Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

I found this article while reviewing links in the Vinland section of {{Canadian colonies}} today (a template that badly needs renaming and vetting) and found all kinds of rank OR and SYNTH and unencyclopedic content and speculative/rhetorical captions and irrelevant images boosting the notions put forward in this article, which are highly original research and promotional for someone's WP:SOAPbox. My templates were removed by User:Narssarssuaq, who built much of the article, it seems, and the article damaged as well; and returned to check the changes I had made, which had been wiped, but even before I had a chance to restore the templates, had already been done by User:A.amitkumar who also commented on the vandalization of the article re this edit, where the word "artist", I suppose, was rendered as "autist" (ahem) and the aforesaid blanking occurred. In the meantime I got a message on my talkpage entitled "Get a life", with the text "You seriously need to get a life". I don't understand the blanking of the article by its ersthile author, which I hadn't done though only AnomieBot stands between his edit and mine. I had, after my edits earlier today, which I'd given up on for reasons of irritation at improper use of images and captions and also bad English and bad spelling, reported the article to the OR Noticeboard as I feel the page is grossly "leading" and full of leapt-to-conclusions and imposed suppositions. My seven earlier edits begin here and end with AnomieBot's dating of the OR and SYNTH templates I placed. I stopped by for a look, and as per habit started fixing things and removing inappropriate content; once I realized how bad the article was I stopped and took it to the OR board. People complain about what they think is my conduct and attitude all the time (really it's just my thoroughness), but I never engage in forum-style attacks such as this "get a life" business, which is utterly puerile. I do have better things to do than waste more time on this, but reining this user in and also seriously vetting that article is more than called for.Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately following the ANI notice on his talkpage I received this.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The article was excellent: it meticulously cites nearly 100 articles in academic journals as well as books by scholars, and there are no original conjectures made except obvious summarization. The subject-matter is by nature speculative, as Nansen puts it: in the mists. The aesthetics of the pictures had to reflect this vagueness, and to reflect even the incredulity towards the subject of some of the cited authors. When you approach this subject-matter as if you were writing about a mathematical subject, with absolutely no understanding that the aesthetics and the enigmatic nature of the sagas must be somewhat matched by the pictures, then I get angry, and rightly so. (2) Yes, I do not want to collaborate with you, and you deserved the insult, although it is not directed to you personally (after all, I have no idea who you are), but to a certain class of editors. (3) Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[post edit-conflict] Meticulous cites used to synthesize an argument and used in an work of obviously original authorship advancing a theory are decidedly against wikipedia guidelines. The article was in violation of much more than WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I will refrain from further comment on this other than to provide this link from previous versions for editors wishing to examine the condition it was in before I began purging it of un-wikipedian content. Another user, an IP user, had removed images for the same reason I had, which you immediately reverted as of that edit. Other than two edits previously to add Categories by User:Berek - - all previous edits of the article were by yourself. You do not WP:OWN it, nor do you WP:OWN Wikipedia, and clearly have not read nor care about the OR and SYNTH or other guidelines as evinced by your behaviour and comments here and on my talkpage and in the content of the article. This article was only begun, by yourself, on April 17 and IMO does not belong in Wikipedia. In fact I feel strongly it should be entirely deleted as WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and obviously a territorial stake-out and more but I'm not in the mood to launch an WP:AFD, not tonight anyway. This is already bother enough.Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is (was) not in breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It gives a review of all published theories, and these theories are to a large extent published in peer-reviewed publications, and absolutely no claim is made without a citation. Also, absolutely no argument is synthesized, except a conclusion which summarises the cited propositions. If you fundamentally disagree with every premise of the research which has been performed on this subject, I will assume that you do not know enough about the subject, or that you have some nationalist agenda. (For the record, conflicting national narratives could be the fundamental reason for this dispute.) Furthermore, the aesthetics you are trying to impose on the article is inappropriate. Aesthetics is difficult to discuss, you either have a sense of it or you do not. You are correct about the WP:OWN - Wikipedia is about crowdsourcing and collaborative effort, and if I cannot collaborate without getting angry, then a fundamental rule is breached. However, disallowing any form of anger is a perfect way of dumbing down and disempowering individual editors, making them stay and meekly accept just about anything - it is the success formula of both Wikipedia and the internet, and the main reason why people spend more time within these pursuits than they should. You classifying "get a life" as a "gross" insult is an example of this culture of insensitivity. I'll not be part of that any longer. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is zero discussion of the content, or of the templates, on the article’s Talk page. (My 2¢ worth on the content is that parts of it read as an essay, so could use some rewriting, but the worst of the ‘rhetoric’ was in the captions of images that have now been removed. I don’t see any significant synthesis in the text.)—Odysseus1479 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Another OR problem concerning Narssarssuaq can be found at this dif for Location hypotheses of Atlantis where he has twice added a section called 'Scientific background'. The first time it was reverted because it was sourced to a creationist site. Narssarssuaq then reworded his section (with the unacceptable edit summary "Re-added section, this time with links that conform to the last editor's religion") but none of his sources seem to mention Atlantis. It appears that Narssarssuaq either does not understand or does not accept our NOR policy. I haven't reverted it yet as I am trying hard to stay on a wikibreak for perhaps another fortnight (breaks are so refreshing!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Narassarssuaq made the statement "Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option." they are clearly not accepting the NOR policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and no. I started out on Wikipedia seven years ago. However, over time things change, and by now I do not share the passion for crowdsourcing any longer. Dougweller's edit above is only one example of why: he not only rejects, but even tries to ridicule that a (documented) sea level rise of 120 metres (in the relevant period) is appropriate background information for the Atlantis myth - so much for common sense. In the long run the required suspicion and carefulness is draining both for the readers and the editors. At some point enough is enough. The natural thing to do is to close my account and to support Wikipedia through donations rather than edits, leaving that job to you. Apparently, Wikipedia does not let me close my account (i.e. blank and lock the user page, its talk page and the user's login). The only reason I can see for this is that it is an attempt to trick me into editing more. If I cannot formally close my account, then I will use it from time to time, because I am likely to get frustrated if an article has severe faults or omissions - as Wikipedians, you know that feeling very well. If anyone knows where I can complain about Wikipedia's lack of option to close accounts, which must be an annoyance to a number of editors, I would be grateful. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, them saying that they have no intention to follow Wikipedia's rules is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — Richard BB 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen userpages being blanked on the request by users. Locking it and the user's login will take effect when blocked. Leaves only the talk page but you can move the stuff into an archive out of sight. There are btw other Wikipedias where there is more space to breathe than in overcrowded and regulatory WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can requst to be blocked indefinitely, there are Administrators who will do that, including myself, although many won't. You can blank your own pages and if others edit them ask for them to be protected. My point about the sea level rise is solely that sources must discuss it in relationship to Atlantis - I disagree with the way you characterized my comment.Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion: User talk:Despatche#C1, User talk:Thibbs#C1_and_SF1, Talk:C1 (television), Talk:SF1 (television).

