See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - is this a legal threat by User:Claus at Name Defend DE? His userpage states

• This is user page of Claus @ Name Defend.
• I am a declared paid editor to inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF "Terms of Use" etc. which have legal consequences, and which breaches and consequences the average editor may be unaware of.
• I do not consider myself bound by self written community policies. I am editing under WMF "Terms of Use" and "privacy policy"

He is editwarring at India Against Corruption (just gave him a 3RR warning) and on his talk page explains his edit by saying "However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority." Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, see the section immediately above this. Note that Name Defend IPA was blocked indefinitely by Salvio giuliano as a checkuser block [1]. This is clearly the same person, and in fact, the socks are probably all the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claus at Name Defend DE now blocked by Euryalus for "Making legal threats: and probable block evasion as sock of User:Name Defend IPA". If yet more proof is needed that this is the same sock as all the rest, note that the copyvio tag on Anil Trivedi was actually placed by the blocked sockpuppet Duffycharles with a very inappropriate edit summary [2]. Within minutes of Duffycharles being blocked for sockpuppetry and legal threats, User:Claus at Name Defend DE registered an account [3]. Today he addded to the report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a checkuser look for sleepers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The section above was added while I was editing this one, so I missed it. Good work. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the article should be subject to full protection as the socks/meats seem to regularly make the requisite edits to get around semi. DeCausa (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is tempting, given the collateral damage they're prepared to inflict to get around semi-protection. (It is striking that someone claiming to oppose corruption would expunge an account of human rights campaigning.[4]) It doesn't seem that India Against Corruption is active any longer, assaults on Wikipedia by people claiming to act in its name aside, so while there might be details to fill in about its history, there may be no notable developments to add. NebY (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree, but it will only partially help. If this faction (who claim to represent the Hindustan Republican Association) cannot get at that article, they will continue disrupting multiple related articles, including biographies of those they perceive as their enemies. They will also keep pursuing time-wasting quasi-legal issues in retaliation. They have now made 2 unsuccessful attempts to have India Against Corruption removed from Google's search results on spurious claims of copyright violation when their spurious claims here didn't work out for them. They also claim to have filed a sexual harassment case with the WMF on behalf of one of their sockpuppets, etc. etc. Interestingly, the latest copyright infringement they reported (at Anil Trivedi) actually was an infringement, although not of their material, despite the bogus claims made at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 28 that they were "acting for the affected person/s". This is long-term abuse dating back to 2008. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "faction" does not represent the Hindustan Republican Association.

Do you have any reliable source for your outrageously false claim on Anil Trivedi that he was in any way associated with India Against Corruption as continues to be stated in that article ?? This is exactly the kind of IMPERSONATION of the IAC organisation which the "outed" ADMIN "Sitush" was paid to promote on Wikipedia. (PS: Read the news report in the Times of India - Lucknow edition about paid senior editors of Wikipedia) which pisses the IAC off.

BTW: Claus has emailed Admin:Euryalus, our identities are disclosed and verifiable. NAME DEFEND is going to expose how corrupted paid Wikipedia Admins have systematically fabricated "checkuser" results to show that 27 NAME DEFEND editors systematically operating from many countries on very widely located ISPs and using different computers and networks are showing as a single editor (@IAC sock-farm), whereas the 983+ still active Wikipedia accounts being used since 2005 with over 4,00,000+ edits (incl. 38,000+ on 2014) are not being detected by Checkuser. Toby at Name Defend DE (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your above statement can you provide reliable sources to prove that Sitush was paid to edit Wikipedia. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the babblings above can't even get elementary facts right - Sitush isn't an admin - I can see no reason why we should be remotely interested in anything the latest sockpuppet could say. They have been plastering this noticeboard with pseudo-legal threats and similar bollocks for years, while presenting precisely zero evidence of any wrongdoing. Why should they do anything differently this time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, might it be reasonable to consider a blanket siteban on Name Defend, by whatever name? That statement comes off as an organizational mission statement to continually violate WP:NLT and pretty much blatantly states that the whole group is not here to write an encyclopedia. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well i think we can definelty lose this one, it seems uncommon for a new user to be able or willing to lodge an ANI and edit a request for arbitration [5] so soon form the start up. They appear to be tagging any page that can find that might be beneficial even if theyre not doing it correctly.Pretty much sums up not here.Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note appears theyve been reported to WP:AIV and blocked fromt here prehaps a good sign to close this off as it doesnt seem to serve any purpose now. Amortias (T)(C) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India Against Corruption again – further discussion

