Currently affected articles:

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

Current discussions:

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

Users involved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Belgium is famously "A country invented by the British to annoy the French" [6], perhaps UK English is preferable, and has the advantage that Belgium can now annoy the Americans too. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Continued disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps you see a case, but he didn't make the case, strong national ties are not obvious, there is no consensus and I would in fact dispute all of these. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIES states that there must be "strong national ties" to a subject before you can switch from one variation of English to another. However, what ties the UK has for Suez Canal and Suez Crisis are not that strong. Especially the Suez Crisis, where the US was heavily involved on the diplomatic front. If you are going to make judgements on which country has "stronger" ties, then you've already failed to understand WP:ENGVAR. Case in point, World War I, where both countries were involved, but there are some editors who want to make it British English on the bases that the UK has "stronger ties" than the US. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just floating an idea here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to ban script use for a limited time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I can supervise him to clean up the damage, sure. I'm concerned that requiring to clean up the damage will lack teeth, and he'll shirk actually reverting any but the ones manually pointed out to him, and even then he'll skip some of those. It's what he's been doing so far. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is not with the tool, it's that the user doesn't understand the ENGVAR policy. His "In a nut shell" comment just above only confirms that he doesn't understand it. Given that, he should not be encouraged to change the variety of English used in any article, whether manually or with scripts or other tools. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Using a script to change the variety of English is basically a bad idea. That should be done manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This seems like a good way to go to encourage the editor to learn ENGVAR by doing manual changes. BMK (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with Robert McClenon. The proposed ban is a bit long, but it's only on script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI The changes to Television had not been self-reverted by Jaguar as of about two hours ago, when I noticed and reverted them. I then got curious, checked the source of the evidently unjustified and oddly incomplete (it was still "color" in most places) changes, and was very surprised to find that this example of arbitrary and tiresome AE>BE orthographic imperialism was due to an experienced editor. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have no idea why Jaguar is making these changes but he definitely means well. Rather than a ban which seems rather forceful and bureaucratic given that he doesn't have a long history of repeated offenses, I simply suggest that Jaguar just avoids making such changes and we can all move on. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is why I didn't propose an ENGVAR ban, just a ban of the tools. If you don't know what you are doing, doing it faster isn't the solution. This ban will allow him to fix ENGVAR issues on any article, Wiki-wide, he just can't do it at the speed of sound. The alternative is to allow to keep using the tools, making lots of errors and end up getting blocked. This is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem. Also note that it is for a fixed time, not indef. He doesn't have to come grovel to get access back, it is automatic. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Mistakes have been made. That's enough for me to advise shutting this user's toy down for the year. Carrite (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not very nice is it... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Use the opportunity to familiarize yourself with ENGVAR, and edit cooperatively. Clean up your inappropriate changes, which becomes more time consuming when others have edited the article after your changes. Do not use a script to implement changes which are likely to be controversial. Edison (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

ENGVAR is a delicate and sensitive consensus. By rolling into town with automation, you are essentially cutting cookies on the front lawn with an ATV. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no one should be running a script to convert a large number of articles from American to British English or vice versa, hence why I think said script should be deleted outright. However, if it is not going to be deleted, it needs to be recoded to use some sort of white-list (for both users and articles) along with a popup telling the editor using the script that they are responsible for its use and that they should that there is a per-established consensus for such a conversion. —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The script itself is OK, it's just that there are certain things in it that could be improved. For example "in order to" should not be deleted as this has always been used in UK spelling, and in some cases the script did not change "color" into "colour". With the script's creator's permission, I could have adjusted the script myself and optimised it. The script is widely used by other editors, I saw that I was not the only one who used it. Deleting it isn't the right thing to do. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar's cavalier and dismissive attitude is shown by "We are going too overboard with these idle threats of blocks and sanctions!" Please believe that you are not reading "Idle threats." I would certainly block a disruptive editor who refused to follow ENGVAR. Far too much time has been wasted in years gone by in pointless arguments over which version of English is "correct." Color vs colour, Push up vs Press up, and countless more. We do not want to revisit every such long-drawn out and pointless argument. Edison (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no correct version of English, it is essentially the same language however I have corrected my mistakes and familiarised myself with ENGVAR, thus I have stopped using the script for non UK and Canadian related articles since this ANI discussion has come to light. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That edit did a number of things -

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

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

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

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

I approached it the same way I approached other articles I have completely rewritten and expanded -- among them East West Link, Melbourne, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). The exception in this case, knowing it would be a huge task, was to arrange for a fee for my work. I have not set out to promote A2 milk; my intention was and is to present more information about it, its history and the scientific disagreement -- issues that have also spawned a book, Devil in the Milk by a NZ agricultural professor, and widespread media coverage of the milk and a number of questionable tactics by rivals who have lost market share. I posted a disclosure notice on my user page before replacing the shitty stub with my much bigger version.[7].

A couple of users objected to my use of Devil in the Milk and some primary sources (scientific papers) in the science section and immediately began a campaign of denigration and canvassing, labelling the article and its sourcing as "fringe", "weird", and the lie that it was "based on anecdotes and a few primary sources".[8]. (At that stage it contained more than 40 citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I reworked it with better sourcing. User:WhatamIdoing also intervened to point out that a couple of editors were misusing BRD: instead of deleting sections or flagging sections for better sources, they simply reverted the whole article. I also agreed with the removal of a section on digestive benefits of A2 milk, agreeing that anecdotal claims were unacceptable.[9]

Throughout the process I have endeavoured to be co-operative and collaborative. However I have encountered rising levels of antagonism towards me and my edits, particularly once it became more widely known that I had accepted a fee. This is all laid bare on the talk page, culminating in a personal attack by User:Stalwart111 which blatantly breaches WP:AGF. [10] That user has also demanded that I cease editing the article and offer suggestions on the talk page.

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

On 16 July Stalwart111 removed a paragraph from the "background" section, then on the talk page requested "incredibly strong MEDRS sourcing".[11] Since then I have provided a string of high-quality sources to satisfy his request and finally a grab-bag of statements from a range of websites by Googling a couple of terms to demonstrate that the fact I added as background is widely accepted science. When there was initially no response after I listed those quality sources, I reinstated the paragraph; he promptly reverted it again[12] claiming that "consensus among others is contrary to your opinion". That was a lie: there had been discussion up to that point, either agreeing or disagreeing with the list of sources I had provided. Still no one has discussed what is a plain statement of scientific fact -- a fact completely supported by the sources I provided and typed out as quotes.

On 19 July User:Roxy the dog altered the wording in the article's lead section from "There is no consensus that A2 milk has benefits over "A1" milk" to "There is no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk". [13] This is a very clear case of cherry picking, and provocation: the statement, although correctly sourced to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is not an accurate and balanced statement for an encyclopedia. I started a new thread, pointing out that the EFSA review was just one of four reviews I'm aware of: two others said no such thing and referred to scientific evidence they found "intriguing" and worth further study.