I can't deal with this editor anymore. He deliberately ignores any given statement for reasons I do not know, and at no point have I shown him such behavior. He somehow uses this as a springboard to be accusatory and condescending without any sort of provocation or, again, some kind of similar prior behavior on my part. The worst of it at all is that he actually has a point, and it was one conclusion I came to when dealing with these articles (the why-I-didn't is all over the pages). But how am I supposed to acknowledge this when he seeks to destroy with that point? I've been writing myself in circles for reasons I don't even know now... I don't know what to do. Despatche (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel he is condescending (I am not saying he is), why do you lower yourself to that level and say "He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist?" As much as you -may-have a point, it might be worthwile to try to see if you can understand his line of thinking and come with a reaction to that other than: "it's on the box, so no other opinion is possible". L.tak (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content wise, there's only yourself and Thibbs discussing this, since the discussion has started to run in circles then it's time to go to one of the noticeboards for outside opinion. Try WP:DRN, WP:RSN (which Thibbs already suggested) or WP:3O. That being said, Thibbs has been incredibly calm in their approach to discussion. At a few points you descended into unnecesarily aggressive ad hominems. Was this amount of snark really needed? If you really feel that Thibbs is actively blocking the discussion then raise an RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as much as I'd love to start an RFC/U, no one's going to bother honoring it, because apparently Thibbs is some kind of "trusted editor" and is free of all obligations. Time to run yet another lap around his little track... Despatche (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would honor it. I'm not perfect and I admit that freely. But I'm not worried that I've done anything sanction-worthy, though. I think you'd be wasting your time with an RfC/U, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I completely refute the claim that I'm ignoring you, Despatche. I've read everything you said and tried to respond appropriately. I will note, however, that despite my repeated requests that you provide sources for your claims you still have failed to produce a single one and that despite my repeated requests that you cease to make edits in furtherance of your disputed vision of the Right and True name for the article, you continue to do so with abandon.

Now for any condescension that you may have felt, I apologize. If you're referring to my reference to when I was new at Wikipedia, then that was just my clumsy attempt to show you that I understand where you're coming from and don't consider you to be arguing in bad faith. Telling you in the same post to "try actually reading WP:SPS" was probably a bit ruder that it could have been, but the frustration here runs both ways. The question of whether box/packing material is a self-published source or not is absolutely tangential to anything and is a very silly thing to dwell on. SPSes can be used as sources in situations like this because the topic of the article is the product of the companies that printed the box. My objection to your use of the box as a source has nothing to do with its status as an SPS. I'm objecting to your sourceless interpretation of the box to differentiate between descriptor, logo, product code, and official name when the reliable sources on the subject all seem to disagree with you. SPSes (and indeed all sources) can be cited for actual claims, but nowhere on the box is the claim made that "XY is the official name of the product contained herein." You're basing your argument on the assumption that it is obvious to the world that "W is the descriptor, XY is the official name, and Z is the company logo". I think you need sources to back that up because it is not obvious to the world at all. In fact all of the reliable sources I could find suggested differently.

I'm willing to go through an RfC/U or through DR or 3O, but I still think that this question would best be handled by throwing it open to all members of WikiProject:VideoGames. Let's let the community weigh in on the content. Would you agree to that, Despatche? Let's leave the higher-level remedies to our disagreement for later if they are indeed necessary. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support bringing it to WP:VG; it is active enough that its usually a good place to get a consensus going. For the record, in my experience, I find Despatche's report very hard to believe. Thibbs has been a great editor, very helpful in discussions on source reliability. I've never seen him act incivil. Anyways, I absolutely think an RFC/U is not necessary for Thibbs, of all people. I think this is strictly a content/source issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar! You have been deliberately ignoring many key and non-key points, all with a strangely arrogant flair that does not befit you. As much as I would like to know why, all I can really understand is that it's making you look like a horrible person who has some kind of cruel deficiency (I apologize a thousand times but what is that going to do). Now, I wanted to avoid content territory, but:

I'm not sure I can trust anyone who thinks SPS has anything to do with the actual subject of the article (the television, the box it came in, the manual, etc); whether or not the product itself is an SPS is important here, when it's the only valid source to find a name from; "the world" doesn't care one whit what the thing is called. I've already explained a hundred times why "this is this and that is that" is more than simple conjecture, and why I'd still like more official material anyway. I've already said again and again that I don't object to this full title, because it's still correct in a sense (I would prefer ", fully known as <x>,"; mind that adding this descriptor makes the name a bit fancier than it might need to be, never mind that UCN is exactly why you want "C1 NES TV" so damned bad. And I've already said again and again why I object to that "C1 NES TV"; because it's wrong on a fundamental level, you know it's wrong, and the only reason you're giving it any thought is because one guy ran a story on it and the others bandwagoned way too hard. When things like that are found, shouldn't that start to make these sources a little less reliable, not more?

Whatever. In any event, it wasn't until now you even tried being "civil" again, and the why to that is a mystery to me too! Why should I be civil to someone I see as a monster? Despatche (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. No personal attacks.
2. Can you specifically provide some difs where Thibbs allegedly treated so poorly? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, having read the talk page discussions it was Thibbs having to deal with your round and round points. Also, attacking the user you are aiming to report, calling them a "liar" and "monster", is going to result in a wicked boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely coming from him. You only go round and round because someone else leads you in a circle.

I've gone through all the labelled reliable sources, official or not, gone through all the valid info imaginable with a simple "this is here, how does it stand" and bringing in the necessary consistency checks to solve that. But I have come to the conclusion that there is a disconnect in the later unofficial sources as there always seems to be, because someone reported something wrong and we all get to deal with that. I have come up against a champion of such reporting, and he absolutely refuses to listen to reason to the point where he is outright ignoring anything, no matter where that info is coming from (he ignores key details of his own Google spamming, for Christ's sake).

What else can you really do except continue and continue putting down what's "right" (as determined by reliable sources) until they either realize that there's a disconnect (good), give up and leave you alone (bad), or ignore everything and resort to trickery to "win" anyway (harmful)?

Go ahead and cuff me for the "monster" comment, but how is calling someone a liar supposed to be a personal attack when you've come to the conclusion that this is what they're doing after careful deliberation and you're treating it as a fact? Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the flood gates seem to be open: "descriptor, logo, product code, and official name"? Where is all this coming from? Are you making things up now, no longer content to just ignore what you don't like? Sorry, but there's only one time where anyone "gets" to make stuff up at all, and it's done with an entirely different spirit that doesn't even really "ignore" anything.

I have only mentioned "the name" and a so-called "descriptor"--a description located near that name that is a common part of '70s and '80s tech styling, which could easily be interpreted as part of the name. Here's an example of Sharp's descriptors in action (you can find tons more of "pasokonterebi x1" all over Google, it's the same scenario), here's another example from Sega... and here is what you actually want (inb4 you try to use it as proof of something). So, "My Computer TV C1" is as valid as "Perso-Com TV X1"; actually, good luck figuring out how to romanize that thing, because it's got to done!

This is what I've been saying the whole time, I've had to say it in at least 3 different ways across 3 different pages at any one time, and you still choose to ignore most of it, even as I've kept up with every single word for the sake of discussion. Boggles the mind, it does. And for the last time, I'm fixing bad links to disambiguations, because they don't just fix themselves during petty squabbles. You can go on and on about how I'm trying to whitewash this and that, but you know as well as I do that fixing formatting circumstances from a recent rename are separate to any discussion on the actual rename. Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's what Thibbs really wants; let's say Kotaku or whoever made up a new name for the PlayStation 3, or even kept referring to the Wii as the "Revolution", and for whatever reason most of the other big names followed... yeah. Can't wait for someone to tell me just how valid that is anyway. Despatche (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not going to let you bait me into responding to your content-related arguments here. I've already told you that centralized article-talk-page discussions are the most helpful for content matters and AN/I is neither the time nor the place for carrying on a tempestuous content dispute. Remember why you came here: it was to get administrative action regarding my behavior. Cut and paste the above content-related paragraphs into article talk space if you want a response to them. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Despatche

