위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive866

사용자:CrisGualtieri의 Michael Brown 촬영에서의 행동

ChrisGualtieri는 컨센서스 또는 컨센서스를 초래하는 어떤 과정이 논쟁적인 내용을 개선하는 데 어떻게 기여하는지 인식하지 못한다.이러한 행동은 마이클 브라운의 촬영(토크 히스토리 링크 감시 로그 편집)에 지장을 주었으며 이에 대처해야 한다.아래에서는 그의 행동을 요약해 보았지만 맨드루스가 이미 크리스 게얼티에리에게 합의점에 대해 이야기했다는 것을 먼저 주목해야 한다고 생각한다.크리스 게알티에리는 맨드루스가 합의를 찾고 따르라고 재촉하는 것을 무시했고 결국 합의가 전혀 중요하다는 것을 전혀 인식하지 못했다.이 때문에 ANI 이외에는 해결이 안 될 것 같다.Cwobeel은 ChrisGualtieri의 편집에 대해 크게 이의를 제기하고 많은 부분을 되돌리고 있다.밥 K31416, JBarta, Mandruss 등도 토크 페이지 토론에 참여하였으니 여기서 서로의 견해를 공유해 주었으면 한다.

ChrisGualtieri가 기사에 대한 토론에 들어갔을 때, 그는 기본적으로 ANI 토론을 합의의 증거로 인용하면서 기사의 편향성을 선언하는 섹션을 시작했다[1].ANI 토론이 합의점을 찾지 못한다는 것이 명백해진 후, ChrisGualtieri는 기사에 사용된 출처에 대한 분석을 주입하는 우려 섹션을 만들었다.JBarta는 ChrisGualtieri의 infodump에 대해 우려를 제기하였고, 다음의 논의는 ChrisGualtieri에게 BRD와 합의가 기사 작성에 중요하다는 것을 시사하였다[2].그는 정당한 이유 없이 그것을 사실상 무시한 채 쓰러뜨렸다.나는 인포덤프를 리팩터링해야 한다는 생각을 꺼냈지만, 합의는 반대였다.Cwobeel에 의해 특집 기사 기준이 엉뚱하게 제기되었을 때 ChrisGualtieri는 BLP 기사는 GA/FA 후보로서 다루어져야 한다고 말했다. ChrisGualtieri가 어떻게 속도를 늦추고 그것을 단계별로 취해야 하는지에 대해 더 많은 논의를 한 후 ChrisGualtieri는 다른 편집자들과 협력하기로 동의했다[3].

이어 비판 여론이 다수를 차지해 기사 접수/논란 부분이 NPOV가 아니라고 했다.Cwobeel과 내가 소수 의견과 적절한 비중을 추가하는 것에 대해 반대했음에도 불구하고, ChrisGualtieri는 기여하지 않는 이유로 전쟁을 편집하기를 원하지 않는다고 언급했지만 원래의 아이디어에 대한 어떠한 주장도 하지 않았다[4].그는 또한 허핑턴 포스트와 복스가 신뢰할 수 없는 출처라고 진술하고 그러한 근거에서 이를 제거할 것을 제안했지만 편집자들은 그들의 신뢰성이 사례별로 기초하고 있음을 상기시켰다[5].그는 그 후 4명의 출처에 대한 사례분석에 들어갔다.허프 소스 1에서 Cwobel은 허프 소스 1과 실질적으로 같은 것을 말하는 NYT 소스를 발견했다.이어서 크리스 구알티에리는 허프 소스를 제거할 필요가 있다고 말했는데, 이에 근거한 위키백과 단락이 거짓이기 때문에, Cwobel이 그 소스를 기사에 소개한 이후 그는 그것을 제거할 것이라고 말했다[6].허프 소스 2도 논란이 되었고, 크리스 구알티에리는 BLP 위반이라고 말했으며, 쿠워벨은 윌슨의 증언에 대한 유효한 논평이라고 말했다[7].허프 소스 4는 한동안 논의되지 않았다.Huff 소스 3만이 그것을 제거하는 것에 대한 공감대를 가지고 있었다[8].