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

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

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

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

If "we" had our "our" way the article would still be the shitty stub, which is what "we" (User:Bhny and User:Roxy the dog) reverted it to in a tag-team manoeuvre,[14][15] with a sham appeal to BRD. (Neither editor was willing to engage in meaningful discussion: Bhny immediately started his surreptitious canvassing campaign with misleading claims at two noticeboards; Roxy's contributions have been laced with sneering sarcasm.[16]). It was only the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing—who actually read my edit and reinstated material that was clearly unobjectional [17][18]—that took the article to what it is now. I accepted this. I accepted the removal of the "Digestive benefits" section. I accepted that the science section needed to be reworked. I made all this clear on the talk page. From that point more -- quite innocuous -- material was deleted; my subsequent attempts to discuss this and reinstate (a) a one-paragraph statement of scientific fact and (b) the fact that there is no consensus over the benefits of A2 milk have been met with obstruction, derision and abuse. I am doing all I can to collaborate. And Stalwart111's final little insult ("I'd have concerns with your edits even if you weren't being paid to make them) is yet another unwarranted attack on my good faith. Just examine my record. BlackCab (TALK) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

"I have requested comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue: their new Terms of Use do allow for editors to accept a fee, so how do they view a situation such as this?" You can accept a payment, but you are still required to follow WP:COI and WP:PAY. "what, in the existing article" The more interesting question is, if no one had stopped you, what would the article look like? We know the answer to that: [19]. See WP:COIADVICE as well, particularly If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.. Second Quantization (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The collaboration process involves accepting the input of other editors and I have done that. Whatever errors of judgment I may have made in my first venture into paid editing have been removed and I have accepted that. Other editors have now ceased collaborating and are focusing on insult, obstruction and in the case of Roxy the dog[20][21] deliberate provocation. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And still Roxy the dog persists in removing a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on the false statement he added based on a cherry-picked source.[22] That edit is still under discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep edit-warring it back in. Nobody else agrees that statement is "dubious". You failing to hear what others are telling you is not the same thing as "still under discussion". Not a single person (here or there) has agreed with your suggestion that you should be exempt from WP:NOPAY or that your edits at A2 milk have been anything but promotional and tendentious. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal - BlackCab's paid editing experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. Nobody is suggesting their contributions prior to this have been anything but constructive and positive. They have comprehensively demonstrated an ability to contribute productively to a range of areas over the course of many years. But that seems to have gone out the window at A2 milk. BC continues to believe that the provisions of WP:NOPAY should not apply to them, despite having clearly outlined that they fall into the category of editors specified there. Despite the issues, I firmly believe that blocking them would be a net loss to the project. But something must be done, if for no other reason than the promotionalism and argument has now transitioned to edit-warring. I ask that BlackCab be topic-banned from the subject of milk, broadly construed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - My first reaction was to think that Doc James or WP:Medicine folks should be called in, but I see that was done long ago. Given the violation of WP:Promotion and an extremely argumentative display here and on the talk page, it's fairly easy to conclude that BC is being disruptive, even without the edit-warring. A milk-only topic ban is appropriate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Does the current article read as a promotion? Stalwart111 says above "it isn't promotional now." Is the article an improvement on its original stub? It covers much broader ground and is better sourced, so yes. Am I edit warring? I have twice reinstated a {{dubious - discuss}} tag on an issue that is still under discussion on the talk page. That's it. Am I argumentative? I have certainly argued my point on the talk page and on this page: that's the point of a talk page. Am I being disruptive? No. I have disrupted nothing. I am trying to collaborate, to resolve disputes on the talk page, but struggling against editors who have become hostile. A topic ban would be unwarranted. I am still seeking some meaningful, informed input on the issue of paid editing, which is now within the Wikimedia Terms of Use. My reading is that I am not promoting the product and am therefore free to edit the article. Others clearly disagree, and I think this issue needs fuller, reasoned discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from milk, based not on paid editing but on use of Wikipedia for promotional activity, which is already prohibited by policy. User's edits would support topic ban whether or not there was a COI; in fact, status as paid editor is rather superfluous to this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see no benefit to the project for sanction of any kind on BC, as once this drama is over I seriously doubt he will want to return to this topic. As a consumer of a2 milk, BC must believe in the benefits as having genuine science backing, (as so successfully promoted by those who gain financially from the market segmentation.) His disruptive behaviour and disregard for COI related policy and guidelines such as WP:NOPAY stem from the fact that he is acting "in good faith". As an extremely experienced editor with considerable writing talent, this first foray into paid editing and a scientific topic has been unpleasant, and this drama is the downside of his lack of understanding of the way we interpret scientific evidence. Nobody gains if a sanction is applied. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully agree with a topic ban. I regard paid editing as a pariah to this project. Blackcab does decent work in other areas and I disagree often with him on his views but paid editing is a BAD THING...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note conflicts of interest seem to be BC's biggest flaw as a contributor, the disturbing part is the singlemindedness to push their POV, I think that they can be contained but especially where there is vested interest we should be proactive more rather then wait for them to sneak in more whitewashing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright Infringement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Septate is involved in making biased edits, picks 'Religion in..(country)' articles. Every single time he will come up unsourced information, blatant lie and sometimes he would try to support his statement with some fanpage. User has special hatred for Hinduism. Some examples of his editing;-

• • [34] (Misrepresenting French Philosopher Voltaire, that he called Hinduism to be "brutal religion")
  • [35] (Removed "Hinduism")
  • [36] (Removed Hinduism, and removed again even after reliable source was added[37])
  • [38], even after sources, he removed[39]
  • Same as above > [40], [41]
  • Removing Hinduism from pages - Religion in United Kingdom,[42], Religion in Belgium,[43] and many other countries, [44], [45].
  • Rapidly uses some fansites for invalid points[46].

History of Portal:Hinduism/Did you know shows that this user has edit warred for a dyk that never existed.

All Religion in... (country) article where he has participated, he will try to push POV by inserting the images of mosques and removing the images of other worship places. He tries to hype up Sunni sect without adding any source.[47] These are his minor fixes[48], false edit summaries.[49]

Please see the recent history of these articles.[50], [51]

Except Wikipedia:NOTGETTINGIT, Wikipedia:OR, use of edit summaries for discussion and his gossips, what I hated most that once he will know I am offline for days he will start adding same misleading stuff to articles, he actually reverts to his version.[52] [53] I recommend a topic ban on all religion articles. Septate was blocked for edit warring when he was removing the images of Muhammad from Islam page. He likes to edit war but 2 reverts every 24 hours on many pages and he will never hear anything. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had dealings with Septate before [54], [55], [56] but a topic ban may be too harsh as he does make good edits and does respond constructively on his talk page [57]. Suggest WP:0RR or WP:1RR (and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours) instead to get him to use the talk pages more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Bladesmulti's diffs are for edits made between March and May. Maybe it would have been better to have complained about them nearer the time they were made.

