위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive821

유대계 미국인 사기꾼 목록

WP:사용자에 의한 TPNO 위반:SpecificO

WP:TPNO 위반 및 대응:

• 이 디프 [1]에서 사용자:SpecificO는 사용자를 식별하거나 개인적으로 공격하는 오프위키 블로그 링크를 게시했다.캐롤무어덱.
• 링크는 여기에서 내가 삭제했으며 [2] WP에 대한 SIRECTO에 대한 경고:TPNO(개인 세부사항 & NPA)는 여기에 게시되었다. [3].
• SpecificO는 여기서 오프위키 블로그 공격의 제거를 되돌렸다. [4].
• 그는 또 다른 기고자로부터 두 번째 경고를 받았다: [5].
• 오프위키 논평은 여기서 두번째로 삭제되었다. [6].
• Specifico는 그 후 자신의 토크 페이지에 있는 경고에 응답했지만, WP 정책의 심각한 위반에 대해 전혀 뉘우치지 않는 것 같다.(또한 내가 자신의 직책에서 NPA 자료를 제거한 후 개인적으로 했던 TP 발언의 변경을 도모했다.)

그의 제안대로 행정조치를 강구한다. – S. 리치(토크) 18:56, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 또한 위키백과의 위반이다.사용자에게 언급한 중재/팔레스타인-이스라엘 기사 요청:이전까지의 SpecificO.제재를 부과하려면 편집자에게 경고를 받아야 하는지 모르겠다.Carolmoordec (Talkie-Talkie) 19:01, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Specifico의 게시물이 단순히 CMDC를 향했기 때문에 이 제재가 어떻게 적용되는지 모르겠다.NPA & BLP 위반 자체만으로도 이러한 추가 주름 없이 관리자 조치가 가능하다. – S. Rich (대화) 19:10, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[답글]

이스라엘 팔레스타인 문제에 대한 불친절은 항상 관련이 있다.또한 위의 SpecificO 요금에 대한 내 필요한 회신을 이 디프에서 확인하십시오.우리는 위키피디아에 대한 익명의 비방자 공격으로부터 스스로를 방어할 필요가 없다.(생각해보니, 이 인용문이 정확한지도 모르겠어!!!)캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키) 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC) 19:41, 응답

아아, 또 다른 실이 궤도를 벗어나고 있는 것 같다.AQFK가 궁극적인 결과가 될지는 모르지만, Specifico의 블로그 게시물(또는 내가 이 문제를 제기하는 것이 "사설적인" 것인지) 문제는 다룰 수 없다.Specifico는 캐롤무어드크의 실생활 정체성이 알려져 있다는 말로만 자신을 변호하고 있으며, 그가 그녀에 대해 오프위키 블로그 링크를 게시하는 것을 어떻게든 허락했다고 주장한다.도대체 어떻게 그런 게시물이 그녀의 온위키 행동을 개선하려고 하는지는 내 능력 밖이다.어서, 순찰하는 관리자들, 이 단 하나의 예에서 Specifico가 한 일을 살펴보고 적절한 의견을 제시하거나 조치를 취하십시오.– S. 리치 (대화) 20:21, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 동의합니다, 관리자 여러분, 관리자 여러분.알란스코트워커 (대화)20:57, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 동의해. 나는 바로 아래의 ArbCom 토론으로 가서 여기서 diff를 조사하지 않았어.나는 지금 그것을 보았고 우리는 여기서 심한 괴롭힘의 영역에 있다; 편집은 다시 작성되어야 한다/과대시되어야 하고 적어도 게시 사용자에게 경고가 있어야 한다.이슬릴자 (토크) 21:11, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 동의하지 않는다.링크를 게시하는 것은 미개한 일이었기 때문에 볼 수 없었다.그러나 사용자 캐롤은 계속해서 위키피디아에서 자신을 '아웃'하고 밝혀왔기 때문에, SIRECTO가 캐롤의 '오프위키' 정체성을 전면에 내세우려 했다는 것을 암시한 것은 대단히 오해가 크다(그녀는 이미, 이 일을 반복해서 했다).Use SIRECTIONO는 물론 유대인과 트랜스젠더에 대한 캐롤의 진술을 포함하여 캐롤의 위키 행동에 대한 그의 견해를 들을 자격이 있다.(트랜스(트랜스) 여성으로서의 나의 자기 정체성에 대해 캐럴은 트렌스(trans) 여성은 여성이 아니라는 명제에 바친 페이지인 워민(womyn)과 연결해 노골적으로 나를 폄하했다. 또한 그녀는 이와 관련하여 분명하게 언급된 나의 바람에도 불구하고 남성 대명사로 나를 거듭 언급해 왔다.Steletrap (대화) 00:49, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

내 상상일까 아니면 내가 사악한 거물이 아니라는 걸 증명해야 하는 현장에선 전혀 다른 혐의를 발견하지 못했을까?누군가가 그것에 대해 ANI를 해야 하는가?

다시 말하지만, 내가 내 자신을 변호하지 않는다면 사람들은 그것이 사실이라고 생각할 것이다.스티레트랩이 말했듯이 "지스"에 나오는 것은 말도 안 되는 소리였지만 다른 것들은 찾아보지 않으려 한다는 것을 안다.대화 참조:빌_클린턴#의혹들, 스티레트랩과 SPECIALTO가 갑자기 등장해 섹션 헤더를 제거해야 한다고 선언한 빌 클린턴에 대한 성관계 의혹 논의에 대한 섹션 헤더 제거 논의.스티레트랩은 그 시점에서 자랑스러운 M-t-F인지 F-t-M인지 분명히 선언하지 않았고, 나는 나 자신의 자부심을 표현하고 있었다.나중에 나는 워민 태생의 워민 기사를 좀더 주의 깊게 살펴봤고 그것이 서툴게 소싱되어 있다는 것을 알게 되었고 페미니스트들(또는 다른 명백한 누구라도?)이 관련 이슈에 대해 질문하거나 토론하는 것이 허용되지 않는다는 편견을 반영하고 있으며, 그들이 시도한다면 그들은 거물이고, 피해야 하고, 해고되어야 하며, 위키피디아나 그 어떤 것이든 간에 거부당해야 한다.이것은 다수의 관련 기사에 문제가 있다.캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키) 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC) 17:30 [응답]

자신을 방어하는 게 아니라 다른 사람을 공격하는 겁니다.당신이 성전환자들에 대한 편협함으로 선을 넘은 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.마지막이 될 수 있어?마일즈머니 (대화)20:49, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

참고

만약 캐롤이 그녀의 위키백과 계정을 그녀의 개인적이고 온라인상의 정체성과 구별되는 것으로 유지하려는 시도가 조금이라도 있었다면, 아마도 이 불평은 어떤 장점이 있을 것이다.하지만 그녀는 그렇지 않기 때문에 그렇지 않다.그녀가 깨끗한 손을 가지고 여기에 온다면 그것은 또한 도움이 될 것이다.대신 그녀의 보도는 분명히 그녀를 차단한 Specifico의 지원에 대한 보복이다.이 지지는 그녀가 그와 다른 사람들에 대한 계속되는 인신공격 때문이다.전반적으로, 이것은 그녀의 피해자를 공격한 공격자일 뿐이며, WP는 다음과 같이 해야 한다.부메랑. 마일즈머니 (대화) 23:16, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

[삽입] - FYI, 인신공격을 피하기 위해 손잡이를 바꾸고 싶지만, 위키피디아는 당신이 전에 누구였는지를 인정하게 하고, 사람들은 어쨌든 그것을 알아내기 위해 여기저기 돌아다닐 텐데, 왜 귀찮을까?제발 그런 허황된 주장을 하지 마라.캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키) 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC) 17:30 [응답]

Specifico가 올린 두 개의 오프위키 스레드는 오스트리아 경제학과 관련하여 최근 논란이 되고 있는 게시물이 나오기 훨씬 전인 2009년과 2011년 것이다.이러한 오프위키 코멘트에 링크를 게시하는 것은 부적절했다.그러나 되돌리고 경고가 발령된 후 그 게시물을 반복해서 게시하면 성공한다.그리고 지금 무슨 일이야?우리는 캐롤무어드크가 보복했다는 혐의를 받고 있다.디파티노를 용서하는 거야?– S. 리치 (대화) 23:32, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

@MilesMoney.그 링크된 사이트는 매우 불쾌하고 심지어 캐롤과 그녀의 가족에 대한 죽음의 소원을 포함하고 있다.다른 사용자보다 죽음을 바라는 블로그에 링크를 올려도 괜찮다고 생각하는 사용자들은 위키피디아에 설 자리가 없다.이 게시물에 대한 링크가 다시 삭제되지 않았고 포스터에 엄격한 행정 경고가 내려진 것은 내가 위키피디아에서 경험했던 것 중 가장 당황스러운 단 한 가지다.나는 이전에 CarolMoore가 위키피디아에서 직접적인 위협을 받는 것을 본 적이 있다; 이 악플러들이 특별히 여성을 쫓는 것은 매우 전형적이다.게시물에 대해 아무런 조치도 취하지 않는 한, 위키피디아는 사용자들에게, 특히 여성에게 안전한 장소가 아니다.안녕, 이슬릴자 (대화) 00:01, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 계신 분 중에 Specifico가 이 게시물에 책임이 있다고 주장하는 분?만약 그렇지 않다면, 왜 우리는 메신저 탓을 하는 거지?게다가, 그의 목표는 그녀의 오프위키 활동이 어떻게 그녀의 온위키 활동과 관련이 있는지 보여주는 것이었다. 다른 것은 모두 부수적인 것이었다.링크를 제거할 이유가 없었기 때문에 링크를 복원하지 않을 이유가 없다.

나는 너의 의견이 좀 과장되지 않고 대신 WP를 준수한다면 고맙겠다.NPA. Specifico를 불특정 일반적 여성 혐오와 연관시키려는 데는 절대 근거가 없으며, 캐롤의 행동 문제가 성별과 아무런 관련이 없다는 것은 꽤 분명하다.Specifico가 아무도 위협하지 않는 것은 확실하다.내가 여기서 보는 것은 여러 가지 부정적인 것들이 모두 아무런 관계가 없을 때 스펙포코와 연관시키려 하는 엽총 접근법이다.나는 Specifico에 대한 일련의 인신공격에 대해 매우 역겹다고 생각하고 즉시 그것을 수정해 줄 것을 요구한다.마일즈머니 (대화) 00:12, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 그 링크는 명백한 NPA와 BLP 위반이다.그들은 연계되어서는 안되며 링크업자는 그것을 알아야 한다.그래 그는 그 쓰레기와 연관지을 책임이 있다.알란스코트워커 (대화) 00:19, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

언제부터 여기서 NPA와 BLP가 시행되는가?아무도 캐롤의 반복적이고 지속적인 두 가지 위반에 대해 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같은데, 이것이 시투시의 보고서와 그에 따른 Specifico의 반응을 이끌어 낸 이유인데, 왜 우리는 지금 갑자기 신경을 쓰는 것일까?그들이 불편할 때마다 무시해도 우리가 규칙을 따르는 척하는 건 별로 의미가 없어, 안 그래?이것은 한심한 농담이고 나는 그것에 대해 헛소리를 한다.마일즈머니 (대화) 00:57, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

때때로 '악마가 내게 시켰어' 방어가 잘 되지 않는다.알란스코트워커 (대화) 01:03, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

@MilesMoney: 만약 당신이 내가 인신공격에 대해 현재 위에 보이는 실에서 CMDC를 보고한 나의 이유라고 다시 한 번 주장하려고 한다면, 나는 지역 사회에 당신에 대해 뭔가를 할 것을 요청할 것이다.나는 그것을 말하지 않았고, 나는 그것을 말하지 않았다고 설명했고 나는 CMDC의 물건들이 미개하거나 공격적이라고 생각하지 않는다. 내 요점은 그녀가 약간의 차이를 만들어내고 그래서 일을 계속 진행시킴으로써 해결된 그것의 거만함이었다.만약 그것이 사태를 진정시키는 데 필요한 것이라면, 여러분 대부분이 금지된 주제에 대해 투표할 수 있도록 하는 것은 사실 등을 왜곡하는 것이다.현재 관련된 모든 사람의 참여를 제한하고 기사와 관련된 문제를 새로운 그룹에 의해 언제 다루게 하는 것이 이 프로젝트의 가장 좋은 일일 때가 있다.너의 꽤 분명한 목표를 달성하기 위한 방법으로 나를 이용하지 말아줘.Specifico와 Steelletrap도 마찬가지다.나는 이 경주에 말은 없지만, 너희들은 나를 링거 같은 존재로 그곳에 가두려고 하고 있다. - 시투시(토크) 01:49, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[답답하다]

무어 씨는 이미 아웃이 된 거 아니에요?그녀가 위키백과 페이지를 편집한 것*을 통해 (그리고 이것이 그녀의 페이지라는 것을 인정함), 그리고 그녀가 위키백과에서 했던 개인적인 발언들을 공유한 것 - 그녀의 이름과 성, 위치, 웹사이트, 그리고 개인 사진을 공개하는 것은 말할 것도 없고 - 무어씨는 이미 위키백과에서 자신을 "식별"하지 않았는가?나는 이곳의 상황이 익명의 이름을 가진 누군가가 "아웃"된 경우와는 많이 다르다고 생각한다.* 나는 이러한 편집이 수년 전이었다는 것을 인정하지만, 나는 그것이 관련이 없다고 생각한다; 그녀는 WP에서 자신을 밝히기로 결정했다.)Steletrap (토크) 00:24, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그녀가 WP나 다른 곳에서 자신을 밝힌 것은 문제가 아니다.이 위반은 Specifico가 심하게 비하하는 블로그 댓글의 링크를 게시했을 때 발생했다.그는 그녀에 대한 특별한 개인적인 세부사항을 게시하는 것을 허락하지 않았다.개인 댓글을 다시 올리면 인플레가 더 심해졌다. – S. 리치(토크) 00:32, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 볼 때, 그는 그녀의 견해를 매우 신랄하게 비판하는 기사를 게재했다.확실히 미개한 것이었다.그러나 그것은 외출에 해당되지 않았고, 정말로 우리가 정기적으로 캐럴에게서 보는 것 보다 그리 나쁜 것은 아니었다.48시간 블록이 부과되고 댓글이 철회된 상황에서 추가 처벌을 추진하는 것은 징벌적이고 무익해 보인다.Steletrap (대화) 00:42, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

오스트리아 경제 - ArbCom을 위한 시간인가?

몇 달 전(혹은 그 정도) 오스트리아 경제 토픽 스페이스와 관련해 공동체가 '일반 제재'를 제정했다.그러나, 이 실과 위의 실이 흔들리지 않고 계속 분쟁이 격해지고 있다(WP:ANI#Tendhy_referencing_of_other_people.27s_190) 증명하다.제재는 이 주제 공간을 순찰하는 데 관심이 있는 관리자들의 부족으로 인해 실패했다.지역사회가 이 분쟁을 해결할 능력이 있는지 물어볼 때가 된 것 같은데 그렇지 않다면 ArbCom이 개입해야 하는 것인가?지식탐구 (대화) 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC) 19:31 [응답]

Srich가 쓴 이것과 같은 확실한 ANI는 도움이 되지 않는다.캐롤 무어는 이곳에 온 첫날부터 자신의 실생활의 정체성, 개인 홈페이지 URL, 사진, 기타 개인 정보를 자유롭게 공유해 왔다.Srich는 최근에 특정 WP 기사의 주제와 관계가 실패하여 COI가 있었는지에 대한 약간의 논의가 있었고, 이전에 자신과 자신의 삶과 일에 대한 두 개의 WP 기사에 대한 논의가 있었기 때문에 알고 있다. 2013년 11월 30일(UTC) 19:42, SIRECTO 토크[응답]

아마도.그저 함께 잘 놀지 못하는 핵심 편집자들이 있는 것 같다.상호 작용 금지와 주제 금지가 순서인 것 같다.- MrX 19:45, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

다시 말하지만, SIRECTO의 암시는 다른 것을 볼 때 과장되거나 더 나쁜 것으로 증명된다.거의 7.5년 동안 편집한 사람을 비난하기 위해 1, 2년 간의 noobie 실수를 사용하지 마십시오.게다가 내 첫 6개월쯤의 바보같은 바이오 작업을 한 나의 실수도 내가 나중에 AfD'd를 보게 되어 기쁘다고 누군가 나에게 쓴 글이었다.게다가 왜 30년 전 기사의 주제를 알고 토론하는 '이해충돌' 게시판을 숨기는가 하면 스티레트랩은 교직원 고문이 이 사람들을 조사해 보자고 제안했다는 사실과 그들이 한동안 석사논문의 주제였다는 사실에 대해 논한다.30년 묵은 뉴스나 올해 석사 논문 같은 이해충돌은 또 뭐가 있을까?캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키) 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC) 19:57[응답]

나는 한동안 이것이 Arbcom으로 향하고 있다는 것을 느꼈다.나는 우리가 일반적인 제재의 적절한 사용으로 그것을 피할 수 있을 것이라고 생각한다.그것들은 별로 쓰이지 않은 것 같고, 그것은 누구보다도 내 잘못인 것 같다.이곳은 행정가로서 활동하기 어려운 영역이다.어쨌든, 만약 누군가가 이것을 진행하기를 원한다면, 나는 Arbcom의 순위 변화로 인해 2014년까지 제출하는 것을 제안할 것이다.마크 아르스텐 (대화)20:02, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 항상 짧은 블록을 더 많이 하면 편집자들이 깨어날 것이라고 말해왔다.만약 SIRECTO와 Stelletrap 그리고 MilesMoney가 이 두 실에서 그들의 행동의 비례 블록을 얻는다면, 나는 제공된 실제 관련 디프프에 대해 24시간 또는 48시간 블록을 가져가는 것이 기쁘다.Arbcom을 기다리는 것보다 문제를 해결하는 것이 훨씬 더 쉽다.캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키)20:06, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 응. 2014년에 새로 출시된 ArbCom의 첫 사례 중 하나일 것 같아.재량적 제재가 큰 도움이 되지 않은 것 같다.티파티 운동 사건에서 문제의 핵심이었고, 위원회가 일련의 주제 금지(현재 그 글에서 별로 활동이 없는)를 발표함으로써 결국 해결했던 고착된 갈등을 떠올리게 하는 상황이다.어떤 면에서는 오스트리아 경제 기사의 상황이 TPM의 상황보다 더 심각하고, 더 큰 정도는 BLP 문제를 수반하기 때문에 걱정스럽다고 생각한다.지속적인 갈등이 항상 문제지만, 민감한 BLP 문제가 관련되었을 때 특히 그렇다; BLP 문제는 자신감을 고취시키고 분쟁자들 간의 내분에 시달리지 않는 위엄 있는 방식으로 논의된다는 것은 확고하다.이슬릴자 (대화)20:18, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것이 "진정한 전문가"인 성리학의 다른 싸움을 생각나게 한다고 생각하고 있었다.너무 개인적인.너무 긴 기간. -- 알란스코트워커 (대화) 20:52, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 행정관들이 이와 같은 명확한 분야에서 지역사회의 제재를 집행할 의사가 없다면, 왜 지역사회의 제재를 아예 만들어내려고 애쓰는가?SICTIRECTO의 과거 고발 패턴, 그에 대한 나의 경고, 그리고 현재 공격을 WP에 전달해야 하는가?ARBPIA는 관리자가 작은 경고에도 지역사회 제재를 시행하지 않으려 하기 때문인가?그리고 편집 제한을 잊지 말고 BLP를 반복적으로 위반하는 사람들을 로그에 기록하자.그것은 또한 기존의 제재에도 불구하고 반복적으로 제기되었고 무시되었다.