• Considering the personal attacks and allegation being made on their talk page, shouldn't talk page and email access be removed? Neatsfoot (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DMCA India Against Corruption logo is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if a DMCA takedown notice is valid if it's filed under a pseudonym or if there's some requirement that the filer provides some proof of identity? NebY (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Irrespective of whether the DMCA takedown notice was valid, the image was appropriately removed from Commons as it was clearly a previously published non-free logo. It appeared in March 2011 on indiaagainstcorruption.org, the official website of the India Against Corruption organization (the one the WP article is about—not the one "Name Defend" claims to be "defending"). See Wayback Machine capture. Voceditenore (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Name Defend accounts operate from a limited set of IP addresses? If so what would be the collateral damage in blocking that range? Blackmane (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this before. Maybe you want to unclose it, User:Black Kite, since so many comments have accrued now? Not that I'm bothered. Anyway, Duffycharles is not a sock but a puppeteer, editing since 2008, with HRA1924 and Lindashiers| their socks, as confirmed by checkuser Ponyo. (Man, we sure have a lot of so-called "fabricated checkuser results" in this area. A whole CU conspiracy, obviously.) From Duffycharles's odd edit history, with long gaps, I'm sure there were more socks during "his" inactive periods. Unfortunately, I have a bad feeling about the IP range, from what Ponyo told me. But might it be reasonable to tag all of the above as socks of Duffycharles per WP:DUCK? If it's even worth the bureaucratic trouble to try to keep what Black Kite accurately calls this mob tidily registered. In any case, I for one am certainly ready to block new quackers on sight, if people will tell me about them. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I think this all needs to be documented on a page at WP:Long-term abuse to keep track of this lot and to help identify future socks. At the moment, the information and connections are spread all over the place. For example, there is an even older account than Duffycharles. See User:Landirenzo, registered in 2007 and checkuser blocked as a sock of HRA1924 in April 2014 by Tiptoety (along with 2 others). Plus there are Dkgpatel (blocked for legal threats but clearly a sock) and Rti india and AcorruptionfreeIndia (both with the same modus operandi as all the others and both with checkuser blocks but no apparent documentation as to whom they were socks of). "Claus Bruentrup" and "Name Defend" are simply the group's latest wheeze for pursuing HRA1924's agenda. The "company" website, Name Defend, Institut feur Geistiges Eigentum, was hastily assembled on 13 September 2014 (complete with copypasted German sentences and images of handcuffs and the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (!). It is registered to Sarbajit Roy [6], the convenor of the group now calling itself "India against Corruption" and who are pursuing their various attempts at legal action here and at Google. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Long-term abuse is the best place, Voceditenore; it's being considered for deletion, for one thing, and nobody looks there, for another. Perhaps an SPI? Its archiving system works pretty well. I agree that there should be an overview somewhere, and SPI is surely the place people are likely to look. Considering the mentioned checkuser blocks that don't indicate a sockmaster, perhaps we should ask someone with checkuser permissions to lay out this mess, in some place. (There may already be an SPI that could be fattened up.) It's not an attractive job… hmm. I already pinged Ponyo. Pinging Tiptoety, DeltaQuad, and Elockid, who made the checkuserblocks mentioned above: does one of you guys perhaps feel like providing an overview? Yes, I know, it's amazing the lengths I'll go to to delegate messy work to someone else. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Oh boy that was a long time ago. The only thing the CU log indicates AcorruptionfreeIndia is that it was in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginsuloft/Archive. Those were the two cases I was investigating at the time of the block. Other than that, I have no recollection of the block and nor does my email. If I can help further, please let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen. Reading this thread brings back bad memories. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to recuse myself from any further involvement following numerous legal threats, attempts at outing, and insistent emails from this group. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that, in order to keep things simple and ensure the accounts are blocked quickly in order to limit the excessive disruption, a synopsis of typical behaviour should be outlined on a user subpage (or at WP:LTA if it survives AfD). The page could be linked to when making duck blocks or in discussions such as this. This is a nasty group known to use extreme harassment and litigious tactics, on and off-wiki, to try to intimidate editors who disagree with them. The quicker each new sock/meat account can be shut down the better as opposed to adding unnecessarily to an already bogged down SPI process.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It rather looks as if Long-term abuse might survive, maybe even with a snow close, and is still in use. If there was an IAC entry there, could links to it be placed in archived SPIs? NebY (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen and Ponyo, the final result of Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse was "snow keep". The material should preferably be documented at LTA. Given this group's past history of harassment, outing, legal threats, etc. I personally think it would be too dangerous for any single editor to keep the material on one of their user pages. Another alternative is as a subpage of Talk:India Against Corruption, although that's not as centrally accessible. But wherever it ends up, the documentation needs to be done. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the LTA list were deleted, the process of documenting who the abusers are would continue. Just as the process of banning people here. But we can't document the banned users, only the LTA's. Who determines the LTAs? Doc talk 08:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense, in this case. My life has been affected by this lot and I'm willing to bet that you have no idea of the extent to which that is so, which includes relocation. The comments of Ponyo, Tiptoety and Voeditnore should give you some clue, though, as should my recent out-of-character (and completely misinterpreted) reaction. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with Manchester? Doc talk 08:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the location of some the best content creators and defenders of the Wiki, although I'm one who is now only sporadically in the area. What is it with you? - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get an account. I've no clue who you are, and neither does anyone else here. Doc talk 09:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have no clue about the entire issue being discussed here, let alone who I am. Probably best that you either clue-up or desist from commenting. I have an account and there are plenty in this thread that will recognise me. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you have an account, and yet you're using this IP instead of that account. I would like you to explain how you are not a "sock" account, please. Doc talk 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, drop the stick. There's no problem with this editor editing logged out. It isn't sock puppetry as we define it, and I would really appreciate it if you don't further abuse one of our most abused editors. Having to leave your home because of threats is no laughing matter. There's no question in my mind about this being worthwhile documentingd at LTA if not elsewhere as well. These people are a serious menace. I also am avoiding doing much in this area because of justified fear of litigation or worse. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc is just being an oblivious ass, pay no attention, mr IP. People using their real name or otherwise findable should be wary of working in this area. I for my part ain't scared (I defy them to find me), just lazy, also rather busy IRL. I wouldn't mind hosting such a page in my space, if somebody else does the heavy lifting and e-mails me the doings. However, the snow keep of LTA at the MfD, especially the comment from Worm That Turned, suggests to my mind that the LTA may be useful for this after all. In my previous comment, I wasn't well aware of the difference between LTA and the recently deleted Wikipedia:List of banned users. Anybody can start an entry on that page, but think about your own safety before you do, use a sock if necessary. (Not your IP, there's nothing safe about that.) Bishonen | talk 10:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Doc please drop this stick. This discussion is not about your personal views on the deletion of the banned users list. You have no idea what is going on in this (very long term) situation. Those of us who have encountered these people know exactly who the IP is and why they are fully justified in currently editing while logged out. Their work re this particular problem has been nothing short of heroic. Like Doug, I too am worried about editing in this area, even as a copyright clerk (I'm not an admin). Care to see some of their latest threats [7], [8]? Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I assume DuffyCharles/Name Defend is de facto banned, and can be blocked on sight (ie w/o waiting for a legal threat from the latest incarnation) ? If there are any t's to be crossed to make the ban formal, we should do it now. Abecedare (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is my understanding correct that these Name Defend accounts show no difference from the previous IAC defenders? I suspected this from early on, the lack of any info on "Name Defend Services" or "Claus Bruentrup" was another clue. The company registration details above further confirm my suspicion. If so, is the Sochi removals [9] typical of IAC editors or perhaps a clueless (if you're going to get involved in other areas, at least try to not do a controversial one) attempt to show they're not a single purpose account? Obviously none of this is a big deal, but I'm trying to get a clue what's going on having watched this from the sidelines which occasional comments. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, see here (User:Claus at Name Defend DE) and here (User:HRA1924). In my view, The Sochi removals were a cack-handed attempt to validate their stated purpose: "inform editors of factually incorrect content, copyright violations, trademarks violations, impersonations, other breaches of law and breaches of WMF Terms of Use", i.e. to continue their current pose as a quasi-legal firm which intends to "police" Wikipedia. Claus at Name Defend DE did the same kind of mass content removal at Delhi Police that day. The removals via multiple edits also serve to build up enough edits to circumvent the semi-protection at their real goal, India Against Corruption, although that certainly backfired. Note also, I had cleaned the copyvio they reported from Anil Trivedi and re-referenced it. However, they continued to complain that the article was "impersonation" because according to them, he does does not belong to the "real" India Against Corruption. After the latest name defend accounts were blocked, and after I had removed the copyvio from the Trivedi article, 49.204.6.36 returned to the article, removed the mention of India Against Corruption [10], then changed his birthplace contrary to the references and the subject's official biography [11], and then summarily redirected it to Aam Aadmi Party [12]. That IP may not be connected to the sock farm, but the timing is rather curious. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IAC bastards have now filed a false report with ICANN, using the Lindashiers (talk · contribs) monicker, regarding a domain name registered to me. That domain is now being deactivated due to their lies and I'm struggling to work out how to halt the process. This is yet another warning to those who are involved in the farrago, but I'd also appreciate any advice that experts in ICANN procedure might be able to offer (probably best done by email, otherwise we'll drift miles off topic). The WMF have been completely useless throughout this mess, which is massively disrupting my life and has included threats against my life. It's no wonder I'm going into meltdown here. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've already received help and I don't think I could really offer much and I understand you probably wish to keep details to a minimum for both privacy, beans and offtopic reasons. But if you're willing, it would probably help to clarify what you mean by a false report. Did they claim trademark misissue under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy? Or claim they were the owner and you stole it from them? Or manage to trick your registrar in to thinking you'd trasferred the domain name to them? Or trick your registrar in to thinking they were you and done something dodgy? Something else? The trademark/UDNDRP in particular would probably have to be handled fairly differently from any impersonation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. More or less what I expected I guess although I forgot about the semiprotection/number of edits issue. And confirming that despite their extreme persistance and willingness to use extremely dodgy and disruptive methods, they don't seem to have much competence. As I mentioned, if they'd been smart they would have at least chosen something which would have people thanking them to try and establish their credentials, there are surely a lot of real problems they could deal with. But I guess that takes too much. (I'm not sure whether this qualifies as beans since if they were to do something useful, it wouldn't actually be a bad thing even if it were to try and evade detecting. In any case, I highly doubt they're going to take any of this on board.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per requests above, I have created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm and transcluded it onto the main Long term abuse page. Feel free to add to the dedicated page, and to link to it, for instance when you block a new IAC sock. Very good page! (We owe it to a couple of users who don't wish to appear; I didn't do any of the actual work.) Bishonen | talk 19:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello friends, Peter Downings a WP:SPA WP:COI editor who is making disruptive edits in two articles, Adnan Sami and Arshad Sami Khan. By his comments at Talk:Adnan Sami and on his talk page it's clear that he is closely related to the subject. And the subject, Adnan Sami, has asked him to do this changes (A case of WP:Advocacy). His changes include an highly unsourced, Non neutral, original research content with full of peacock terms like this, this and this also this. His edits are direct violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. Along with this all his edits are to the same article i.e. it's a SPA (all 150+ edits). His edits are disruptive and has been reverted by number of editors like Philg88 [15], MelanieN [16] and Babitaarora. Even after getting revert so many times he add the same problematic content. We have warned him and after a final warning by Philg88 he continued his disruptive edits [17] [18]. It is an issues of Ownership of articles combined with WP:IDHT rather than just a content issue. I ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks, Jim Carter 07:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the diff of Peter Downings' justification for his edits: [19]. He makes it clear that he is speaking for the subject and that he believes he (on behalf of the subject) owns the two articles. He may have a point about certain issues that need correcting. But instead of posting those points on the talk page individually and letting people discuss them, he just keeps pasting his own version into the article - a version which is full of peacock terms and unverified assertions and is basically unacceptable. IMO this has passed beyond the point of content dispute and has become a matter of disruptive editing. --MelanieN (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look.I made some additional cleanup. I don't see any sufficiently strong formal warning on his page. As a new editor, he may not realise the extent to which what he is doing is unacceptable, or the significance of the discussion being moved here. I think it might be unfair to immediately proceed to a block, and I therefore gave a final warning for ownership. Having edited the articlea, I don't want to proceed further myself. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment DGG. I too was reluctant to block given the combination of inexperience and/or misunderstanding of policy. Hopefully, your warning will do the trick.  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your actions, DGG. I also went to his talk page and posted a detailed explanation, in simple English, of what he is doing wrong and what he should do instead. It's possible he isn't reading the links people post, and so he still just doesn't get it. I thought I would give him last shot at actually hearing what we are telling him. A question: DGG, I had assumed if he does it again we should notify you. But it sounds like you are ruling yourself out as involved? So if he does it again, should we come back to ANI? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The same editor just made the same kind of disruptive edit, once again, to Arshad Sami Khan. [20] The user received a stern final warning from DGG, and I engaged with him in a final attempt to explain in simple English how he should edit. It was after both of those interactions that he went ahead and pasted in his own version once again. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I don't see any edits by Peter Downings on either articles since the 8th, the day prior to DGG's warning...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I misread the history. Thanks for the correction. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Downings is probably a pseudonym of an Indian, in view of his bad English.