I did find one recent diff, but that was for a reversion of one of Septate's edits by another editor. The other editor wrote: "Reverted to revision 615527903 by Bladesmulti: I object to this removal. The editor has not made their case on the talk page and is relying on WP:OR and less reliable sources." Which was rather a strange comment, considering that all Septate had done was to move one sentence to a section that he/she regarded as more appropriate, and delete one cited statement that said much the same thing as another cited sentence in the section that Septate was moving the other comment to. I do not know whether Septate was right or wrong to make the move - but accusing him/her of WP:OR and using less reliable sources seemed uncalled for. If we look at Septate's edits that were being reverted in this case,[58],[59] you will see that he/she refers to discussion on the article talk page in his/her edit summary. The relevant talk page is Talk:Religion and homosexuality#Hinduism. I noticed that the editor who reverted Septate's edit did not seem to have contributed to this talk page. It does not look like Septate did anything bad in that case - quite the opposite.

My experience of Septate is that he/she has improved his/her behaviour, such that things that he/she would have done a few months ago, he/she no longer does. So it probably is not in the interests of the community to block him/her for doubtful edits that he/she committed a long time ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please clarify which of my edits are lies or blatant POV or vandalism. Adding statement that majority of Muslims in beligium are Sunnis is not a blatant POV in any sense. I always provide soure whereever they are needed see Islam in France. Adding images to articles and organizing them in a proper way is not vandalism. I made edits to religion and homosexuality and ayurveda after a week when you stopped responding. I have promised User:NeilN that I will never accuse another user of lying but please tell me, wasn't it a lie when you claimed on talk:religion and homosexuality that we have a concensus on wikipedia that BBC is not a reliable source for religion. I was engaged in edit war on voltaire. I was warned and got the lesson. You just want me to block from editing Hindu related articles because I raise questions when ever Hinduism is mentioned inapropriatly. I always take that matter to talk page and so no reason for ban.Septate (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute regarding Ayurveda and religion and homosexuality was resolved peacefully.Septate (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned here that much of my disputes with other editor have been resolved and I am engaged in peaceful discussions with other editors as evident from my edit history.Septate (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a lie that you should not use BBC as source on religion articles,[60](tagged copyvio) [61], [62], [63] and your gossips had to do nothing with that BBC link too. Another lie that you reverted after 1 week, I had reverted your edit on 4 July[64] and you reverted to your version on 6 July,[65] you don't know how to count or you are still as dishonest like you were before. Toddy1 have you seen [66] ? It is also correct that this user loves to make useless edits after removing or added content so that recent history on watchlist won't show major change in content. He has also abused the minor change option for making some horrible edits.

None of us can reject that if this user makes 100 edits then at least 90 edits have to be reverted because they are blatant lie or original research. Septate removes warnings but still his talk page is still full of it. Who is going to spend every single day in writing these detailed reports and gain nothing? User had been warned more than 20 times about topic ban or any other restrictions. Only a topic ban or restriction on revert(like NeilN said) can do something. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti - the edit you complain about 06:36, 6 July 2014 removing text, was immediately followed by 06:39, 6 July 2014 where Septate moved one of sentences deleted to another part of the article where he/she thought it ought to go - and I can see why he/she would think that was a better place for it. As for the other sentence deleted in the edit, it said much the same thing as the sentence already there in the place where Septate moved the second sentence to. There is nothing to complain about to ANI regarding that edit. It is a content dispute.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Septate claimed that he edited on that page after a week when he did it after 2 days. It is not hard to understand if you see some of his newest editing on Religion in Swaziland. Yes that 2nd edit was clearly useless and Septate made it only for evading the last disruptive edit that he made to favor his naive opinion. There is no content dispute with this user, because he has never really disputed anything but caused unnecessary disruption. If you revert his disruptive edits he will be mad on you.[67] What about his attacks on Peaceworld111? Septate appears to be faking that he has no access to books so that he can get a chance to remove content that he doesn't like. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, there is an auto-correction feature on my phone which sometimes causes a lot of mistakes. That's why I make a lot of minor edits and these edits are not limited to articles, I make a lot them on talk pages too. See the edit history of user talk NielN. So you can't accuse me of covering up my edits. When it comes to Religion in Swaziland, what I have done is inline with wikipedia's civility guidelines. See this [68]. User ludvonga is unable to cooperate with other users calling there edits vandalism. See talk:Religion in Swaziland which shows that his opinion was clearly original research. Now he has provided sources and dispute is resolved. So no need for false accusations.

When it comes to dispute with peaceworld see User talk:NeilN#Please take action which shows that dispute is resolved. Despite friction between me and user peaceworld we are always able to work together without ending up in an edit war, see User talk:Septate#Ramadhan greetings.

You should ask User:NeilN regarding whether I am able to verify book sources or not. I am not lying, that's for sure! We already had a long debate regarding this.Septate (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting Toddy1, User:NeilN, User:Iryna Harpy and the administrator who is monitoring this to see my contributions anf tell me whether 90% of my edits are lies or POV. That translates to 1500 edits. You are clearly exceeding wikipedia's civility guidelines.Septate (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to question regarding your claim that I always make unsourced edits on religion related articles. Please see Religion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Religion in Burkina Faso, Religion in the Republic of the Congo, Religion in Sierra Leone etc and tell me if they are unsourced. I infact organized those articles by adding graphs. At least 15 users have thanked me for my edits and it would have been impossible if I was a blatant lier!Septate (talk) 06

45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Septate certainly has been a problem in the past. I had experience of him two or three months ago when he was slow edit-warring to remove images of Muhammad. The noticeable feature of the way he was doing it was by using deceptive edit summaries to cover up the removal (and adding minor edits after the removal). See my additional comments in my report here at AN3 for which he got a 48 hour block in April. I thought that he would get the message with this, but he was doing it again here in June when he tried to remove the same image with a deceptive edit summary. I haven't seen much of him since then. Toddy1 says he's improved recently (maybe he would take on the job of mentoring Septate!) although scanning Septate's talk page, including deleted notices it, doesn't fill me with confidence that that is the case. NeilN says that a topic ban is too severe and 1RR should be tried. Perhaps. Unless Toddy1 is right, Septate seemed to me to be on the inevitable road of being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment DeCausa. I admit that I was badly wrong when it comes to article Muhammad and that's why I was blocked. I admitted my mistake. You can't use those edits as a reason for accusation.Septate (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would not endorse a topic ban on Septate. As a newbie, he did start out as being 'overenthusiastic' and was not doing a good job on balancing POV, civility, etc. He has, however, always been prepared to discuss any indiscretions and has become receptive in taking criticisms on board. Had I considered that he was simply a disruptive POV pusher with no subject knowledge, I would have opened an ANI some time ago. The learning curve can be a difficult one for those who are particularly passionate about a subject, but that most certainly doesn't mean that he is irredeemable, and he has certainly been asking for assistance and opinions from other editors.