This is all strictly content-based, and thus, not the right place to discuss this. Thibbs has done nothing out of line here, this seems like nothing more than Despatche being exasperated that he's not convincing Thibbs. This isn't the place for solving content disputes. Despatche, set up an RFC or something, and someone make sure WP:VG is notified. Let's close this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a behavioral issue; see here and here. He continues to accuse and put words in my mouth, and very likely he'll ignore half of my response to prove some point of his, just as he's done so many times before. If it's a content issue, it's because he keeps bringing up the content here, and I apologize for even entertaining it. Despatche (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs you linked to are all the same. I'd really like to see evidence of Thibbs putting words in your mouth in that diff. They (singular gender neutral usage) even linked to diffs of your accusations. Looking back through some of Thibbs work on those articles, there's been nothing but constructive edits. Some of this is rising to histrionics. Quite frankly, this should be closed down forthwith and a request put through to WP:3O. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand at all, Despatche. That first link in your last post is Thibbs calmly asking you not to make outrageous claims against such as calling him a "monster", something you indisputably said right here in these very discussions. That is your lead-off, best example of him putting words in your mouth? Him mentioning a personal attack you literally called him? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Despatche meant to link my talk page here. It's another case of him latching onto some tangential phrase I've used that drives him to distraction and causes him to completely miss the central point of my argument. The same thing has happened with his mania about my reference to corporate-produced source materials (fliers, ads, box art, etc.) as SPSes. That seems to have really gotten his dander up for some reason. Anyway I'll avoid posting to his talk page except about business issues (future RfCs, community matters, or serious warnings) until he's calmed down and I'll just ignore his tone. I guess I don't really care that much if he wants to cast me as a destroyer of some kind. I think my record speaks for itself. And as I suggested on my talk page I think he's really just harming his own positions by taking such a pugnacious stance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good. I do think some sort of RFC or WP:VG-wide discussion is necessary. I've only interacted with Despatche once before this, but he acted the same way towards me when I asked him a single question on why he changed the capitalization of a sub-title on my watchlist. Even a simple question like that sparked this response on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_7#re:_Ristar_.28read:_why_I.27m_batshit_insane.29 - Is this just how he interacts when questioned? I don't know. But if we show that the community doesn't support what he's doing, then at least maybe he'll stop with his misguided malice towards you. (Alternatively, if the community does side with him, that'll settle things as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I initially tried helping at Talk:C1 (television), but quickly backed away due to my lack of time to meaningfully argue, and due to the fact the discussion was generally looking like it wasn't going anywhere helpful. I strongly recommend making a full-fledged WP:RM and notifying WT:VG. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this! So much accusing, so much condescending nonsense. Now I have to defend myself, look like a fighter, even though you guys threw the punches!

So this response is somehow a problem, even though it answers your question perfectly? How does this, at all, compare to what we have now? What is this "tone" you're speaking of? If I was a bit brusque with the language there, I apologize, but I would like to point out that a "why do you feel" question does not call for a simple answer. And apparently I can't just tell someone what I truly believe that are, because that's somehow a "tone" issue that requires I need to be ignored? Do you guys really think I'm trying to insult you? Why do you automatically assume it's "misguided malice" simply because Thibbs has "good standing"? Why bother me about "equals" when you've tried as hard as you can to be above such? And why are you worried so much about "fighting"?

Above all, why do you guys keep accusing me of things that I'm not doing, why do you keep hiding things from me, and why do you deliberately ignore things I say? I did not target any one "tangential phrase" when speaking to Thibbs then, I targeted them all, because they all needed to be answered. And so I target them all again. I take issue with his description of an SPS because it's completely wrong both according to Wikipedia and according to reason. Ignoring terminology, corporate-produced material is a more reliable source when it comes to the name of the product they produce. How can this possibly be up for debate?

There is a problem, there's proof that there's a problem, there's an easy fix, and all I have is opposition who can't put down one status quo in favor of another, even though this not-so-new status quo would be more beneficial to pretty much everyone. Despatche (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, why are people here so obsessed with this "fighting"? They don't want to sit down and really discuss anything, they want to beat each other up all day like this is some game. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also softly recommend you drink some tea, maybe have a nice walk, and stop seeing accusations everywhere? I hear Tai Chi is an excellent way to maintain a calm, positive and zen attitude at all times. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More snark, huh? You want an accusation? Okay: I think the real reason you ran from that discussion is because you can't do anything without a bunch of cruel snark. There, happy? I'm not "seeing" anything, I'm not ridiculously angry or whatever; these things are actually happening, and I feel the need to point them out, because they're being used as weapons to shut me down. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving honest recommendations about how to deal with the obvious stress this is causing you; if that is cruel, then Ghandi must've been the root of all evil. Trying to argue with your ideas because there is disagreement and "trying to shut you down" are two different things entirely... although when the only position you're willing to defend is that your idea is indubitably correct and that anyone disagreeing isn't being rational, I can certainly understand why what should be a productive discussion feels more like conflict. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am filled with disquiet at the general tenour of this discussion. User:Despatche is clearly angry about the content dispute but this remains only a content dispute; there is no evidence that User:Thibb is a 'monster' or has behaved even faintly uncivilly tot he point of requiring administrative action or sanctions. There should, instead of this type of discussion, be instead a conversation with an arbitrator (not ArbCom, of course, but a neutral party to offer up a balanced analysis of the content issue and work out a reasonable consensus within the Videogame Wikiproject. I firmly also believe that the request for checkuser (RFCU) mentioned earlier is inappropriate since there is no evidence that User:Thibb is sockpuppeting or abusing the system in anyway. DrPhen (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not look and I have not felt angry at all about any of this (at best, I'm a bit annoyed that Thibbs cannot understand Wikipedia principles, and that all three of these folks still insist on deliberately ignoring things), but that's a perception and there's not a whole lot I can do about that. But I have made it very clear that this is a behavioral issue, and carefully pointed out when and why. If this has somehow become a content issue, it's because Thibbs keeps pointing out the content, and I have to talk about that content on the page it's presented. (I beliexperienceeve they meant RFC/U, though I don't think that will be any more or less helpful than RCFU, haha.) Despatche (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK the article talk page discussions seem to have completely stalled so I'm ready to carry on with the content issue with the help of community input. The question is which forum would be most appropriate. Suggestions above include 3O, RfC, RM, and DRN. Which of these sounds like the best method to move forward? There are two articles but if possible I'd like to have a single discussion covering both topics. This AN/I thread can carry on in parallel with minimal input from me, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have had positive experiences with the formal request or comment feature (my apologies for mixing up acronyms above). based solely in my it has been fast, effective, and useful. A third opinion as you noted may be useful. I really don't see this as a good candidate for admin intervention since User:Thibbs has not even come close to breaking policy and this is mostly a content dispute rather than a situation in which User:Thibbs has done something meriting some kind of sanctions or adjudication. DrPhen (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I've filed an RfC now. It seems awkward to try to shoehorn them both onto a single page, but I'm not sure I see a better option. Anyway I've dropped a note at Despatche's talk page and hopefully that will provide a better outlet for his constant stream of content-based arguments than this thread. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a reasonable consensus from uninvolved editors that Thibbs has been going about this the right way and the content issues are going to be addressed by the RFC that has been raised. Despatche, I'm sure you will disagree with my summary but as you read above you'll find that virtually no one agrees with your interpretation of events. This is not to say we're slappingy you on the wrists or anything just that there is a consensus (more or less) that the bahavioural issues you are accusing Thibbs of just isn't seen by those who have commented here. My advice, whether you choose to take it or not, is to let the RFC run its course and accept the consensus that is developed there. If you still feel that your perspective is justified, seek the dispute resolution noticeboard's help. Beware though, seeking all avenues for a justification of your opinion is forum shopping. Beyond that, I move that this be closed. Blackmane (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm of course biased here, but I agree that a close would be in the best interest of all. I wanted to note for the record that Despatche is behaving admirably in the RfC at present. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree as well. There's nothing actionable here. Let's get this closed, or let it sink into the archives. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing

I borrow the term "whitewashing" from Despatche above. I was wondering if someone could please speak to him about going systematically around performing edits in furtherance of his contested page move. Since learning that his move was controversial he has continually made edits in support of his controversial decision. I have asked him many times to stop "fixing" redirect so that they point to his new titles (diffs: 1, 2) and to stop performing page moves of other articles to make room for his new title (diff: 1, 2). But I see that he has only spread this kind of edit across to en.Wikipedia's non-English sister projects (diff: 1, 2). I would like it if he could leave the terms alone until we've finished discussing the matter because newcomers who aren't familiar with his editorial style might wrongly assume that the whole brace of new terms that he's added are the terms that have been in use a long time. They might then wrongly assume that there's a degree of consensus by silence when in fact these are all controversial moves and link alterations on his part. I've only met with hostility when I have asked him to stop making this kind of edit so could someone else give it a try? -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is AnotherPseudonym (talk · contribs) another sock of Carl Hewitt? Introducing "paraconsistency" in (the talk page) of an article (Material conditional) which doesn't relate to consistency or paraconsistency is problematic at best, and generally indicative of Carl's (students') activity on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why someone experienced enough to be an admin is bringing an issue here without filing a Sock Puppet Report and without engaging with the editor on the talk page of the article concerned. AnotherPseudonym is a new user, from what I can see on the NLP page s/he is contributing from the basis of some knowledge of the field (I can't answer for Material conditional. There surely has to be some real offence and also some dialogue before an ANI report is made? ----Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter for SPI; the Carl Hewitt sanctions explicitly apply to "meat-puppets". I just found an edit introduced papaconsistency, a Carl Hewitt concept, where it doesn't belong. However, I'm not sure it was AnotherPseudoym who introduced it. I'll have to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If s/he did I can't see it and even so at least talk to them first? Coming to ANI without any engagement or checking seems wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) AnotherPseudonym's edits mostly concern neuro-linguistic programming, a topic that has nothing to do with Hewitt, judging by his biography. Despite the word "programming" appearing in NLP, it has nothing to do with computer programming or computer science, which seems to be Hewitt's expertise. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Arthur Rubin seems to be crediting Hewitt with far too much when he writes that "papaconsistency" is "a Carl Hewitt concept". Looking at paraconsistency, it seems that Hewitt had no contribution the notion, but that he merely applied it to something in software engineering. In line with the ANI program of today, this is another mountain out of a molehill. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, Arthur Rubin does not appear to have considered the substance of what AnotherPseudonym wrote [1]: "Also the failure to even mention propositional calculus -- which is the context in which someone is most likely to look up the meaning of the operator -- was an unacceptable omission. By the time someone reaches the study of paraconsistent logical systems they will likely have no need to look up what a material conditional is on Wikipedia. A novice is most likely to look up this entry in wikipedia and they will most likely have encountered the operator in the context of classical/Boolean propositional calculus." AnotherPseudonym merely gave "paraconsistent logical systems" as an example of advanced material in logic. He did not try to introduce it anywhere. He was actually arguing for something rather opposite, namely that page on the material conditional needs to be simplified and made more accessible for beginners in logic. Building a whole bang bang theory from that aside is rather worrisome when coming from an administrator like Arthur Rubin. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys and gals, this is discussion some real Wikipedia weirdness. I'm not Carl Hewitt (and I don't know who that is). Prior to registering the account AnotherPseudonym I was contributing to the maintenance of the NLP article without an account so you can see my IP address there. I was actually arguing against introducing notions of paraconsistency in the lead of an article on a logical operator. I mentioned paraconsistent logics because Incnis Mrsi criticised me for (apparently) failing to consider that the equivalency which I specified is valid only with respect to classical/Boolean logics; a substantial chunk of the non-classical/non-Boolean logics are those that termed paraconsistent. For this reason I read Incnis Mrsi's criticism as suggesting that the lead (and article?) should maintain a generality which makes it true over all logics -- paraconsistent included. I disagree with that idea and I thought I made that clear in my commentary (and the actual lead). Incidentally, Paraconsistent logic is not the idea of a Carl Hewitt; rather it is a major field of study in philosophy (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/). This seems an especially bizarre discussion. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am now intrigued by Carl Hewitt and am trying to work out how a logical operator can elicit a level of passion that would cause conflict that would warrant administrative intervention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too intrigued before looking at WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. The article at Carl Hewitt is under indefinite full protection. Hewitt has amply deserved the admin attention that his edits have received. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the devil... Can admin attention be directed at Untalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This seems far more likely to be Hewitt or a student of his based on the massive promotional contributions actually related to Hewitt and going on for the last three years. Here are some diffs although all his contributions except the minor edits are clearly Hewitt-related [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I think this is what is called a single-purpose account. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now knowing who Carl Hewitt is I wish I was him -- he has achieved much more than I have. :) His main body of work appears to be in software and in what is termed "incosistency robustness" and paraconsistent logic comes up in relation to that. I don't think a reflexive association between "paraconsistent logic" and "Carl Hewitt" -- as exhbited by Arthur Rubin -- is justified though, he hasn't made any major contribution to paraconsistent logic as far as I can tell. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks like "incosistency robustness" is some application of paraconsistent logic to computer theory. If one bothers to search for "paraconsistency" in Google Books, there are at least a dozen books covering the logic topic and are not written by Hewitt and most if not all such books don't even mention him or his computer application. On the other hand, this discussion turned up another account, Untalker, which clearly has been promoting Hewitt on Wikipedia for the past tree years and has done little else. Looking at the ArbCom log, the situation should be handled similarly with how Madmediamaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was dealt with. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment. Looking at the user contributions, see no reason to think the account User:AnotherPseudonym is related to Hewitt, but the account User:Untalker very strongly resembles an SPI for articles related to Hewitt and the Actor Model. However, to give Untalker a chance to prove me wrong, I would recommend just a topic ban for User:Untalker from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model. If the account is unrelated to Hewitt, they should be free to edit other topics. — Carl (CBM · talk)

(Did you mean to say an SPA?) They've been here for three years and never yet shown any interest in editing anything else, so a topic ban in preference to a block seems bureaucratic enough. And I'm not sure there's widespread enough interest in this thread to get a healthy consensus either way w r t a topic ban. But let's have a proposal and prove me wrong. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I did mean SPA, thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for User:Untalker

• Proposal: Per the above comments, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and per their contributions, User:Untalker is topic banned from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model, broadly construed. Please record your opinion below. As proposer, I support the ban. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• OK. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for the reasons explained by Bishonen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not that my judgment is to be trusted. Appears not only to be an SPA, but an SPA on Hewitt presenting Hewitt's views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, some of the behavior was after the start of the RfC, in X's attempt to decertify it. But it's not the right time or place. Is it appropriate to add comments about the behavior of the subject of an RfC/U which occurred after the start, or is it more appropriate to open a 2nd RfC/U against the same editor while the first is still open. One or the other needs to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply not sure what to do about an editor that seems not to understand English. At the Brazil the editor in question (User:Vinícius18) is editing in good faith thinking that adding many many many many images is a good idea - but I cant get the editor to understand that sandwiching text between images is not a good idea. Could we get someone that speaks Portuguese to explain our policy on the matter and also explain that adding 9 images of the same person is not a good idea. By the oddly worded questions on my talk page I am guessing that comprehension is a big problem here. Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, that entire article is a complete visual mess. It needs serious trimming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cant keep up ...trying to move images to better locations were possible like here - but image galleries like this with 8 images of the same person i am just removing. Just need the editor to understand the problems at hand.Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say something different but instead I think what we have here is a massive lack of competence. They need to be given a short ban on image uploading until they understand the MOS. There's also a probable language issue here. And BMK has it right. The article starts of placidly but then descends into an eyesore. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the editor's talk page asking him not to upload any further images. If you guys could carry on trying to guide him/locate someone who speaks Portuguese that would be great. If he carries on adding problematic images I think a block is the only option, so contact me directly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I speak both, but the problem here is that everybody just places and removes pics as they see fit. So you really need just a few different opinions -on what is important to showcase- to get to this. I think we can get to some consensus on the talkpage shortly, once the new editors understand what a waste of time this is. Blocking is totally not necessary, other users are already reverting to vandalism because their contributions are undone. Thanks Moxy for your help, like you said, just check it every few weeks or so and revert the lot, not worth an edit war.Magafuzula (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things like 2014 Fifa Mascot are not really that important though. WP:IRELEV seems to catch quite a few of the problem ones, like 50%+ of the image being dominated by an out of focus sign or sky. This picture was one of four at the small education section which makes it impossible to properly identify the subject from the thumbnail. The article seems much better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo from university city was interesting because of the history, the junta had it designed like this to avoid students' gathering, but unfortunately this story got lost in the multiple edits (not sure if I put it there in the first place). But the photo was bad. The picture you put in place there is totally insignificant, so I combined the 2 in what I consider the best option.
About taking out the image of Fuleco: -I think we may assume that you care little for soccer- the sports section now goes without any image of the upcoming FIFA worldcup, totally absurd considering the amount of effort and money the whole country puts into this. Easily the single most important event in Brazil of this decade. Everything in Brazil at this moment is about this cup, and the warmer-up Confederations which is about to start. No picture. I think i am going to change this if I can find a more appealing picture, with so many important sporting event coming up this section should reflect the current events, not some dusty old picture of players who are retired.
By the way, we have made a full circle in the last week and are roughly exactly where we were before a few new users started adding lots of pictures. Since they have seen all their contributions reverted I don't think we'll be seeing them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs)