• I think, it is an issue of Ownership of article. He want to prove that he is the P.A of Adnan Sami and better know about him. when I have reverted his edits, he told me he has been authorised by Adnan Sami. Here is the msg Personally sent by Adnan sami.

I just wished to clarify that my Wikipedia page has been open to 'abuse' for quite some time. Hence much of the information on it has been distorted for quite some time. I had requested Peter Downings to rectify it for me. He did so but I am told that you had it reverted. I would appreciate it if you may kindly revert it to his new edit which has been authorised by me and also guide me if possible as to how to protect my page as it seems to be a free for all starting with my family origins to my personal life etc. Babita arora 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user has removed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

But 3 others have added and edited this information. He claims it is irrelevant. I feel this is going to get into an edit war.--Calcula2 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would dismiss this as a content issue. There has been no discussion on the talk page yet. Perhaps somebody post on the talk pages of involved editors and call them to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Debresser for your post. A good amateurish enterprise on part of Calcula2. Calcula2's vengeance for me probably came from Talk:Battle of Badr where Fauzan and me disagreed with Misconceptions2's recent edits to the article. Thats why, I suspect some kind of Sock puppetry regarding Calcula2, a newly-created account (7 Oct 2014). But I really have no time to run behind them. -AsceticRosé 04:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a new user and not a sock of Misconceptions2. Misconceptions2 would be using his own account rather than battling on a new account. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you take it to an SPI investigation. I have no problem with that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions2 You know that it could have been done. SPI generally requires strong behavioral evidence. Let's put this way, AsceticRose must stop making baseless assumptions. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence, deleting data though 5 people disagree with him. REMOVE HIS ROLLBACK rights

Now it looks like User:AsceticRose is about to engage in an edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629010905&oldid=628939771

First a discussion was called for in talk page to build consensus. So 5 people agreed to something and 2 people didn't. Because of this I added back the data that was in dispute. Then this guy removed it claiming their is no consensus.

In hajj page he is also asking to make a discussion in talk page just to add a little data that he keeps removing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hajj&diff=628935524&oldid=628929903

I bet even if their was a consensus and the small amount of data he keeps removing is added back, he will remove it again claiming their is no consensus like he in badr article. He is like a politician leading people on wild goose chases, agreeing to certain rules then not even abiding by it when it goes against him--Calcula2 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calcula2 AsceticRose hasn't used rollback during the reverts. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blocking him and removing his rollback rights if he continues to edit war. He is already engaged in an edit war. Theres a consensus in theres a consensus on talk page that the data which was added should be kept as it is well referenced and expands and povides more information about the event--Mohsinmallik (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, I'd remove his rollback rights if I saw any evidence of a pattern of abusing rollback for purposes other than described in WP:ROLLBACK. But I'm not seeing it. As far as I can tell, Ascetic Rose isn't using rollback for edit-warring. Rollback right is therefore a separate and unrelated issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion on Talk:Battle of Badr, following editors are involved;

Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

Junellene.sapinoso (talk · contribs · account creation)

Mohsinmallik (talk · contribs · account creation)

Article contribute (talk · contribs · account creation)

Calcula2 (talk · contribs · account creation)

AsceticRose (talk · contribs · account creation)

Fauzan (talk · contribs · account creation)

The first five editors are related in some way or the other, they edit each others userspace, participate together in AfDs, etc. Pertaining to sockpuppetry, few SPI cases were opened regarding Misconceptions2, where it was determined that these (and a lot of other) editors are different or technically unrelated but related off wiki. I think that these editors should avoid editing in common areas, at least in discussions and the way they determine consensus: "5 vs 2" shows some kind of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality.

If any further action needs to be taken, the first thing is that the discussion should continue on the talk page. ANI is not a place to complain against editors of other viewpoints. Restrictions might be placed on these editors on commonly editing the pages where consensus is determined if such kind of behaviour persists. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 20:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is turning into an edit war because AsceticRose keeps removing data. On wikipedia people are allowed to work together to make articles. So if some peopel are editing each others sandboxes and draft articles that perfectly allowed on wikipedia, thats what I have been told on admins.--Mohsinmallik (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice that SPI investigation was going on regarding Misconceptions2 where a long lost of suspects were reported, and several were indefinitely blocked by admins. Mohsinmallik also appears on the suspected list. So I was somewhat right in smelling a rat here. When Misconceptions2 edits an article, Calcula2 remains silent, and the vice versa.

I'm hard-pressed by time now. So, I will be brief here. Despite the fact that it is a content-related issue, Calcula2 and the related others are cleverly avoiding the talk-page discussion, and instead using this ANI to shift the focus from the following issue.

In Battle of Badr aricle, Misconceptions2, just a few days ago, introduced a minor viewpoint for reasons best known to them, and re-wrote the article from that perspective ignoring the mainstream viewpoint regarding Battle of Badr. The previous version stood for long, was written in a scholarly manner, and passed the test of time (of course there can be some minor issues which can be solved).

As per WP:BRD, it is their task to describe how their version is better than the previous which they are ignoring. More on Talk:Battle_of_Badr#Recent_edits

Ah, again the accusation of edit-war has attached to my user-name above. Can anyone please tell me what can be immediately done to prevent readers from getting a distorted view of an important historical event through Wikipedia, especially when the introducers refuse to discuss and prove their point on talk-page?

Equally pathetic is the fact that they totally illogically brought the issue of my Rollback rights, probably to distract the main issue. Instead, should not they be given the advice to fulfill their burden on talk-page? -AsceticRosé 05:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzad just reverted data and is continuing the edit war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629153593&oldid=629102979 he reverted data claiming "Pelase discuss in talk page why it should be added". I think he is doing this on popurpose. Because he knows its been discussed in talk page and he even participated. He refuses to include the reason why this miltiary campaign happened, which was to raid camels and caravans for the booty. I think he is an Ahmadiyyah who has fringe views--Calcula2 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Calcula2 reported me in vain for a second time, now on AN3. I'm waiting for a third reporting from him, and if possible, a fourth. This will give me the opportunity to visit various unknown corners of Wikipedia!

I appreciate his great efforts to endanger and harass me, but feel sorry that he probably will not succeed. -AsceticRosé 03:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to resolve this issue

This issue will be resolved if you stop removing this data all the time:

According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]

According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14].