나는 그들이 사람들에게 경고하고 차단할 때 많은 슬픔을 가져야만 하는 관리자들 때문에 그것을 비난하는 것이 아니다.나는 위키미디어 재단이 가장 더러운 일을 하기 위해 관리자들에게 돈을 지불할 방법을 찾아야 한다고 생각한다.나쁜 편집자(혹은 내가 몇 년 동안 그래왔듯이 나쁜 편집자에 저항하고 게시판으로 끌고 가는 등 '논란'을 일으키는 사람들)는 좋은 편집자 떼를 몰아냈다.언젠가 티핑 포인트가 있을 것이고 나쁜 편집자들이 너무 많은 기사를 압도해서 위키피디아...네 상상에 맡기렴Carolmoordec (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

지역사회 제재를 시행하지 않는 관리자들이 아르브컴만 남은 이유다.그러니까, 몇 달 더 끙끙 앓는 것과 운동하는 것 사이의 유일한 것은 지금 관리자들이 나서서 하는 겁니다.알란스코트워커 (대화) 21:12, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

일이 이런 식으로 흘러가는 것은 바라지 않지만 오스트리아 경제가 아르브컴으로 가는 것은 불가피할 것 같아 두렵다.개인적으로 나의 가장 큰 관심사는 오스트리아의 핵심 기사가 아니라 다른 콘텐츠를 전파하고 감염시키는 방식이다.보브레이너 (토크) 22:25, 2013년 11월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

문제를 해결하기 위해 앞으로 나아가지 않고 6~7회, 계속 확장되는 편집자 수 AN/I에 주제를 가져온 후, ARBCOM이 논리적인 다음 단계라고 생각한다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 나는 기사 자체에 대해 전혀 많은 것을 하지 않은 채 이 두 가지 "측면"을 위해 노력해왔다. 나는 지금 알고 있다. 그래서 나의 역할은 주로 중립적이고 매우 가끔 외부인으로서 되어 왔다. 거의 의사/능력/무관한 관리자들이 없는 상황에서, 사이비 관리자 역할이었다.주제 영역은 점점 더 독성이 강해지고 있다.그렇기는 하지만, Arbcom의 과도기적인 단계는 몇 주 동안 그 제안의 어떤 것도 나오지 않을 것이라는 것을 의미한다.몇 주가 없는 것보다는 낫지만, 이 날로 확대되는 혼란의 규모에서, 일부 관리자들이 제재 시스템을 사용하여 현재 몇몇 문제들을 해결하려고 할 수 있다면 정말 도움이 될 것이다.이 모든 것이 말해졌다. 만약 ArbCom에 가게 된다면, 제발 나를 이 케이스에 넣지 말아줘. - 나는 더 이상 혼란에 빠질 생각이 없고, ArbCom의 결정이 놀랄 수 있다는 것을 잘 알고 있어.이에 비해 카스트 관련 기사는 지금 당장 공원에서 산책하는 것처럼 보인다. - 시투시(토크) 02:05, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 ANI에서 ArbCom으로 너무 빨리 이동하는 것이 바람직하지 않고 아마도 불필요하다고 느낀다.특정 편집자에 대한 제재가 적절한지, 일반 제재 체제를 통해서든 아니면 국내에서 정상적인 커뮤니티 절차를 통해서든 제재가 가능한지 검토해야 한다.--악마의 옹호자_{tlk. cntrb.} 07:42, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 당신에게 제재를 가하는 자원봉사를 하고 있는가?아니면 당신이 반대하는 모든 사람들을 도와서 자원봉사를 하고 있는가?마일즈머니 (대화) 07:51, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 분쟁의 대부분은 생활인 정책(RSN, NPOVN, ORN, ANI 등 포함)과 관련된 WP:생존인재 정책이며 단순히 난해한 경제 문제만이 아님을 나는 모든 관계자들에게 지적하고 싶다.따라서 BLP 문제를 시정하려는 사람들을 그 과정에 똑같이 파괴적인 것처럼 금지함으로써 BLP의 많은 부분을 공격기사로 남겨두는 것은 다소 역효과적인 것으로 보인다. 또는 협회/체리학(context particle)과 비판에 의한 죄책감으로 가득 찬 큰 논제를 담은 기사들.s BLP 주제를 폄하해야 하며 모든 개인은 심지어 BLP 주제와 느슨하게 연관되어 있다.오히려 원래 ANI 포스팅의 주제가 되는 불만처럼 말이다.캐롤무어드스크 (토키-토키) 13:57, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자들이 주제에 대한 깊은 이해 없이 유용한 기여를 할 수 있는 과목들이 있다.오스트리아 경제학이 그런 과목 중 하나라고는 보이지 않는다.우리가 어렵게 배운 것은 선의지만 무식한 편집자들이 특히 깊이 편향된 출처를 편견 없는 것으로 취급함으로써 이러한 기사들을 엉망으로 만든다는 것이다.반면에, 박식하지만 필연적으로 편향된 편집자들은 피할 수 없는 편견을 극복하는 타협에 도달할 수 없는 것처럼 보인다.

여기에는 이유가 있지만, 블록과 금지의 위협에 특별히 순응할 수 없는 콘텐츠 분쟁으로 귀결된다.타는 듯한 대지 접근은 단지 더 많은 무지와 함께 그 주기를 재설정할 뿐이므로 더 많은 편견을 갖게 될 것이다.여기서 정책은 희박하고, 섬나라적이고, 상호 적대적인 근원의 특성상 별로 도움이 되지 않는다.더 나쁜 것은 WP에 대한 지속적인 남용이다.BLP, WP:RS 및 WP:기사를 검열하고 편집자를 해치는 것도 아니다.그럼에도 불구하고 문제는 국민이 아닌 주제에 뿌리를 두고 있다: WP 정책은 오스트리아 경제를 도저히 다룰 수 없다.

ArbCom이 정답인지는 모르겠지만, 나는 그들과 함께한 경험이 없지만, 이곳의 "커뮤니티" 개입과 같은 불규칙적인 채널은커녕 정기적인 분쟁해결 채널이 훨씬 잘하는 것 같지는 않다.다른 방법이 먹히거나 먹힐 것 같지도 않으니까 시도해 볼 가치가 있을 것 같아.마일즈머니(토크) 17:06, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI에서 나에 대한 지속적인 공격

나는 이 ANI가 여전히 열려 있다는 것을 알고 있고, 차단한 관리자가 그들의 토크 페이지에서 계속되는 공격에 대한 나의 질문에 대답하기 위해 온라인에 접속하지 않았다는 것을 안다.그래서 이 ANI가 다른 사람에 의해 폐쇄되기 전에, Steeltrap과 MilesMoney가 이 ANI에서 나를 계속 공격한 것에 대한 나의 반대 의견을 주목하고자 한다.그러한 인신공격과 주장(또는 주제에서 벗어난 증거/확실성 및/또는 조작된 증거 및/또는 조작된 주장)은 편협성에 대한 의심스럽거나 거짓된 비난에 관한 이스라엘-팔레스타인 중재와 성리학 중재에 모두 반대한다.기사토크 페이지나 다른 기사에 이런 것들이 계속될 경우에 대비해서 두 편집자의 토크 페이지에 그런 비공식적인 경고를 해야 할 것 같고 어느 쪽이든 한 가지 이상의 사례를 개설해야 할 것 같다.Carolmoordec (토키-토키) 14:50, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI의 주된 목적 중 하나는 비난의 가느다란 변장 아래 인신공격을 용이하게 하는 것이다. EricCorbett 14:55, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

Ditto ArbCom.Anythingyyouwant (대화) 15:01, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

ArbCom의 잠재적인 개입이 이 섹션이 아직 열려 있는 주된 이유인 것 같다.캐롤의 경고에 대해서는, 내 토크 페이지의 반응이 모든 것을 말해준다고 믿는다.마일즈머니(토크) 18:34, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

공격이란 무엇인가?당신이 기본적으로 "그래, 캐롤은 내 친구들이 말하는 것처럼 거물이야"라고 반복하는 것은, 특히 주장된 증거가 편집자의 한 블록으로 이어지고 나머지는 존재하지 않거나 과장되었을 때, 인신공격이다.

내가 당신의 토크 페이지에 남긴 공지는 이러한 중재가 존재한다는 사용자 공식 통지다. (그것만이 내가 당신의 페이지에 게시할 수 있는 유일한 것이다.)관리자용 템플릿은 없는 것 같아.

그러나 이러한 종류의 공격에 대해 ANI에 몇 개의 블록이 있거나 공격이 정말로 고약한 경우가 아니면 그러한 중재는 일반적으로 시행되지 않는다.이 제재는 24시간 블록에서 모든 종류의 성 문제나 이스라엘-팔레스타인 문제에 관한 기사에 대한 작업을 금지하는 것(개인은 한 가지 기사의 주제 영역에서 편협한 주장을 하고 있었고 나중에 섹스나 이스라엘-팔레스타인 관련 기사에 그러한 행동을 가져올 수도 있기 때문), W의 영구적인 금지까지 이어질 수 있다.이키피디아그것은 물론 관리자들의 몫일 것이다.

어쨌든, 그게 내가 얻을 수 있는 거야.내가 위에서 연결한 두 편집자 모두 잘한 것도 없고 WP:Sanctions와 WP:General Restrictions 또한 약간 모호하고 다소 모순이 있는 것 같으니, 노하우 편집자들은 이 모든 것을 더 잘 설명하는 페이지를 얼마든지 공유하십시오.아, 오픈소스 위키의 즐거움...Carolmoordec (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• OP에 의해 (이 WP를 개시한 사람:TPNO ANI).내 생각에 이 ANI는 폐쇄적이다.특정 편집자의 특정 편집 행동에 대한 구체적인 불만이 제기되었다.조치가 취해졌다.분명히, 위의 첫 번째 하위 스레드는 실제로 다른 주제에 관한 것이다. 즉, 편집자 상호 작용으로 인해 Arbcom 액션이 통과될 가능성이다.(별도의 나사산/단면으로 구문 분석해야 한다.)이 두 번째 서브스레드는 원래 실과는 전혀 관계가 없다.그러나 디프가 지지하지 않는 같은 종류의 말다툼이 일어나고 있다.이 전 구간은 한 번에 폐쇄할 것을 권고한다. – S. 리치(토크) 04:15, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

매직키린11

AGF는 이런 상황에 적용되는가?

이것은 현재 진행 중인 삭푸펫 농장의 소질과 극단적인 홍보 어젠다를 가지고 있다.[[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]].이전에 버킷에서 지옥으로 알려진 사용자(대화) 07:00, 2013년 12월 2일(UTC)[응답]

무슨 말인지 모르겠다.그 링크들은 그의 토크 페이지로 연결될 뿐이고 그는 어떠한 기여도 하지 않았고 심지어 삭제된 것도 하지 않았다.대릴골든^(talk) 07:05, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 이름은 모두 홍보용이고, 여러 계정의 특성은 그들이 양말 맞추기 위해 사용될 것임을 나타낸다.나는 단지 이 상황에 대해 선의를 가질 이유가 너무 많다고 생각하지 않는다.이전에 버킷에서 지옥으로 알려졌던 사용자 (토크) 07:11, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

<- 어쩌면 이것은 링크보다 더 선명할지도 모른다.

• Bcparttimeofflianjobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 바크파트타임오필리안잡 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimeofflnejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimeoflinejob (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimeoflinejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimeoflnejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

숀.호이랜드 -토크 07:22, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

기여도를 쉽게 확인할 수 있게 해준다. DLOhcierkim 08:38, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

AGF는 항상 선험을 적용한다.우리는 누군가가 우리를 순진하다고 증명하기를 기다린다.어쨌든, 이 중 어느 것도 기여를 하지 못했다.WP:UAA는 내 영역은 아니지만, 무엇보다도 사용자들을 참여시켜 달라고 부탁하는 것 같아.HiaB가 나한테 물어봤는데 내가 여기로 데려오자고 했어 왜냐면 너무 많거든 그리고 난 다른 약속이 있었거든그래도 전단 번호... 사용자 계정이 생성되면 어떻게 볼 수 있는지 알고 있었다.어쩌면 그것이 우리의 어둠을 밝혀줄지도 모른다.무슨 일로 오셨습니까? DLOhcierkim 08:45, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

'로그' 링크를 참조하십시오.그것들은 모두 오늘 만들어진 것이다.숀.호이랜드 -토크 08:49, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

도, 어, 고마워.상기 내용이 필요했다..08:55, 2013년 12월 2일(UTC) — DLOhcierkim이 추가한 서명되지 않은 이전 설명(대화 • 기여)

개인적으로 나는 이런 경우에 agf가 막히든 말든 간에 나는 나중에 블록이 대부분의 사람들에게 좋은 것이 아니라고 생각하는 것을 이해한다.나는 현실적으로 이것으로부터 별로 좋은 점이 없다고 본다.이전에 버킷에서 지옥으로 알려진 사용자(대화) 14:38, 2013년 12월 2일(UTC)[응답]

나는 그것에 동의할 수 있다.최소한 사용자 이름 시스템을 사용하여 키워드를 사용하려는 시도는 의심스럽다.이 모든 것들이 "BC 파트타임 오프라인 작업"의 다양한 오타인 것 같다.나는 이것이 바로 예방차단이 적절한 행동이라고 생각한다.—/Mendaliv//^2¢_Δ's 17:01, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 나는 우리가 이 농장에 더 많은 계좌를 가지고 있는 것 같다는 것을 주목할 것이다.

• Bcparttimeofflinejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimeofflinejob (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

그 두 개의 계정이 만들어진 시간을 고려하면, 동일인이 많은 계정을 만드는 데 상당한 시간을 들였을 가능성은 크지 않은 것으로 보인다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 17:06, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

(볼루션되지 않은 편집기의 설명)그것들은 모두 같은 날에 만들어졌다.보통 IP 블록이 면제되지 않는 한 하루에 6개 이상의 계정을 만들 수 없다.여기 뭔가 수상하다.에픽게니우스 (토크) 17:20, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 생성 로그를 살펴본 결과 다음과 같은 몇 가지 추가 정보가 있다.