이 모든 일이 있은 후, Chris Guualtieri는 그것에 대한 합의도 없이 마이클 브라운의 슈팅 기사에서 나온 많은 정보들을 대량으로 제거했다.이 제거 작업은 Cwobeel에 의해 취소되었으며, 약간의 사소한 편집 전쟁이 있었고, 토크 페이지[9]에서 섹션이 시작되었다.크리스 구알티에리는 BLP를 인용, "허프 포스트가 한때 '똥 같은 리스트'에 올랐던 적이 있다 [...] 소재가 거짓이거나 품질이 높지 않다면, 처음부터 (큐벨에 대응하여) 삽입하지 말라"고 말했다.그는 그 원천을 제거하는데 합의된 근거를 제공하지 않았다.JBarta는 그것을 사례별로 검토해 볼 것을 제안했다.ChrisGualtieri는 RSN에 이 문제를 게시했지만, 거기서 나온 유일한 합의는 Vox는 괜찮다는 것이지만 HuffPost는 출처 자체에 대한 실제적인 논의 없이 의심스럽고 사례별이다.되돌린 후 허프 소스 1[10]에 대한 논의가 계속되었고, 나는 허핑턴 포스트가 카운티 대변인 인용에 있는 형사들을 언급했다는 점을 꺼냈기 때문에 NYT 소스와 모순되지 않았다.Cwobel은 이 점에 동의했다.ChrisGualtieri와 Bob K31416은 나의 요점을 완전히 무시한 채 토론을 계속했다.그런 다음 ChrisGualtieri는 NYT에 재입고하거나 추가 의견을 구하지 않고 Huff 소스 1과 관련 정보를 삭제했다.그리고 나서 Cwobel은 되돌아갔다.나는 내 의견을 반복했지만 아무런 반응도 받지 못했다.이후 편집(-warr)과 다른 주제에 대한 토론의 사소한 말다툼이 벌어졌지만 허핑턴 출처에 대한 진정한 합의는 없었다.Chris Guualtieri의 행동의 결과는 공감대를 형성하는 것의 붕괴이며 의심스러운 범위의 대중 소스-검토 때문에 그러한 소스들과 실제로 어떤 것도 하기를 꺼린다.이것은 일종의 해결책이 필요하다. --RAN1 (대화) 03:11, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Chris Guualtieri의 마음이 올바른 곳에 있다고 강하게 믿는다.나는 그가 기사에 맞는 것을 하는 것이 협력적인 환경에서 절대적으로 옳은 것이 될 수 없다는 것을 보지 못하고, 합의에 관한 어떤 어리석은 규칙보다 중요하다고 느끼는 많은 경험 있는 편집자 중 한 명이라고 믿는다.본질적으로 그러한 편집자들은 성경처럼 모든 규칙을 무시하고, 의식적이든 아니든, 그들의 정의로운 목표를 달성하기 위해 필요한 모든 것을 정당화하기 위해 그것을 사용한다(3RR과 같은 밝은 선을 피하면서).나는 개인적으로 IAR이 득보다 실이 많다고 생각한다, 그 이유 때문이다.나는 이 게시판에 주의를 끌기 위해 문제의 한 예를 제외하는 것이 공평한지 모르지만, 문제가 해결되려면 한 번에 한 사람씩 다뤄져야 한다고 생각한다.-맨드러스 ▷인터뷰 03:28, 2014년 12월 15일(UTC)[응답하라]

• 논평: 이것은 어떤 것에 대한 예방보다 징벌적 조치를 요구하는 것처럼 나를 바라본다.징벌적이라 할 수 없지만 예방(그리고 예방할 수 있는 긴급한 것은 없는 것 같기 때문에, 아마도 이 보고서가 분쟁해결에 더 적합한가? -- WV ● ● 03:31, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지, 만약 우리가 DRN에서 하루에 여러 번 새로운 이슈를 열고 싶다면.나는 이것이 어떤 특정한 콘텐츠 이슈에 관한 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.-맨드러스 ▷인터뷰 03:34, 2014년 12월 15일(UTC)[응답하라]