If he does slip backward into bad editing practices, it will become evident soon enough. A topic ban would be both premature and unnecessarily punitive.

Apologies to all for not providing diffs, but I've only just received this notification and am about to log out for the day. Should supporting diffs be needed to demonstrate Septate's willingness to work collaboratively, I'll be happy to provide them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladesmulti, also please explain, what you mean while saying that my talk page discussions are Gossips. Raising a question on talk page about some content that you feel is unnecessary does not make them gossips!Septate (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DeCausa, Septates edits certainly have been a problem in the past (systematic removal of Hinduism, rm of Muhammad pictures, edit warring). Unfortunately many of his more recent edits in June/July continue to be problematic. I will try to give some examples: Instead of removing Hinduism from articles [69] (16:45, 5 June 2014) he started to remove info about ahmadiyya (sourced) without a valid explanation: [70] 24 June 2014; [71] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [72] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [73] 13 July 2014 (ES misleading); [74] 10:52, 14 July 2014 (ES misleading); [75] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [76] 17:17, 16 July 2014; [77] 05:30, 16 July 2014.

Septates addition of images/mosques in several articles seemed to give undue weight to Islam (inappropriate size, position or number) [78] 16:16, 11 June 2014; [79] 09:13, 13 July 2014.

His changes of statistical pie charts try to single out extremely low percentages of muslim populations from "other religions" [80] 04:45, 6 June 2014; [81] 04:59, 6 June 2014 (not in source); [82] 10:14, 24 June 2014; [83] 08:41, 5 July 2014; [84] 15:47, 6 June 2014. These very small percentages are not even visible in the pie charts (UNDUE, POV-pushing?).

Other problematic edits include: unsourced addition of content [85]; changing the numbers in sourced statistical data to increase the percentage of muslims without giving another source, [86] 24 June 2014; unexplained removal of sourced statistical data [87] 17:10, 12 June 2014; [88] 13:33, 4 July 2014 (with misleading ES); [89] 05:00, 13 June 2014 and substituting recent with less recent sources or reliable with less reliable sources [90] 14:01, 21 June 2014 (with misleading ES), [91] 13:43, 30 June 2014 [92] 09:26, 1 July 2014 [93] 11:48, 16 July 2014 (with misleading ES). [94] 17:17, 16 July 2014.

At least one of his talk comments ([95]." 06:20, 21 June 2014) suggests that he might be editing to push his POV and some other comments [96] 09:22, 1 July 2014; [97] 05:59, 16 July 2014; [98] 06:52, 17 July 2014; may be interpreted as incivil or as personal attacks. Yes, Septates edits also include some constructive examples but the pattern looks disruptive to me. He seems to ignore the comments and warnings of his fellow editors (WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

I support a topic ban on Septate, if this is seen as a too harsh, I propose to follow User:NeilN`s suggestion: WP:0RR or WP:1RR and a 1 week period instead of 24 hours. JimRenge (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to [99] 24 June 2014;

[100] 13:17, 12 June 2014; [101] 12:02, 8 July 2014; [102] 13 July 2014 ; [103] 10:52, 14 July 2014 ; [104] 07:49, 14 July 2014; [105] 17:17, , as already mentioned above I made those edits because I was unable to verify those book sources. When it comes Religion in UAE, it was my fault because CIA source mentioned it but I didn't realize it. I it was my mistake and I admit it. Dispute regarding verification of book sources is also resolved, see User talk:NeilN#Please take action. NielN has assured me that he will ask peaceworld to provide quotes from book sources.

You claim regarding 16 July 2014; [106] is baseless because I made that edit after a long talk page discussion. See talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source. I am busy so I will explain your rest of accusations later.

Proposal. Why not place Septate under an indefinite revert limitation on all religion-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before he/she makes any content revert (including vandalism), he/she is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his/her intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Something similar has worked with another editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't to report User:HammerFilmFan for removing my posts in debates [107]. This have happened several times i the last week. He's obviously following me around (stalking). I will not tolerate this.--Ezzex (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified HammerFilmFan of this discussion. You would do well to provide some diffs of the conduct of which you complain. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a log of his edits in debates [108].--Ezzex (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying that every single one of those edits is evidence of your claim, you should pick specific diffs. Even if you are claiming that every single one of those edits is inappropriate, you should pick a few example ones to illustrate what you're complaining of and what administrators should be looking for. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion earlier this week, where User:Go Phightins! wrote " Cognizant of the fact that you have been previously warned on this topic (very recently, according to your talk page), I am going to strongly urge you to make sure that all of your edits on that topic are dedicated to the improvement of the article rather than promulgating or refuting an ideology. If you are incapable of this, my suggestion would be that you disengage from the topic area so as to avoid being blocked, which will likely happen very quickly in an area with discretionary sanctions in place." An example edit is[109] "{{pov|It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles}}" - when this edit was cited to Ezzex his reply was "which it is". Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still is.--Ezzex (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it should balanced with Hamas crap? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion earlier this week about Ezzek and ended it with asking him to just "tone it down" a bit, that was all. this is not toning it down and I would ask that he not readd this. It is completely off topic and a personal attack. English is a 2nd language, but if he can't "tone it down" to where he isn't attacking other editors and using the talk page as a forum, then he should be warned and then blocked as needed. --Malerooster (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really OK to use expressions like "Jewish crap" on WP and refuse to withdraw it? I don't think it ought to be OK.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's ok for this creep to remove other users post and replies??--Ezzex (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, when those users are Hamas lapdog creeps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As has been stated, the user was previously warned about racist remarks, agenda, staying on topic, etc. My edit summary when I removed the totally off-topic and intentionally provocative remark will be my comment here. Hopefully he will be constructive in the future. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzex has been around for about seven years, and early on established himself as an Israel-hater, so don't look for reform anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong accusations from a flag waving idiot.--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. Some of your first edits, seven years ago, were anti-Israel. This, for example. How you've stayed under the radar this long is hard to figure. But you've drawn a little too much attention to your activities now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So anything that may be considered to be anti-israel is forbidden?--Ezzex (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reported you for making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report the user Middayexpress for always updating false info on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukran_Hussein_Gure and always removing the correct updates that others add onto the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja'afar Aden (talk • contribs) 14:44, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

I've notified him. Do you have any relationship with Shukran Hussein Gure ‎and can you explain why you think File:Shukran Hussein.png is copyright free? It's identical to File:Shukran.png which was deleted earlier this week by User:Mike V. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament.The information provided by the user Middayexpress is somehow false,inaccurate and very short.As of the picture,the photo is her real photo with no any copyrighted material.For more of the said dispute the following can be use as a resolution center for facts http://www.shukran4garissa.com/ together with http://www.parliament.go.ke/plone/national-assembly/members-of-the-national-assembly/members/47884553

I note that Middayexpress called Ja'afar Aden a sock in their edit summaries, without specifying whose sock they are supposed to be, so I would request some clarification. On the other hand, it does appear as if Middayexpress' version of the page contained material that fell short of WP:BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request the user Middayexpress to be restricted to making changes to this page,if he/she does not respond to the allegations against him/her.