• 비파르티메다엔트레잡스 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 비파르트메다엔트리잡스 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• BCparttimataentrejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 비파르티메다엔트레잡 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 브콜리아네조프 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 보플리안잡 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 브콜리아네잡스 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 브코플레인잡스 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 브코플레인잡 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimedataentaljobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimataentrijobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• BCparttimedataentrijob (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• BCparttimedataentaljob (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• BCpartimehomaejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• BCpartimehomaejob (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Bcparttimehmejobs (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

그리고 더 많은.계속 나열하지는 않겠지만 12월 1일 0200 UTC 전후로 돌아간다.그들은 모두 의 패턴을 따르는 것 같다.^Bc.+jobs?$ 그리고 어느 누구도 기여를 하지 못하는 것 같다.가장 오래된 것은 Bcfulltimmejobs(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그)인 것 같다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 18:53, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

와우... 이거 본 사람 있어?내 생각에 내가 과민반응하고 있는 걸까?이전에 버킷에서 지옥으로 알려진 사용자(대화) 19:13, 2013년 12월 2일(UTC)[응답]

사용자 생성 로그를 주시하고 있지만 이 ANI 스레드가 시작되기 전에 이 작업을 중지한 것 같다.마지막 것은 12월 2일 UTC 0547년에 만들어진 Bcparttimeoflianjob이다.그로부터 15시간이 조금 넘었다.계정 생성 스프라이스 블록 간의 차이로 판단하여, 이를 수행하는 사람은 6-in-24시간 규칙에 의해 조절되고 있지만, 아마도 새로운 IP로 이동함으로써 이를 회피하고 있을 것이다(최소한 한 번은 6이 아닌 7개의 계정이 무단으로 존재함).나는 아직 다른 새로운 패턴을 발견하지 못했다.^Bc.+jobs?$하지만 새로운 패턴이 생겨도 여전히 잘 맞을 것 같아jobs?$(후자에 기반한 필터나 규칙이 자동으로 적용되기 위해 허용할 수 없는 수의 잘못된 긍정을 발생시킨다는 것은 분명해야 한다.)한 가지 배운 것은 매일 엄청나게 많은 수의 새로운 사용자 계정이 생성된다는 것이다.—/Mendaliv//^2¢_Δ's 21:04, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

마지막으로 한 가지:모든 비씨들이...지금은 직업 계정이 차단되었고, 일부는 대화 페이지를 사용할 수 없게 되었다.전자우편을 사전에 차단하는 것은 이례적이라는 것을 안다(그리고 WP:블락은 얼굴을 찡그린다.) 하지만 이것들이 스팸봇으로 사용되도록 상당히 의도된 것을 고려하면, 우리는 이 계정들에 대한 이메일을 비활성화해야 하지 않을까?—/Mendaliv//^2¢_Δ's 22:03, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 찬성표를 던지겠지만, 전에도 그런 일이 있었는가?Sockpuppet 케이스에서는, Sockmaster의 계정만이 여전히 "이 사용자 이메일"을 사용할 수 있어야 하는 것처럼 보인다.이에 대한 정책/가이드라인을 보고 싶다. --Lexain (대화) 22:42, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 아는 유일한 통제정책은 WP이다.일반적으로 전자우편 제한사항이 블록을 사전 예방적으로 적용해서는 안 되지만, 관리자가 필요하다고 생각한다면 상당히 광범위한 재량권을 가지고 있다고 언급하고 있는 블록.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 03:05, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이동 페이지

WWE 레슬링 선수 신카라의 페이지를 그의 이름이 반영된 페이지로 옮기고 싶다.현재 그는 옛 승진에서 그의 반지 이름이 그랬기 때문에 미스티노(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%ADstico))로 등록되어 있다.그러나 그는 현재 몇 년 동안 WWE와 계약했으며, 신 카라로 더 널리 알려져 있다. - Zalthazar_666 — Zalthazar 666 (대화 • 기여) 04:23, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

대화 참조:미스티코#요청된 움직임.이것이 마지막으로 제안된 것은 몇 달 전이지만, 그것에 대한 보편적인 반대는 그러한 제안이 실패할 것임을 암시한다.(리디렉션이 이미 존재하기 때문에) 이전을 처리할 관리자를 찾기 전에 이전을 요구한다는 합의가 있어야 한다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 04:49, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

아다르

2013년2013년 년으로아 아 국투표

나는 그들이 "비중립적" 또는 "관련되지 않는" 것으로 인식하는 내용을 계속 삭제하는 몇몇 편집자들과 정중하게 의견 차이를 보이고 있다.특히 우파 정당인 HRAST[25]와 이니셔티브 U ime 오비텔지(Obitelji)의 연관성 및 이를 둘러싼 일부 다른 논란들에 관한 절이다.편집자 중 두 명은 세르보-크로아티아 언어를 구사하지 못하기 때문에 무엇이 충분히 주목할 만하거나 대표적일 수 있는지 평가할 수 없고, 나머지는 IP와 단일 목적 계정 사용자:오푸스Dbk의 저술은 대체로 일관성이 없다.그 부분에 내용을 더 추가하고 싶은데 터무니없는 핑계로 자꾸 지워져.나는 계속해서 그들에게 논쟁의 한쪽을 제시하는 것은 완벽하게 괜찮다고 말하고 있다. 만약 그 쪽이 공공 담론을 크게 반영한다면 2) 설사 기사 자체가 완전히 균형을 이루지 못하더라도 바람직하지 않은 내용을 제거함으로써 그것을 검열할 이유가 없다 - 결국 누군가 다른 쪽에서 POV를 추가할 때까지 꼬리표를 찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰싹찰하는 것이다(존재한다면 나의 pp.osition은 많은 경우에 그렇지 않기 때문에 그것을 요구하는 것은 기본적으로 무의미하다는 것이다.다른 사람이 끼어들어 어떻게 진행해야 할지 조언해 주면 도움이 될 것 같다. --Ivan Shtambuk (대화) 05:16, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕 이반 슈탐북.나는 당신이 언급하고 있는 o2 비 세르비아-크로이션을 사용하는 사람 중 한 명이라고 믿는다.그냥 형식적인 메모:나는 네가 불평하고 있는 사용자들에게 그들의 토크 페이지에 알려야 한다고 생각해.하지만 내가 이미 여기 왔으니 네가 지금 나에게 통보할 필요는 없어.근본적인 문제에 대해서는 별로 할 말이 없다.기사의 중립성에 대해서는 의견이 분분하며, 나는 그런 이유로 꼬리표를 붙였다.나는 다시 토크 페이지에 조금 더 참여하도록 노력할 것이다.그렇지 않았다면 NPOV 게시판이 이 문제를 해결하기에 더 좋은 장소였을 것이라고 생각하며, 기꺼이 참여하겠다.안녕하십니까, 이슬릴자 (대화) 09:10, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:DRN은 당신에게 다소 도움이 될 수 있는 장소이기도 하다.블랙매인 (대화) 12:41, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

리지베넷1xx

루케노94의 예의 부족

어치브먼트 헌터

비소싱 콘텐츠 대량 추가

50.74.57.218 (토크 · 기여)

• 정확히 말하면, 사용자는 국립 디자인 아카데미에서 예술가들의 회원 자격에 대한 정보를 수십 개의 전기들에 추가하고 있다.이것은 유용한 정보지만 IP의 토크 페이지에서 내가 제기하는 우려에도 불구하고 그들은 그들의 수많은 편집에 소스를 추가하려고 시도하지 않았다.대량 삭제, 각 편집에 태그 지정, 추가 경고 또는 편집이 논란의 여지가 없는 것으로 간주되도록 허용하시겠습니까?JNW (대화) 18:05, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  • IP가 이러한 모든 것, 즉 NAD의 멤버십 리스트에 대해 하나의 소스를 사용하고 있는 것 같다.편집자가 참조를 추가할 수 있도록 하기 위해 참조가 무엇인지 공유할 수 있다면 매우 유용할 것이다. --Jprg1966^(talk) 18:38, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 국립디자인아카데미 회원 전원의 명단이 여기에 있다.각 이름을 찾으려면 적절한 글자를 클릭해야 한다.IP의 편집 내용 중 하나를 무작위로 체크했고, 프란시스 채핀은 [29]를 체크아웃했다.다른 사람들도 마찬가지일 겁니다.Voceditenore (대화) 18:59, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 다 체크아웃할 것 같은데, 아카데미 목록에 대한 링크를 그들의 토크 페이지에 남겼어.내가 추측하는 그 계정은 NAD와 연결되어 있고, 다른 사람들을 수십 명씩 채워넣게 하고, 결국 수백 명을 채우는 것보다 시트를 추가하는 것이 훨씬 더 바람직하다.JNW (대화) 19:19, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

고소 및 부적절한 혐의

사용자 지쯔지

이 사용자는 어떤 종류의 논의도 없이 방대한 양의 편집을 해왔다.그는 또한 어떤 경우에도 흔한 용법이 아닌 아르메니아어를 파악하지 못하는 것 같다.그의 많은 편집은 WP와 일치하지 않는다.CONMANNAME, 외국어에 사용되기도 한다.그가 너무 많은 편집을 해서 전부 되돌리기는 어려울 것이다.한 블록을 제안한다.자랑볼사혜 (토크) 07:33, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자에게 이름이 ANI에 표시되었음을 알리십시오.또한 검토자의 경우: Zyzzzzy(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) --Jprg1966 10:08, 2013년 12월 1일(UTC)[응답]

@Proudbolsahye:블록 대신 대량 롤백은 어떨까?에픽게니우스 (대화)20:11, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

@Epicgenius:좋아, 그게 더 나은 선택인 것 같아.이러면 정말 괴로울 거야.또한, 언급된 사용자는 나의 토크 페이지에 있는 메시지로 인해 ANI 보고서에 대해 알고 있다.자랑볼사혜 (토크)20:19, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

걱정하지 마십시오. 롤백을 사용하도록 설정된 편집기의 경우 편집 내용을 되돌리는 것이 쉽습니다.나는 방금 Zyzzzzzy의 지난 10개의 기사 편집 내용을 롤백했다.에픽게니우스 (대화)20:20, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

어머! 정말 고마워! :) 자랑스러운 볼사혜 (토크) 20:28, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

문제없어.더 이상 지즈지의 편집 내용을 되돌리고 싶으세요?또한 롤백 권한을 신청하여 다음에 롤백할 때 직접 롤백 권한을 적용할 수 있도록 하십시오.에픽게니우스 (대화) 21:02, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

앞에서 설명했듯이 아르메니아어에는 문자 Ⅱ(R)에 이어 일부 자음에 관한 외침이 거의 없다.따라서 다음과 같다.

• ր 후 գ G가 아닌 K를 발음하였다(예: 사르기스, 게보르그가 아닌 Gevorg가 아닌 SARKIS//սրսսս).
• ր이 D가 아닌 T를 발음한 후 դ. (예: VARTAN/արդնննննննննն, 바단 아님)
• ր 이후 բ B가 아닌 P를 발음하였다(예: Surb가 아닌 SURP/սուրբբբբ

It is a matter of linguistics in the Eastern Armenian language (Հայերեն Լեզվի Հնչյունաբանություն).Please check ou this link Ուղղախոսություն և ուղղագրություն:

• 7.ա) Ր ձայնորդից հետո լսվող ք հնչյունը գրվում է գ տառով հետևյալ բառերում.երգ, թարգման, կարգ, մարգագետին, մարգարե, մարգարիտ, միրգ, պարգև, Մարգար, Սարգիս:

고마워.--Zyzzzzy (토크) 03:53, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집자는 또한 모든 편집 내용을 사소한 것으로 표시하는 데 문제가 있는 것 같다. 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에 메모를 남겼지만 그들은 아직 수정하지 않았다.VQuakr (대화) 04:33, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:그리핀도르

누군가 관리자에게 조용히 말해 주시겠습니까? 사용자:그리핀도르는 현재 (잘 알려진 FA 버킹엄 궁전에서도) 컨센서스에 반대하여 정보상자를 추가함으로써 나의 편집과 트롤을 스토킹하고 있으며, 일반적으로 내가 편집했거나 시작했으며, 상당히 관여하고 있는 것으로 알려진 다른 페이지들에 작은 의미 없는 편집과 코멘트를 함으로써 지겨워하고 있다.이게 통제 불능이 되기 전에 싹을 잘라내는 게 좋을 거야.감사합니다. 지아노 09:31, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

(비관리자 의견) - 사용자:지아노, 네 불평을 뒷받침하기 위해 다른 걸 좀 제공해줄래?ANI에 오기 전에 다른 분쟁 해결을 시도한 적이 있는가? - WOLFchild^the 16:58, 2013년 11월 24일(UTC)[답글]

나는 트롤이 관련된 디프트를 파서 복사할 시간도 의향도 없다.그들은 그의 공헌에서 충분히 볼 수 있다.만약 관리자들이 여기서 그들 자신의 부류를 감시하지 않는다면, 나는 그 문제를 스스로 처리할 능력이 있다.나는 단지 문제 편집자들을 여기에 먼저 배치하기 위한 절차라고 생각했다.내 실수는 명백하다. 다시는 그런 일이 없을 것이다. 지아노 17:47, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

닫으라고 손짓하다.대화 페이지에 메시지를 남기고 토론을 요청하는 것은 사용자:지아노가 불평하고 있다.그리핀도르 (대화) 09:39, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

(비관리자 의견) - 사용자:그리핀도르, 당신에 대한 ANI가 논의되고 평가되기 전에 즉시 폐쇄할 것을 요청하는 것이 적절하다고 생각하십니까? - WOLFchild^the 16:58, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[답글]

Gryffindor ([30], [31])와 Giano ([32], [33])에서 각각 2RR을 본다.대화 페이지에 메시지를 남기고 토론을 요청하는 것은 괜찮지만, 편집 요약이 없는 올바른 버전으로 맹목적으로 되돌아가는 것이 아니라면 안 된다.여기저기서 떠들어대다.리치333 10^(cont):02, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 내가 편집한 페이지들의 스토킹에 대해서도 언급하고 있어. 보론초프 궁전, 버킹엄 궁전, 토크:20세기 영국의 전원주택 파괴, 20세기 영국의 전원주택 파괴, 할튼 하우스와 마블 아치.알은 12시간의 공간에 있다.그는 역사 건축 분야에서는 전혀 편집하지 않는데, 트롤링하지 않으면 거기서 무엇을 하고 있는 것일까.나는 지금 그의 무의미한 스토킹과 트롤링에 시간을 낭비하고 싶지 않은 페이지를 쓰고 있다. 지아노 10시 12분, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

그것은 정말 끔찍하다.나중에 크림반도에서 돌아왔을 때 새로운 건축 전문가가 먼저 GA로 변환하지 않는 한 확장하겠다. 지아노 10:56, 2013년 11월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 지난 며칠 동안 지아노와 그리핀도르의 기여도를 모두 살펴봤는데 스토킹이나 괴롭힘을 가리키는 스모킹건을 찾을 수가 없다.그리핀도르가 우연히 지아노와 같은 기사를 편집했을 가능성은 없어 보이지만, 다른 사용자의 기여도를 확인하는 것은 다른 부적절한 행동이 없는 한 불법이 아니다.WP 출처:괴롭힘(Harassment)은 합리적인 관찰자에게 특정인이나 특정인을 의도적으로 표적으로 삼기 위해 나타나는 반복적인 공격행위의 패턴으로 정의된다.여기서 특별히 불쾌한 것은 보이지 않고, 이번 주 전에는 이런 일이 반복된다는 증거를 본 적이 없다.그리고 그리핀도르도 많은 건축기사를 편집해 왔기 때문에 그가 일반적인 주제 영역에서 편집하는 것을 보는 것만큼 특이한 것은 없다.지아노: 그리핀도르가 단순히 문제의 기사를 개선하려고 하기보다는 "당신의 편집과 트롤링"을 하고 있다고 생각하는 이유는 무엇인가?— Mr. Stradivarius 06:08, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그가 갑자기 건축기사를 편집하고 있다고 확신한다.나를 스토킹하고 길밖으로 돌아다니며 그가 전에 본 적이 없는 페이지들을 찾아다니며 의견 일치를 무시하고 그들과 전쟁을 편집하는 것은 특히 그가 잘못된 사실들로 그 정보들을 채웠을 때 관리자로서는 부적절한 행동처럼 보인다.나에게, 잘못된 사실의 추가는 가장 나쁜 행동이다 - 그는 일부러 짜증나게 하기 위해 그것을 하거나 페이지를 읽는 것을 귀찮게 하지 않고 단지 상자를 추가하는 것이다 - 어느 쪽이든, 그것은 관리자로서는 꽤 나쁜 행동이다.게다가, 그가 다른 곳에서 Infobox에 대해 나와 논쟁하는 것과 동시에, 그는 갑자기 여기에서 완전히 무의미한 네 가지 편집을 한다[34].어쨌든 나는 이 페이지를 항상 헛되이 여기고 있지만, 언제나 더 효과적인 자기 손으로 그 문제를 떠맡는 데 필요한 디딤돌로 여긴다. 지아노 08:14, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

답장 고마워.몇 가지 더 궁금한 게 있는데, 첫째, 당신과 그리핀도르 사이에 과거 역사가 있는가?과거의 논의와 어떤 연결고리는 이것이 일회성인지 아닌지를 조사하는 데 많은 도움이 될 것이다.둘째, 그리핀도르가 잘못되었다고 생각하는 기사에 삽입한 주장들 중 몇 가지를 지적해 주시겠습니까?셋째, 그리핀도르에게 이런 구체적인 주장에 대해 물어본 토론이 있는가?주위를 둘러보았을 때 아무것도 찾지 못했는데, 아마 놓쳤을지도 몰라.그리고 마지막으로, "자신의 손으로 일을 처리한다"는 것은 무엇을 의미하는가?그것은 막연하게 위협적으로 들리고 나를 걱정하게 했으니, 나는 약간의 설명을 해 주면 고맙겠다.— Mr. Stradivarius, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