Also stop saying this is a fringe view. Muslim sources like clearly say it was offensive here: [21] . Also Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri is not fringe and his book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum which is used as a source is celebrated and won notable prizes "he Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seera" Stop acting like apologists--Calcula2 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background of the dispute

Andrevan has recently been invovled in a content dispute on the Gospel of Matthew article. His involvement began when he was asked to intervene on behalf of another editor 18:13 6 Sep 2014 who has a long history of conflicts on the page and who alleged that there were "a group of user accounts working together" to suppress his edits. 05:31 7 Sept 2014, 21:28 7 Sept 2014

Escalating the dispute

Rather than calming down the dispute, Andrevan escalated it by engaging in edit warring, 20:01 14 Sep 2014, 07:46 15 Sep 2014, 09:16 15 Sep 2014, 09:32 15 Sep 2014 and making unhelpful statements on the article talk page. 07:00 15 Sep 2014, 09:34 15 Sep 2014

The following statements by Andrevan on the article talk page are particularly problematic:

"You all arguably have conflicts of interest and are pushing POVs here"

"we are dealing with a POV-centric, possibly pro-Christian and maybe anti-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Semitic consensus"

"If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above."

This led to a subsequent ANI filing for talk page threats against other editors which was closed with no action taken. 09:59 15 Sep 2014

DRN filing

After the article was NPOV-tagged, a DRN was opened in an attempt to resolve the content dispute. 02:17 18 Sep 2014. Andrevan's opening statement there was also unhelpful. 02:37 18 Sep 2014

The following remarks made by Andrevan in his opening statement at DRN are especially problematic:

"Many of the other editors have WP:COI as Christians and haven't fully disclosed their involvement with academia, missionary and/or clergy as far as I know."

"At the kernel of this is the idea that a group of orthodox Christian editors are cherry-picking a POV, and excluding others, which conforms with their idea of the academic consensus in violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV."

"It has been suggested by Ret.Prof, who also claims to be a non-Christian, that these theories are associated with Jewish, non-religious and Eastern Orthodox perspectives into Christianity, leading to this incidence of bias. ... Therefore this is an instance of systemic bias masquerading as a consensus, and reliable sources are being excluded at the expense of NPOV."

SPI investigation

While engaged in the ongoing dispute, Andrevan filed a sock-puppet investigation. 21:09 17 Sep 2014 The SPI looked at not only IPs but patterns of interaction between established editors. It was closed with the statement "CheckUser is not for fishing". Unknown to the editors involved, the investigation was subsequently reopened, (SPI reopened) and only recently closed with the statement "I'm not even seeing a reason for behavioural review here. On looking further, I'm going to close this entirely. Risker (talk) 17:53, 4 October 20d14 (UTC)".

PiCo's retirement from editing

The prolonged SPI investigation probably contributed to the retirement of one of the category's most talented and productive editors. 03:08 2 Oct 2014, 03:50 2 Oct 2014

Ignocrates' (almost) retirement from editing

I almost retired myself out of disgust, 00:05 6 Oct 2014 but I'm going to stick around at least long enough to see this through. What happened here was wrong. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the expectations of adminship. The issues that concern us here, which are detailed under administrator accountability, are (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring), and (3) poor judgement.

Discussion

The SPI was inconclusive but mainly due to the technical reason that the old IP activity was stale. I don't know why Callanecc reopened the case after the initial closure, or why he didn't then close it when I asked about it on his talk page, but to the larger point, I'm not sure what policy I was violating through all of this, outside of some edit warring early on which I admitted and ceased in your last ANI post. At no point have I used admin tools, I stand by my concerns regarding POV pushing, possible sockpuppetry,and systemic bias. Andrevan@ 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall your own words in quotations above. You explicitly accused other editors of religiously-motivated bias and meat-puppetry without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact, an extended SPI investigation showed there were no behavioral issues whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If an ordinary editor had made these multiple accusations, they would have been blocked. Yet you walk away without so much as a reminder. Why is that I wonder? Ignocrates (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates, this was a bad idea. You failed to prove something a week ago. You're now back. You were told then that RFC/U/ADMIN was a next step. ANI cannot do anything. In fact, I'd bet RFC/U/ADMIN won't do anything either. Admin tools were not used improperly. The POV editing is obvious. The SPI was technical non-linking, not behavioural. You're claiming someone retired because of this with zero proof (extraordinary claims and all that). You're also playing WP:DIVA and suggesting you're only here until something is done. Nothing will be done, nor can it - so you'll martyr yourself wrongly. God, what a bad idea - you created a situation where you can never win, but are guaranteed to lose. the panda ₯’ 21:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The POV editing is not at all obvious. Most of the editors involved have been around a long time (~9 years like me) and are highly experienced. Thanks for your concern that I will "martyr yourself wrongly". I appreciate that but something needs to be said. Let's see what the community says. Ignocrates (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Ignocrates has proven that Andrevan is casting aspersions quite a lot - accusing editors of a COI, claiming that Christians are biased for being Christian, ect ect. That's inappropriate behavior and needs to stop. Andrevan should focus on the edits.--v/r - TP 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, last I checked, having a COI by being an active member of a religion was a potential problem, especially when combined with extensive editing and POV-sculpting in that subject area -- see, the issues around Transcendental Meditation editors probably a few years back? And I recall some case involving Israel-Palestine and Judaism? At any rate, accusing editors of a COI isn't a personal attack -- and it is and was directly related to a content dispute. More importantly, it has nothing to do with admin powers. Andrevan (logged out at work) 22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time you checked was wrong and it's still wrong this time. You are casting aspersions. If that isn't clear to you, let me say that again: you are poisoning the well and making it impossible to collaborate because of unproven accusations of bias based on the personal characteristics of your opponents. If you cannot get that, let me point you at two Arbcom cases which specifically address this: Here and [[22]]. Religion is not exempted from there. See Meta:Terms of Use, wmf:Non discrimination policy, this Arbcom case. Stop accusing other editors of bias simply based on their religion. No matter religion or any other characteristic, WP:NPA still holds true: comment on the edit and not the editor. P.S. I haven't said anything about admin or 'crat powers. That shows where your head is right now. This is about you the editor. Having a widely held religion is not a COI anymore than living on the planet earth give your a COI. If the edits are biased, call the edits biased. Don't ever, and I repeat, don't ever comment on the editor.--v/r - TP 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of an edit that's biased without the editor likewise being biased? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. You prove editor bias through biased edits. You don't prove biased edits by claiming editor bias. Backwards logic.--v/r - TP 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits do you say are biased? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[23] [24] [25] [26] This dispute has apparently been going on for years and I'm sure there is research to do for more diffs - but note I am not making this claim anywhere right now, Ignocrates is quoting my words from a closed WP:DRN.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am made the first of those edits, I really must ask you to explain how it could possibly be biased. In fact, I think you should explain that with all the edits. You are accusing editors of being biased - that is a serious accusation, and you should be able to explain how that is the case. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going around and around on this for a while, but as I've explained, you are misrepresenting academic consensus in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:RS/AC and the following statements from the TM ArbCom: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. ""Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." To explain in article content terms, you like sources which say that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Greek-speaking late-Christians, and not the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish-Christians. Why or how that affects your personal belief I don't know - but you and this crowd have a strong tendency to revert any changes made to explain these significant minority points of view dating back hundreds of years and supported by notable scholars France, Edwards, Bernard, Casey, and many historical personages.Andrevan@ 03:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem then that I was editing contrary to my religious belief, since, as I stated at DRN, I personally hold to a pre-70 date. StAnselm (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TParis, I am not discriminating a priori. This is a late stage in a protracted dispute, and there is considerable evidence presented and arguments made on both sides. You seem to think that Ignocrates' out-of-context quotations consist of my entire argument towards bias. There is a small group of editors who insist they WP:OWN the article content and anything aside from a group of cherry-picked sources is WP:FRINGE. They will edit war with anyone who adds sourced balance to the article. I have no dog in the fight, but it seems to be more between denominations, not Christian vs non-religious - or perhaps it is actually, as some have suggested, between academics and lay-people. At any rate, I am calling it how I see it as someone who began as an impartial observer of the article. So perhaps a better description of what I've been doing is critiquing the POV selectivity as seemingly an orthodox perspective (which I assume to pertain to religion based on the subject matter -- I am not simply saying "you identify as religious therefore cannot edit"). Pertaining to ArbCom case law, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Neutrality_and_conflicts_of_interest, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material. I know nothing about the editors personally so the charge of ad hominem is way off here. And again note that I haven't used any admin tools, but certainly might have had reasonable justification before I became WP:INVOLVED. Finally, if you want to see a personal attack, you need look no further than Ignocrates' recent edits.[27] Andrevan@ 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I immediately struck my statement, 01:10 2 Oct 2014 conveniently ignored here. I also note, fyi, that Andrevan finally removed the NPOV tags, 23:03 2 Oct 2014 but only after he shoehorned his own preferred version of content into the article, per WP:KETTLE. 00:27 2 Oct 2014 Ignocrates (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the NPOV tags is a sign of good faith and willingness to find a compromise. The version I added was significantly weakened and never before submitted -- and was not reverted right away, so I took that as an olive branch.Andrevan@ 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this "small group of editors", there are several of them I don't even know. I have no edit history with them prior to this dispute. I think there is a major confusion here between WP:STEWARDSHIP - editors recognizing inferior work and fixing it - and WP:OWNERSHIP that seeks to preserve a preferred version. There is no preferred version; that should have been obvious from the DRN. Everyone was happy with the compromise solution reached in DRN, even Ret.Prof was on board. Everyone, that is, but one editor - Andrevan. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the ArbCom case above pertaining to peremptory reversion of sourced material? That's not stewardship. Anyway, none of this is "conduct unbecoming," it's a content dispute, and while perhaps not my finest moments, well within the bounds of reasonable policy-abiding behavior. Could I have kept a cooler head at times? Surely, but did I pull any triggers or jump any guns? Hardly! Andrevan@ 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think Andrevan's unwillingness, or inability, to acknowledge and take responsibility for his own actions is troubling. Self-reflection is an important quality to have as an admin. I was going to propose a formal reminder as a remedy and move on. Now I'm not as sure about that. Ignocrates (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you are entitled to your opinion or to make whatever proposal you would like. User:TParis, I would just like to point out preemptively and at the risk of provoking his ire, is doubly involved here as I have interacted (not altogether pleasantly) with him in the past, and he also indicates his religious COI on his user page. Andrevan@ 03:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using that phrase. That is not a COI, and User:TParis has not declared a religious COI on his user page. Your belief that all religious adherents have conflicts of interest in editing religious articles is at the root of this issue. For that reason, I propose a topic ban as outlined below. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other side of that, can you point out where we've had any interaction, pleasant or otherwise, as I don't recall ever having spoken to you or even been in the same thread with you before.--v/r - TP 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The other thing that troubles me with Andrevan as an admin is oft-quoted belief that policy trumps consensus. That seems a complete carte blanche to ride roughshod over any community decision and it disturbs me that someone can be an admin who thinks in this way. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well ... sometimes policy does trump consensus. To take an extreme example, no amount of consensus is going to allow a group of editors to insert BLP violations or copyright problems; and admins regularly close discussions (especially at AfD and RM) against what the consensus appears to be because they have to take into account strength of argument. So that's not a black and white issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because assessing consensus meanings looking at policy-based arguments. Consensus is the community's mind on how to apply the policy in a particular situation. StAnselm (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for User:Andrevan