The Ja'afar Aden account is a WP:DUCK sock of 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf. He has been disrupting the Shukran Hussein Gure page, adding identical original research using both accounts ([110], [111]). He has also twice added a copyrighted image to the page, initially claiming that the File:Shukran.png in question was his own work (the Ja'afar Aden account uploaded it, and the 2001:848:0:6600:f878:b6d6:3c46:bacf shortly afterwards added it to the page). The file was inevitably speedily deleted, so he attempted to re-add the same copyrighted image today as File:Shukran Hussein.png, with the new claim that the subject had given permission to use it on her official website. In reality, the only statement on copyright on the provided website link indicates that the material is © Copyright 2012 - 2014 [112]. This file was thus speedily deleted as well. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a sock, per WP:SOCK. That is an IP that finally registered. That IP has never been blocked, so he wasn't avoiding scrutiny, just registering, which is something we normally encourage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

He wasn't an ip editor (that's a mobile device number) nor did he just create that account, as his contributions show [113] [114]. He has also now just admitted above to having a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the subject ("Shukran is a close friend of mine and my representative in the kenyan parliament"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on much of anything else, that's an IPv6 address, which is announced on the contributions page itself. You don't HAVE to edit from a mobile device to have one. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it may have been a Mobile IPv6. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is still an IP address, albeit one which shouldn't change much. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an IP address linked to a mobile device. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the said ip because i was not logged in in that case.However after i noticed,i logged in continued to make the changes.It is interesting to note that all the changes i made were correct and made to make sure we maintain the right to information to the audience unlike yours.

Actually, I didn't make any changes. I simply reverted your original research and successive false copyright claims. Middayexpress (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any false copyright claims,it was just a misunderstanding.To revert changes is ok but unless the changes being reverted to are correct and trustworthy.For example there is no need to provide an arabic name of the person and no need to provide her ethnicity.

Shukran is from the Ogaden Darod clan, an ethnic Somali clan that traces descent to the Yemeni patriarch Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti. Surely you already knew this as her self-described friend. As for her Somali ethnicity in general, it certainly is relevant per WP:CATEGRS ("Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people"). I also fail to see how claiming that the file was your own work when it isn't is a misunderstanding. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuja'iyya massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could some of the admins sort the mess that going on this article

1.Article that created to push one sided WP:POV which probably also violation of WP:ARBPIA

2.Misplaced speedy deletion tag that probably shouldn't be placed as its not a vandalism of course and removal of it not by admin(while edit waring)

3.Multiple people broke 1RR and probably 3RR

4.Several WP:DUCKs that try to turn it one sided POV but to the other side --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX.

• Its a mess, I previously blocked one editor for blatant blanking, and have now removed the G3 tag, as its clearly not vandalism. That said, the remaining editors on the article are failing to maintain a neutral POV, (The editor I blocked was trying to flip the POV the other way, but being much more disruptive than the other side) the article really needs some neutral editors to help out, and possibly a trip to WP:AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism includes creating an article with "obvious misinformation" which this article has had from the start. The creator of the article was recently blocked by Admins for edits related to the subject of this article and he/she also states explicitly on his/her page information that shows that he/she has a WP:COI with this article. The sources quoted were far from WP:RS and the article appears to be propaganda about news, not an encyclopedia piece. I explained in more detail on the talk page why it should be speedy deleted. There were also many people going back and forth with propaganda type edits but none of them addressed the core issues. Even the title is propaganda and undermines neutrality and facts. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to report User: Drmargi for blatantly harassing new editors making comments in the Talk:Kitchen Nightmares page, and deleting their comments without so much as shred of proof. Constructive posts and suggestions have been deleted with the new editors being called names and made scapegoats for past problems with the page. This editor also has a pattern of visiting other editor's pages to push his or her agenda on this page.58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has previously posted multiple times to Talk:Kitchen Nightmares using multiple IPs, from the 58.168.x and 120.14x pools, both of which are allocated to Telstra BigPond, an Australian ISP. He is thought to be a sock of Roman888, a banned editor. Drmargi warned me recently on my talk page that he was back.[115] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me introduce Roman888, a community banned user and serial IP sockpuppet. Every so often, he turns up, starts a fuss at the Kitchen Nightmares articles, is called on his nonsense and disappears. Pay him no mind; he'll get bored soon. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state for the record and on behalf of all new editors that have been unfairly blamed for Roman888's past transgressions, that this unfair blatant harassment is not productive and DrMargi has been seen deleting new editor's posts using the pretext that they are a sockpuppet or disruptive editor. Drmargi is also seen canvassing other people's talk pages and accusing new editors of being this Roman sockpuppet. It is in the interest of other new editors that Drmargi is to be reprimanded for his or her abusive behaviour to other new editors.58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is technically known as a "non-denial denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic Roman888. Notice he's made no effort to actually edit the article. He never does, just stir the shit on the talk page. The from there, he rapidly accelerates the drama. He has a sizable collection of socks and suspected socks in this IP pool, and should be accorded as little attention as possible. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest 58.168.101.160 is this in the same manner that youve been canvassing editors talkpages to ask them to look into Drmargi's behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amortias, this is what he does every time he turns up. He leaves some post or another moaning about Kitchen Nightmares (never making an effort to actually edit the article), is called out as Roman888 (always transparent, because of the technical data AussieLegend notes above, always geolocating in and around Sydney) and then the drama begins as the ducks quack in legion. As I noted at the SPI filing, this thread is a new flourish but right in character, as is the noted tendency to redirect attention away from evidence against him by drawing attention to another user, usually me. This thread is a waste of time, editor effort and bandwidth. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I am complaining on other editor's talk pages, it doesn't distract from the manner this person has been making baseless accusations against new editors. Plus this Drmargi has the guile to post on people's pages his or her suspicions of that editor being a sockpuppet. Look as his or her latest posting on Talk:Kitchen_Nightmares. So where is the evidence and fairness in all of this?58.168.101.160 (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, and who are you to make that assumption. Do you pronounced that all people are guilty, especially new editors? -- 58.168.101.160 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 20 July 2014