• 그것은 이야기로 가득 찬 토크 페이지다.그것은 더 많은 편집자들의 POV와 관련이 있을 수 있다.문제의 핵심은 복스미디어와 (어느 정도는) 허프포가 출처로 받아들여질 수 있느냐다.크리스는 이 기사에서 인용한 허프포 작품이 여러 면에서 잘못되었다고 토크 페이지에서 주장하고 있다. 경험이 풍부한 BLP 편집자 몇 명이 그것을 보고 전화를 걸도록 하자.요점만 훑어보면 나는 크리스의 주장이 설득력이 있다는 것을 알 수 있다. 하지만 나는 단지 그것을 대충 짚었을 뿐이다.복스 미디어에 대해서는--나는 그것에 대해 그렇게 많은 믿음을 두지 않을 것이고, 그리고 RAN이 링크한 단일 디프프에서 수집된 편집의 모음은 솔직히 나를 논란의 여지가 없는 것으로 생각한다(그리고 그러한 과잉 참조된 기사에서 많은 출처를 제거하는 것은 정말로 문제가 되지 않는다).그래서 진짜 문제가 뭐야?편집자들이 서로 동의하기를 거부한다?그것은 위키백과의 강좌와 같은 수준이다.그러나 예를 들어, 차단 가능한 정도의 편집 전쟁을 위해 제시된 증거가 없는 한, 여기서 요구되는 것은 무엇인가?크리스가 냉철하다고?하지만 그것은 그의 상대에게도 적용될 것이다.드레이미스 (대화) 03:45, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 우리가 합의의 우위성을 인정해 줄 것을 요구하고 있다고 생각한다.크리스는 그것에 여러 번 동의했고, 그리고 나서 합의 없이 편집하거나 반대하여 자신의 합의를 위반했다. 하지만 그것은 그의 상대에게도 적용될 것이다.아니, 다른 편집자들은 이 기사에서 그렇게 하지 않고 있어. 적어도 크리스가 도착한 이후로는 그런 일이 없었거든.토론에서 냉철함이 아니라 그 과정을 존중하는 것이다.‑Mandruss 인터뷰 03:53, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 코멘트를 한 번 했던 사용하지 않은 언급들을 삭제했다.나는 많은 WP를 다루었다.BLP는 각 출처를 검토하고 많은 사람들과의 문제를 발견했기 때문에 토론 페이지를 채우고 편집자들을 화나게 했다.대화 참조:마이클 브라운 #컨서른스 촬영.또한 나는 허핑턴 포스트와 복스 문제를 @MastCell:와 @DGG:와 함께 RSN에 가져갔다. 내가 WP와 함께 가졌던 것과 같은 우려에 근거한 주장을 펴기 위해:RSOPINON 및 WP:IRS 전체.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

길고 논쟁이 많은 며칠 후 ChrisGualtieri는 WP를 준수하기로 동의했다.BRD[11]는 오랜 시간 이 프로젝트에 참여했고, 그의 지위에 비추어 볼 때, 약속을 이행하지 않을 것이라고 믿는다.자, 그럼 시간을 좀 주자. - 쿠워벨 (대화) 03:55, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(충돌 편집)참고로, 여기 기사에 대한 편집자들의 활동이 있다.[12]

나는 ChrisGualtieri와 문제가 없었다.기사가 POV에 문제가 있는 것 같은데, 워낙 적극적이어서 견제하기 어려운 편집자 때문이다.ChrisGualtieri는 기사를 균형있게 이끌어내기 위해 필요한 잠재적으로 활동적인 편집자 입니다. --Bob K31416 (토크) 05:45, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

BTW, 기사의 POV 문제는 주로 Cwobeel에 의한 것이라고 생각한다. --Bob K31416 (대화) 06:16, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

밥, 많은 노련한 편집자들이 옆에 앉아서 Cwobel이 편집하는 것을 보고 아무것도 하지 않았기 때문에 그건 좀 약해.Cwobel은 최대 POV일 수 있지만, 그는 단지 일상적인 과정마다 BRD에서 B를 운동했을 뿐이다.나머지는 R 운동을 하지 못했다.누가 더 잘못한 거야?—맨드러스 인터뷰 06:25, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP를 알고 있는가?BLP는 WP를 따르지 않는다.BRD, 하지만 내가 지금 제거하기 전에 모든 사건을 아주 세세하게 설명하려고 노력했단 말이야?그 글과 맥컬러 페이지에 있는 것 중 일부는 말도 안 된다.출처를 밝힌다고 해서 이와 같은 논평이 페이지에 나와 있다는 사실이 바뀌지는 않는다.

마크 와이즈브로트 경제정책연구센터 공동소장은 맥컬로치를 "윌슨 사태에서 누구라도 가질 수 있었던 최고의 변호사 중 한 명"이라고 언급하며 "맥컬로치는 윌슨에 대한 불기소 결정을 내렸고, 대배심 진행 상황을 재판으로 제시했다"고 말했다.

일부 편집자들은 그것이 출처되었기 때문에 그 기사에 있는 것이 전혀 문제될 것이 없다고 생각하는 것 같다.WP:RSOPINON 및 WP:의문점은 여전히 WP와 관련이 있다.NPOV는 이런 종류의 "신뢰할 수 있는 비판"을 큰 부분에서 많이 얻었을 때 나타난다.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 보통 꽤 무거운 ANI 게시물을 쓴 직후에 이것에 대해 논평하는 것에 반대한다. 하지만 분명히 말하고자 한다. (1) 나는 현재 설정된 방식으로 그 기사를 지지하지 않는다.그것은 잠재적인 BLP 함의가 있는 비부분적인 인용문들의 덩어리인데, 그것에 대해 뭔가 조치가 취해져야 할 필요가 있다. 하지만, 내가 말하고자 했던 것의 DR은, --> WP:컨센서스 <-- --RAN1 (대화) 06:48, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