Interesting! You are the expert; so I'll move my response to the talk page. Since this ANI will probably be closed as the behavior surrounding the content dispute has been addressed... and the content is being addressed as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor in question is back .... and adding images again after our efforts to trim them down. Did we find someone that speaks Portuguese yet - as its clear they dont understand what is being said to them. On a side note anyone know why the user would make the images all different sizes - as in some 400px some 200px and others 140px? Wondering what type of PC they are viewing this from.Moxy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a few more articles the editor in question is editing there are other good faith problem that needs to stop. After a bunch of edits at President_of_Brazil we were let with a bunch of images that did not work see here and also they are simply adding two many images as seen here --Moxy (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing to see not one admin reply to and old editor that is asking for assistance. Is there somewhere else we can take this problem to were it may get solved?Moxy (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned out the whole article; there were way too many images, even after reverting. Anyone feel like taking on Brazilian Armed Forces? ;-) If they continue to add images without replying to talk page posts, it falls into WP:Competence territory and the editor should be blocked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised: user at 119.160.193.154 seems to be attempting some type of coding hack. For example, see [14]. Lambtron (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just somebody confused pasting code into the wrong place. — Scott • talk 14:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the false alarm, if that's what it is. The edit seemed dubious because the article topic has nothing to do with coding, and I've never before seen edits like this that appear to embed hidden executables. Lambtron (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr J Yip (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's related, but 119.160.193.154 has been blocked for "deliberately triggering the edit filter". Lambtron (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might perhaps be a connection to User:Doreply who was blocked indefinitely a couple of weeks ago for vandalism, for among other things trying to insert massive blocks of code in a number of articles. Thomas.W (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at the war going on at Mattel? I have requested semi-protection of this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but I am not sure that that alone will solve the problem. By its nature, this article attracts a steady string of editors who want to use the article as a soapbox concerning fairly trivial disputes such as whether the new Mattel Scrabble app on Facebook is better than the old app, plus there appears to be an effort to suppress information on notable controversies such as lead paint in toys. (Full disclosure: I have a COI here; I used to work for and still occasionally consult for Mattel and certain Mattel competitors.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: The consistently-reverted edits actually seem to universally be unsourced soapbox complaints about the new Facebook Scrabble app, boiling down to: “The old Scrabble app had a happy community, and Mattel ruined everything, so everyone is boycotting them.” I know for a fact that at least one editor has been blocked for repeatedly inserting that content. —Frungi (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invited non-admin comment. Undo the edits, and each time issue a user-warning with one level higher than before — see templates {{uw-unsourced}}. After final warning, report at wp:AIV. Ask for article semiprotection at wp:RPP. I have put a few warnings on the IP's user talk pages already. I'll keep an eye on the article. - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it’s really vandalism per se, but actually, doesn’t WP:3RR apply? The insertions are always the same content, usually with slightly different wording. —Frungi (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When such edits are always unsourced, they can be removed per wp:unsourced, accompanied by a user warning. When the user refuses to react to the warnings, one similar edit after the final warning is usually considered to be vandalism, and as such reported by wp:Huggle at AIV. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; this is precisely why {{uw-unsor4}} says that people may be blocked for further violations. Any admin who blocks you for a 3RR violation when you're removing this kind of thing from the article would deserve a pile of trouts — this is the kind of graffiti that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 3RR for adding the same content, again and again. —Frungi (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I already gave User talk:Ccroberts123 a short block for 3rr and he hasn't edited since. Frungi has offered a further explanation there, and I would consider no further action to be necessary unless the problem recurs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User is citing unreliable and inaccessible sources to stamp his Jainism religion on historic figures like Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. Nature of religions keeps evolving over centuries and millenia. It is impossible to tell what was religion of historic figures, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or some other similar religion. There will always be conflicting sources. It is better not to stamp religion on historic figures but user looks religious fundamentalist with specific agenda on wiki. You decide. I don't want 'honor' of getting blocked third time for edit warring. neo (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism by Helmuth Von Glasenapp publisher Motilal Banarasidass is a perfectly reliable source. If you doubt the reliability, you could have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you didn't provide a reliable source to any conflicting claim. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about reliable sources. I believe that as you are 'Jain', you are pushing your religious 'Jainism' agenda through dubious sources and edit warring. I googled about Chanakya. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website says that Chanakya studied Vedas. this and this history authors says that Chanakya was brahmin. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing brahmin caste with Chanakya. So I believe Chanakya was Hindu. And on Chandragupta Maurya you again reverted my edit with 1 inaccessible and 1 fake source. neo (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am 100% sure that you are sockpuppet of User:Rahuljain2307 who was blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. I request admins to confirm this. neo (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rahuljain2307 is no longer blocked but hasn't edited since 20 January 2013. The Rahul RJ Jain was created on 29 January, so I'd like to ask them if they are indeed one and the same editor. Abandoning an old account for a clean start is not sockpuppetry but it would be good to know the link between them. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same editor. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for a week on 20 January 2013 and he created this new account the very next day on 21 January, NOT 29 January(clearly to create another sockpuppet on very next day). He made first edit on 29 January and resumed as if continuation of previous account. neo (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rahul RJ Jain has above admitted that he is same editor as User:Rahuljain2307. Above admin indicated that this is not sockpuppetry but I think when user create new account during period of the block his intention is to avoid block, not clean start. He is daring me in edit warring without worrying about block as there is always new sockpuppet. neo (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this user has attempted to post a link to a promoted event at the page Financial_modeling, and filed a claim at WP:DRN when his edits were reverted. He/she claims to have provided a reference, but it's very clear that the user was only trying to bring attention to the event itself. Furthermore, the word "Guru" in the username is suspicious. I see people calling themselves "Gurus" on Youtube and Google all the time and it usually entails spamming. Please assess.