Each time you posted here 58 there was a big yellow box stating that you MUST inform DM about this thread. You have managed to ignore it so I have informed DM. The fact of the matter is that a) you have provided no evidence to back up your accusations and b) this does not belong here and it should be closed ASAP. If you have a problem you should file a WP:RFCU. MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to inform him or her about this noticeboard, seeing this editor will find a way to this noticeboard. Its this person's suspicious mind that leads him or her to make baseless accusations about new editors in other people's talk pages and noticeboards.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need to inform him or her about this noticeboard. If you're going to participate as a constructive, collaborative editor, that means following guidelines—including the one that says to notify any editor reported here about the report. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right if you say that is so, then I admit I was wrong there. There is no ulterior motive in not informing Drmargi about this noticeboard thread as suggested by the other editor. All I want is that Drmargi is censured for his or her actions.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I didn't say you were guilty of anything, I only said your comment waa a non-denial denial. But if you've got a guilty conscience, well... And it is kind of odd that Roman's IP socks seem to emanate from Sydney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to accuse all new editors with Sydney IP addresses of being sockpuppets. How silly is that assumption and this is why that Drmargi has that other editor User:AussieLegend believing the same baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to deal with you before.[116] You change IPs to suit your needs. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also notice that Drmargi will always canvass User:AussieLegend's talk page and who will be swayed by his or her baseless accusations.58.168.101.160 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed at [117]. Hopefully we can put this to rest soon, and close as MarnetteD suggests. --Drmargi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see what I am getting at? Don't like someone's post, put a sockpuppet investigation and abusing the the SPI process at the same time.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPIs can prove people innocent, too; if you're not Roman888, you really have nothing to worry about. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No: SPIs don't address IP addresses in any technical sense. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although he's blocked now, I want to make one last point, just for the record: notice Roman never explicitly denies who he is, but hedges around it. As soon as he pops up, I immediately begin referring to him as Roman on the KN talk page, and he never denies it. He just gets into this sort of snit, and plays his games. --Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IP blocked for a little while. After comparing with some of Roman's earlier whines on the talk page, it seems pretty clear to me (from tone and poor grammar) that this is the same editor. If they return to that talk page, we can always semi-protect it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! His grammar is a dead give-away. He's Malaysian, so English isn't his first language, and it shows at times. He didn't start socking until he relocated to OZ. There's a copyvio case against him somewhere, and Moodriddengirl and her team spent hours cleaning up after him on Malaysia related articles, in addition to the KN/RKN messes. Unfortunately, he'll probably hop to a new IP sock shortly. His tenure at the latest one is about as long as he lasts before he hops again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although 58.168.101.160 is blocked, the editor is likely to return under another IP, as he did after his last edits using 58.168.51.144 were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having dragged this here, the sockmaster has cleverly raised awareness of his behavior, so he'll be on a lot more users' radar now. And with the sockmaster having been banned and not merely indef'd, any edits he makes are subject to removal on-sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, this is better. Shabratha (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion was prematurely closed and I am reopening it. I believe that @Nyttend misused his powers in fully protecting this article and THEN making massive changes to the article without evidence of consensus for those changes. There was simply far too much cited material deleted in one single edit to say that there was clear consensus for removal with respect to all of that. If one is going to fully protect an article, one should either recuse oneself from editing or at at a minimum restrict oneself to clearly non-controversial editing. After the community objected to one of the elements of the removal, Nyttend put it back, but I object to the idea that we have to muster on the Talk page community consensus to undo, one by one, every element of Nyttend's edit. The Talk page is already difficult to use because editor traffic is being diverted off the article itself by the protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian fails to observe that I removed it because of agreement at the talk page; I took no actions (aside from housekeeping such as adding a period) at the article without consensus at the talk page. He also takes this restoration as me being forced to do something, ignoring the fact that I removed it simply for space reasons (too many images were present) and that I promised I'd put back if anyone could suggest a good place to put it. Brian's made this baseless accusation here and at the article's talk page; making serious accusations without solid evidence is considered a personal attack. He might also want to start complying with WP:GBU, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. Nobody's said anything of the sort at my talk page, and all I've seen of Brian's words are implying or (as here) directly accusing me of involved editing. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about you, if it were, I would have titled the section with your name. I also don't agree with the admin who closed the earlier thread on this page about the article without giving the community more of an opportunity to weigh in. If you wanted this dealt with on the article Talk page why didn't you respond to me when I started the "Full protection should not be applied" thread? Why did you put that image back if you were acting on consensus when you removed it? You apparently don't think consensus is required to remove large amounts of material if, in your opinion, the removal is warranted for "space reasons". Well I'm of the opinion it most definitely IS required when so much of what you removed is evidence that incriminates the Kremlin. Are you prepared to go line by line through your editing with me and point out to me, for each line, where you found your supporting consensus? In other words, I'd like to see you back up your claims of consensus in detail because I don't believe they are true.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, the page is back to semi. [118]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 05:11 comment by User RGloucester about "deleting the "whole mess" seemed to tip the balance, but then when Nyttend saw the comment by Isaidnoway at 05:16, he was wholly convinced. There were protests 13 minutes later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian, you complain about the talk page being difficult to use, but now that the same traffic is back to editing the article, IT is difficult to use, so that argument is invalid. So is the argument that people disagreed. People always disagree with full protection because their edits are right and everyone else's edits are wrong, and full protection always gets protests from some. The purpose in using it is not because it is popular, but to prevent abuses. Your claim that he made massive changes is unfounded. All edits made were based on consensus from the talk page from my observation, and the fact that material was added back demonstrates this. I would also note that protection was lifted improperly. As this article falls under WP:ARBEE, I'm wondering if an admin needs to implement 1RR. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"to prevent abuses" like what? Editing against consensus? Because that's exactly what full protection enabled here. How does some of that material getting added back after the community complained about its removal demonstrate that there was consensus for its removal in the first place? It demonstrates the exact opposite: it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, especially by the same party who just went and locked down the article! It is absolutely not true that there was consensus for all of those changes. Show me the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew," just to take an example. Would you care to count all the citations that were removed in that one single post-lockdown edit I linked to?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, it means he made an edit according to what he thought the consensus was, people complained, he fixed it. Admin do the best we can, that doesn't mean we don't make errors. If an admin makes an error and WON'T fix it, then complain. The way you describe it, Full Protection is always abuse, so all this discussion seems pointless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not fixed. A 105K article was cut down to 82K in one fell swoop, and you call a 0.6K add back a fix? Do I also think full protection needs a very good reason? Yes, I do, I shouldn't have to apologize for that when Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there needs to be a reason, you just disagree that the reasoning met the threshold. The amount of cut isn't the issue, the content is. If mistakes were made, you only had to say so. I was working the page, I would have looked at it, or others who were patrolling. A number of admin were patrolling, so no editor was getting ignored. Keep in mind, most of the time when an article is full protected, admin walk away until a consensus is found, as the protection is over a single issue. In this case (and similar) there has been at least one admin around helping out, doing the best they can. I know because I've been one of those admin for many hours last night and today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the removal of full protection without discussion fall under WP:WHEELWAR? I'll formally notify User:Lowellian as well as pinging him here. --John (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection was always intended to be limited in duration, not forever, and there was suggestion on the talk page of specifically 12 hours. I waited 20 hours before unprotecting. Even the admin who protected the page in the first place, User:Nyttend, defended my action further below in this page, writing: "Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for." Furthermore, there was discussion: extensive opposition to the full protection by many editors raised on the talk page and here on WP:ANI, to whose concerns I was responding. I did not wheel war; I allowed protection, intended to be temporary in the first place, to lapse after a period of time. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • It isn't wheel warring, it was just a really bad decision, and frankly, done in an arrogant way as he just waltzed in and unprotected after not working the article previously. We at least had a discussion on protection, even if many disagreed with the conclusion. His solution was just to start blocking people, something we've been trying to avoid. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The really bad decision was full protection in the first place, a decision made quickly with very little discussion, over significant opposition, and one that punishes all editors, most of whom are not disruptive, and which is against the spirit of Wikipedia, which distinguishes itself from other encyclopedias on the principle that its articles are editable. Re: "after not working the article previously": That is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It seems obvious to me that protection is better than blocking. Surely it is that simple? --John (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While that seems obvious to you and I, not every admin agrees with that. Blocks are cheap and easy plus you get to walk away. Protection is hard and requires you are willing to help others. From an editor retention perspective, protection is an obvious choice. People get frustrated, revert too much, human nature and all that. Protection removes the temptation and forces cooperation. But you already knew that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lowellian didn't just "waltz in". Unlike you, he first participated in the thread I started calling for protection to be lifted. My I point out that POLICY says "persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, waltzed in. Protection review is at WP:RFPP or even at WP:AN, with the whole goal of getting uninterested eyes on it. As an admin, I can assure you it was inappropriate by any measure. That it worked to your advantage is meaningless in regards to admin expectations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you just complained about "uninterested eyes" coming to the article when you counted it as a stroke against Lowellian that he hadn't previously "work[ed] the article," did you not? There was also already a thread here on this AN where editors had objected to the protection before Lowellian lifted it. As a non-admin, I can assure that it was entirely appropriate to lift full protection off an article that the community never wanted fully protected, especially when the party who applied that protection is intentionally or unintentionally making controversial and disputed edits while under protection.