크리스, 지금 우리는 잘못된 곳에서 콘텐츠에 대해 토론하고 있어. 그리고 내가 그렇게 할 수 있는 능력이 있다고 해도 난 여기엔 참여하지 않을 거야.나의 제안은 가장 중요한 특정 콘텐츠 이슈를 선택하여 DRN에 가져가자는 것이다.그 동안, 그 과정을, 그리고 인내심을 위해 다시 한번 추천해주길 바란다.‑Mandruss ▷인터뷰 07:01, 2014년 12월 15일(UTC)[응답하라]

(런1) 이틀 전에 나는 삭제 작업을 했지만, 그 이후로는 (나포를 구하지 않았다) 왜냐하면 복잡하고 다른 의견을 가진 편집자들이 많기 때문이다.BLP에 잠재적인 영향이 있다고 동의할 경우 WP:BRD는 평상시처럼 적용되지 않는다.일반적으로 의심스러운 문제들은 재삽입 전에 제거되고 논의된다 - 그것들은 그 동안 남아있지 않다.거기서부터 시작했지.나는 심각한 위반 사항이 삽입되고 섹션이 주어지며, 다른 페이지로 복사되고 주 대표들을 공격하는 것을 보았다.솔직히 맥컬로치는 몇 가지 큰 오류를 범했고 많은 오류들이 기사에서 다루지 않았지만 나는 WP에 추가하는 것에 동의할 수 없다.문맥과 균형이 상실되었을 때 인용농장은 더 많은 비판을 쏟아내거나 한다.나는 아래에서 나의 장황한 반박을 삭제한다.내가 이틀 동안 해결하려고 했던 오해가 있어.나는 이것을 무시했기 때문에 이것을 붕괴시킨 것이 아니라, 자바르타의 말이 옳았기 때문에 붕괴시킨 것이다.공간을 절약하기 위해, 나는 그것을 당신의 토크 페이지에 자세히 설명하겠다.ChrisGualtieri (토크) 07:12, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

재료가 잘 공급되기 때문에 WP를 우회할 수 있는 BLP 문제는 전혀 없다.BRD. 만약 우리가 그 합의를 얻을 수 없다면, 이것은 끝이 보이지 않는 장기전이 될 것이다.많은 편집자들은 이미 여러 번 당신에게 다음과 같이 물었다: (a) 천천히 한 번에 한 걸음씩; (b) BRD를 사용한다.이 두 가지 제안을 따르면 우리는 이 기사를 완성하고 개선할 수 있을 것이다. - Cwobel (대화) 15:29, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 아는 BLP 문제는 적어도 하나 있는데, 예를 들어 당신이 윌슨에게 부정적이고 사실과 일치하지 않는 일방적인 TV 쇼의 의견 형식의 녹취록에서 얻었다는 리사 블룸의 근거 없는 가상적 추측이다.당신의 끊임없는 그릇된 추론과의 이전 논의 때문에, 나는 당신과 토론하지 않길 바란다. --Bob K31416 (대화) 16:15, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

흠. 방금 삭제하려고 기사를 봤는데 찾을 수가 없었어.아마도 ChrisGualtieri가 그것을 삭제했을 것이다.그렇다면 잘했어. --Bob K31416 (대화) 16:25, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

이것이 분쟁의 핵심이다.

• 크리스는 이 기사가 BLP를 위반한다고 강력하게 믿고 있다(정확하게 반대되는 POV를 가진 상당수의 편집자들이 수개월 동안 적극적으로 관여해 왔음에도 불구하고)
• 크리스는 중대한 BLP 위반이 없다는 합의(모든 편집자가 몇 가지 문제가 될 수 있고 기사가 개선될 수 있다는 것에 동의함)를 받아들이지 않고 일방적으로 행동한다.
• 크리스는 기사토크에서 폭넓은 논의를 시작하지만, 토론이 타협점을 찾기를 기다리지 않고 다시 일방적으로 행동한다.
• Chris는 사용자 대화에서 템플릿과 함께 다른 사람들을 명예 훼손으로 고발한다 [13]
• 크리스는 Nei에게 그렇게 한 것에 대해 그의 손목을 얻어맞는다[14].NeiN의 요청을 받고 템플릿을 제거한다.
• NeiN 코멘트는 이 모든 것이 소싱의 문제고 당신이 생각하는 것이 적절하거나 적절하지 않다고 생각하는 것 입니다. "사용해서는 안 된다"는 3단계 방어 경고가 보증되지 않으며, 현재 귀하가 동의하는 물질이나 신뢰할 수 있는 소스로 나타나지만 귀하가 충분히 소싱되지 않았다고 느끼는 물질에 대해서는 보증하지 않는다.
• 크리스는 합의를 존중하기로 동의하지만, 약속을 잊고 다시 혼자 행동한다.
• 크리스는 BRD와 DR을 따르겠다고 약속하지만, 오늘 다시 그것을 부인한다[15] (이것은 크리스가 며칠에 걸쳐 다섯 번째다: [16], [17], [18], [19], BLP에 대한 극히 좁은 해석에 기초하여, 합의와 다른 사람들의 조언에 반대한다.