• Evidence:[[15]]

CarringtonEnglish_*chat* 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN was quickly closed: "No extensive talk page discussion as required by this forum and by all content dispute resolution forums at Wikipedia". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By going to DRN, he's clearly trying to work out something, but I'm still suspicious. Should he restore the link, spam warnings will be appropriate, and he should be blocked if he persist despite the warnings. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Nabaker (Nabaker (talk · contribs)) has been caught uploading a number of copyright violations on Commons (some of which have already been speedily deleted), and doesn't like it since he doesn't understand that taking someone else's images on the 'Net and uploading them as "own work" on Commons constitutes copyright violation (diff from his talk page). So he has made a personal attack on me on my talk page and has now also made legal threats (see diff 1 and diff 2), threatening legal action unless his images are recreated. Thomas.W (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now indefinitely blocked, it seems! Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked by GB fan

We have a situation at Nine Muses (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a chronic target of unsourced birthday and position information by multiple disruptive socks and IPs. This is usual for K-pop articles but normally the socks and IPs which add this information stay quiet for a short while once reverted. However a new tendentious account Vgleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken upon themselves through edit-warring and personal attacks to add this BLP information at first without sources and now using a wiki as source. I reported them at AIV but there is no action there. Now he is vandalising my userpage as I am preparing this report: [16] I would appreciate any help. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My thanks go to GB fan. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a neutral admin please sternly warn Jimthing that it's unacceptable to (a) make a large number of edits that lack consensus (please see his or her contributions; they're numerous and obvious) and then (b) edit war with editors and insist on maintaining those edit while he or she tries to change the MOS? He or she objects to the use of lowercase letters for the names of some people e.g., k.d. lang, danah boyd. That is a reasonable objection but this has been discussed in several venues and the current consensus is to use lowercase letters. Editing against consensus and edit warring to retain those edits while also lobbying to change the MOS is the wrong way to go about things. This is unethical and unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"discussed in several venues" – where please? ...there's been very little comment on my reasoned debate for a clearer resolution to capitalisation, here. Jimthing (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In just one of the articles in which you've edit warred, there is a discussion not only on the very Talk page to which you've already posted but there is also discussion in the archives here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You're welcome to raise this issue again but you're not welcome to ignore the current consensus and edit war against it as you try to change consensus and the MOS. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you already knew about many of the previous discussions! So why do you now claim to not know about them? ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please look into this? An editor is abusing the system and bullying others to force their way in several articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimkio12 (talk · contribs) Can somebody please have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell? There seems to be a case of WP:IDHT wherein Jimkio12 has refused to listen, constantly pushing WP:PORNBIO as a reason to keep, and called Bgwhite a "hybercritic/hypercritic". I've tried and failed to convince him that solely claiming to have a large fanbase without a reliable source does not meet PORNBIO, and it appears that he has resorted to socking - frankly, there are two keep votes wherein both voters have made no edits beyond the AfD nomination. In addition, I suspect that Jimkio12 has forged someone's userpage for his own userspace - any ideas? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI already started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jimkio12 Bgwhite (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, HMSSolent -- Jimkio12 appears to have appropriated his set of userboxes from User:Steam5 (who actually has been editing since Oct 11, 2005 as stated in the first userbox, and is unrelated to the SPI). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which isn't appropriate, considering that Jimkio12 has only been around for less than a month. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account was actually created in September, 2012, but there's still a seven year difference, compared to what he has been claiming on his user page. So I took the liberty to correct the date in the userbox on his user page. Thomas.W (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been subjected to disruptive editing between 31 May and 2 June, when large chunks of information were cut before any discussion. The article has also been tag bombed. [17], [18], [19], [20]. There are many more examples. Attempts to discuss the problems on the talk page [21] have been side tracked by the issue of the unidentified editors who have not edited any other articles, but who are clearly experienced. They may even be sock puppets. As it stands the infobox of the article has been cut and despite being discussed on the talk page [22] an attempt to reinstate it was undone. [23], [24] There has been a lack of social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively, demonstrated during the disruptive editing. [25] Reasonable responses to posts on the talk page have been ignored [26], [27] or attacked. [28] Could the article be reinstated including infobox, while a discussion about problems takes place. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Although I know a bit about this subject, I did not see this article before.) This is an extremely long and detailed article (more than 210K) about a subject that is not extremely important (but important enough for an article, imo). Rskp wrote most of it and now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length. As far as I can see, the main editors engaged with the article are acting in good faith and it is quite wrong to describe the problem as a behavioral one (unless it be the "ownership" problem). It doesn't really belong on this board but should go to some content noticeboard. Zero^talk 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have people brought the Israel/Palestine conflict into this article? It seems to pop up in articles that are decades removed from the current conflict, even when the articles (like this one) involve conflicts between other groups in the same region. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the I/P conflict is not part of the article or the argument about it. Let's keep it that way. Zero^talk 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not true that I "now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length." The article stands in tatters and has been for days without any meaningful discussion about the article's problems. Anonymous edits have been made disruptively Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in a slash and burn way, while at the same time the article has been tag bombed. Its the disruptive editing attacks which are the reason this article has been posted here. --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrolling to a random point, we find:

In addition to 67 water carts, each mounted brigade required the following transport,

• 4 Brigade Headquarters transport wagons = 413
• Regimental transport wagons per regiment = 3920
• Machine Gun Squadron transport wagons = 204
• Brigade Field Ambulance transport wagons = 4.[275][276]

These wagons were deployed in three echelons

• "A" Echelon commanded by an officer, consisted of 21 Limbers and 4 water carts

...

Ye Gods! EEng (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, everyone acknowledges the article is too long. But what about the disruptive editing, the tag bombing and then leaving the article in tatters, without initiating any meaningful discussion? The infobox is still cut for goodness sake!! --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first three edits which have been labelled "reverts" were to cut the grammar tag, explaining that a copyedit had been requested from the Copyeditors Guild. The second edit cut the notability tag noting that a discussion was moved to talk page, which I initiated. Instead of a discussion on notability the fact that anonymous editors were making the cuts was focused on. The third reinsert reinserted "10,000" "which emphasises the scale of the two defeats‬." These were all good faith edits and not reverts. --Rskp (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I've hatted off my comments as they weren't really salient to the discussion even factoring it in as a response to Zero's observation. That being said, the only comment I'll make re this article is that this is not disruptive editing so much as pruning. The efforts of the IP's should not merely be dismissed as the work of sockpuppets, a flagrant lack of AGF. There's just a great deal of ownership being displayed here. Quite frankly, most of the material here could be incorporated into other articles as an Aftermath-type section and the rest of the padding and filler dispensed with, but that's a content discussion not to be had here. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 7 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+333) . . Bodu Bala Sena (Reverted 1 edit by Obi2canibe (talk): Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised. (TW)) by MediaJet Please don't escalate our dispute on Bodu Bala Sena into personal attacks. Comments like "you act like an extremist" and "I know that you are a LTTE sup" are enough for me to report you but I will give you a chance to act civil - like a real Buddhist.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) So go ahead and Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth.MediaJet talk 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Personal attack Reply from Mediajet This type of comments will make Wikipedia a battleground. கோபிநாத் 122.172.238.62 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• This incident report is about an edit summary on 07 April 2013 here and that another comment I am unable to find at present
• You can all see both how both editors identify themselves on their respective userpages

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• Here the personal attack is Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised.

The other editor requests him not to engage in personal attacks on his talk page But Mediajet refuses o Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth. MediaJet stands by his comment. கோபிநாத் 122.172.239.35 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your opinion that "you act like an extremist" is the personal attack? I've been parsing your report for an hour trying to figure out which part you're considering to be one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incident reporter 122.172.238.62 may possibly a troll set on fomenting discord between User:MediaJet and User:Obi2canibe, who both have made a peace, disengaged from interaction and ceased any name-calling whatsoever over a month ago. Just my opinion. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day to all !!!
I have fed up editing some of these controversial Wiki pages now,I don't contribute to those Wiki pages any more,truly speaking I don't have time to allocate for such pages.If some one is trying to raise a hand against me,I don't care about that also because I haven't done anything wrong here,Thanks.
See the Whole Discussion between we both :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MediaJet/Archive_1#Personal_attacks
MediaJet talk 13:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say, you haven't done anything wrong after you have said, "I know that you are a LTTE sup" and then "So go ahead and Report I dont care, I dont want your chances, What I said is the truth."?

Thereafter you have come out with stories and not the apology to the concerned editor.

Better make use of this discussion to apologize him in his absentia. May the blessings of the Noble Triple Gem be always with you!