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you agree, that is what you wanted to happen. My point is that a contentious lifting of protection is supposed to happen at a public board where the public can opine. This isn't my opinion, this is policy and why the boards exist. It is flatly improper to do it the way he did for a contentious unprotect. I'm talking about a policy issue, not just about getting your way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"public can opine" Yes, so why weren't opinions solicited before protection was applied? And more importantly for the extensive changes that were made while the article was under protection? Why was the "vote" above, terminated before it even got going? Go over to the article Talk page and announce an opinion call on whether to fully protect and keep that open for 24 hours. If this isn't about "getting your way" then back off and let the community weigh in. Until then, what I quoted to you out of Wikipedia's protection policy should govern.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a public discussion Brian. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was not public discussion more extensive that the discussion you dismiss, that being the discussion that preceded and supported Lowellian freeing up the article. This could be settled if you'd give up your admin prerogatives and agree that henceforth the community will be invited to opine on the question (an invitation that remains open for 24 hours) before applying full protection and the admin corps will abide by the verdict. Why is it that throughout this thread the only party that has quoted Wikipedia policy on page protection is myself?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, you are being obtuse and I just don't have time for it now. Even to suggest waiting 24 hours to protect an article just shows you have no clue how policy works here, and there are more productive things I could be doing, so I will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have "no clue" how policy works around here, yet I can quote it and you can't? I've been editing Wikipedia longer than you have but in your books I just fell off the turnip wagon? If it is such an emergency to slap full protection on this then why aren't you? You've lost a couple precious hours here already! As near as I can tell, you aren't doing so because ultimately you know that there is a legitimate disagreement here, unlike most cases of page protection. As such, the community has a role here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @John: If you are taking fifty different editors which will make a few edits each, that adds up to a lot. When you fully protect the article because of two editors, you severely impede improvements. You might not be able to see that as well because you are a sysop, but it is true. Dustin (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything but full protection for this article right now is just bone-headed. Not only does the enormous amount of traffic make it basically impossible to edit properly, but it also causes problems when editors edit-conflict and then in the course of solving it delete other information. In addition, these NEWS magnets attract all kinds of...well...unencyclopedic information. I understand that regular editors don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions, but when it comes to these current events, it's the best thing to do--I speak from experience, and I have about as much as John. But what bothers me most (since the article and the talk page have attracted a number of experienced and trustworthy editors) is the cavalier attitude of Lowellian, who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away. I support full protection for a couple of days. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a regular editor and I don't like having to place edit requests and have autocratic, God-like administrators make decisions. BUT, I like even LESS having to police the article and deal with a horde of clueless IPs, SPA accounts, battleground warriors, sleeper sock accounts and other disruptive nonsense. Which is what has happened with EVERY article related to the Ukrainian conflict, what has already happened to this article and given that this topic is getting a lot more international/media attention (for obvious reasons) the reasonable expectation is that it will be even worse here. Hence, agree with Drmies that full protection is the best of a set of bad alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection is what is bone-headed, and not just bone-headed, but heavy-handed: it is a lazy response that punishes all editors for the actions of a disruptive few. And re: "Who comes in, unprotects, leaves a note or two, and then apparently walks away..." Again, as I wrote earlier, that I was not heavily involved in the article is precisely why I should have been the one to lift protection: I was uninvolved in the article and thus a neutral administrator, rather than one favoring any specific version of the article. If the unprotecting admin had been heavily involved in editing the article previously, or thereafter became heavily involved in editing the article, then instead he or she would be getting accused of lifting protection in order to favor some specific version. —Lowellian (reply) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As a comment, I have seen articles on past big events (specifically the boston marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting) developed just fine at the onset of the event with semi-prot. The rate of info can be an edit conflict problem but it's normal and not disruptive. I realize that this article is a much larger incident that is already attracting its fair-share of fringe theories, but the combination of semi-prot and firm editing cautions to remove users that are specifically there to be disruptive should be good. Full protection should not be used to making editing easier (due to fewer E/Cs), that's a bad way to use the tool. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it's a nice fringe benefit. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a lazy use of protection where it is not needed. It's a lot more work, but we are truer to "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" by keeping it open. Only if it was the case that a lot of misinformation was being added by established editors would full protection be required. As RG says below, this is where pending changes would be better. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's in fact an interesting discussion to be had about this "fringe benefit". But it's a discussion that has to be had before it becomes policy. In my view, the need for admin intervention is lower the more editor eyeballs there are on an article. In this case, we've got enough editors that the "good guys" shouldn't need help against the bad guys. This isn't a case of local neglect where there isn't enough of the community involved to express and enforce the community view. If bad actors, outside the consensus, are dominating then by a pro-wiki definition they are probably actually good guys because the fringe shouldn't be able to dominate a highly trafficked article.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I must say, as I did before, that this is the perfect place to use pending changes level 2 protection. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Pending changes ends up being a confusing mess when rapid editing by multiple users is involved. I think there is a place for PC2, but this isn't it in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, hello everyone, does anyone remember what I said on the duration of full protection? I said that I protected it indefinitely because I didn't know how long protection was supposed to last, and I asked for another admin to change protection. Lowellian did exactly what I was requesting; you can object to his decision to unprotect at the time he did, but please don't see it as wheel warring, because he did what I was hoping for. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nyttend: IMO while not technically wrong, indef is not the best duration for an article. If you don't know how long a page needs to be protected surely you could make that assessment within 3 hours, or 12 and update accordingly. While it's not wheel warring in this case (because the intent was to seek someone else to reduce the time), it's harder to avoid stepping on your toes if someone realizes you've misjudged the time than if you protected the page for a short amount of time. For a quickly evolving event (which sees a huge percentage of our positive new editor interactions) and has a lot of long term editors watching, that reassessment needs to come quickly. It's a recipe for wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be appreciated if you would educate yourself on the situation, because then you'd realise that I asked for this to happen. I asked for a reduction in time, telling people that they should reduce it because I didn't know, and still don't know, how long we normally do this. Nobody's yet told me how long we normally protect such pages. Please observe that wheel warring consists of a combative situation, not one in which the first admin says "Please reverse me when you think it's appropriate". Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the situation and I noted that you asked for this to happen. My point is that there's no way you could look at indef full protection of an article and say "this never needs to change." If you hadn't asked for review or you had gone to work or something then rather than wait for the protection to expire (over what should've been a short period) they have to divine your intent and reverse your decision. If this is your first time protecting these high traffic, time sensitive articles then maybe what you should do is consider my comment as a suggestion of best practices. Next time you protect an article like this (or really any article), think about making admin actions where a review from an admin who agrees with your intervention has to do nothing. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I know that this is probably not going to be a popular idea, but perhaps it's time to read one of the Eastern Europe Riot acts (WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes) of the page and talk page to arm the discretionary sanctions trigger. I observe that there are several editors with ties to the cases involved, in addition to being Eastern Europe, in addition to the active conflict area (vis-a-vis Russia/Ukraine). While I know brandishing such a tool will only stifle the improvement of the article, I feel that the rapid fire and heated changes are not improvements to the talk page/article. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • EE needs templates, something I'm not adept at. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: According to my research fu, it appears the Eastern Europe omnibus case code is e-e. The Discretionary Sanctions template family can be reached from {{Ds}}. Hasteur (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, I'm not sure what you're talking about. EE discretionary sanctions apply to the article by default. The only concern is that some users may not be aware of them, in which case they need to be notified, as soon as their behavior becomes potentially problematic. There's no "trigger" to be "armed". Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I first became aware of the New Jersey-based IP 67.83.61.170 after reading an AIV report that complained of them continuing to add and replace contractions (ex: cannot --> can't) to articles in spite of numerous warnings. While looking through their edits, I spotted some of their edits at List of double albums. In these 15 edits the user added content that appeared to be original research and which also struck me as indiscriminate, as I don't understand what value knowing that various double-albums can fit on a single CD has, encyclopedically. I removed the content. The IP reverted my edit with no explanation. I opened a discussion on the talk page, reverted the original research, and directly invited the IP to the talk page discussion. Rx4evr appeared suddenly and reverted me again, stating, "I did the math & CD'S Hold up to 79:57 of music. So back off." I reverted again, so I'm at my limit. The named user has been active since at least 2008, so they should understand the rules. I also noticed that in 2008 they'd been accused of sockpuppetry and geographically linked to New Jersey IPs. So now there appears to be sockpuppetry, an attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP, asserting their worldview without participating in BRD, and my OR objections are now confirmed as OR with the "I did the math" comment. Would appreciate some admin eyes here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly obvious that the IP is User:Rx4evr who is using a mixture of logged-in and out edits to continue edit-warring to insert unsourced material and likely original research into articles. I'd warned RX4evr about this disruptive editing previously and they appear to have ignored my warning completely. I've blocked the account for two weeks and extended the block Daniel Case made on the IP to match.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block Special:Contributions/92.222.153.153. It's probably Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Materialscientist:...now it's Special:Contributions/62.244.31.16. There may be more in the pipeline I guess until he gets bored. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, blocked, the third one (not mentioned above) blocked too. The talk page temporarily s-protected as well. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another one Special:Contributions/190.199.79.135. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked and those two article s/protected. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death threat? from 112.175.69.140