휴스턴, 문제가 생겼어. - Cwobel (대화) 16:37, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 논평 - 나는 BobK가 이것에 대해 취한 것에 동의한다. Chris는 그 기사에서 추진하는 명백한 POV의 일부를 다루었고, 그 결과, 그러한 문제들을 식별하고 수정하는 그의 "행동"이 지금 비난 받고 있다.문제의 일부는 편집자들이 그의 편집이 기사의 개선인지 아닌지를 실제로 보고 있다는 것이다.대신 문제의 편집이 기사에 대한 개선인지조차 성가시게 여기지 않고 '그 편집에 대한 합의는 없다'거나 '그 편집에 대한 사전 합의가 있었다'는 주장을 펴면서 되돌리는 경우가 대부분이다.IMO, 그의 편집은 개선된 것이며, 기사에 NPOV의 균형을 되찾는 것과 일맥상통한다. Isaidnoway (대화) 2014년 12월 15일 18:41, (UTC)[응답하라]

의견 일치가 없는 편집이 '기사의 개선'이라면 왜 의견 일치가 없는 것인가.미안하지만 그건 말도 안 돼.편집 전쟁을 선호하지 않는 한 먼저 합의를 본 다음 편집을 하는 것은 잘못된 것이 아니다.물론 나는 여기서 논쟁적인 편집에 대해서만 말하고 있고, 사전 합의 없이 편집이 이루어지면 안 된다는 것은 아니다.BRD는 잘 작동한다.‑Mandruss ▷인터뷰 19:55, 2014년 12월 15일(UTC)[응답하라]

• 논평 - 이것은 크리스가 개선을 위해 노력하는 단 한 명의 편집자의 드롭 다운을 놓고 거친 행동을 하는 고도로 동기부여가 된 편집자들의 소규모 태그 팀들에 의해 "개발될" 수 있는 거짓 합의에 대해 훨씬 더 밀어붙이는 것처럼 보인다.이 편집자들은 그들이 좋아하는 POV를 구축한 다음, 그 POV와 문제를 제기하고 그들 사이에 "합치"를 주장하는 단일 편집자들을 집단으로 공격한다.특정 POV가 문제의 기사로 굳혔다는 것은 분명하고 편집자들은 필요한 변화에 대해 마차에 동그라미를 치고 있다.크리스의 편집은 정책적인 불만과 건설적인 것처럼 보인다.이 물건은 선반을 해체하기 위해 외부의 도움이 필요하다.화강암모래 (토크) 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC) 19:12, 응답

대부분의 경우, 당신의 주장이 적용될 것이다.그러나 여기서가 아니라, 오랜 토론과 상당한 논쟁으로 수개월 동안 협력하는 매우 다양한 편집자 그룹이 있을 때. - Cwobel (대화) 19:36, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

• FWIW 이것은 심각한 NPOV 문제가 있는 기사에서 1인 수리팀으로 활동하려는 편집자처럼 보인다.불행히도 나는 이런 종류의 POV가 프로젝트에서 "합의"라는 미명 아래 너무 자주 추진되는 것을 본다. - 오리엔템 (대화) 19:55, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

멋지다.그래서 누구나 상황을 재빨리 보고 규칙을 따르는 사람들이 나쁜 사람들이 있는 이 대체 우주를 선언할 수 있다.완벽하고, 위키피디아가 필요로 하는 것.그 통찰력에 감사한다.‑Mandruss ▷인터뷰 20:07, 2014년 12월 15일(UTC)[응답하라]