업데이트: 나는 지아노와 그리핀도르와 관련된 과거 토론에 대해 ANI 기록 보관소를 검색해 보았지만, 나는 아무것도 찾아내지 못했다.여기에 어떤 과거사가 있다면 그것은 명백하지 않다.— Mr. Stradivarius^{♪ talk ♪}, 2013년 11월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 감사합니다 Stradivarius씨.나는 당신이 그리핀도르에게 질문을 하고 그의 비범한 행동에 대해 설명해 줄 것을 제안한다; 그는 인포박스가 논쟁적인 주제라는 것을 모를 수 없으며 그것은 오류 없이 그리고 토크 페이지 일치로 추가된다.나는 이전에 그에 대해 들어본 적이 없었고, 그의 이전 편집본을 보면, 내가 그에 대해 들어봤어야 할 이유가 없다 - 나는 그가 어떤 다른 사람의 의제를 이행하고 있었다고 생각한다.어쨌든 그는 자기 방식의 오류를 터득한 것 같다."자신의 손으로 일을 처리하는 것"에 관해서는, 글쎄, 그게 종종 가장 좋은 방법이다.행정가들은 서로를 정리하는 데 별로 유명하지 않다. 그렇지 않은가? 지아노 12시 42분, 2013년 11월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• (무관한 편집자의 논평) @스트라디바리우스 씨 : 아마도 당신은 대신 위키스토크를 해봐야 할 것이다.에픽게니우스 (대화) 2013년 11월 29일 18:54 (UTC)[응답]

너의 diff [35]를 확인했는데, 네 가지 의미 없는 편집을 보지 못했다.나는 썸네일 사이즈가 약간 줄어든 것을 본다.그의 첫 진출은 인포박스를 더 짧고 간결하게 만들기 위한 시도로 보인다.첫 번째 편집은 의견 제거(페르시아의 샤가 어떤 이유로 그런 진술을 하게 되었는지, 진술 자체를 전달해야 하는 이유를 말할 수는 없다.)이기도 하다.두 번째 항목은 그 그림이 무엇인지에 대한 설명을 덧붙이며, 광고는 크게 바뀌지 않는다.세 번째 항목은 1929년에 일어난 모든 사건들이 1929년에야 실제로 끝났고 더 일찍 시작되었을 때 일어났다는 점에서 약간 부정확하다.물론 그것에 이의를 제기할 수 있다.하지만 왜 그것을 기사의 토크 페이지로 한정하지 않는가?스토킹에 대해 비난하고 확대하기엔 너무 많은 것 같다.릴로웬스 (대화) 03:40, 2013년 12월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 어디서 튀어나온 거야?7월 이후 세 번째 편집...루케노94 (루크에게 여기서 나가라고 말함) 08:21, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

오, 그것은 잘 알려진 캐나다 양말이다. 우리 모두는 그것이 누구인지 알고 있다! 지아노 14시 5분, 2013년 12월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 방금 그가 올린 정보를 읽은 사람이야.규칙을 앞뒤로 읽어온 다소 도도한 존재가 되어, 일이 어떻게 돌아가는지 파악하려고 애쓰는 것이다.난 그저 아무나, 아무나, 아무에게도 아무런 애착이 없는 누군가가 제시된 증거에 대한 새로운 눈을 제공할 수 있다고 생각했다.나는 내가 어떤 양말이어야 하는지 알고 싶다.나는 너에게 내가 그저 기여자가 되고 싶었던 사람이라고 장담한다.루크, 네 사용자 페이지에 이런 글이 올라왔네위키백과:새로 온 사람들을 물지 마십시오.릴로웬스 (대화) 21:39, 2013년 12월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 그렇게 빨리 배웠으면 얼마나 좋을까. 지아노 08:19, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

69.14.97.53은 그의 6개월 금지를 통해 아무것도 배우지 못했다.

사용자:69.14.97.53이 돌아왔고, 6개월의 금지를 받은 동일한 행동을 보였다. [36]에서 금지의 증거를 참조하라.그의 행동에 대한 반대: 그는 다른 편집자들을 역사적 비판을 믿는 파시스트라고 부르며 공격하고, [37]에서 보듯이 주관적인 종교적 견해와 객관적인 사실의 차이를 이해하지 못한다. 여기서 그는 사람들이 마치 객관적인 사실인 것처럼 예수에 무릎을 꿇을 것이며 따라서 W를 대체해야 한다고 언급한다.이키피디아의 편집 기준Tgeorgescu (대화) 02:40, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 그것이 그가 무언가를 배우도록 의도된 것인지 확신할 수 없다.만약 그가 계좌라면 무기한 차단될 것이다.그의 IP가 꽤 안정적인 것 같아서, 나는 그에게 2년짜리 블록을 걸었다.Sometguy1221 (대화) 02:45, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 금지의 증거가 없고 단지 하나의 블록일 뿐이다.Elizium23 (대화) 05:47, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

템플릿의 스크립트 오류

94.189.150.5

사용자:94.189.150.5, 이전 사용자:94.189.148.237 및 사용자:94.189.140.186은 곡의 커버 버전에 대한 잘못된 정보를 계속 추가하며, 예를 들어, 여기와 여기뿐만 아니라 다른 페이지에도 계속 추가한다.전에도 한 번 경고했고, 며칠 전에도 경고했는데, 사용자 토크 페이지에도 다른 편집자의 경고가 여러 번 올라오는 것을 눈치챘다. --V111P (토크) 08:59, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

Sinosceptic 사용자 상자

누가 좀 처리해줄래?구립(토크) 01:37, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 사용자가 그 페이지의 좋은 부분을 "시노스셉션"에 관한 것으로 만들면서 커뮤니티에 별로 관심이 없다는 이유로 BOLD 회귀를 내 자신에게 허용했다.또한, 요구대로 사용자 이름을 여기에 올렸다고 알려야 한다. --Jprg1966 03:29, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

이와 관련된 두 개의 사용자 상자를 발견했다.템플릿:HK Sinosceptic 및 템플릿:하드코어 시노스셉틱.나는 두 번째 것을 WP로 표시했다.CSD#G10은 문화와 국가를 섬멸하는 것을 언급했기 때문이다.G10에 맞는다고 추측한 것이 틀렸다면 사과한다.--록팡(토크) 04:11, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

COM:PS(프로젝트 범위)는 "파달리즘이나 공격을 목적으로 만들어지거나 업로드된 것으로 보이는 파일"은 하원의 범위를 벗어났다고 명시하고 있다.15개의 템플릿과 업로더의 사용자 페이지 링크가 (현재 누락된) 이미지로 연결됨.16번 째가 있었지만 CSD G10을 받았다.스벤망구아르화?05:25, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

파일:UpperDown-China Flag.png 또한 PRC에 대한 비판에만 사용되고 있다는 점을 고려할 때 프로젝트 범위를 벗어난 것으로 삭제해야 한다.하지만 그것은 아마 국경선 사건일 것이다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 16:15, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

염증성 및 'CSD G10-ed' 템플릿을 만드는 것에 대해 다시 생각해 봤는데, 그렇게 요청하기 전에 삭제되어 다행이야.더글라스 컴백 키드 (토크) 13:26, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자 소퍼99

사용자 Sopher99는 여기서 규칙 1RR을 중개한다.템플릿: 시리아 내전 상세도

증거가 규칙을 어겼다 1RR:

1. [38] (13:45, 12월 4일)
2. [39] (13:47, 12월 4일) — 95.134.193.238 (대화) 14:18, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

여기서 각 편집의 되돌리는 것을 하나만 볼 수 있다. 2개의 다른 편집의 번복은 1RRR을 위반하지 않는다.Mdann52 Talk! 15:06, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, 그렇다. - "편집자는 동일하거나 다른 자료를 포함하든 상관없이 24시간 내에 한 페이지에 3회 이상 되돌릴 수 없다." 1RR은 단지 "3회 되돌리기"를 "하나의 되돌리기"로 대체한다.—Darkwind (대화) 17:36, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

변화의 역사를 보면 다음과 같다: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

1. 13:45, 2013년 12월 4일 소퍼99 (토크 기여) . (164,690바이트) (+2) . (아리스카 (토크)에 의한 584500129 개정 미실시) 나는 두 가지 모두에 대한 소스를 제공했다.그들이 다마스커스의 공격성 기사를 업데이트하지 않은 것은 당신의 문제)
2. 13:47, 2013년 12월 4일 Sopher99 (토크 기여) . (164,690바이트) (0) . (HCPUNXKID에 의한 개정 584446097 미실행)

그리고 이것은 두 번 되돌린 것이다. 95.134.193.238 (대화) 15:19, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 관리자 참고: 이 문제는 WP에서 이미 처리되었다.NEWARE. —Darkwind (대화) 17:36, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

새로운 사용자에 의한 지속적인 중단 편집

• 위키아웃 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 125.168.34.148 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

Wikitout은 11월 30일에 처음 편집을 시작한 이후, 편집에 지장을 초래했다.이 편집자를 자신의 토크 페이지나 기사 토크 페이지에서 토론에 참여시키려는 시도는 성과가 없었다.그는 처음에 스톡턴 비치에서 편집을 시작했는데, 그 과정에서 인용된 내용을 삭제하면서 상당한 양의 독창적인 연구를 추가했다.[40]내가 되돌린 후에 그가 변화를 복구하여 그 과정에서 OR을 더욱 더 추가했다.[41] 두 번째 반전은 거의 효과가 없었다.그는 OR을 더 추가해서 일련의 편집을 했다.[42] 그를 토론에 끌어들이려는 시도가 무의미하다는 것이 증명되었다.페이지 보호를 요청했지만 관리자가 편집-전쟁이라고 가정하고 관리자의 토크 페이지에서 토론하는 것이 도움이 되지 않는다고 판단하여 거부되었다.그것에서 나오라는 유일한 제안은 내가 하기 싫었던 사용자[43]를 다시 돌려달라는 것이었다.[44] 나는 수술실에 꼬리표를 붙이고 있었지만, 결국 위키트아웃의 이익을 위해 각각의 변화를 설명하면서 되돌렸다. [45] 그리고 내가 왜 되돌아가려고 하는지 설명한 후에야.[46] 이 기간 동안 위키아웃은 다른 기사에서 부적절한 편집을 했다."창밖을 내다봐"라는 편집 요약이 있는 이 사진은 분명히 틀렸다.나는 어제 70m(230ft) 높이의 600kW 풍력 터빈을 지나 운전했는데 여전히 전력을 생산하고 있었다.그는 이후 이와 같은 다른 부적절한 편집을 했지만 스톡튼 비치에서 인용구가 지지하는 콘텐츠를 삭제해야 한다고 고집하는 것 같다.그는 자신을 어떤 종류의 역사 전문가라고 생각하는 것 같은데, 토론에 자신을 참여시키지 않은 것에 대한 그의 변명은 그가 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 어떻게, 요약을 편집하고 게시해야 하는지 확실히 알고 있기 때문에, 나는 이것을 믿는데 약간의 어려움이 있다.그의 요약과 그가 삭제한 내용을 보면, 내가 그에게 이것을 설명했음에도 불구하고 그는 인용구를 따를 수 없거나, 원하지 않는 것 같다.[49] 내가 그의 토크 페이지에 올려야 했던 수많은 경고와, 그의 끊임없는 방해 편집과 토크 페이지 토론에 참여하지 않으려는 마음 때문에 나는 그를 AIV에 보고했지만, 보고서는 "이 게시판은 명백한 반달과 스팸 발송자만을 위한 것이다.이 보고서를 WP에 제출하는 것을 고려하십시오.AN/I".[50] 나는 저항했지만 Wikitout이 그 이후 편집한 네 가지 내용은 어떤 조치가 필요하다는 것을 분명히 한다.Wikitout은 단순히 편집하는 방법을 배우거나 우리의 정책과 지침을 따르는 것을 원하지 않는 것처럼 보인다. 그리고 그는 단지 어떤 조치가 취해질 때까지 스톡톤 비치에서 끈질기게 파괴적인 행동을 할 것이다.Wikitout은 이제 IP로 편집하기 시작했으며, 동일한 편집을 했다. --AussieLegend (iii) 14:56, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

(비관리자 논평) 그리고 편집 요약은 완전한 트롤링으로 전환되었다.아마도 사용자는 자신의 토크 페이지에 있는 "편집" 버튼을 누르는 것에 대해 더 배우고 싶을 것이다. --Jprg1966^(talk) 15:17, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그에게 토론과 블록 중 하나를 선택하도록 했다.더그웰러 (대화) 2013년 12월 4일 15시 30분 (UTC)[응답]

이것을 되돌려야 할지 말아야 할지 모르겠다.편집 요약은 아이러니한 것 이상이다.전 세계의 미친 맥스 팬들과 의견이 다를 것"이라고 말했다.Madmaxmovies.com은 팬 소유 사이트여서 비RS. --AussieLegend (1998년) 15:37, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

누가 그랬어. --AussieLegend (1998년) 15:55, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답하라]

더그웰러의 경고에도 불구하고 그는 어떤 논의에도 관심이 없는 것 같다. --AussieLegend (1911년) 17:24, 2013년 12월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 차단을 해제하는 데 필요한 조건을 명료하게 진술하여 차단했다.더그웰러 (대화) 2013년 12월 4일 18:46, (UTC)[응답]

토크:2014년 동계 올림픽 하이로48번길

Impersonator account

User:Blackberry Sorbet

IP removing content with no consensus nor discussion

Diffs of the same content being removed by 205.131.188.5 multiple times in the last few days:

• [53], 29 Nov
• [54], 3 Dec
• [55], 3 Dec
• [56], 3 Dec
• [57], 3 Dec
• [58], 3 Dec
• [59], 4 Dec

On 3 Dec the IP violated 3RR. The IP was warned not to remove content anymore without consensus prior to their last removal. A discussion was opened by another editor to which they never contributed. A block would be appropriate at this point I believe. Gaba ^(talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truss Bridge

User:Associationfootballfan1

Regarding Country Club Plaza

User:Charleseddy@gmail.com

User Eric Corbett

Bata, Equatorial Guinea

On 15 October 2012 an anonymous user inserted in the article Bata, Equatorial Guinea a statement that the full name of that city is "City of Božić Bata" (dif). This was completely unsourced, and is an obvious joke, since "Božić Bata" is Serbo-Croatian name for Santa Claus. This was later changet to "Ville de Bozhich Bata" in the article, and it stood like that for more than a year until I noticed it and removed it as vandalism (dif). Now, an anonymous IP editor User:2A00:C440:20:27E:4EB:C0E:6939:58BD is constantly reverting my edit. He reverted my edit today (dif) and wrote in the edit summary that the removed text abot Božić Bata "was approved and justified". I wrote him on his talk page to explain me where and when it was "approved and justified" since I don't see any discussion about that. I also reverted his edit, as it is obvious joke. Than, he reverted my edit again (dif). I aks administrators to do something, as this "Božić Bata" thing is really pure nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You protected the page after it was vandalized again, so I reverted the vandalism. It was different IP now, but probably the same person as before. Maybe those IPs should be blocked? There is a lot of vandalism from the User:129.240.83.175 (see:[91], [92], [93], [94], and so on, all his contributions are exclusively vandalism). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is dedicated to vandalism and hoaxes, is there any good reason not to block? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a final warning, no edits since then from that IP but there's one from 2A00:C440:20:27E:4C08:27ED:4934:2F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - most edits from IPs starting with 2A00:C440:20:27E appear to be the same vandal. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After you gave the final warning to 129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), he made a vandalism at the Franjo Tuđman article (dif). After that, he wrote a comment at Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea#Bozhich (dif). This comment is in Serbian, my native language. In the comment, he calls me "semi-literate shepherd" (polupismeni čobane). Please, stop this user from further insulting me. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Franjo Tuđman article was again vandalized (dif), this time by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is probably all the same person with different IPs. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:CambridgeBayWeather removed the insulting commentary against myself from Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif), but his edit was reverted by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). This vandal really needs to be stooped. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the last IP. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Tuđman article vandalized again by 2a00:c440:20:27e:c086:6eb0:c981:43b (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalized Franjo Tuđman article again (dif). He also removed my comment form that article's talk page (dif). Please, block this IP. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) insulted me again at Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif). He calls me "garbage" (djubre). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted my comment from Talk:Franjo Tuđman again (dif). He wrote an edit summary "Added a New entry" to mask his vandalism. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rangeblock might be the only solution. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 14:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Tuđman vandalized again (dif). My comment removed from the talk page again (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal is still active. 2a00:c440:20:27e:ec83:57e1:2434:e64a (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalized Moja domovina article ([95] and [96]) and also removed comments from Talk:Franjo Tuđman (dif) and Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clavdia chauchat

This user is incapable of civil behaviour. Accusing other users of being "drones", "we need far fewer of you guys" and showing "overt bigotry". Earlier in the same "discussion", the accusation was that WP:FOOTY is a circle jerk. The insults wash off a duck's back, but I will not stand for being accused of being an "overt bigot". That is unacceptable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been brought up, that was not the first "circle jerk" accusation - another one was made here. When asked not to make such offensive comments, her response was that it wasn't a personal attack because WikiProject members are not a single person (clearly not in line with WP:NPA#WHATIS) and that the requests to be more civil from myself and another editor were "hectoring bilge" and "creepy". Can someone please have a word, as whilst she's a productive editor, there do appear to be problems with playing nicely with others. Number57 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have a serious issue with that particular WikiProject (which all three of us who have commented so far, including myself, are active members of) and her constant yet unfounded accusations of anti-female bias within the Project hinder co-operative and collaborative editing. GiantSnowman 13:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circle jerk (sexual practice) says in the lead:

“

In the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people.

