about his vandalism. He's using a dynamic IP, but they're all from Philadelphia, and I'm guessing we've got enough socks to CU to figure out which service(s) he's using. I'm not quite aware as to how we'd do that, but I'd assume someone here would. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the traceroute and geolocate info for known IP addresses, he's on AT&T, between Kutztown and Philadelphia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop now, you don't have to report. 166.171.57.248 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've given us no reason to believe you, and plenty not to. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Community Ban - Enough is enough, and this is way overdue. I also support real world remedial action including contacting authorities as suggested. Jusdafax 05:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support action per Ian.thomson. Enough is enough. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban and inclusion at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse as well. What a sad waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban and whatever other actions we can take - I'm tired of removing his f*cking ceiling fan videos. Thomas.W ^talk 11:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I support contacting his ISP. To the people supporting a community ban: formal community bans of notorious long-term vandals aren't needed. A situation where somebody is indefinitely blocked and no admin would unblock is a de facto ban, compare WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Not sure about creating a long-term abuse page for him. Building monuments to trolls should only be done when absolutely necessary. They like it. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Support community ban, if only to make it official and reduce the scope for any further chicanery so that new socks can be shot on sight. I'm agnostic about reporting to his ISP; usually my experience offwiki has been that ISPs don't actually give a hoot if the action being taken by their user isn't illegal. As irritating as this individual is, I don't think that it's at the point where we'd get law enforcement involved. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support community ban, listing at LTA, and contacting his ISP, per all of the above. The situation is a de facto ban as Bishonen described, but it's still a block, and the hope with blocks is that the user will reform and come back as a good editor, even with indefs via the WP:STANDARDOFFER. There's every reason to expect that this user will never reform, so our strongest sanction (formally kicking them out) is warranted even if it is a formality at this point. Ivanvector (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban - Makes sense, if this is truly the extent of his "contributions". Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban - A complete time suck for other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban and LTA, and perhaps contacting the ISP. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban and attempt ISP contact (though it'll probably end up buried by them nonetheless). More making it official than anything, they've already got a de facto ban and only the most naive of souls would dare to give them any editing responsibility. Nate • (chatter) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban - enough is enough. Noteswork (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban and contacting his ISP, I have enough vandalism to clear up without having to remove ceiling fans. Amortias (T)(C) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AT&T must receive a LTA report and a site-wide autoblock should be issued. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban Contact At&t per above, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban and attempt ISP contact. Per the above. Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban & contact the ISP as as everyone's said Enough is enough!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban, ISP contact and a side order of eternal damnation! Favonian (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban. Also try to contact the user's ISP. We should contact AT&T to see if access to Wikipedia pages can be denied for this user. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [know that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.]
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [86] and [87] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [88]

Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[89]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [90][91][92][93][94] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[95][96] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[97] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[98] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to dispute a decision made by an admin who proposed a topic ban for me here and imposed it only just 3 days and 0 input from uninvolved editors. The only input given was by editors who have a content dispute regarding Boris Malagurski-related articles, most of which have attempted to manipulate Wikipedia guidelines to remove me from editing and discussing the topic matter which interests me. After numerous sockpupped investigations that attempted to prove I was Boris Malagurski or working for him (and in the end it was concluded that I wasn't, of course), now, one administrator, Ricky81682 has banned me from editing Malagurski-related articles, with the support of a few editors who have been out to get rid of me for quite some time now, all because I'm not anti-Malagurski like them and have followed Wikipedia guidelines in regards to editing and sourcing. I would like a second opinion from uninvolved editors and request a lift of the ban imposed on me, as it had immediately been used by one user who was swift to support the ban, Pincrete to quickly shape the Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and Kosovo: Can You Imagine? articles (all Malagurski-related) in a way that pleases him (all on issues where I disputed his POV). They were all waiting for me to be banned, and now they can do what they like, as I was the only neutral editor pressing for neutrality. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Without any comments on the legitimacy of the claims for or against UrbanVillager, am I the only one uncomfortable about imposing a community topic ban based on the input of three editors? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All it takes is one admin to indeff someone, but to answer your question: no, you are not the only person who thinks this not the best way to run an online community. I don't think any bans should be enacted by just one or three people, but that's how it works around here and good luck trying to change anything. I.e., admins want it this way, and they will close ranks to protect their near absolute powers. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. The 'process' (three ANI comments then a topic ban) doesn't seem fair or reasonable. AnonNep (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely inappropriate for an WP:INVOLVED admin (per [99] [100] [101]) to be imposing community sanctions like this. Support immediate reversal of ban, but no prejudice against uninvolved admins reviewing the discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Without regard one way or the other on the merits of the case, it should be reopened to seek additional input. Three people is far too few to determine a consensus in matters such as this. Otherwise, no opinion with regards to the merits of the case, or the admin who closed the initial discussion. Just reopen the discussion, and wait for a more broad consensus to develop. --Jayron32 17:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic ban chould be vacated and the discussion reopened. An admin that one month supports] a topic ban and then a month later closes a discussion and establishes a topic ban against that user is patently wrong. GB fan 17:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What Jayron32 said. Processes have to be open, fair and transparent. Best solution is revert the close (and findings) and reopening this to let it run to a more natural conclusion. Dennis - 2¢ 17:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: since there has been an accusation of anti-Yugoslav bias in the previous discussions, are these articles considered to fall under the discretionary sanctions for articles relating to the Balkans? Ivanvector (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Jayron32, this closure should be reverted if the admin already participated in support of the ban (which will probably result in resumption of discussion where it was left or reclosed by some one uninvolved). Appropriate warnings should be given too. Although the consensus may support the ban anyway; it does, however, need re-evaluation.--lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverted I reverted the closure. Please discuss the merits of a topic ban itself above. Based on This and this, it is clear that Ricky81682 is heavily involved in editing disputes with UrbanVillager and should not ever take administrative actions regarding him.--v/r - TP 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, now you've done it. We can't hold one of our own to any sort of standards if we want to close ranks and cling to our near-absolute power as described above. I mean, the godlike feeling of power when closing a discussion or protecting a page, you can't endanger that! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a second to realize that was sarcastic. Given the level of dialog on this page it did not seem unrealistic enough to immediately appear sarcastic. Chillum 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lifted some of it word for word from the third comment in this very thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's nearer to absolute power? Enacting sanctions based on that near-absolute power, or reverting the near-absolute power itself? That like, over 9000 absolute power!--v/r - TP 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about if he should have been topic banned or nor, but as others have said the admin was clearly involved. That said, it was not bad enough to request a desysop. Still I wish there was a way that the community could censure admins that abuse their tools (a kind of formal statement of disapproval). If you look at any person here, you can look at their blocklog and see every time they were blocked forever. And yet if there is an admin abusing their tools today, by next year people probably wont even remember it occurred (or the same people might not be involved). I guess you can go searching through the ANI archive, but still that doesn't seem quite enough. --Obsidi (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE behavior in reverting edits while tagging as vandalism, and WP:HOUND activity specifically targeting my edits. Behavior is exampled in multiple similar IP addresses:

• 85.255.232.198 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.213 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.214 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.216 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.232.217 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.233.108 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.234.33 (talk · contribs)
• 85.255.235.79 (talk · contribs)

The IP user(s) continue to revert edits and tagging original edits as possible vandalism. User(s) are likely experienced WP editors based upon these talk page comments: [102] (responding to WP:HOUND allegations), [103] (knowledge of WP guidelines re: copyright). With one exception, IP user(s) are not targeting edits of users other than mine.