Andrevan admonished

I propose that User:Andrevan be admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator, per the code of conduct described under administrator accountability. There is more to being an admin than the use of tools; the community elects our admins to positions of trust. More is expected than what has been demonstrated here, specifically (1) bad faith, (2) breach of basic policies (incivility, edit warring, npa), and (3) poor judgement. Ignocrates (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:ADMINACCT is about admin actions. It cannot be used in this context.--v/r - TP 06:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm basing my proposal on the precedent set by ArbCom. Please see the Ebionites 3 case, particularly the principal pertaining to Conduct unbecoming an administrator. There were no tools used anywhere in this arbitration case. Ignocrates (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An Admin doing his duty! User:Melissadolbeer (a new user who left Wikipedia in 2005) who said "This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia." It is still on her user page. I believe editors at Wikipedia should never be made to feel this way.

More recently, was how User:Davidbena was treated during his first month at Wikipedia. Within five days of this newbie joining Wikipedia he was falsely accused accused of wrongful behavior and brought before ANI/Aug to be banned. Later, as we were about to start mediation he was again brought before the Feb/ANI again to be banned.(He withdrew from the mediation process). He asked why don't the "brass at wikipedia" do something???

At Mediation I was intimidated by the following order to withdraw from the process: "Frankly, if this continues even another few days, I am going to find the time to file an Arbcom request and solicit permanent sanction, being either a full site ban, or at least a topic ban. Ret.Prof. you need to withdraw again or we are going to arbcom this time." Although I did comply, I felt it was very, very wrong. Finally re User:John Carter & Ignocrates diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7 diff8 diff9 diff10 diff11 diff13 diff14 diff15 diff16 diff17 diff18

Andrevan also saved me from Arbitration. diff He is a completely neutral mediator, administrator and bureaucrat doing his duty! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Can someone clean up this off-topic mess? There are diffs in here from formal mediation, which is forbidden in a dispute resolution about conduct. Ignocrates (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: The diffs here from formal mediation are allowed when they appear to be disruptive. ie The privilege does not extend to your attacks on the mediator! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Ret.Prof (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, why were you instructed by the arbs to remove these diffs during arbitration? 14:51 1 Sep 2014 Now you are here doing the same thing. I advise you to proceed with caution Ret.Prof, or your efforts here may WP:BOOMERANG. Accusing other editors of making false statements and other forms of misconduct is not to be taken lightly. This also seems like an attempt to take over an incident report and make it about something else entirely. The formal mediation you are repeatedly citing ended successfully in March. I should know; I implemented the compromise solution. Ignocrates (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request for a block for attempting to use the ANI process to settle some kind of personal score. See below for details. Ignocrates (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close this ANI. I apologize publicly to everyone who was offended or feels slighted. We're clearly not headed for a topic ban and this is regressing. Andrevan@ 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a self-serving request, but I agree that a T-ban is probably overkill. Therefore, I changed my vote to oppose based on the arguments above. However, something more than a boys-will-be-boys pat on the back is needed here. We already had that in the previous ANI. I still think a formal admonishment is the way to go. Let's see what a few more uninvolved editors have to say before we close this. Ignocrates (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I too apologize if I got carried away. I do not generally lose my cool. However this second ANI against Andrevan, for simply doing his job got to me! Sorry again! I agree that it is time to close out this ANI. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ret. Prof, I cleaned up your diffs and please note that waiving the mediation privilege is something the committee can do, but you can't. Please spend some time with the preview feature before you post more than a few lines of scrolling as it is very disruptive to the thread, and I've told you this before... I appreciate you rushing to my defense here, but there is nothing to get so excited about, and I'm sure that's exactly what your counterparts would use to discredit your position. Andrevan@ 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said I definitely overreacted and I have apologized! Hope my rant did not put you in jeopardy. It would not be the first time I have given my "counterparts" material use to "discredit my position". Thanks for the fix. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, thanks for cleaning up this mess. That resolves the purpose of a block, which was not intended to be punitive but to stop the behavior. In any case, it has stopped now and that's what matters. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - (1) the topic ban option was quickly opened and quickly closed 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) before most of those who are familiar with the issue could see it. Could people please bear in mind that the planet takes 24 hours to turn on its axis.

(2) despite the rapid open/close, discussion of a "topic ban" is rather moot - despite that I think the concerns about the imbalanced approach of Andrevan are not (as the diffs show) smoke without fire. Since if Andrevan has the act-as-admin-in-Matthew hat removed (or as appears has already happened voluntarily takes the admin hat off) then as an editor with no background in the NT studies area there aren't many edits left to make.