”

I'm happy to confirm that it is this sense which I applied to the stuffy gentlemen's club at WP:FOOTY. Huge apologies to anyone genuinely offended by any sexual connotation, although I think it's curious that such delicate sensibilities were not equally outraged by much worse flak coming in the other direction. Hmm. Let's remember too that User:Jmorrison230582 started what became a bad-tempered discussion as an attack thread against User:LauraHale.

The more audiences that see this the better because a small gang of homogeneous editors derailing a simple correction to an article title is not on. I'm not the only editor to point out this worldview is sexist and backward: because it is! Seriously guys, it's you versus everyone else now, you are now embarrassing yourselves and the whole encyclopedia.

In a wider sense, exclusively-male Wikiproject Football needs serious root and branch reform which sadly will only come from outside that project. In my opinion they (or rather their self-appointed leaders, above) have been allowed to write their own notability rules and flood Wikipedia with biased and/or non-notable content for too long. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know when and how I appointed myself a "leader" of the WP:FOOTY project. I also see no justification whatsoever of accusing users of "overt bigotry". The insults / name-calling I couldn't care less about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject is not "exclusively-male" - though there is a male majority, which is merely reflective of the sport in real life. Basically, CC is just annoyed that community consensus from a recent RM has gone against her view and she is taking it out on others. Pathetic. GiantSnowman 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your female members then? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of members here, some I know to be female, so I know to be male, most I have no clue - but I'm not going to lower myself to naming names. We also have an entire taskforce dedicated to women's football, as you fully know. But please, tell me more about how we are "exclusively-male"... GiantSnowman 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting edit. What makes you uniquely qualified to edit this site and not me? This is disgusting, almost fascistic in nature. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tales of imaginary female members and I'm a pathetic, disgusting fascist. I came here to respond to concerns in good faith but things are not going well so I'll bow out now I think. Happy jerking. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC, I have no idea what you're playing at - you know there are female members, you interact with at least two of them on a daily basis!

Jmorrison - don't rise to her bait. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What really confuses me is that Clavdia proclaims at the top of her userpage that "This user is a member of the Women's Football Taskforce." - and yet seems to forget that said taskforce falls under the Football WikiProject. Which makes her a member of the WikiProject that she is constantly attacking, and also immediately proves her "male-only" claims to be completely false. To say this behaviour is bizarre would be fairly accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated page history

User:No such user reported by Cognoscerapo.

FkpCascais

Next matchday scenario

There has been a discussion on WT:FOOTY which can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios (will soon be archived). The issue is about next day scenarios (what will happen if team A beat team B and team C do not defeat tem D...?) on sports article and wheter or not it should be included. There has been a lot of discussing if we should include this future predictions (is it WP:CRYSTAL?) on wikipedia or not and also the complexity of the calculations if they are routine calculations or not and if it is original research. In the discussions votes were casted (even if consensus is not result of voting) and I calculated thirteen editors oppose inclusion of the material, four suppport and two support if very good sourcing. This is to me consensus to not include the material with so many opposing.

The issue has also been at WP:DRN (read at this link) earlier were the decision was do not include this material after 3 independent uninvolved editors all opposed.

Now User:Ivan Volodin (the editor starting the discussion when they were removed) has resumed inserting these edits against consensus (he does not agree there are a consensus and tried to form his own consensus) and added the scenarios with a blog as a source (which is hardly a reliable source), the same blog he used when he was reverted before the discussions started. You can see it at diff, diff, diff, diff.

In the disussion a INVOLVED admin, User:GiantSnowman said on WT:FOOTY that "Sigh, if I wasn't INVOLVED I would block seeing as he is editing against consensus. I suggest taking this to AIV/ANI" seen on the link i provided.

Can any admin not involved please take a look at this issue, would be much appreciated. Maybe an admin can stop this edits and tell him to stop. QED237 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but did participate in that discussion. Unless the conversation changed significantly since I was there, then yeah, the consensus is against them being added. As someone that likes them, I have to say that it's not my favorite result, but the consensus is very clear. Ivan Volodin's attempted close is classic 'I didn't hear that' behavior, and his subsequent edits are adding content that the community has decided it doesn't want on those pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin out there or should an ANI-discussion die and be archieved? I dont mean to "push" or anything but i think this soon will be archieved? QED237 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and don't really have the time to check out the discussion properly but it does look to me like there is consensus so have urged the editor to refrain from further such editing. [100] Since they haven't edited since reverted by Sven Manguard, I would suggest it's fine for this thread to die. I don't see it likely they're goimg to be blocked from those 4 edits alone so I don't see that there's anything more to discuss here. In the unfortunate event they continue with their disputed edits, feel free to bring it back. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:FkpCascais supported by User:23 editor

IP user edit warring on Intelligent design article

An IP user is edit warring on the Intelligent design article (history). The IP appears to have been recorded both as an IPv4 and IPv6 address, though I can't be certain that the IPv6 address is the same user. I'm requesting a block of the IPv4 address (92.232.108.69), and possibly the IPv6 address (2602:306:bc2b:d3b0:544d:2418:fd76:a6dd). Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported at AN3 and ARV, fyi. — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92.232... blocked for 31 hours by User:Kralizec!. Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark Miller on COI Noticeboard

User:Michael Reed 1975

User:Michael Reed 1975 has continued to cite his own work on the Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. He edit warred to keep his content in while a discussion took place on the talk page at Talk:Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Michael Reed book. He was ultimately blocked for edit warring here. However, shortly after the block expired, he again added his work here. So far the consensus has been that the citation violates WP:COI. My main concern is that he is adding in his preferred version, even after being blocked for it, before a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Bahooka (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message to Michael Reed 1975 on his talk page about WP:LISTEN and his need to work for consensus at the talk page. I've also reverted his latest addition of the text to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor behavior at Talk:Thomas Jefferson

A couple of editors are accusing me of POV editing because I insist that The statement "Jefferson treated his slaves humanely" should have in-text attribution and because I have stated that my personal view is that "humane treatment of slaves" is an oxymoron. One editor even stated that my someone with my POV should not be allowed to edit the article. I encourage administrators to scrutinize my arguments and edits to the article. If administrators here find that I have violated WP:NPOV I will be happy not to edit the article again. If not I request some admins to please tell the users User:Gwillhickers and User:Yopienso to comment on the content not the editor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-admin firstly. Secondly, believe me when I say I sympathize with your concerns, truly, especially given that I've been in your shoes. Regrettably, if my experiences here are any indication then the likely outcome is that this will be considered a content dispute and you will be asked to follow the dispute resolution process. If you feel anyone has gone so far as to violate WP:NPA and can provide a diff, I may be willing to stick my neck out and give them a warning, but I can't promise that. Best of luck to you. DonIago (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is being taken care of at the RFC, I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to stop trying to accuse me of POV pushing without some solid evidence other than the fact that I have admitted that I have POV (as every one does). The editor insists on repeating the accusation in each and every post he makes. Which is frustrating to say the least. The point here is that I want it to be absolutely clear that having a POV is not a crime and that asking for in-text attribution of controverisla views is not POV pushing, and that it is uncivil to accuse others of pov pushing without evidence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Maunus fully admitted that he had a pov and all that was done was to remind him of that, and that it wasn't right to try to push a pov into the article by trying to advance one editing policy that concerned itself with one selected statement. He then said to apply this policy to other statements was "absurd" and then finally 'asked' me to "shut up" for mentioning this pov. Before this posting he attempted to conduct a survey, which is fine, but only allowed one other editor to respond before he abandoned that approach and came here. -- Gwillhickers 21:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not abandoned the approach, the RfC will run its course and consensus will decide on the wording. I also have not tried to forced my POV in to the article. You are also misrepresenting my statements which is uncivil. Please stop being incivil or I will have to start using stronger words than "shut up" (which I said after asking you plitely at least twice to stop trying to paint me as a POV warrior).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when your argument is based on "my personal view", you're definitely engaging in POV editing. It's one thing to say "you're not welcome here because you engage in [insert evil behavior here]". It's completely different to say "you're not welcome here because you're trying to silence something you don't like". Such a statement can be out of bounds, but when you've admitted the facts on which the argument is based, it's spot on, and you should not be advocating for your view on this article. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not based on my personal view but on wikipedia policy, which says that controversial statements should be attributed, the relevance of my POV was only that it made me notice that this statement is controversial (which I have then shown with sources). Are you seriously saying that someone who admits to finding slavery inherently inhumane should not be editing articles about slavery? Are there other articles I shouldnt be editing then when I have this controversial pov? Please give me a list. I also am a pacificst? Should I stop editing articles on war?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one said you shouldn't be editing, only that you be consistent with the policy you were trying to advance. According to many historians, slaves under Jefferson were treated humanely. Yes, there were isolated cases where some where whipped for running away, fighting, stealing, but overall this was rare and slaves were indeed treated humanely. Apparently Maunus feels slaves, prisoners, pow's can't be treated humanly at the same time. Regardless of his view, numerous RS's support the fact that Jefferson treated his slaves humanely, didn't over work them and provided for them exceptionally well. -- Gwillhickers 22:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yopienso said that my POV was unacceptable at this article. I have made no statements about slaves or prisoners so please stop attributing me views that I do not hold. Not a single source that I have reviewed suggests that Jefferson treated his slaves exceptionally in any way. All the sources I have reviewed (which seems to be a lot more than you since you only use the Jefferson foundaiton as a source) show that his treatment may have been humane relatively to the time, but that it would not be considered human by todays standards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I don't really see this as an issue worth making a fuss about. You've started an RfC with very specific goals and a couple of editors have said that you have a POV a few times. Nothing very excessive here. My suggestion is "forget about it and let the RfC play out". Not every slight is worth worrying about. --regentspark (comment) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is a matter of principle that editors are allowed to have POVs regarding the topics they edit and that it is the content of their edits relative to policy that should be evaluated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First you complain that we mention your admitted POV -- now here you are saying you should be free to push it, and the heck with consensus and what reliable sources say. -- Gwillhickers 22:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are really adept at lying about my statements. Here you quote me as saying the exact opposite of what I am in fact saying in the preceding post. And yes, I do consider it lying because I have already made my view clear several times, and you have shown your general disagreeableness enough to no longer extend you the privilege of the assumption of good faith. Lying is of course as you know, uncivil, as is attributing views to others which they do not hold. I have not said that I should be free to push any POV, and I have not pushed any POV. You have however broken the civility policy in almost every post you have made in our interaction. So here I will finally take the bait and say "fuck you too". Now this ritual being done, I shall cease to respond to you, and instead let the RfC run its course. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akubiky

New editors edit-warring at Peter R. Orszag

A few hours ago I reverted a deletion of a sourced personal life section [103] and explained why on the talk page [104]. Since then, an edit war has broken out amongst "new" editors and I have been accused of having an agenda (again). So 1) Is semi or full protection the way to go and 2) Is there enough for a sockpuppet investigation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy has handled the issue. Thanks J. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations by an offsite party

When reviewing an external link to an article I was working on earlier this week, I discovered that the link in question contained text that I had written for the article earlier this year verbatim. When I posed my problem earlier in the week on the #wp-en IRC channel I was advised to send something off to Wikimedia Legal but the WMF's attorney informed me that they did not protect projects' copyrights. This is the second time I've had content that I've worked on to some extent taken wholesale by another website (I've done my best to contact the first one) but I am more wary about this second instance because it isn't some shitty fansite stealing text word-for-word but a multi-million dollar corporation. I am at a loss as to what to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the process outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process, and use the Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to initiate contact with the website. Unfortunately I think I'm right in saying that you're responsible for defending your own copyright (which kinda sucks, but there you go), so you're rather on your own - as the copyright holder, only you can give them the telling-off they deserve. Yunshui雲水 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to find the contact information for the website in question. They only have a support queue. I will attempt to send a message to support@their domain name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind sharing the link in question? Maybe others can find the relevant contact details. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.funimation.com —Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Address, phone and email: [105]. You're right, support@... does seem to be their only registered email.Yunshui雲水 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be more helpful if you could post exactly what is alleged to have been taken. For those who know nothing of this, it'd like MGM or Pixar or Disney taking your work for their own purposes. Without more information to go on, I cannot really comment further. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Funimation blatantly copied the summary I had written in April for the first Ghost in the Shell: Arise installment which more or less exists in the exact same state as of the last time I checked the article. The only difference is that Funimation's version does not include the word "Set" before the phrase "In the year".—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should tag the talk page with {{Backwardscopy}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were so worried about this, but there does appear to be merit to the argument. I used an old version from June after the announcement that they had acquired the rights.[106] Specifically this version.[107] As no previous cache is available at Archive.org, I did a duplication detector result.[108] With that being said, I'd contact Jackie Smith (Public relations manager) or possibly Joseph Nicholson (Marketing and Communications Executive). At the very least they might be able to direct you to the right person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a postal address. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have completely changed their description of the show now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been resolved (well technically you could still pursue them for the earlier violation, but while I understand how you must feel, I don't think there's much point trying that) but for future reference you could try gpl-violations.org if you need to take it further. It's possible they will refuse since the site violated one of the GFDL or CC* rather than the GPL but they might be willing to offer help as it's still a free content and copyleft issue. You can also list them at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. * = I presume you wrote the material by yourself or with the assistance of other editors rather than taking it from a CC source, so it's completely dual licenced. In which case the site had to comply with at least one of those licences. Of course even if you partially took the content from a CC only source, you couldn't sue them for violating that licence. The CC only holder would need to do that. So even in that case it's still really a GFDL or CC issue from your POV. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about Jezebel1349

Reluctantly I must inform admins of the case of the fairly new account of Jezebel1349 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently in the middle of a 24 hour block. Shortly after being blocked, she put blatantly racial and sexual invective in reply to me on her talkpage, including thinly veiled threatening language ("I have "surprises" for you looser, just wait..."), although she did then remove that part ([109]). So obviously I am a little concerned. This is after she repeatedly blanked references based only on IDONTLIKEIT. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Currently she is scheduled to come off her block some time tomorrow. I'm not sure I want to find out what "surprises" she has in store for me at that time, what can I do? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended to 1 week with no talk page privs. If disruption continues after block release, please alert me or bring it back here to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sudden rash of trouble did not die down at the same article Madai and there is currently an SPI for the above Jezebel1349 and User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranzamin-Iranzamin that needs attention. Iranzamin-Iranzamin has a nearly identical habit of making false claims about my race on Talk:Madai which she perceives as "Indic-Pakistani-gypsy" for whatever bizarre reason: [110] Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks

In just the past two weeks, MilesMoney has been repeatedly warned about their behavior in what appears to be at least five different incidents: [111][112][113][114][115]