• 내가 이 주제에 대해 언론의 과부하를 받아왔고 나를 객관적이라고 생각하지 않는 현지인이기 전에 말했던 것처럼, 크리스는 정책을 위반하는 것처럼 보이는 콘텐츠를 제거하거나 대체하려고 한다.나는 Drmies의 대부분의 의견에 동의하는 경향이 있다.내가 알 수 있는 한, 지금까지 관여하지 않았거나 나 같은 편집자들이 기존의 편견 때문에 자신을 실격시킨 외부 입력에 대한 요구는 그리 많지 않았다.이 기사에 필요한 것은 훌륭하고, 자발적이지 않은 편집자로써, 오랫동안 서로 정기적으로 접촉해 온 다수의 사람들의 결점 있는 합의와 이 주제에 대한 포화상태의 언론 보도보다는, 외부인이 정책적으로 간주하는 것에 더 순응하도록 하는 것이다.
• 나는 그 기사가 재량적 제재를 받고 있고, AE는 확실히 집행 가능한 상태라는 것을 전에 언급했는데, 왜 이것이 ANI에 대신 게시되었는지 다소 의아하다.나는 그 주제에 대한 포화상태의 보도, 그리고 아마도 한동안 그 주제에 관여했던 모든 사람들의 아마도 진솔한 시도들이 언론 보도를 가능한 한 잘 반영하기 위해, 어느 정도는, 나와 같이, 관련 편집자들을 압도하고 그들의 판단을 의심하게 만들었을 것이라고 생각한다.
• 위의 다른 사람들이 말했듯이 명백한 결함이 있는 합의가 있다면 그것은 결함이 있는 합의일 뿐 진정한 합의는 아니다.나는 솔직히 어떻게 가야 할지 잘 모르지만, 지금 들리는 것처럼 끔찍한 느낌은, 어쩌면 가장 좋은 일은 기사를 개발한 사람들이 당분간은 그냥 내버려두는 것이 아닐까, 그리고 그 의견의 불일치와 합의에 관여하지 않아도 되는 새로운 편집자들이 현재의 상황을 이끌 수 있도록 하는 것이 아닐까 하는 생각이 든다.정책에 관한 그들의 보다 중립적인 관점에 기초하여 그것을 검토하고 그들이 필요하다고 생각하는 변경을 하는 기사.기사를 여기까지 발전시키기 위해 노력한 편집자들에 대해 아무런 말도 하지 않은 채, 그들이 동시대적이고 종종 선정적인 언론 보도, 그리고 적어도 현재의 합의를 이끌어낸 토론에 대한 사전 개입에 의해 어느 정도 편견을 갖지 않는다고 상상하는 것은 거의 불가능하다.부분적으로는 선정주의적인 보도를 근거로 들 수 있다.여기보다는 AE에게 허락된 대로 이것을 가져가는 것이 불합리하지 않을 수도 있다.존 카터 (대화)20:11, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

내 요점은, 분명히 하자면, ChrisGualtieri는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 기사를 변경하기 전에 실질적인 합의를 찾으려는 시도를 하지 않았다는 것이다.나는 그 기사에 어떤 공감대가 있었다고 말하려는 것이 아니었고, 사실 그것이 내가 이것을 ANI에 밀어붙인 주된 이유였다.완전한 공감대 부족은 그가 한 발짝 물러서서 모두가 동의할 수 있는 타협점을 찾으려 했어야 했고, 적어도 BLPN에서 다른 의견을 찾아보려 했어야 한다는 분명한 암시였어야 했다.AE가 적절한 장소인지 확실하지 않았지만, 무엇보다 냉각이 필요한 것이 분명해졌기 때문에 지금 그곳으로 전달하려고 생각하고 있다. --LAN1 (토크) 20:40, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

FWIW, 나는 AE가 크리스에게 유리한 판결을 내릴지도 모른다고 생각한다.대화 페이지 상단에 있는 BLP 통지문에서 인용한 다음과 같은 인용구는 "생존자에 대한 비소싱되거나 불충분한 논쟁적 자료는 즉시 제거되어야 한다"는 것이 고려 대상 작품 중 하나 이상에 매우 합리적으로 적용될 수 있다. 왜냐하면 그 소재는 아마도 "소싱되지 않은" ("잘못된"의 구체적 정의에 따라) 둘 다일 수 있기 때문이다.만약 그것이 사실, 명백히 틀렸다면 분명히 논쟁의 여지가 있다.그들의 사실의 일부를 잘못 이해시키기 위해 많은 관심을 받는 선정적인 주제에서 현대 미디어는 전혀 알려지지 않았다.그러나 그들이 그들의 사실을 잘못 알고 있다는 사실이 그것이 적절하게 소싱될 수 있기 때문에 반드시 포함되어야 한다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.정책적으로, 그리고 위에서 제시했던 구체적인 인용문으로는, 템플릿이 즉시 제거되어야 한다고 말하는 어떤 것에 대한 합의를 기다릴 어떤 정책적인 이유도 존재하지 않는다고 생각한다.그것이 내가 그 기사를 개발한 사람들이 약간의 휴식을 취하고, 필요하며 일반적으로 생산적인 내용을 둘러싼 싸움에 관여할 필요가 없는 다른 사람들이 그것을 검토할 수 있도록 하는 것을 제안한 이유 중 하나이다.이전의 논의에서 그들의 무자격이 그들에게 어느 정도 중립성과 POV의 부족을 줄 수 있다. 이전 논의에 관련된 사람들이 부족할 것 같다.존 카터 (대화)20:51, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