(3) as far as I can see, having seen some but not all of it, it looks to me like Andrevan was originally acting in a good faith way in entry to a technically complicated expert zone where SBL type academic opinions (as characterized by the 7 or 8 the "WP Religion" editors, which note includes myself though I've been absent in this recent round) are in a drawn out content/source dispute against fringe/fundamentalist/popular/old/minority sources - represented in particular again and again by one editor with a longstanding issue about a "lost" "fountainhead" (what? Papias and Origen?) "original Hebrew Matthew" and issues such as dating/Gnostic gospels/Jewish gospels/etc. Into this neverending story, self-resurrecting deleted articles, arbitration (refused). Any admin walking into this area could have come a cropper like this. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, thanks for weighing in with a comment, but what, if anything, should be done here? We need to bring this filing to some kind of resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as I said I haven't been following all the details. I had already expressed personal concern to Andrevan on his talk page about some of the earlier assumptions, and expressed concerned that an editor - by his own admission - not familiar with the field might be advised to not too hurriedly support the one-scholar-view being inserted, but I hadn't seen some of the more startling diffs above. FWIW I think as a good faith assumption of a good faith admin having been unfamiliar with the particular quicksand, I'd be inclined to just let it go. I think Andrevan has apologised (or should) for some of the diffs above, which voids the need for admonition, and the question of individual topic ban for someone might be better addressed to any editor persistently revisiting and repushing the fringe view that Andrevan unknowingly got dragged into. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with In ictu oculi's reasoning here. (1) The rush to close the topic ban was strange. It should have been left open until the entire incident report closed. (2) An apology, albeit a weak one, relieves the need for an admonishment and reduces this to a reminder. Let's close this with a reminder to avoid casting aspersions and focus on the edits rather than the editors, per Tom Paris. Ignocrates (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin technopat (talk) seems to think you've given him/her some kind of "admin." privileges, even though there's a place on his/her talk page about admins that shows that he/she is not one. But she/he still thinks s/he can falsely accuse me of "vandalizing Wikipedia" by erasing her/his own so-called "warning" from my own talk page. I've been told by more than one admin. that erasing stuff from--even emptying--your own talk page is acceptable. So you need to stop this guy from acting all "admin" when he/she 1. isn't one, and 2. doesn't even know the right things to warn about in the first place.

I've written technopat up on his or her own talk page for this behavior:

user talk:Technopat#You're not an admin. 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can leave a warning on your talk page over problems with your editing. The only difference between an admin and a regular editor is that an admin has been trusted with additional tools. The only thing Technopat shouldn't have done was restore the warning after you deleted it. But that isn't actionable because it hasn't reached the level of an edit war. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the worst report ever to land at ANI. Technopat has done nothing wrong, any user can leave a warning. In response to that one warning, the IP has has done eleven edits to Technopat's talk page, six edits to WP:EF to complain about it and now ANI. All of them with absolutely no reason. The IP may be in good faith, but Ignorantia juris non excusat disruption of this kind. Give the OP a 24h block for harassment of Techopat to take some time to cool down.Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jeppy, t'pat DID do some wrong things. See below: 75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I type slowly, so much of this has been said. However, Technopat was not acting as/impersonating an admin; any editor can leave warning templates. As I see it:

• You've been edit warring with 3 other editors at Acronym. Don't do that.
• You called another editor an idiot. Don't do that.
• Technopat warned you about it. Anyone can do that.
• You blanked the warning. You can do that.
• Technopat reverted your blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• Technopat warned you for the blanking. He shouldn't have done that.
• You have blitzed his talk page and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports multiple times. Don't do that.

So this is solved by (a) you not calling other editors names, (b) reminding Technopat people can blank notices on their talk pages, (c) you blanking your talk page if you want to, (d) you leaving Technopat's talk page alone, and (e) politely discussing the issue at the article on Talk:Acronym. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to have imposed 2 new policies, then: 1. that admins are all clearly identified (no "unmarked police cars"), and that 2. only admin-badged writers can give (even have access to--so you'd have to change the way the templates are accessed) any kind of official (or official-looking) warning.

That's because it looks like the artificial "power" that some experienced NON-admin writers seem to think they have gets to their heads! I really don't like the idea of thinking I'm having to bend under the pressure of someone who, at first, looks like an admin, only to later discover that they're just some bossy schmuck with no authority!

How would you like to be pulled over by dome dimwit with fake cop lights on their car, only to then find out that they have NO police authority? I don't know *anyone* who would tolerate that. EXACTLY my point!

The only kind of warning I want from a non-admin is one that carries no official markers of any kind, but could only be something like "If you keep doing this, then I might report you," to which I could then reply with the same little bit of force, "If you do that again, then I'll report *you.*"

• "You're not the boss of me!"

I'm still hoping someone will answer me about why technopat gets a pass for warring back, even if he technically "didn't break the 3RR"(/24H) rule! Why?

75.162.179.246 (talk)

No, that's the beauty of the community: there's no hierarchy. Every member in the community has the responsibility to teach and/or warn others when their behaviour is going outside community boundaries. Every member of the community likewise has the responsibility to respond to those warnings appropriately. You agreed to it when you arrived the panda ₯’ 10:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And technopat did NOT "get a pass" - they're now fully aware, and they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur. the panda ₯’ 10:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've been asked to "admit" my error in restoring the warning I posted for the two insulting edit summaries left at the article where the user was edit-warring with several other users ([28] & [29]). Fine, I'll admit it's my error. Hope that makes everyone else happy, 'cos I'm left with the unpleasant feeling that while some folks can get to do whatever they like in terms of disruptive editing, including repeatedly restoring content that is plain wrong (this is an encyclopedia) and escalating matters by maligning and insulting users, even at this very ANI, others have to turn a blind eye and simply get on with maintenance. On top of which I been warned that "they know that action can be taken in the future should it recur". Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Panda? Well then why wasn't an edit-warring warning given to him/her (not "them," since that's a plural form--well, someone else suggested just "him" as if they already knew this was a guy) at the same time as I got one? If supposed "edit-warring" is only accused of to the *first* person who changes something repeatedly, but not to the one who edit-wars it back repeatedly, then what's the criteria for determining that only the guy with the *new* changes should be thrown the "edit-warring" warning? Just because the old version had been sitting there longer? Or just because there was a consensus for the old way but not the new way? Then why do we even *have* public editability if every older version is the one with the supposed "consensus" and it "should not be touched," and if it is touched repeatedly in a new way, then only *that* person gets the "warring" warning but the person assuming that the "only right version" is the old one does *not* get the same warning for warring it *back*?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring case you brought against them was dismissed because they did not violate 3RR. The solution to editing disputes when changing things like you did in Acronym is to solve them on the talk page of the article. Not act the way you have so far including filing this frivolous ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion can't end here. Dreadstar went on to indefinitely block Snakebyte42 for a BLP violation, although Snakebyte42 has been registered since 2012 and had no previous block log. All issues relating to Ryulong were ignored, although several editors here raised concerns. That's not how boomerangs work. --Pudeo' 23:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. None of the concerns are valid and I'm taking a break from the afflicted article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the concerns are valid, ANI is not the forum for addressing long term, suboptimal behavior. WP:RFC/U is the appropriate venue for that. NE Ent 00:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Snakebyte42

G2003 (talk · contribs) has been writing elaborate blatant advertizements for years and this seems to be the sole purpose of the account. I think a block is appropriate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hard to know how much evidence I can provide here without being accused of WP:OUTING, but G2003 is almost certainly a paid editor – I have seen his advertisement on a site, which also contains reviews by people linked to the articles the account has created. He has also been adding links to his own personal/business website, and some time ago created an article on himself (since deleted). The situation is made more problematic by the fact that he still denies being a paid editor. I gave him a warning yesterday about continuing to edit with a COI, but he hasn't responded yet. Number 57 11:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any advertisements by G2003, at least AFAIK. But I can't help thinking it's not a coincidence one of the first articles G2003 worked upon was PeoplePerHour a freelance work website. Following the link to the website G2003 helpfully provided [31], and then clicking "buy" and "find freelancers" and A quick search confirms there 22 people are advertising wikipedia related services there [32] (to avoid WP:outing, I've specifically not linked any of them to G2003 or anyone else). Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that G20003 is probably doing paid editing. Just went through first page of contribs

• dif added inline hyperlink to a personal website, immediately reverted. this is the link added, which is for someone named Gareth Johnson who does PR/communications work for hire
• dif same edit on another aricle, also immediately reverted
• created article then edited, immediately PRODed
• created this article on a designer, pretty promotional
• added significant chunk of text to company article here, quite promo "The first stage of this development has sold faster than any other in the company’s history"
• currently working on a glow-y BLP article User:G2003/Ashvir_Sangha
• created this article with dupe refs (to make it seem there are more sources than there are?)

that is just the first page of contribs. Going further back there are more like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was a paid editor and if so, not disclosing it is a violation of the Terms of Use. Not sure where things go from here. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: It's more than probably. Like I said, there are reviews on his advertisement (on a site mentioned above) that are directly linked to articles created by the account (I can provide these privately if anyone requires definite proof). Anyway, I have been keeping an eye on the account for some time and will continue to monitor their edits. If they don't respond to my most recent warning and continue to churn out rubbish articles, I may block them and encourage them to communicate. Number 57 17:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the articles created by this editor, some of them are deserving of deletion, and some are just over-hyped.