MilesMoney responded to the the most recent warning with the request "Go away and don't come back", so I'll respect that and ask for others to alert the user to the existence of this discussion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified MilesMoney of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Some of those warnings are over the top. The first one involves one revert in a 24 hour period. The second one involves, at most, two reverts in a 24 hour period, something the OP is culpable of as well. The third one involves two reverts, the same number made by Roccodrift who did not respect WP:BRD. The fourth was legitimate, but happened 25 days ago. The fifth, may breach our WP:NPA policy slightly, but I've seen far worse from Sitush on MilesMoney's talk page, for example "Given that I am not the first that you have banished of late, and given your obvious incompetence, it does rather beg a question concerning your righteousness.". - MrX 14:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are going to link to a diff involving me then I'd appreciate it if you could try to put it into context. For this one, you need to read the collapsed section here and probably also this on Bbb23's talk page. One difficulty that keeps raising its head is that MM routinely bans people from their talk page & often does so early in a discussion, making it difficult to resolve issues without escalating them to drama boards such as this - there is a chilling effect. I'll try to compile a list. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's his prerogative to ban people from his talk page, especially if they harangue him, as seems to be the case in the past few days. You're responsible for your own words, regardless of context. You don't hold the highground when you accuse others of the same type of behavior that you engage in. - MrX 15:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of context would like to sugar coat this in? "Do you really think I give a damn abut your formal warning? I'll just carry on editing as I always have - the likes of you do not scare me: grow up." - MrX 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with Sitush's conduct. Saying a user can ban other users from their talk pages is superficially accurate, but if a user develops a pattern of such bans, it may be reasonable to infer that they are not collaborative. MM provokes and others push back. Understandable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If that's the standard that were using, then there's nothing wrong with MilesMoney's conduct either. Others provoke and MilesMoney pushes back. - MrX 15:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(Comment from uninvolved editor) After looking at WP:EDR, I have found that there is no formal interaction ban between MM and Sitush, so MM is just being a big you-know-what. However, it would be appreciated if these two opened a case at WP:DR instead. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:DRN, and that board is not for conduct disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean that, and I have corrected it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair comment and I wish MilesMoney would refrain from banning editors from his talk page (including myself, BTW). My point is, there's enough trout to go around, and nothing here is actionable by an admin. - MrX 15:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I personally would appreciate it if MilesMoney didn't make comments like this ("what you say literally makes no sense. It's not even clear enough to be wrong."). I have a thick skin so I don't know if it's a personal attack or not, but I do think it is not helpful to furthering discussion and might make many feel their contributions on the talk page are useless so they might as well stop editing there. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That diff isn't a personal attack ... it doesn't even border on uncivil - kinda like Mexico and Belgium. ES&L 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct country is Austria, and in that little world on Wikipedia, everything is uncivil, nothing makes any sense, and all the participants snipe at each other incessantly. We should topic-ban all of them; either that, or get very large, resilient ear plugs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a fishing expedition? The diff showing a warning from me is because of a series of reverts at BLP Joss Whedon concerning an uncited section. MilesMoney brought references and eventually got talk page consensus for including the material. This diff is part of a larger pattern showing that MilesMoney likes a scrap—he likes to revert, bully and argue—but the result in this case was better for the article and reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's unfair to call this a "fishing expedition". Hector was concerned about what he perceived to be a pattern of behavior. He brought his concerns to MM and was told to go away, which only tends to confirm the pattern. Whether there's sufficient evidence to sanction MM is more complex, but I don't see this as a baseless report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I haven't called for any particular form of action, I'm just 'reporting it up the chain of command'. MM seems to be having some trouble-- in just my own encounter, at one point, I think we had 6 different editors rejecting the controversial edit and MM was still warring on it. I tried to issue a very nice and sincere warning and got an extremely hostile response. My warning going unheeded, I thought I should drop a note here and let the experts sort it out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "chain of command". Edit-warring goes to WP:AN/EW, long-term behaviour goes to WP:RFC/U, and content disputes go to WP:DRN. You only come to ANI if you're requesting a specific action: a block or topic ban ES&L 16:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess part of my job here is to defend Hector. Your procedural statement is a bit constrained and hypertechnical. Editors may come here if they want to report a problem that hasn't yet risen to the level of starting an RfC/U. An editor may come here if all they want is a warning to the reported user. An editor may come here because they think there's a problem meriting administrative attention but they're not sure what the appropriate sanction is, and maybe there is none. Now, if you want to say instead that you believe no administrative intervention is required, that's a different matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hector reinserted a BLP violation then templated Miles for removing Hector's violation even after Miles had clearly explained the issue on talk and had taken it to BLP. Hector, you should withdraw this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A strong talk page consensus held it was not a BLP violation. MM can disagree with that consensus, and that consensus can change, but edit warring against consensus is unacceptable behavior, and attacking me for holding him to that level of competence is doubly unacceptable. Specifico, you do your friend(non-friend?) a disservice when you condone his behavior-- he may well belief in his opinion, but it is not acceptable for him to act as though his opinion outweighs or negates the opinion of the rest of community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a Personal Attack for you to call MilesMoney my friend and you should strike that remark. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry (and confused!) that you found that offensive, but clearly, you deserve the right to characterize your relationship or lack thereof however you wish. My apologies for apparently implying something you didn't want implied.HectorMoffet (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hector, please state exactly what was it that you were implying and please explain why you are confused that I would find it offensive? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney's use of the policy BLPCRIME here as grounds for removing part of a section heading doesn't make any sense. Maybe the part about lobbying needed to go, but that has nothing to do with the BLP, much less the subsection on BLPCRIME in policy. I suggest MilesMoney cease using fraudulent rationales in their edit summaries.--MONGO 16:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the rationale makes no sense, but do you have to call it "fraudulent"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did have to call that fraudulent...and I could do without the snippy remark.--MONGO 02:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, in case anyone is wondering, MONGO's rather belated response stems from this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely trying to save you some grief by not having that party drag you into a miserable time sapping waste of your time, but thats up to you, which as you put it yourself there, was complex. Most of your responses here at these noticeboards consist of critiquing other's comments rather than dealing with the issue at hand, which obfuscates solving the real problems, and undermines the purposes of the noticeboards...all it does is make others exasperated. I have yet to see you offer any solid remedy on the issue of MilesMoney, perhaps because you have none, when all one really need to is a little groundwork and the truth will be known if you know how to do it, and it doesn't need a checkuser.--MONGO 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO:, pray, don't keep us all in suspense ;) There have been various sock accusations levelled at MilesMoney at various times (as recently as this weekend). They've come to nothing at SPI. If you've done some groundwork that enlightens that situation or any other regarding MM - whether favourable to MM or not - then please do share it. Perhaps just say here that you've emailed admin X about it if you think that whatever you have is sensitive. I'd rather not waste more of my time preparing for a RfC/U if it isn't needed. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This has gone on long enough & so I've started User:Sitush/summary. I hope to complete the talk page resume in the next few hours. I realise that some people may consider it to be an attack page & I'll accept it if the thing is deleted for that reason. It should certainly be deleted when the community has reached some sort of decision about the behavioural issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to WP:ATTACK, it could be deleted ("keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate"). However, pursuant to WP:UP#POLEMIC (which is not policy but is more specific), it is okay based on your purpose ("The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."). As an aside, although I have not reviewed the list, based on its length, I wonder if an RfC/U would be more appropriate. Entirely up to you (and any other editors), of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect RfC/U is where this mess is going to end up because I'm not convinced that ANI will deal with it. Either way, it is not my intention to retain the thing for any longer than is strictly necessary and I am including favourable stuff (barnstars issued etc). That said, I'm not going to work on it exclusively - there'll soon be a huge backlog of poor stuff on the caste etc articles unless I do some maintenance there also. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to assemble diffs in ones userspace regarding another editor's behavior so long as it is soon thereafter placed in a RfcU or with arbcom, afterwhich it can be deleted.--MONGO 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthwhile to amplify something from Binksternet's earlier comment: "... he likes to revert, bully and argue". This is a concise and well-stated encapsulation of the problem and moreover, when even Miles' supporters are saying this I think there is a consensus that his behavior is combative. Roccodrift (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is but we need diffs, not encapsulations. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another witch hunt. In all the diffs thus far presented (e.g., User:Carolmooredc's complaint about Miles' drawing attention to her inscrutable writing style -- a genuine problem, which makes it hard to collaborate with her on WP), no credible case has been made for any disciplinary action. So Sitush -- a guy who says "grow up", calls out people's "incompetence", and then has the gall to complain about other users making "personal" comments -- is now trying to rehash totally off-topic stuff from July, because he sees the ANI as an opportunity to punish Miles. Absolutely contemptible conduct. Close this thread and leave Miles alone. Steeletrap (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find it odd that there should be so many of these so-called witch hunt against the same person? Something must be wrong, surely, either with their actions or those of their accusers? And don't worry if you feel left out: your own actions will likely be raised in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I infer when I see a ton of witch-hunts against one editors is that there may be a bunch of people out to get him, whether it be that they disagree with him or otherwise. KonveyorBelt 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said that there seems to be something wrong somewhere, not necessarily wrt one person. On the other hand, assuming that the "bunch of people" are not meatpuppets, consensus has its part to play in this. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the phenomenon not "odd", but it's easily understood. There's a significant number of relatively long-time users who feel that, due to their seniority, they are entitled to bait excitable newcomers into behavior which can be used to denigrate and impugn the newbies. These elders, as would be expected, are those who have devoted and continue to devote a significant amount of time and attention to WP. Over time, they form relationships with other elders and with various Admins. Those who become Admins tend to be even-tempered and are in general disinclined to take strong action. Their role is largely confined to facilitation in uncontroversial matters and identifying and vetting consensus on talk and noticeboard threads. Because the WP elders are the only ones with enough site knowledge, time and interest to challenge or depose an Admin, the Admins have an understandable bias in favor of giving free rein to the elders. To a social scientist and libertarian such as myself this is easily understood. It's likely a stable situation, because the relatively junior editors who actually come here to work on content are unlikely to be willing to devote the time required to compile dossiers of diffs and recruit allies and navigate the political processes of this community. The result is that WP, which is commonly understood to be dedicated to and thrive on openness, actually operates as a rather closed and reactionary community. I'm not expressing any personal opinion or evaluation about this state of affairs, just observing one aspect of why it is neither "odd" nor "wrong". SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some generalized and, yes, personalized criticism of a large number of editors and admins doesn't seem to be a very appropriate response to a discussion of one editor's behavior. And being a libertarian means you have some respect for the contract/agreement you make when you join wikipedia, including rules on how to change policies you don't like. Criticizing alleged elites who actually have learned the rules and attempt to live by them because you have some problem with attempted enforcement of voluntary agreed upon rules, while giving no constructive suggestions, isn't particularly libertarian. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that the 'elites' are violating the 'voluntary contract' of the community, by prioritizing relationships and politics over sober enforcement of the rules. Your insinuation that he is not a good libertarian is a personal attack that should be removed from the article. (How would you like it if someone told you you're not a good feminist or anti-war activist?) Steeletrap (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think here by "personal attack" we're talking about the one defined and forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and such certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of MilesMoney's interaction. Special:Contributions/65.102.177.223 had made 3 edits to Liberty University and posted 2 notices to MM's talk page, all on December 2. Next, starting on December 4, the IP edited 3 other articles (with 4 edits). On December 6, I posted an IP welcome message (not referencing any particular contribution.) MM's follow-up, 81 minutes later, lacks a certain amount of AGF and civility, but does not surprise me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legionarius

Legionarius and IP 130.88.164.18 are acting like they own the article Arena Corinthians , and they are simply preventing me from editing, reverting all my edits. The article seemed a great advertisement when I started inserting "bad" data about the stadium, on the involvement of mafias, corruption and other notorious problems involving this stadium. Then this user and this IP, one of them reportedly Corinhtians supporter (as evidenced by this diff : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arena_Corinthians&diff=584127037&oldid=584077211, where he says in Portuguese "MY world championship"), and a great chance that Legionarius also be supporter of Corinthians, started making total reversals of my issues, under the most absurd arguments possible : that my sources were not reliable (ridiculous, as they are excellent sources and very reliable) that it has nothing to do with the article (yes, it has!) while they are trying to block me in all possible ways. Not achieving success, departed to an unnecessary "Dispute resolution noticeboard", to try to intimidate me. Now both reverted again my editions and soon after, gone : Legionarius does not edit by the last the two days and the IP, 3 days. That is, they simply want to keep the article as if it were a gigantic unreal propaganda pro team they support, hiding important facts concerning the subject. I ask that both should be blocked from Wikipedia, or at least prevented from editing this article , since both been acting in the same format that single-purpose accounts: Legionatius only edit this article, specifically, since June 2013, and the IP (which seems to be the same person, or known, because he acts together Legionarius, and was blocked by block evasion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:130.88.164.18&diff=584602079&oldid=584550024) basically just edited this article also . I'm sick of this bias . Rauzaruku (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that you're fresh off and WP:EW block on this article and just repeated the edit that you were blocked for, continuing the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators. This is an unfortunate situation. First, I am not 130.88.164.18. [116]

When I rewrote the article and put it to GA this gentleman gave me a warning the article would never be stable and comparing the club to a murderer.[117] After some months he showed up adding several libelous additions from biased sources. Discussions have been underway. There are too many diffs to list. I will try to put a timeline here:

1. Article rewritten and put up to GA. Message from user:[118] . Highlights: demonstrably buying titles, connects with the Brazilian media mafia, it's like trying to highlight an article about a thief or a murderer.

2.Somebody put a rebuttal and he deleted it. [119] Summary: Corinthians fans opinions aren't relevant.

3. He makes changes to reflect his POV[120], followed by about 10 others. I say that it is not a good source, because it is biased. [121] He got into an edit war with user 130.88.164.18.

3. Other rebuttals:My "accusations" are not accusations, they are proven , documented and referenced facts . Try removing anything, and I call the administrators to block and ban you, You better stop lying about the source, and I do not invention texts. In the report, there are documented facts and personal statements of those involved. If you don't show interest in documenting the relevant facts to the articles, then you are a partial editor, and this article is not afford to be GA. And, in fact, you've been acting like a "single-purpose account" for a long time here. 5 years out of Wikipedia and you returned into account single-purpose format - an entire semester just editing this article. Impressively partial.

3. I contact him on his talk page. Not being successful, I put up a RfC[122], using the GA version as a base. As he ignores the RfC, I reverted it and asked repeatedly to put his comments on the RfC. That got me blocked.

4. His offer of consensus is If you want a consensus from me, do a section with "the offical Globo-CBF-Federal Government-Russian Mafia" version.[123]. I really cannot go there,as just there is no indication that this is true.

Rauzaruku has some problems with his English, what makes the conversation more difficult. i.e., he mistook disgusted for disgusting. Not criticizing; just saying that he may be taking statements the wrong way.

He historically has been showing this POV pushing behavior on other articles, like on Portuguese Language[124][125], Partido da Imprensa Golpista [126], discussing medal orders on articles, Rodrigo Constantino, Instituto Millenium(the last two with User: Al Lemos).

On the Portuguese Wikipedia, he was banned when using other nicks:

Dariusvista

CoalaBR and his puppets, more puppets, other puppets and Some more puppets.

As Rauzaruku he was blocked once for POV pushing and uncivility and now he is up again for blocking.

You can find plenty of uncivil comments and POV pushing on his history. His main pet peeves are Corinthians and Politics.

Is there and admin that is bot and admin here and on PT:wiki?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

Legionarius (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is a comedy. He is not discussing the article, just the people. His only goal is to block who edit his "sacred" article... I'm doing a hard work here in the swimming section for months, but it's so good to ignore all my contributions (more than 400 articles created, and more than 90% of my time evolving articles) and focus only in the moments there I'm fighting against vandals here.... extremely partial. I would like to know why you stopped 5 years to edit here, and suddenly, started to edit only in Arena Corinthians for 6 months, someone is paying you and stuff? Or you have more accounts? This is very strange. I'm waiting you discuss the article (you didn't nothing yet), and don't try to ban me all the time, trying to protect your giant Corinthians propaganda. Al Lemos is another partial editor, just like you, who wants to use Wikipedia to do political propaganda. This coward run from here to vandalize another wikis. You could follow this example. I want to see an administrator saying that my sources are not acceptable, not a wiki-lawyer trying to ban me. Oh, and I'm waiting you to do something more useful in your life, than to be 6 months using Wikipedia as your personal blog. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. To keep things short, I am the opposite of all the accusations you put. Regarding the content discussion, please read the talk page as it is very detailed there, a long text. Once an admin get a chance to look at this incident you raised and advises on the next steps, I will resume editing and communicating. Legionarius (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with this dispute except for the fact that I closed the unsuccessful case that was filed at WP:DRN. However, I wanted to make involved parties aware that, unlike WP:DRN which is a forum designed exclusively for content disputes, this forum is designed to address behavioral problems in editors. So it is appropriate for editors here to discuss behavioral problems in a civil way, using diffs to support their allegations. Also, editors should be aware that if they come to this forum with unclean hands there is the possibility of the WP:Boomerang effect. Good luck to both of you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rauzaruku also defaced the article on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are so cool, man. Don't have nothing to do in your HUE HUE BR life, except to edit Wikipedia and your beloved team article, and watch my edits. Wow, amazing. Want a trophy by your life inutility? I'm still waiting you discuss the sources and the text, not myself. As well as you don't have arguments to do against the extreme notability and reliability of my sources, you keep trying to block me. Pathetic. You're hitting the water. When you stop to act as a single-purpose account, a fanatical supporter of Corinthians and a wiki-lawyer, call me. Why do not you try to edit other articles? Oh yeah, six months ago, someone must have paid you to use Wikipedia as pro-Corinthians propaganda blog and since then you just edit this article, I forgot it. Well, I don't need to do nothing, except to wait Legionarius grow up and write a section with the official version of the history, but he don't want to do it, so, I can't do nothing. If he try to erase it all again, I will revert this vandal again. And that's it to me, good night. Now I'll edit swimming articles again, I'll not lose more time with this. I suggest to filter Legionarius from editing this article, this will finish our problem. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to block Rauzaruku for the above rants alone already (they are littered with personal attacks), but I threw in continued edit warring on the article--their preferred version contains at least one clear-cut BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block. If they don't learn from this, given their long history of disruption across numerous articles and numerous Wikis, and a few socks being thrown in as well, I'd support an indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rauzaruku is back reverting the articles on Fr:wiki, Es:wiki and on It:wiki.Legionarius (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bookspam

User:Dutchy85 has added "bookspam" to the lead paragraphs of dozens of articles. The book appears to be self-published. It's been out for four years, but has no reviews on Amazon. I haven't established a link between the account and the author, but I haven't much time this morning. There's a lot to revert, an I figured I'd run it by the group first in any case since this is the first time I've encountered "book spamming" to this degree. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rklawton - the book is not self published it's from McFarland who are a very legitimate publishing house. It the book is a resource on AIP films and I am going through it. http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-3309-4. I am not the author of the book I just have a copy of it. I am just a fan of AIP films and trying to increase the reference sources for AIP films on wikipedia.Dutchy85 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we've already determined that McFarland is not "a very legitimate publishing house" in the way you're suggesting. It's barely a step away from POD. ES&L 14:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• EatsShootsAndLeaves, please tell me where we've determined that, to satisfy my Wikipedian and professional curiosity. I have some questions about McFarland, but I wouldn't put it as you just did, at least not yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rklawton, I really think you should have discussed this with the user first; I'm not sure this as yet adds up to an incident that should be listed here. Now, a discussion on this topic is very welcome, of course, though this may not be the best venue. Anyway, I've looked at a couple of McFarland books and they're kind of hit and miss. I got one on my desk that I've cited here (in No Such Thing (film)) because I have faith in the particular book.