@ Shirt58 - Absence of Gun Fire doesn't mean there is a Lasting Peace.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong to him to Apologise,I can STOP editing Wiki but never Apologise him,What I said is the TRUTH,He is a Tamil Eelam separatist and that's what I said him,Anyone can see that from his user page and some of his contributions..But he has done much to Sri Lanka Wiki Project,I appreciate it,No more Comments,Thanks.MediaJet talk 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ 184.144.53.157 Better if you can return from Canada and see the present situation here rather than Just shouting staying in Canada further I am not a Supporter of any party,I am a Sri Lankan that's all,You will come to know the real roots of this problem,if you read An Introduction to Tamil Racism in Sri lanka Read this as well -> http://www.scribd.com/doc/98322975/The-Mythical-Ethnic-Problem-in-Sri-Lanka-%E2%80%93-Parts-I-II-III-By-Prof-Nalin-de-Silva Thanks.MediaJet talk 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who this anonymous User talk:122.172.238.62 is or why they've started this ANI discussion but I want no part of it. I've moved on, I suggest everyone else does likewise.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

New article attempting to define a neologism, with political motivations. Fast-moving edit history....may need oversight and page protection, if it merits keeping. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some oversight would be appreciated, as persistent vandalism, deletions, soapboxing, and reconfiguring of comments, driven by social media, persists within the article and its talk page. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi My name is Mike Flavelle and I am MD of Gul Watersports Limited or Gul. We are presently listed as "Gul(clothing)" which is incorrect and ifers we are a clothing company which we are not. We are a long-standing surf and sailing brand. How can our title be changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroleflavelle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved to Gul (watersports) as a more accurate title. GiantSnowman 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The WP:1RR is not effective because there are too many players on both sides of the field that no one needs to revert twice by themselves within 24 hours. So I am proposing the following:

Any editor that reverts material in whole or in part from Men's rights movement within 48 hours of a previous revert of the same material, either by direct action or by editing, maybe blocked from editing whether or not that editor has themselves reverted the material previously or not.

Either that, or put the article on a 6 month full protection and require the editors to get consensus and an edit request for each and every edit. Those other sysops involved and I are tired of this constant BS. The editors on that article are incapable of editing cohesively.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to, at times, having problems with rules, so let me see if I have this right. An editor posts a referenced section. I check the reference then change the phrase "oppression of men" to "discrimination against men" because that is what the source says. Your proposal would mean that no one could change it back to "oppression" for 48 hours? Makes sense, in this little world of nonsense. Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the WP:BRD model and forces everyone to comply.--v/r - TP 14:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are trying to eliminate problematic edits, I'm not sure that a doubling of the normal 24-hour window will work. Nor do I like the idea of fully protecting the article as that, too, will create work for admins responding to edit requests. Perhaps what we need to do is impose more topic bans instead of blocks to get rid of single-minded, biased editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's a controversial space, but imposing even more draconian rules won't change that. A few reverts isn't that big of a deal, and discussion is happening at talk.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this especially as the issue is due to problem pedants. Pleasetry (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TParis, I think edit-warring can be considered to have occurred even if the edits are outside the 1RR 24 hour window, and blocks can be made IF a sysop thinks there is gaming going on around a 1rr sanction (this happens all the time at WP:AE). 1RR is the same basic principle as WP:3RR, the technicalities of how many reverts or the space of time is less important than the pattern, and both 3RR or 1RR are "not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". I would have supported the 48 hour 1RR but for the fact that it is a totally novel solution and as an unconventional sanction would lead to confusion. So in this situation Bbb23 is correct, if there is edit-warring (regardless of whether the 1RR is *technically* broken) block/ban because of it. The probation already allows for this, and there are long standing precedents for that kind of judgement. I also think (as I've said for years) we need more uninvolved sysops patrolling this topic area, its not fair to leave this on 2 or 3 ppl's shoulders--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NovaSkola has called both Ninetoyadome and Yerevanci vandals here over edits on the Guba mass grave article. However, it was NovaSkola who was blocked for edit-warring and Ninetoyadome and Yerevanci's edits were clearly not vandalism. NovaSkola has a history of being warned for edit warring, calling reliable sources unreliable out of self-interest, and simply removing content he doesn't like, as can be seen here, here, here and here (This was the same day he was blocked). He has also told Ninetoyadome in the past that, "Your actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account", over the Guba grave again. He was already blocked for edit-warring, but not for his attacks. I want to propose a more lengthy block for repeatedly attacking other users and continued edit-warring despite receiving numerous warnings. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with TheShadowCrow. I would also like to mention that NovaSkola continued edit-warring even when there was an ongiong Talk Page discussion regarding the contentious material he/she attempted to add. Furthermore, the material he tried to add that called these groups of people "genocidaires" and people who use "rape as a tool" wasn't backed by the source whatsoever. In fact, the sources don't even mention a word about Guba, Armenia or Azerbaijan. When contesting the matter, NovaSkola sent all the users to Admin intervention, Arbitration Enforcement, and even a SPI in less than one hour. However, it was the AE that WP:Boomeranged the user and placed his current topic ban.

I would also like to mention that I am not fond in the way he had warned and subsequently reported me at all. On my Talk Page he "warned" me by saying, "I will have to report your to admins." Fair enough. However, even when I did not make one edit after that (let alone the fact that I only made one edit on that article that he calls "vandalism"), he immediately commented on my TP by saying, Actually, I will report your disruptive activity to admins for not following Wikipedia's laws on talk page and for section blanking. He basically just "woke up" and said "you know what I'm going to try to ban him" even after I did nothing after his/her warning. Meanwhile however, he had already started his SPI's against me and Yerevanci. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit history of the Laura Robson article an editor user:Fyunck(click) is demonstrating in the discussion the only reason they have made the removal in the singles section is to make a point and further their POV. This is against Wikipedia rules. Can this please be looked into.

the diffs are provide here for the talk page here and here for the edit simply to be disruptive

Sport and politics (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Multiple editors have told you that this infobox bloating has got to go. I don't see any editors on your side. I make one removal on Laura Robson, and did it without seeing the ongoing discussion on her talk page because it was posted in the middle of a 4 year old thread instead of at the bottom in sequence. Your subject line said read the discussion and not to remove and you moved it back. I looked at it more thoroughly and did not revert your pov again. You seem to want people to leave that info until this is decided (which right now is against you). I said that is at least reasonable (and I didn't revert Laura Robson again) but you can't have it both ways and keep adding it to other articles such as you did at Grigor Dimitrov while this is going on. That's is reasonable also. I have no idea what this is doing here at ANI but it seems to be a slippery slope for you. I even posted about it at Project Tennis so more people would get involved, in case my pov was viewed differently by others. Looking at the answers it would seem not. This was simply a "passing through" item I noticed... but with this frivolous ANI I can assure you my eye is firmly planted on it now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to stop thinking discussion are a mob rule, voting or who get the most people to say the same nonsense. It is about policy based and credible points based consensus not we all oppose this user so are going to oppose what they are doing, just because. Please also see further back in the history where other users have reverted the reverted the removal of the junior results you have also been ignorant of embedded text warning against removal.Sport and politics (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No admins needed here. Content discussion moved to article talk. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Talk:King's Cross fire

on this edit to King's Cross fire. That edit added a quote made recently (start of 2008) by someone who was on duty at the time - and just so happened to be my father. The next day, an IP address removed it, but didn't leave an edit summary. I would like some advice on the usefulness of that edit; I believe that edit while that edit was a WP:COI edit, it was a net positive and thus came under the scope of WP:IAR. What does everyone else think?--Launchballer 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal. No disrespect to you or your father, but that a fireman attending a major incident with mass casualties found the experience stressful has no encyclopedic value, since it's a statement of the completely obvious. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this doesn't add anything to the article. On the other hand, why is this at the admin incidents board? There's nothing actionable, so this thread should be continued at the article talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/Chrusader

The user's only edit is to add a pretty hateful rant to their talk page. I deleted the content, but I thought it was worth bringing here - I obviously can't redact the history or edit summary, and I think it could certainly be seen as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and blocked per WP:NOTHERE --Jayron32 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Evrik (talk · contribs)

This user has been warned multiple times about their non-free file usage. I have warned the user multiple times about this, however they refuse to listen. Most recently Scouting in Massachusetts where the user is re-inserting files that lack rationales. I do not want to see a useful editor blocked over this, so I am seeing an alternate method. A topic ban with regards to the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First, this is an extension of the debates on Scouting in California and Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine. Werieth has just retaliated by asking for this ban because I warned him that his edits were about to become 3RR. Werieth claims that "enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR." However, if you look at the edit summary for each of the edits, the editor says, "missing non-free use rationale's for this article," and yet each of the five images does have an appropriate rationale. This is simply retaliation, or a bullying tactic. I refer you to this and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_20#State_articles this for some of the backstory.