어쨌든, Cwobel은 이미 통보를 받았고 ChrisGualtieri에게 알려줬어.BLPN에 글을 올릴게, 이건 다시 생각해보면 내용과 더 관련이 있어. --RAN1 (토크) 21:00, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 기사를 편집하려고 했을 때 내가 받았던 Cwobel 등의 ChrisGualtieri의 편집에 대한 응답은 거의 정확하게 일치한다고 말하고 싶다.이 기사는 여전히 많은 곳에서 매우 편향되어 있으며, Cwobel뿐만 아니라 몇몇 편집자들은 콘텐트의 제거는 결코 합의 없이 정당화될 수 없다고 느낀다.반대로 내용 대부분이 명백히 편향되어 있으며, 특히 '합의'는 본질적으로 많은 경우에 '큐벨의 허락'을 의미하기 때문에 의견 일치를 필요로 한다면 기사를 개선하는 것은 불가능하다고 생각한다.

'정책만 아는 것처럼 행동한다' '합의 없이 자료를 바꾸는 것은 파괴적이다' 등의 말을 편집자가 들은 것은 이번이 두 번째다.기사를 개선하려고 노력한 적어도 두 명의 편집자에게 같은 그룹의 편집자들이 같은 방식으로 대응하고 있다는 것을 의미할 수도 있다.로치(토크) 18:06, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

추가, 그리고 질문.이 기사에 도움이 될 만한 한 가지는 이 질문에 대한 명확한 결정이다: "관점 목록이 중립적인 관점의 허용 가능한 형태인가?"반공감정의 상당 부분은 특정 관점을 제거하는 것이다.로치 (토크) 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC) 18:19[응답]

Per WP:YESPOV 및 WP:ADMINTEPOV와 WP:Exceptional, 포함은 장점과 장점에 기초해야 하며, 장점에 따라 적절한 커버리지가 제공되는지 여부에 기초해야 한다.우리는 대배심 소송에서 피고인이 증거에 대한 엄중한 대질심문을 할 수 없었기 때문에 검찰을 비판하는 실제 사례가 있다.대배심 절차는 법에 따라 이를 허용하지 않지만 예비심리는 이를 허용한다.그렇다면 어떻게 그것이 적절하고 적절한 비판인가?여러 소스에서 제기된 지속적이고 주요 우려 사항에 대해서는, 그것들이 잘못되었다 하더라도 NPOV에 의해 공간과 커버리지가 제공되어야 한다.또한, 우리는 판단을 내리거나 그들이 틀렸다고 선언할 수 없다. 우리는 그 논쟁에 대해 명확하고 편견 없는 대위점을 제공해야 한다.그것은 결코 간단한 것이 없다. 그렇지 않은가?ChrisGualtieri (대화) 18:37, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

(e-c) 질문에 답하는 것은, 아니, 반드시 모든 경우에 허용되는 것은 아니다.당신이 구체적인 예를 제시하지 않았기 때문에, 나는 몇 가지 구체적인 사례와 왜 그것이 반드시 거기서 효과가 있는 것은 아닌지를 보충할 것이다.

첫째, 선택한 의견에 대한 평등을 내포하고 있으며, 그 자체로 판단하기에 문제가 있으며, 관련 사실이 없음을 암묵적으로 나타내는 것 같다.명백한 사실 또는 사실 또는 최소한 정확성으로 인식된 명확한 진술이 있는 경우, 그것들은 관점보다 우선되어야 한다.이는 예를 들어 대중이 감정에서 특히나 대배심에 제시된 모든 증거에 대한 고려가 부족하여 다른 곳에서 반드시 신뢰성 있게 소싱되지 않은 관련자의 행동과 동기에 대한 결론을 내리는 경우에 관련될 수 있다.

또한 개인, 어쩌면 변호사나 정부 관계자가 특정한 방식으로 행동했을 수도 있고 그렇지 않았을 수도 있는 이유에 대한 학계나 전문가들의 의견도 문제가 되는데, 이는 개인 스스로가 제시한 명시된 사유에 비해 BLP에 따른 과도한 가중치를 부여할 수 있기 때문이다.개인이 구체적인 행동의 구체적인 이유를 밝히지 않은 경우에도 문제가 될 수 있다.