By 112.175.69.140 (talk · contribs)
On my talk page here 4x and multiple times
I'm not putting a ANI notice on the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably associated with the ANI immediately above Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Death threat or no death threat... This should be blockworthy if he had offered you flowers instead. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked by FPAS; I've protected Jim's talkpage (since this fellow has a habit of reappearing with a new IP every two minutes). Yunshui ^雲_水 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: I don't mind acting as a lightning rod. I'd rather my friend be vandalizing my pages than articles or other's talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Same on my talkpage. I've s/protected that as well until our puerile friend gets bored. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy has now moved to Special:Contributions/190.38.118.55 + Special:Contributions/190.72.192.21 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, both blocked. Could someone more knowledgable than me check if these and the earlier IPs are proxies? They're in different countries from the earlier ones and it would fit our friend's MO. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

112.175.69.140 port 3128, and 190.72.192.21 port 8080, they are open and usable. I extended the 8080 to a year, Fut Perf. already blocked the other for webhost, which is close enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed the other two as well, ports 8080. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Getting close to time to take this to law enforcement, and in my view should they begin naming names, the line is going to crossed. Jusdafax 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And 181.198.187.133, ostensibly in Ecuador. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port 80 was an open proxy, and with a Captcha system to prevent abuse, which I find ironic. 1 year blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's moved to Special:Contributions/186.91.64.115 and now he is damaging content. Please semi-protect every single page he edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and I've assumed it's another open proxy. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock is under consideration here.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]