I will also note that to date, none of the images in question have been deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 20:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the version of the file description page does not have a rationale and was only added after I filed this request. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I added two that were specific to the page in question, but three of the five were correct. --evrik ^(talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I never touched those files. I only removed the files that lacked a rationale for that article, per my edit summary. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a measure of peace, I have withdrawn the 3rr notice. Can we agree the article is okay as it is and just move on? --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually the 3RR report was in response to this request, almost 10 minutes before the 3RR report was filed. Werieth (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, no. I made the warning first. You just beat me to the punch. The 3RR form is more intricate. ;-) I have to go engage IRL now. TTYL. --evrik ^(talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Nikkimaria to stop stalking my edits, more than once:

• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 18#Enough
• User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Removal of infoboxes
• Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler#Infobox
• Talk:St Mary's, Bryanston Square
• And in edit summaries and talk pages not logged

as have other editors (e.g. User:RexxS in the first link above and at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Infobox; User:Gerda Arendt; User:PumpkinSky at User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 19#Please stop). Despite this, she has continued to do so for some months. Examples, almost always on articles she had never previously edited, include:

• [29] (newly created by me)
• [30]
• at Mabel Richardson - since deleted
• at Eric Brooke Dunlop - since deleted
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41] (newly created by me)
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45] (newly created by another editor)
• [46]

and most recently, today: [47]).

This is both stressful for me; and has (as I suspect is the intention) an inhibiting effect on my editing. I am here to ask an uninvolved adminstartor to caution her not to do so, in accordance with Arbcom rulings (e.g.), on pain of escalating blocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the editor to address the issues, and warned of a block or ban, at User_talk:Nikkimaria#Persistent_edit_stalking. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, I think we should wait for the other side of the story before threatening to ban her, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to refrain from any administrative actions (for several reasons) for the moment, but I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed. While I had primarily had concerns over some of the "Classical music" articles which Gerda had worked on, if there are multiple editors expressing a similar concern on the issue then I think it's worth exploring. The "info box" issue is a massive time-sink and it appears that there's no resolution in sight - but for now perhaps it's best to just focus on the issue of an admin. edit warring and whatever the proper terminology of the day happens to be. Awaiting input from Nikkimaria. — Ched :  ?  20:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I am saying is that Pigsonthewing has made a prima facie case of Wikibullying, which could result in a ban. I am not sure that Nikkimaria quite understands how serious this issues has become. After the Qworty incident, I think we need to wield the mop a little more. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rushing to wield the mop is just as bad, if not worse, than taking too long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a little obvious. This does appear serious (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Several articles which I think deserve attention in regards to this problem:

• Mass in B minor structure
• Sparrow Mass
• Hans-Joachim Hessler

there are others. Also, re: Bearian, I was certainly not discounting your thoughts - in fact I very much agree, I'd just prefer to hear all sides before dropping any hammers on folks. (per Ed and not wishing to rush to judgement on any topic). — Ched :  ?  21:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing has a long history of aggressively pushing infoboxes in articles against the objections of those writing the articles, in many cases edit-warring or being incivil in his efforts. Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox and Talk:Cosima_Wagner/Archive_1#Infobox are among many examples, going back years, of these actions. He has continued to argue in the face of strong consensus against his position (for example at Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring#Infobox) and has a history of refusing efforts to compromise (see for example the last few posts at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Hessler - a compromise was suggested, I agreed, Andy rejected it entirely) or answer good-faith questions (see for example Talk:Little_Moreton_Hall#Infobox, right before the "Re-Start" heading). As the ArbCom decision Andy cites makes clear, the use of contributions to address related issues on multiple articles is appropriate if done in good faith and for good cause, both of which I believe apply in this case (and many editors agree that Andy's behaviour has been problematic, although some do not). As is clear from the list Andy provides, most of my changes have been simple fixes of his formatting - removing blank parameters, delinking common terms, etc - while others have involved instances where Andy has been unable or unwilling to justify his changes (see for example Talk:St_Mary's,_Bryanston_Square). The two discussions on my talk page also demonstrate that I have explained my reasoning civilly to Andy on multiple occasions and that he has refused to discuss the issue with me. It is not my intention to cause stress for Andy, but I would appreciate it if he would stop causing stress for other editors and make more of an effort to work with others and find means of compromising, whether or not he agrees with the opinions of other editors. I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this, needs to be aware that User:Pigsonthewing has been literally causing problems with infoboxes for years. It's understandable that someone would monitor his edits in this area more closely than usual. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone reading your comment likely wonders why you choose not to sign-in to voice your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nikki: re: "I would be quite happy to agree to leave alone any article that he has written, if that would help us to move forward. " - I think that would go a LONG way towards moving forward here. Would you be willing to extend the same courtesy to Gerda?

Now, the infamous "info box wars" are not going to be resolved in this thread - but I offer this: I think it's a common courtesy that would serve the project well to allow the principle author of an article the choice in many formatting areas; including the choice to include or exclude an infobox. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't want to start breach WP:3RR rule, I'm reporting here User:David-golota disruptive behaviour in List of Polish football champions article. He simply copypasted a content from Ekstraklasa[48] article and put into existing list[49] which include all Polish championships (not Ekstraklasa only), and also includes second and third places like you can see there[50]. So now, the list of champions is incomplete, there are no champions from 1946 and 1947 listed and there are no runners-up and third places like in other similar lists: List of German football champions or List of English football champions. Also two other tables he copypasted from Ekstraklasa articles [51] are incomplate as they don't include Polish champions from 1921-26 and 1946-47 when Ekstraklasa was not played.

Also this user is not able to comunicate in civil way and always personal attacks me in his comments like[52], [53], [54] or User_talk:Oleola#Not_the_BOSS.--Oleola (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind people that this complaint seems to have been left unresolved due to the unrelated drama below? From a quick look, it appears that User:Oleola's complaint is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic diversion regarding a troll

The accused user is currently being invesigated and we will get back to you shortly. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Investigated by whom? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) AlldiRessie (talk · contribs) looks like a troll. The account is two days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a troll, and the investigation will be investigated by us, the Wikipedians. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who complained about the use of "you're" is going to investigate? No thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bwilkins, please be civil. Pointing out these silly points is childish. Lets go back on track. I am investigating this matter, just give me some time. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am being civil - this is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. You've been here for 2 days, have caused a ruckus, insulted people, told people they need mentoring because they used a contraction on their talkpage, and now you're leading an investigation? Seriously - step back. Your comments may be welcome, but you're not the "investigator", so don't tell people to back off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting text on User:AlldiRessies user page: "User:Kauffner is my friend. I am a product of User:Kauffner and his team of sockpuppets". Thomas.W (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This warning on my talkpage is also interesting ... the sheer lack of a clue here is overwhelming (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [55]. Faking posts by Jimbo Wales? Clueless beyond belief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and that is the nail in the coffin. Indeffed. Someone disagree, go ahead and change it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]