IP user(s) claim edits being reverted are "potential vandalism"; however, reversions have not been followed by warnings on my talk page or WP:ANI (per guidelines in WP:R Van), although WP:DE/WP:HOUND behavior continues despite welcome messages & warnings on IP users' talk pages. AldezD (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently an indefinite IBAN between myself and User:The Rambling Man at my repeated request since December 2013, instituted between him, myself and another user with community consensus in Jan 2014.

Now TRM has challenged me directly to answer him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=632457262&oldid=632457154 I'd like an admin to step in and put an end to this repeated IBAN violation on the part of TRM. I understand TRM is a sysop and an admin, which is bad enough. How do I go about putting and end to his abuse? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings are generally not considered sufficient to meet the threshold of notifying someone per the instructions. I've notified them for you.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, pings don't work unless you sign the post at the same time you ping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It's awkward when two ITN regulars have an interaction ban. Have you two usually been avoiding commenting altogether on nominations made by the other? I don't take this particular comment as "directed" at you; TRM appears to be saying it isn't worth posting until there is a conviction; this isn't directly challenging you to respond. If the agreement is to avoid each others' nominations, then this is breaking that agreement; if the agreement is just to not address each other personally, or poke each other with sticks, then I don't think that's what happened here. If the agreement is unclear, then, crap, I guess the community has to waste time fine tuning the wording of an interaction ban because you two can't stand each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I'd be the first to say that I'm hardly a neutral admin when it comes to TRM, I'd agree with Floquenbeam that the diff from today is a series of rhetorical questions, not a direct request or challenge for Medeis to answer. All the earlier stuff is, well, much earlier, and no-one's going to block now for violations in May 2014 (even if violations occurred). Bencherlite^Talk 20:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me, Bencherlite, that if I "rhetorically" answer TRM here I won't be blocked? Please be explicit. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss ITN candidates is WP:ITNC, as you know, not here. There is no such thing as "rhetorically" answering someone's questions. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not about to directly notify any user I have an IBAN with of anything, the last time I did so due to a routine matter of clean-up I was warned I would immediately be blocked the next time I deleted a duplicate ITN nomination. Given these users have apparently been indeed been pinged to this page, I am not sure what else needs be done. And if rhetorical attacks including the pronoun "you" addressing me directly are fine, then will the commenting admin simply remove the IBAN? It's one or the other, no? This is not a new phenomenon. I have had multiple "thank" edits from TRM, have been attacked in may and october, as well as today, personally. Is this whole IBAN just a joke? Should I ignore it, and do as I like, as he does? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Now you're talking" is a common English expression (in British English, at least - I don't know what primary version of English you use, Medeis) and it doesn't actually refer to you, Medeis - it's an example of the generic you. If I may translate the last part of TRM's comment: "If they were to be found guilty of mass murder, then that would be a more appropriate story for ITN." That's all. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be an adequate response to something at ITN: it questions the rationale for inclusion, nothing more. There is nothing personal in the comment. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When I raised the subject of the interaction ban violation on ITN in February, you said "There's basically nothing to address here. I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so. Frankly, I am curious why this matter has even come up." You can't have it both ways. Stephen 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I said I was not interested in having TRM banned from making objective commenst without regard to me made about ITN nominatins, yes or no? I never said I was happy to have personal comments made against me, yes or no? I didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, Medeis asked me about this matter too and I suggested she should take it to AN if she wished something to be done; I told her that I would not unilaterally block in a matter that I'm not familiar enough with. I agree that the "you" here is very much a generic you; if The Rambling Man had been dancing around the edges of the iBan that would have been something, but I don't see that here. I am not aware of any other possible ITN iBan violations, but I am hardly a regular there. I don't think Bishonen has been pinged: ping. It seems to me, however, that if this is the only possible iBan violation, and again, I don't think this was one, that Bishonen's word to the wise was received properly. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll simply take it that the IBAN is nullified. Would I be wrong to do so? μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four editors here seem to disagree with you, yes. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that a community sanctioned IBAN would only be rendered void with community consensus. Blackmane (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]