  Now, Dutchy's edits could be entirely valid; if there is no other reason in their edit history to think this might be spam we have to accept it. I've done this too, though not to this extent: you run into a useful book and start citing it all over the place. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not scrolled through Dutchy85's edits, but I have seen his or her additions of gross figures to numerous film article infoboxes, so this is not a single-purpose account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two other points: I cannot locate any discussion on WP:RSN about McFarland, specifically that they are "barely a step away from POD", so it would be good to have a pointer to such a discussion. Second, I note that Rklawton has nominated the article McFarland & Company, about the company, for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that link, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is held in over 200 libraries according to worldcat. I have not seen it, but I consider it porobably acceptable as a usable source, at least for factual material, The place for this discussion is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If 200 libraries actually bought the book, I'd be impressed. The fact is, McFarland is an independent publisher. They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published. Now if we can find some indication of reliability, that would be different, but I'm not seeing any. Here on Wikipedia, if someone wants to claim a source is reliable, then the burden is on them to demonstrate it's reliable rather than the other way around. At any rate, given the volume of editing, I'm looking for several things - a general feeling for whether or not these edits should be revered, and a general idea of whether or not the account's editing privileges should be revoked. We've had enough Wiki-PR type nonsense already, and I'm not all that keen on seeing it continue. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gulf of difference between an academic, specialty press and a vanity press! Coming out with statements such as "They accept for publishing whatever you're willing to pay them to assemble and publish. A book published by them is no more reliable than anything else self published" is plain wrong. You question the "reliability" of their works; try the Reference and User Services Association of the American Library Association. Their 2012 awards for Outstanding Reference Sources includes McFarland's The Polish American Encyclopedia[127]; in 2011 Off Broadway Musicals, 1910 – 2007: Casts, Credits, Songs, Critical Reception and Performance Data of More Than 1,800 Shows[128]; 2010 Broadway Plays and Musicals: Descriptions and Essential Facts[129]. Also in 2010, McFarland were picked for RUSA's Best Historical materials with The New Woman in Print and Pictures: An Annotated Bibliography[130]. In 2006 McFarland's The Titanic in Print and on Screen: An Annotated Guide to Books, Films, Television Shows, and Other Media was picked by RUSA for Best Bibliographies in History[131]. Sure, they publish niche works, but you are way off mark with this unwarranted criticism of McFarland's practices and credentials. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their website is quire explicit that they do not accept payment for publication. The idea that Dutchy's editing privileges should be revoked because you have a bug up your butt about McFarland is absurd and, if done, likely an abuse of your responsibilities as an admin. Take a look at the AfD you started, which is pretty much a snow keep at this point, for the community's take on your view of McFarland. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than take action myself in this case, I put it up for discussion here. And that's fully appropriate. Your language and your tone, however, are not appropriate, and if it persists, you will find your own account posted here as the subject of a new discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My tone is completely appropriate, especially considering what very much looks like a retaliatory WP:BATTLEGROUND AfD nomination, and especially considering you brought this issue here without doing the least bit of investigation into Dutchy's editing history. Instead you're making strong charges against an entirely innocent editor without evidence and throwing around threats of "revoking editing privilgees" and filing unwarranted AN/I reports because someone spoke frankly to you. I'm sure you enjoy shooting from the hip, but your administrative responsibilities call for more than that, which you have not fulfilled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another user re-editing my talk page comments

User:Drmargi has repeatedly re-edited my comments in a talk page discussion. I pointed out that this is not allowed per talk page guidelines and that he/she does not have my permission to do this. She nonetheless continued.

• [132]
• [133]
• [134]

ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Personal attacks should be removed, but Template:RPA is better than the text Drmagi used. Welcome to the world of WP:BOOMERANG. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Didn't know about the template. Thank you! Corrected, and my edits stand. CK was asked several times to address the issue, not the editor, but refuses, with responses peppered with personal attacks. Consequently, I redacted them, per WP:NPOV which is within policy. --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NPOV is not relevant to redacting talk page comments.

2. The first two diffs show that Drmagi removed the comment "The article's self-appointed caretaker", claiming that this represented a personal attack. This is not a personal attack. See WP:NPA#WHATIS.

3. The third diff shows that Drmagi removed the comment "Grow up". The comment was uncivil. However, before we criticise ChakaKong for this, we should read WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, which says that one form of incivility is "taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Drmargi's repeated unwarranted accusations that ChakaKong was making personal attacks, and deleting parts of ChakaKong's talk page posts are a good example of baiting as described in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.

Please could we consider a 6 hour block for Drmargi to give him/her time to reflect. If he/she continues his/her uncivil behaviour, the blocks should escalate.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside opinion: Looking at the provided diffs there is another way to interpret this. Drmargi being called a "self-proclaimed caretaker" can also be seen as an accusation of him having ownership issues, which could itself be seen as a personal attack. 90.193.35.112 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC) — 90.193.35.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If CK discusses the issue and behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner, CK doesn't have a problem. End of story. This had gone dormant two days ago, and it wasn't me who stirred it up again. He's been nothing but belligerent from the start, and I'm not prepared to tolerate his name calling and false accusations. They are personal attacks designed to bully me into the outcome he desires. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent genre warring by Alcatrazzrapper

I'm not sure exactly where I should go for this. It seems Alcatrazzrapper is a WP:GWAR and WP:SPA which has done nothing but change genres on hip hop album articles without any discussion at all. I gave him a final warning on the 3rd, but he has not stopped. Perhaps a block is in order, but I will leave that decision up to an admin. Jinkinson talk to me 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This and this are properly verified, so it seems to me they're following guidelines in at least those two edits. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. Both of those sources have "political rap" listed as a "style". Alcatrazzrapper put in "political hip-hop" which is surely not synonymous, and a genre is not the same as a style. Allmusic is a mediocre source at the best of times, and it's really only useful for a baseline listing of genres if no other meaningful journalism is available about the album. No one knows where they get their "genre" and "style" attributes—it could be some data entry monkey who's just copying metadata from the publisher. You can't tell any of this to your typical genre warrior, though, because they don't communicate or listen to arguments. They're just here to change genres on every album they can find. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Front Page Image

Currently File:Uniform tiling 433-t0.png is on the "Today's Featured Article", but it might be a good idea to switch images. Reds and blues close together in images appear to "flash" (for lack of a better term) and might cause a seizure in someone who is sensitive to those colors. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#CENSORED... or perhaps time to repeal that extremely problematic policy. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: 78.156.109.166

user Bhutto gee

• Bhutto gee (talk · contribs)

Looks like another one from the sock farm (User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_20#Possible_sock.2Fmeatpuppet_Zubin_Irani, User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_19#Block_of_Jasmine_Aladin)and Emir Jamshedparineetichopra (talk · contribs) is back, doing the same disruptive editing on same articles and adding same unreliable sources in WP:BLP articles for example [136], [137] and [138].--Jockzain (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and corresponding sleeper blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

Tell me

Persistent creation of inappropriate articles

Suspected Attempt at Outing [139]

Hello. Could someone please look into and/or advise on procedure/action concerning an incident of a suspected attempt at Outing [140] a user via a possibly Uncivil comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question;

"Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

N.B. A previous comment by Socialmedium in the same Article began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', "

Both comments can be found here [141] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest that an admin with a little time and some patience take a look at the article Institute for Learning and its talk page because it looks very much like some things are going on there. Specifically, User:Socialmedium appears to be an SPA, possibly with a COI, but almost certainly with a fixed POV, who is attempting ownership of the article. On the other side, I'd suggest the possibility of socking, both via IPs and throw-away accounts. The "outing" comment above also raises the possibility that this editing conflict is a real-world dispute that's moved on-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly a dispute and some edit warring involving two named editors and some anonymous IP editors, none of whom seem to have other interests within Wikipedia. There's a long section on the "2011 membership fees dispute". I'm not sure what the dispute was about, or that anybody outside the organization cares about it. I'd suggest that if the parties involved don't stop fighting over it, someone should cut out most of that material and trim the article down. John Nagle (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sure that Socialmedium is not being WP:CIVIL. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

(FYI: this issue has now been brought to WP:ARB/R, see; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Kafziel.27s_AfC_actions - ^theWOLFchild 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Another SPA POV-pushing and edit warring at Bukharan Jews, WP:NPA on article Talk page

Special:Contributions/Coolforschool
User_talk:Coolforschool

Maybe this user is a new SPA account of an IP recently edit warring on the same article, as he almost seems to lay claim to the latter's edits.

He has been attempting to restore the same material, after I went through the trouble of opening a thread here and then at RS/N Archive_160#Bukharan_Jews.2C_lost_tribes.2C_etc. here.

I've tried to accommodate the content related concerns of the SPA within the scope permissible by the RS here and here, but that didn't seem to appease them. Please refer to the recent edits and the article talk page, where his first edits appear to include personal attacks. I had thought to report him for edit warring, but brought this here in light of the comments on the article talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted all of the recent edits to the last stable version of the article. Including yours, Ubikwit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Let's see if the editor I filed this against responds. The two edits of mine that you ended up reverting were edits that I made after deciding to look more thoroughly at the NYT article to see if there was anything there that would support some of the points of concern being raised. I think that including the POV in the edit from the Background section is important insofar as it balances the other POV (inclusion of Ashkenazi in demographics related to Bukharan Jews). The edit in the cuisine section is relevant to the cultural distinction the SPAs arriving at the article have been vehement about asserting. The SPAs are violating policy by tendentiously pushing a unilateral POV over and against RS, but there is a balance to be achieved by incorporating the various POV insofar as there are reliably sourced statements supporting them.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ubikwit was blocked by User:Toddst1 for one week for edit warring on Bukharan Jews. I feel that it is excessive: he involved the new user into discussions on the talk page and he was trying to get 3d opinion here. Maybe it would be more appropriate to protect the article for a while and give users chance to settle their arguments on the talk page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like this make it abundantly clear that Ubikwit knew s/he was edit warring. That was the 4th time s/he reverted the same edit by Coolforschool. Ubikwit has been blocked 4 times for edit warring and knows the drill. That's the excessive part. Classic WP:BOOMERANG.

Note that CFS continued the edit war after I warned him/her and is now blocked as well. Toddst1(talk) 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson has extended the block of Ubikwit and removed talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: Anjooraan

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago, and found a couple of problematic articles by the same person. Normally I'd nominate such articles for WP:Speedy, and have a quick glance at the user talk page to see if they needed help. When I looked at User talk:Anjooraan, I found a mountain of deletion notifications, and no evidence at all they had even looked at their user talk page (certainly no edits there). I asked what to do in the Teahouse, and they advised me to come here - it's certainly over my head.

In an editing career that appears to date back no further than the 23rd of November they have listed on their talk page:

• 24 nominations listed under WP:SPEEDY (A7 and Copyright violation)
• 6 Nominations listed under WP:PROD
• 3 other deletion nominations
• At least one copyright violation

At least one of the speedies was for a page that had been deleted once under speedy deletion and recreated by Anjooraan. It's a pity because they seem enthusiastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonchameleon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. I see absolutley zero talk page edits during their short but rather busy time here on Wikipedia. I would suggest a short block to try and get their attention. If they decide to communicate after that, then the block can be lifted. Otherwise, if they continue the disruptive behavior after the block has expired, then an indef will likely be in order. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there multiple copyvios involved (I count 6 G12 deletions), an immediate indefinite block would be more appropriate. They can be unblocked if they then demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy and the other concerns. MER-C 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a block is in order. This editor shows no signs of competence and discusses nothing with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with a block, but I noticed that the user was never warned, so I did just that. Erpert^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were, although I wasn't as clear as I might be in my article titleNeonchameleon (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. I've just nominated a page of his for Copyright Violation again. Worse yet he'd had SOMAN BABY deleted so he just recreated it at Soman Baby. I've also found plagiarism on an article of his that's up for deletion (but the rest are all clean according to google). Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WP:IDHT is an understatement. S/he is clearly not here for the good of the project. (And NC, sorry about the warning mix-up earlier.) Erpert^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given multiple instances of this nature and the precedents, a block is probably the best option. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why this thread dragged on so long before getting an admin's attention. Sorry about that. Blocked indef until they start communicating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn

Request to block disruptive user Medeis

Wickwack paddywack, give a troll a bone, this old thread needs closing down--Jayron32 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[I posted this request here yestertday, but it dissappeared within seconds. I thought it was a software glitch so I posted it again. Aagin it was deleted within seconds. Checking history showed it was deleted both times by "AdmiralCaius". I asked politely on his talk page why he deleted it. He deleted that question there as well, without comment. Deletion here without comment is not helpful, proves nothing, and achieves nothing. Is AdmiralCaius another name for Medeis? I have posted here again. I note that others have continued to complain about Medeis on the Reference Desk talk page under heading How to answer questions. We can all do without the need to rebuke Medeis. I really cannot understand why Medeis is allowed to continue. Just from the comments by others currently on the Referance Desk talk page, he clearly has a bad reputation] Recently, a user, SteveBaker (not the problem user), posted a flowchart under heading How to answer questions on the Reference Desk talk page, (http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science#How_to_answer_questions) with a request for comment. It attracted a disrespectful comment from user Medeis beginning "This seems a rather obvious ... way of [stopping] those who think it should be hatted ... when Baker and others really really want to answer it." Later, Medeis attempted to get the flow chart deleted. I contributed several posts, along with others, in what I consider a constructive way. Discussion ensued with some users supporting and/or agreeing with me, and some disagreeing with reasons given, which of couse is fine. It is clear from several posts under this heading and elsewhere that people, even if they hold different views to me, consider my contributions constructive, and they have no problem with it. Medeis deleted most of my posts, leaving the comment "Comment by banned user removed”. I am not aware that I am a banned user. I have no reason to believe I am a banned user. It seems clear to me that Medeis has deleted my posts in order to stifle or skew discussion - the same reason he wanted SteveBaker's flowchart deleted. Another user thinks I am someone they call Wickwack. I am not Wickwack, whoever Wickwack may be. Apparently I live in the same country (Australia), and share the same ISP (who has millions of other customers) as Wickwack. This is no great problem, except perhaps that it provides Medeis with a convenient unjustified excuse without providing any proof. I note that Medeis is very active at hatting and deleting all manner of posts on Reference Desk, not just mine, and only sometimes justified (i.e., only some are obvious trolls, provision of medical advice, and the like). It is a major contribution surely leading to a poor reputation of the Reference Desk in the community at large, along with Medeis's sometimes personally abusive posts (for example, the comment against SteveBaker above, quite unjustified). I cannot understand why sanctions have not been taken against Medeis some time ago. A search of Reference Desk project and talk page archives shows many users commenting adversely about Medeis. Since Medeis is disruptive, a deletion vandal, and a major contributor to bad vibes, can Medeis be banned/blocked please? In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I attempted to notify Medeis on his talk page. However there is no Edit or New Section tab on his talk page! RJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.87.169 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] There actually is an Edit and a New Section at Medeis page. There is much discussion including a discussion of ANI issues. I am unsure about the rest although it is clear that Admiral Caius did delete the posting thinking you are a banned user. Perhaps he can supply the diff to that decision? JodyB talk 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] The history for this can largely be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple_IP_addresses. That section also links to a sockpuppet investigation page. I personally am completely confident that the IP posting here is, in fact, WickWack aka Ratbone. One of his favorite ways to troll has always been to pretend to be several different people. His IP changes to quickly, and covers too many ranges, to really bother blocking. Not disrptive enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Although this IP is not named it is from the same pool in Australia. The evidence at Someguy's diff is enlightening. I think I may hear quacking in the distance. JodyB talk 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, Someguy. Other editors will note this is the third time the banned IP user has posted this in 24 (if not more, I haven't checked), it was reverted before by an editor who left a message on my talk page. His behavior has been discussed recently at the Ref Desk talk page under a header "wickwack" and throughout, with the point of his banning and the appropriateness of summarily reverting his edits mentioned repeatedly. I intend to unwatch this, and I suggest it be archived. Please leave a message on my talk page if my attention is needed agin. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liang1a not going beyond complaints of prejudice against China to discuss contested edits to ADIZ articles

I rarely if ever take the initiative to try to get help solving an issue with another editor here but User:Liang1a has refused to substantively engage on the Talk pages with regard to the particulars of what this editor wants. The editor has only edited two articles in recent years and a typical edit in recent days is to just add "The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China" to an article. Maybe the cultural gap here as to Wikipedia's norms and purpose is just so wide that the problem is rather unprecedented in my experience. May I suggest an admin either admonish this user to either discuss the objections raised on article Talk pages and address the points at issue or alternatively restrict editing to the article(s) or by the editor until such time as there is further specific content-focused engagement with other editors?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original text was: "The announcement of the zone drew attention and international criticism, especially from Japan and the U.S." It is obvious that "international criticism" is a subjective term insinuating that the whole world is condemning China. Obviously, the Chinese ADIZ is a political event that those countries hostile to China wish to exploit to demonize China. I don't know that the "norm" at Wikipedia is to allow partisans to use it for political ends. If it is permitted to insinuate the whole world is against China then surely it is permitted to refute it with :"The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China". Which, incidentally, is absolutely true. Furthermore, the term "carping" was used by an article published by Global Times which is an authoritative publication in China reflecting the sentiments of the Chinese government. "Carping and irresponsible remarks about China establishing its own ADIZ are of no value at all."^[1] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/827925.shtml Therefore, I was not merely expressing my personal opinion when I used the term "carping" but quoting sourced material. As a compromise, I will agree to "The announcement of the zone drew attention and expressions of discontent from some countries, especially from Japan and the U.S." Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Also, Brian Dell or somebody, has been deleting my posts as quoted below:

It is not true that US ADIZ regulations do not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts that fly through the US ADIZ but do not enter US sovereign airspace. The US ADIZ rules are as follows: ^[2] http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In North America, the US and Canada are surrounded by an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the civilian air traffic control authorities and the militaries of both nations, under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD.^[3]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• The joint US/Canadian ADIZ, which is almost exclusively over water, serves as a national defense boundary for aerial incursions.'^[4]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11). ^[5]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13) ^[6]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In the United States, the FAA handles the requests of international aircraft and Transport Canada handles Canadian requests.^[7]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft. ^[8] http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

There is no justification to deleted sourced material. I hope admin will ask Brian Dell to stop deleting it.Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original research / personal opinion in his edits are blatantly obvious, so I've given him a final warning. If he wants to grind his axe, he can do it somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Someguy1221 an admin? Does he have the authority to give me warnings?Liang1a (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but it doesn't matter. Anyone can give you a warning. You should take it on board and if it's deserved, make sure you stop the problematic behaviour. If problematic behaviour continues after several warnings, you may need to be blocked to protect wikipedia. (We don't need warnings before blocking if your behaviour is bad enough but it's normal best practice since it helps give us confidence we do have to block someone as they should know about the problems they are causing but aren't apparently going to stop.) Only an admin will be able to block you in the end, but who gave you the warnings doesn't generally matter. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific - yes, he is an administrator, and yes, he has authority to issue a final warning to a disruptive user. Anyone technically can issue such warnings, but admins can act upon them, and generally treat such warnings from other admins as more solidly valid than those issued by normal editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know Someguy221 is an admin?Liang1a (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [156]. And then think about actually responding to the issues raised about your editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Liang1a to Georgewilliamherbert: So, someguy1221 is actually an administrator. That scares me to death - NOT! If this is the quality of Wiki administrator then my opinion of Wiki is much less. I've attempted to give a balanced view of the issue. But it is obvious that Wiki is adament to block me. So go ahead and block me. Posting to Wiki is not the crowning achievement of my life as it seems to be to someguy1221. I've read and refuted the confused and arrogant bigots who keep lying about what third party evidence is. I'll try again to refute them and then I'll stop wasting my time. It's Wiki's loss if it is seen as partisan.