• Fabryan, although created over a previously deleted article, appears to be a notable fashion line - they have good writeups in Vogue. There's too much promotional material in the article, though.
• Robert Colville (publisher) is a non-notable publisher of a minor forex trading site. That article is proposed for deletion, and probably should be deleted.
• Out to Swim is a minor swimming club, and may fail WP:ORG. It's a close call; I put a proposed deletion template on it.
• Matt Woosey is a minor musician, and that article probably fails WP:MUSIC.

It's not clear what's paid editing, and what's just article creation. John Nagle (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's articles on financial organizations, including Tristan Capital Partners and DAMAC Properties, are promotional happy-talk articles. Hotel Carbon Measurement Initiative is almost a copyvio from the organization's FAQ. (That article is in AfD.) Those three look an awful lot like paid PR. John Nagle (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Out to Swim and Gay Star News articles appears to be organisations the editor is involved with. All the others appear to be paid. Number 57 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've been editing for four years, but have never replied to any warning on Talk. Their only edits on their own talk page seem to be deletions to clear out warnings. Their editing rate was relatively low until September of 2014, with 860 edits over 4 years. Then the rate picked up, with 50 edits in the last 5 days. It's perhaps time to do something to get their attention. Cleaning up their stuff takes a lot of time from other editors. John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies I have done some paid editing through PeoplePerHour. I have removed all advertisements offering this service and will not do any further paid advertising.G2003 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who for? You are required to disclose this under the Terms of Use. MER-C 23:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:NLT states to report legal threats here, I am notifying administrators here of a possible situation where a couple of editors have been legally threatened by a media figure. Details can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant legal threats, by two different IP's, so probably an IP-hopper. Can't be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's a pretty clear legal threat. A WP:DOLT analysis shows that the dispute appears to center on a minor mention of Elon Musk in the article for the 2008 Iron Man film, where apparently Robert Downey, Jr. had met Musk prior to his portrayal of Tony Stark. I have two points to make in this vein: First, regardless of the correctness of our article, nothing in there rises to the level of meriting legal threats (i.e., it's neither libelous nor portrays a living person in a false light). Second, individuals so close to the film's production as Downey and Favreau (the director) make it fairly clear that Downey's portrayal was influenced by a meeting with Musk. The claim in the article is given very minor prominence, which is appropriate per WP:DUE. Given we have an IP hopper here, or an anonymizing VPN, a rangeblock may be worth considering. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about contacting the email address stated in the messages to the editors? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think emails or other forms of contact should be left to the WMF's legal department. I have now blocked 176.67.82.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who threatened to issue a cease and desist letter. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the article has been temporarily semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any e-mails should be left either to WMF or not made at all. Even if the given e-mail address appears to be legitimate, offering an e-mail address is sometimes bait to be outed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put any faith in their statements. Marvel has enough lawyers to know what channels to use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are a bluff at least 99.9 percent of the time, which is one reason their perps can't be tolerated. If the problem continues, probably better to semi the article (which has already been done) than to range block other possibly-innocent users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That email address is most dubious; it indicates someone at a specific firm who seems quite unlikely to be the fellow charged with editing one line on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the email addresses that was left is to Jeff Klein at DKCNews. There is a Jeff Klein at the PR firm DKCNews and he does work with Marvel Entertainment, http://dkcnews.com/jeffrey-klein/ GB fan 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how this person is hopping on IPs from the UK to Romania, probably safe to say that it is an impostor. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a courtesy to notify the real guy about this impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the other email address was the guy who founded the company but is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. I'm quite dubious he's coming back to work to fuss over a single line of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't 109.103.28.89 be blocked too, for these legal threats [37] [38] ? Cardamon (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for gross personal attacks as well. I took a look at AIV and there's a big backlog there, so it looks like the admins have taken Columbus Day off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all who acted on this. Really appreciate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You thanked them about 20 minutes before they actually did anything, but all appears well now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention may be required to look into possible Wikibullying and a wide variety of disruptive edits and page move warring from the following editor: RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These issues have been going on for several months now, and the editor in question has received numerous warnings about her conduct on Wikipedia. On the 11 October, she posted this angrily worded message on my talk page. Other problematic edits include removing maintenance templates without stating a reason for doing so. Not using edit summaries, although that is a minor issue. Move warring on articles. I even offered to assist the editor so that she may learn what Wikipedia is all about, and an administrator has warned her a few times for her disruptive behaviour. However, she continues to take no notice and does things in her own way without taking into consideration of the consequences she may be getting herself into. So I would appreciate if an administrator would kindly intervene and take any action that is necessary. Thank you. Wes Mouse 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Mouse, please don't revert other people's user talk pages like this. Any warning message may be removed by those who received it which is seen as evidence that they have also read the warnings per WP:TPO. Only truly administrative notes like block messages and the like have to remain visible for their relevant duration. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had undone that, as I had clicked the revert by accident. Doing two things at once got me distracted. Sorry. Wes Mouse 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had clicked cancel, and assumed it had done so. Oh heck! And now it won't let me undo it. Wes Mouse 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is ever so kind of you. Wes Mouse 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the edit history of RebeccaTheAwesomeXD I wouldn't speak of bullying. A single note directed at Wes Mouse saying that Rebecca would get angry is hardly a case of bullying and I wouldn't even call it incivil. Still, Rebecca needs to communicate more with other editors and should try to learn more about Wikipedia's manual of style and procedures (article naming conventions, uploading of media, etc.). Given the multitude of warnings she has received so far by editors other than Wes, I would think that a tutorial is a good idea, but it takes two to tango and the future tutor should probably not be Wes Mouse. All in all I fail to see bad faith in Rebecca's edits and I'm wondering whether her edits have become so disruptive as to warrant a block, so what should we do here?