If you stole a car then your testimony is first party. If I witnessed your theft then my evidence is third party evidence. The car itself is just the stolen property and not evidence to prove innocence or guilt. By the same token, the issue is about whether US ADIZ requires filing of flight plan. Therefore, what American media said are first party evidence. And the US ADIZ rules posted by FAA is like the stolen car and is neither first nor third party evidence. It is simply necessary to be shown so that people know what the issue is. How can you talk about what the US ADIZ rules are without looking at them?

I've wasted enough time. It is not worth my while to waste any more of my time. There are plenty of other forums for me to express myself. This also reflects the situation in E. China Sea. After decades of seeking Americn approval and support, Chinese leaders have finally come to the realization that it is pointless to waste its time to gain the support of the US. Hence its declaration of the ADIZ in E. China Sea as a way to tell America that it is no longer important to China.

Keep your precious propaganda mill. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you just serve as a mouthpiece for American propaganda. For me to give a balanced view to your articles helps you and not me. I've not done much editing at all in the past. So not being able to edit Wiki articles is no loss to me. And I have many other things to do to give me more satisfaction than arguing with bigots. Liang1a (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liang1a, you cite to the same source seven times here, but you could cite seventy times and it does not resolve the matter if your source is disputed. Calling attention to a source does not resolve the issue if contradicted by other sources or if, as here, the sources don't in fact conflict but the devil is in the details as opposed to the broad strokes one finds in the Powerpoint show your repeatedly refer to. Just why your source, or more precisely how you are using it, is problematic is laid out on the relevant article Talk pages. It requires more patience all around to work through more complex material and frequently more discussion as well. There is actually a certain logic to how Wikipedia works but to appreciate it one has to stop and analyze the nature of the resistance encountered instead of just taking another charge at it. Veteran editors are less likely to be treated as hotheads than newcomers not because their temperaments are fundamentally different but because they've learned over time how to tiptoe through the turnips and get things done. Just speaking as another editor, while I'd see your proposal to change "international criticism" to "expressions of discontent from some countries" overly wordy, this sort of proposal is very typical of Wikipedia's day-to-day editing and continuing down this lane represents the way to go here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liang1a: - I see that you are very new here (86 edits), which may be a factor in some of the difficulties your facing. If no one has told you yet, let me then assure you that one of the prime objectives of Wikipedia is neutrality. If you feel that the article in question has a bias toward China, just post your concern on that article's talk page, and allow for a discussion (like Brian has suggested). There are many people who will immediately evaluate the article, to ensure it is neutral. While that means it will not be "anti-China", it will not be "pro-China" either. There are plenty of experienced editors willing to help you, if you will let them. Just be willing to talk and work with others. Do not edit war, and don't get defensive when somebody says something you don't agree with. There is now plenty of attention on the article in question. It will get fixed where needed. Just watch, and maybe you'll learn a few things along the way. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no interest in editing the article, but having seen this ANI on my watchlist and having had experience with Chinese government sources on other matters, and with the special logic of the Chinese government viewpoint being held forth upon here, here is an example of genuinely neutral coverage by a major Chinese paper not actually in China, whose goals are expressly neutrality...even though it is very pointedly hostile to the government of mainland China...on exactly the same issue. IMO sometimes a neutral presentation of the facts of a situation is very often seen as POV by one or more sides in the equation; this applies as much to domestic politics as to international politics; the reason being that, in politics, a full representation of the facts is all too often not conducive to "fairness" because......the truth is very often not fair, but swift and obvious in the condemnation a neutral presentation of the facts of a case clearly show. Politics is not about being obvious and clear, rather the opposite.Skookum1 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColonelHenry more personal attacks and outing

(edit conflicted while discussion was being closed) I'd like to see something a bit stronger from ColonelHenry, because of the enduring consequences of outing, which was obviously serious enough for the oversighters. Considering the discussion above, I'd like to see stronger confirmation from ColonelHenry indicating s/he really understands outing. I also find many of his/her comments above unhelpful, particularly considering the seriousness of the issue. And following copyvio instructions is everyone'e prerogative-- we don't all have time to fix every copyvio we find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier comment someone rubbed out in an edit conflict)

Involuntary outing is bad, yes. But maybe someone could explain this to my feeble brain: (1) the OP claims his own blog's content was plagiarized; (2) how is it possible to prove that claim without "outing" oneself by providing the citation to the blog? and (3) a blog is not a valid source on Wikipedia anyway. Hence, the OP should never have posted that content in the first place. Right? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blog was not being used as a source. The blog showed an example of bad prose copied from a Wikipedia article. The author then rewrote the "bad" prose on the blog, creating what (s)he evidently believed to be brilliant prose (saying the same things, cited to the same sources) to show how it should be done. Another person then posted the rewritten text to Wikipedia to replace the "bad" prose. AfadsBad then deleted the section, claiming that their blog was being "plagiarised", thus, in effect outing themselves. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Wikipedia editors thought it brilliant enough to plagiarize without credit. And, not only did I remove it, I followed the directions at WP:Copyright violations, and I linked to my blog on the article talk page, so there was no "in effect outing," I posted a link to the blog on the talk page, a place where some editors discuss articles, and where one is directed to post a template with a link to the URL that was plagiarized when removing the text. Read WP:Copyright violations some time. It's enlightening. The outing has been oversighted. The blog link at the article has not. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, as has often been said here, if one is concerned about being outed, complaining about it on this totally public page is not the best strategy. So the complainant needs to decide what's more important: Staying anonymous here, or protecting a copyright on a blog. On the other hand, if someone was deliberately trying to draw attention to their blog, this could be a good strategy. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I thank the Colonel for obsessing about the blog? It certainly has driven my stats up for the day. However, it's still not outing me, like ColonelHenry did, so I don't really care about it being or not being posted here, the article where I posted it, other places where others post it. I care about editors posting personally identifiable information about me that is not otherwise available on Wikipedia in a retaliatory move, as clearly stated by the Colonel in his properly oversighted outing edit summary. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key question might be then, is it possible to discern from your blog what your real-life identity is? If not, how did he figure it out? (And no details, please, just "in general". We don't need any reruns of such outing.) ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a recent ArbCom case that's going to go against you on this. He did a hell of a lot of sleuthing, but not from my blog. I should probably feel honored, as I had to search for where I interacted with him, while he was devoting a lot of time to finding out off-site information about me.

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." On Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one outed me by linking to or citing my blog, which is not a secret. Outing is about revealing personally identifiable information on Wikipedia that does not already exist there. My blog is already posted in a couple of places on Wikipedia. I'd be glad to post it even more places, but that's not really the purpose of Wikipedia. To repeat, the blog is not how ColonelHenry outed me. It would not be oversighted, anyhow, because it is already linked all over Wikipedia and tagged with my Wikipedia user name. It's not outable. Read WP:OUT some time. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he went way out of his way to find your real-life identity and post it here (or anywhere), then that's malicious and should be dealt with. Although there's a lesson in there for you as well: Be extremely cautious as regards your "internet footprint". If one bad-intentioned citizen could find it, others could too. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what he did, what was oversighted, and what I am reporting about ColonelHenry and off Wikipedia personal information about me. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also Streisand effect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Except that she cared that her property not be on Google. I want my blog all over the place, and, to help Wikipedia readers find me, I add my Wikipedia user name to my posts' tags. So, what Streisand effect? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, how can we do anything, even warn or counsel someone, without knowing what the edit summary said? The fact that it was oversighted does not definitively prove it was outing. AfadsBad and ColonelHenry are describing the contents of the edit summary in different ways, and we can never know who is more accurate. I'd say an email to ArbCom is the only practical solution, so they can either caution ColonelHenry, or block him, or tell AfadsBad he's over-reacting, or something. But we can't do that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about a disclaimer, although I realize that after following the instructions for copyvios, and for other things, and being told I was wrong to, in all probability, it will be incorrect, or simply used as all guidelines and rules are on Wikipedia: outing is a crime if others do it, but just another bother to be given the run around if it happens to outsiders. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're intentionally attributing opinions and statements to me that I'm clearly not making. It makes me suspect (absent any evidence to the contrary) that you could easily be misrepresenting the contents of the edit summary too. So thanks, you've beautifully made my point for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't attributed anything to you, I'll let you own your own comment. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block."

And, how about some of the admins in this thread reading the oversight policy? From interacting with oversighters on behalf of others, I know the policy better than you. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A keyword there is attempted outing. That's a blockable offense, whether the attempted outing information is accurate or not. There is no obligation to prove that it's the real info. The attempt is sufficient to put the attempter on ice, either for a short stretch or permanently. However, here's what you need to do, based on experience: Find a trusted admin and communicate to him offline (i.e. via e-mail) if your privacy is ever compromised. Don't bring such a sensitive matter to a public forum. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating Wikipedia is a nightmare, and always, no matter what you do, you're in the wrong. Read much of ANI, or spend any time here and the conclusion about "trusted" admin is limited. As for Wombat, WP:TLDR, ESSAY, RANDY, DICK, DIVA, WHATEVERJUVENILE essay necessary to not take responsibility for problems on Wikipedia, like making up information and passing it off as science and leaving it on Wikipedia, etc. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to feel like a case of WP:DIVA. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to ArbCom

As usual, in spite of the plethora of guidelines and policies and admins there are none. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sending it to arbcom was probably the smartest and fairest course of action. It's very difficult to deal with something when you can't actually see with what's being discussed and there appears to be disputes over what it was. There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom. You can't blame administrators for being reluctant to deal with something when they're not sure of the details of what they're dealing with (and since administrative actions are subject to review by the community the fact that couldn't explain to anyone querying even if they were doesn't help either). Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom." And what's the reason it says nothing about this on the policy page? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.120.95.221 - continued disruption and possible sock

Rakeshkraja and All Things Nice

It seems a recently created article, All Things Nice, was created by someone who was paid by the subject of the article to create it, as he has acknowledged himself in the article. In light of the recent WikiPR scandal I think this may be a violation of WP:PAY and am posting here to see what administrators think should be done. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't acknowledge that, that was vandalism by another user (see the history.) You can't make that assumption. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and thanks for pointing that out. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are advertising issues with the article though, I haven't had the time to go through it, but a quick glance looks like yes it is advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Not only is it advertising, but it's unfit to be a Wikipedia article in any way—it's (1) unsourced, (2) promotional, and (3) conflict of interest. I would suggest a nomination for deletion of this article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's at AfD now, so it should probably be handled there. The editor in question probably doesn't merit administrative action otherwise at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report

User:Wran – continued disruption

Gabriella~four 3.6

BLP concerns?

Shouldn't this edit be a BLP concern? It is an unsourced claim and does not appear to be talked about in the article at all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. There are several in that category, so you might want to review them. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 07:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial categories in BLPs are difficult to deal with. It's important that we do mention controversial things, if they're covered by sources, but you can't put an inline ref next to a category so the technical problem of verifiability joins the human problem of putting labels on people.

In Ortaylı's case, the article's only actual source - that isn't a dead link - is the Turkish government, and that's definitely not going to call him an Armenian genocide denier, but on the flipside the article is unlikely to be neutral without independent coverage. I realise that Ottoman history is neglected on en.wikipedia, but there's no shortage of English-language historiography out in the real world... bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Sourcing is vital. There was no source for this, someone just stuck it in there. From the sourcing standpoint, it was about as valid as categorizing him as a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this borders on a violation of a restriction on a sensitive topic. Unless the info is sourced, it should not be added. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. thanks guys... Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

magickirin11 socks

Pramukh Swami - Controversy - Alleged Sexual Assault Allegations by Pramukh Swami and BAPS Senior Monks

There is a cabal of wiki-editors who have a conflict of interest regarding pramukh swami and won't let any controversy to be posted.

I have attempted to post sourced controversy regarding the figure in question and the same profiles have changed the record back.

The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj&action=history

I've added to the talk page and there is no comment. The editors monitoring that page are trying to stop the truth from getting out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShantilalSodom (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the above user and RevDel'd the username from the history for being offensive and a BLP violation. I, unfortunately, don't have time to investigate the content additions at the moment. @Mark Arsten: seems to have been there recently however. John Reaves 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Just looking at the history at Pramukh Swami Maharaj, it looks like there's been persistent edit warring and sockpuppeteering (including by the OP, above) to add a section to this article that may not comply with BLP. @Materialscientist:, @George Ho:, @Mark Arsten: ("the same profiles" noted above, none of whom were notified about this thread)

  I suggest semi-protecting the page against non-autoconfirmed (not just using pending changes, as is current) and blocking every SPA/sock puppet. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed PC to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN and RSN should probably weigh in on this. The allegations have been posted in the media. Is it out-of-line to just mention that these allegations have been made even though they haven't proven to be demonstrably true in a court of law? Liz^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the username offensive? --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say absolutely not to posting content about allegations. I'd suggest doing so is inline with posting gossip, no matter the source. And imagine if we posted every allegation made in a newspaper. Once there is some definitive information, and if its deemed significant, I assume it would be , but I'm not in position to judge, then that info could be posted. Remember that what is posted on Wikipedia does not necessarily disappear once it disappears from our articles. It can posted on other sites using WP, and be there a long time, long past the time the allegations have disappeared.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@George Ho: The username is the subject's birth name plus the word "sodom" , as in sodomite or sodomy. John Reaves 04:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody's username is "Sodom" or something and not blocked for that? George Ho (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. John Reaves 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sodom" ain't offensive, is it? George Ho (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be, Sodom was a city in ancient Jordan. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the content that was inserted involved accusations of sodomy so I believe it was intended to be. 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

William Kelly (Olympian) probably needs speedy delete

Dale Boone

Lately, the self-declared official WP account of champion eater Dale Boone, User:Worldchampiondaleboone, has been persistently making unverified changes to his own article and spamming it with promotional links to an Indian eating competition which he dominates. Such behaviour should not be tolerated... Can he please be barred from touching his own article? Read, COI! 218.186.193.101 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP removal of sourced info

94.180.37.119 constantly removes a sourced information from Lachin. 3 times already:

• [205]
• [206]
• [207]

The RIA Novosti (Russia's state agency) article clearly states that

"The council also voted in November to establish a sister city relationship with the city of Berdzor [the Armenian name of the city] in the territory."

First time he called RIA Novosti an "Unauthoritative source" and then claimed that "After protests in Azerbaijan, the agreement was canceled" and provided no source to back it up. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute/edit war. I advise you to bring this to WP:AN3 if you believe edit warring here on the IP's part is problematic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantly" amounts to 2 edits. If it persists, post a complaint at WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is using a dynamic IP. There are a number of reverts from editors using the same dynamic telecom service from the same country—highly suggesting that it is the same user. --Jprg1966^(talk) 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that to me. Blocking won't work, so semi-protected for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AleexxAlcala issuing severe personal attack

User:AleexxAlcala issued a severely hurtful personal attack, attacking my sexual orientation, on my talk page because I removed unreliable information from online blogger Josep Vinaixa that (s)he user keeps insisting be added to Pulses, the upcoming album by Karmin. The editor called me a "faggot" and insisted that gay people like me are annoying as f**k, also entitling the section as "Idiot". This user is clearly unable to work respectfully with other editors, and their severely bad attitude is not what is in the best interest of this website. And they're severely upset, due to my issuing the first-level Disruptive warning to the user, due to continuous addition of the content back into the article after its removal, claiming they're done research and that it is fact. However, no other reputable source has confirmed their claim(s). Their behavior should be looked at, as it is extremely disrespectful to hurl homophobic slurs at someone, no matter of their sexuality. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active DRV short-circuited by an apparent super-vote