I do see a problem though with Wes Mouse's edits, too. E.g. this removal of a section that announced an uncontroversial YouTube video without hotlinking, or the frequent interaction at music articles started by Rebecca and the massive templating of her talk page which might look like haunting (for the record: I do template the regulars), even though I'm convinced that Wes is only trying to help Rebecca become a better editor. Perhaps a voluntary interaction ban for, say, a month would do the trick of getting Rebecca to cooperate with other editors. What do others think? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction ban might be more difficult than one imagines, as we both edit the same genre of articles as well as on the same WikiProject, plus I also write the newsletter for Project Eurovision to which Rebecca would be in receipt of. In regards to the tutorial, I had hoped that Rebecca would seek the adoption process, despite the fact that I also offered myself. Naturally I would not have forced myself to tutoring Rebecca in the event she did want to take that option. However, the matter is a lot more complexed than one may be aware of. Discussions have taken place on several user's talk pages regarding the editing pattern - and a few editor's including an administrator agreed to keep an eye on Rebecca's contributions for a period of time. Such discussions include one in my archive and one in CT Cooper archive. Don't get me wrong, as some contributions that Rebecca has made are excellent, and shows potential of becoming an outstanding Wikipedian. But others that have caused problems and tensions between some project Eurovision members, have been worrying. For example, media related incidents, not abiding to verifiability, changing dates of birth on BLP articles without checking sources. Also removing speedy deletion tags and other maintenance tags for no apparent reason, nor using the edit summary or article talk pages to explain her reasons. When she gets asked about them, she just ignores people - and yes that can be frustrating at times. Wes Mouse 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for seeing a problem with this removal, I see no problem whatsoever, as it was done based on the guidance at WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. Plus Rebecca added the entire chuck without any citations to verify what she added. So challenging unsourced material is now problematic? Isn't sourcing content the core policy that binds Wikipedia together? Wes Mouse 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making comments like this one is by far more problematic and again removing maintenance tags that are there for a valid reason. Wes Mouse 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that on 29 August 2014, user:Supreme Deliciousness publicly accused me of inappropriate canvassing (in capital letters), while having a content dispute on Syrian Civil War-related pages, which are also bound to Syrian Civil War community sanctions. The incident took place as part of my attempt to gain attention to discussion on main Syrian Civil War page, by notifying ALL related users from previous relevant discussions, no matter their opinions (clearly of all spectrum, including Supreme himself!). Despite clarifying that to Supreme Deliciousness and warning him that blatant public accusations with no basis can be considered as personal attack, he has not yet removed his accusation, which in my opinion is highly unfair and bullying against me as a regular editor on Syrian Civil War pages. Request to enforce him removing this "INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING" comment ASAP, or else he should supply evidence of "canvassing" and file a complaint against me (as he proved to be able to in regard to user:Legacypac just 4 days ago).GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have understood it, you started by presenting a wrong view of the problem (that it's about adding Israel as a belligerent to the Syrian Civil War and not about showing that Israel occupies a part of that country, no matter if they are a party to the war or not), and you are still portraying it as such. So no matter who you are notifying about it, if you are portraying the problem in a wrong way, I don't think it's acceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Colonel Sanders for the closed discussion. Even while people were continuing to add to the discussion, and it's not an RfC, Winkelvi has closed it and is insisting on keeping it closed. I have never seen this occur before. There was no consensus for closing this discussion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. No one was adding to the discussion at the time of closure. See here [39] and here [40]. Also note the editor reporting said the following, "You're absolutely right. Without a strong reference, this matter is moot" here [41]. The discussion was closed after a conclusion was reached by the editor reporting here who had appeared to come full circle and realize that adding content on the article subject's religion was not going to be possible at this time, making the original point "moot" (his words). Prior to this, there had been a good amount of disruptive and unproductive back and forth between the editor reporting here as well as an IP who has been disruptive elsewhere today. In closing the discussion because it appeared to be over, my hope was to keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks. I don't know where the editor has been, but I've seen numerous talk page discussions closed in the same manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the other participants didn't consider it closed. One person doesn't have a unilateral position to close a discussion. I never reached a conclusion that the discussion was over, but that given a current lack of reference, the matter was moot as of now (but info could change the situation). But as anyone can see in the discussion, I had inquired about a reference and was waiting to hear about it. Bottom line: The discussion wasn't over, but one person decided it was. I don't think that's civil or constructive. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: your hope to "keep further disruption and off-topic conversation, further devolving the positive ending into another cluster of insults and personal attacks", I didn't see that happening. Everything seemed on-topic from where I'm sitting. While some of the discourse wasn't the most civil, I've seen far worse than that. There was no significant devolving. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since I started the discussion, shouldn't I have some say in whether the discussion is finished for all time? But even if I thought it was finished, I wouldn't close it. I am open to others' ideas on the subject, as much as they want to talk about it, even if I disagree with them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of the participants arguing for trying to post the Colonel's religion in the infobox. And whatever religion he followed, I would be shocked if it in any way informed his selling of chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugs, if we were only including information that was relevant to the colonel's selling of fried chicken, we would not include his birth date, his family background, his education, his military service, or his prior employment history, either. Someone's religion (or lack thereof) is key personal datapoint; that's why the Template:Infobox person includes a religion parameter. As for the closing of a talk page discussion, any unilaterally closed discussion may be unilaterally reopened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This type of argument, which more often happens in reference to Jewish folks who are notable for something not having to do with Judaism, reminds me of this one: A tourist in Jerusalem is visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Israeli Soldier. He sees a name on the tomb, Irving Levine or whatever. The tourist questions how this qualifies as the Unknown Soldier. The guard says, "As a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Meh!"" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument, and that belongs in the discussion that was closed. The issue here is unilaterally closing an ongoing discussion without consensus to do so. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor with several beefs against me has decided to step in an unclose the discussion at the Sanders talk page. Without weighing in here, by the way, and before this discussion has been closed/decided upon. (see here [42], here [43], and here [44]. I won't edit war there over this. It's ridiculous to do so, and the other editor is just looking for me to get blocked, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)As an uninvolved editor, I looked at the discussion, saw that it was on-going, and have re-opened it. Now Wv is trying to edit war to keep it closed. This needs to stop, or needs to be stopped. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should consider the idea that what you did was untoward and leave the discussion open. I'm sorry if someone is tormenting you for any reason, but the discussion was indeed ongoing and therefore there was no consensus to close. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Stevie, I don't "have several beefs" with Wv, nor have I been "tormenting him." I had the temerity to disagree with him on a couple of content-related issues. (Interestingly enough, I've seen Wv do some great work on the project, and even given him a barnstar for that work.) LHM^{ask me a question} 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't investigated the claim, but I was speaking in a general sense. I wasn't intending to cast any aspersions on your behavior. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it had not already been re-opened, I would have done so myself as an uninvolved third-party. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I hadn't heard of Winkelvil until about two weeks ago, but what I have seen is problematic. He is the editor who instigated the Chelsea Clinton situation among other problematic trends I've noticed. -- Calidum 00:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, indeed. I hadn't heard of you until a couple of weeks ago, either. Does that have anything to do with anything? Not that I can see. Just like your poor assessment of an action and opinion regarding BLP policy (BLPNAME, to be exact) that has nothing to do with anything (especially not this report) but has been supported by several editors and not considered "problematic" by them at all. Your attempt to tip the scales negatively based on bad faith is transparently noted, Cal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. -- Calidum 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close to being the same thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not usual practice to "close" talk page discussions unless they are an RFC, which should be done be someone who hasn't participated in the discussion.
• There's not "close" exception to WP:3rr -- edit warring over a close tag is still edit warring.
• If a discussion truly has come to a consensus, closer or unclosing it doesn't actually matter -- it doesn't change the consensus.
• As there's clearly not a consensus, discussion should continue; WP:RFC is recommended if more viewpoints would be helpful. NE Ent 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If they want to resume arguing over a point they already agreed upon, I suppose they must. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparent agreement was on one aspect. There is nothing the matter with continuing discussion on closely related points. Regular article talks are not closed in this way in the vast majority of cases. If the talk dies down, it will be archived 90 days after the end. Unilaterally closing the discussion was the issue here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way, you'd have a hard time finding sourcing demonstrating that his specific Christian denomination had anything to do with building his chicken empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at articles about other fast-food founders, there's nothing about religion for Ray Kroc, Dave Thomas or Glen Bell. What's special about Col. Sanders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from editing articles related to the Falkland Islands on May 2013 for "making discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible"[45] In that period of time, work on the main article began to flow again, eventually leading to a successful FA drive, a status that had been pursued for years. To see that period of trouble-free collaboration, see these edits.

6 months later, Wee Curry Monster appealed his topic ban[46], agreeing "to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics". As a result, the ban was lifted.

Right away, several new articles were created: Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxa, José María Pinedo. However, shortly after these efforts were concluded behavior problems started to arise again, reaching its climax in the past few weeks.

Wee Curry Monster has at least three times broken his 1RR condition for ban lifting:

• Top Gear controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [47] 21:27, 10 October 2014

Revert 2: [48] 21:40, 10 October 2014

• Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion at ANI: [49]

Discussion at talk page: [50]

WCM's uncivil summaries/edits were conveniently cleaned-up, so we can't really see them: [51]

The proof of the 1RR violation can be extracted from the following conversation: [52][53][54][55]

• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revert 1: [56] 20:00, 11 April 2014

Revert 2: [57] 21:34, 11 April 2014

As I anticipated in the topic ban lifting, he continues to push for the self-published source Getting it Right by Pascoe & Pepper in his arguments,[58][59] while at the same time admitting that self-published sources are not reliable.[60] At this point, he doesn't really use this source in articles, but he uses it to back dubious theories at talk page, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE of the normal consensus building process.

Wee Curry Monster excels at article creation, but as a former British soldier his WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior prevents him from editing collaboratively on nationalistic subjects. --Langus (t) 08:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]