이벤트 섹션 또는 섹션에 대한 "대응"에 대한 충분한 근거가 있을 수도 있고 없을 수도 있으며, 그러한 섹션에는 대중의 반응이 포함될 수 있다.그러나 요컨대, 다시 말해서, 아니, NPOV는 다중 POV를 증명함으로써 달성될 필요가 없다.존 카터 (대화) 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC) 18:42, 응답

예를 제시하지 못해서 미안해.인용문의 수가 줄어들었다고 생각하지만, 여기 몇 가지 예가 있다(모두 한 단락에서).

로서 S. 하버드 로스쿨 형사사법연구소의 설리번 주니어는 맥컬로치가 이 사건에 대해 대배심의 자원을 사용하는 이례적인 사건이라며 결과에 대한 책임을 회피했다고 말했다.CNN과 더 뉴요커의 법률 분석가인 제프리 토빈은 맥컬로치가 "미주리 법이나 그 어디에서도 사실상 전례가 없는 문서 덤프, 접근법"을 시행하고 있다고 비판했다. 교수인 A. 할 수 포드햄 대학의 법학 교수인 코헨은 검찰이 보통 대배심원들을 이해할 수 있도록 증거를 제시한다고 말했다.

이들 모두 대배심 청문회에서의 위법성을 시사하는 의견들이다.그들 중 누구도 이 청문회가 미주리 주의 표준 관행일 가능성을 열어주지 않는다.이것은 문제가 된다. 왜냐하면 그것이 해야 할 일은 불완전한 시스템에 대한 코멘트를 하는 것뿐일 때 그것은 잘못된 것을 암시하기 때문이다.이러한 의견들은 그것이 가능한지조차 고려하지 않고 "그럴 것"이 다르게 이루어졌어야 했다고 진술하고 있다.

존 카터, 두 가지 예 모두 이 기사에 적용된다.대배심 청문회에 대한 시각은 있지만, 수사대배심에 대한 사실관계는 MO에서 볼 수 없다. 검사에 대한 비판도 있고, 찬성 의견도 거의 없다.편집자들이 언론인의 옳고 그름을 판단할 수 없어 이런 내용이 보도 내용이 잘 소싱되고 삭제에 면역이 된다고 생각한다면 기사는 편향된 채로 남게 될 것이다.또 기자들이 명백히 사실에 오류를 범한 사례도 있었고, 단순히 믿을 만한 출처에서 나왔다고 해서 명백하게 부정확한 진술을 계속 유지하는 것은 옳지 않다고 생각한다.(예:8월 19일, 한 사건 보고서가 데이터베이스에 입력되었다. 그것은 "사건 발생 후 10일 후"라는 것을 의미하는 것은 아니다.) 로치 (대화) 15:00, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

출처는 비판의 주제와 존재하는 선택사항을 문서화한다.[20][21][22][23][24] 일부 비판은 변호인이 대배심에서 증인을 반대 심문하지 못했다는 것이다.NPOV를 복원하기 위해 출처와 그 논거의 검토가 필요하다.ChrisGualtieri (대화) 17:05, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 종류의 콘텐츠 관련 분쟁은 ANI에 존재하지 않으며, Roches의 2014년 12월 16일 18:19, 16 포스트를 포함한 위의 모든 포스트를 Talk로 리팩터링할 것을 요청한다.마이클 브라운 촬영. --RAN1 (토크) 20:54, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

유명한 음악

이 글에는 약간의 눈이 필요했다.2001:5b0:26ff:ef0:3c 및 이전 50.243.237.254[투기 제거]와 동일하다고 생각하는 MusicHistoryBlog가 있으며, 편집되지 않은 개인 CV를 음악 출판사에 대한 기사에 삽입하려고 시도하고, 또한 다른 관련 기사(예: 도니 엘버트, 여기)에 이름을 추가하려고 시도했다.특히 그들이 계좌 사이를 계속 이동하기 때문에 다루기가 귀찮다.고마워요.기러틀 (대화) 21:03, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

MusicHistoryBlog가 무한정 차단됨; 우리는 일상적으로 스팸 전용 계정으로 사용자를 차단하며, 이것은 좋은 예다.IP는 지금 다른 사람에게 할당되어 있을 수도 있기 때문에 건드리지 않을 것이지만, 만약 그들이 (또는 다른 사람들이) 이것을 다시 시작한다면, 얼마든지 블록-에마모에 대해 보고하십시오.나이튼 (대화) 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC) 22:40 [응답]

조슈아 본힐에게 필요한 공동체 금지

• Joshua Bonehill(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)
• 본힐 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 요너29년 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 위키백과:Sockpuppet_Investigations/Juner29/Archive
• 이전 ANI 보고서

유저는 다른 IP에 속했고, 그에 대한 기사를 방해했다는 이유로 주너29로 막혔으며, 현재 본힐이라는 그의 기사를 방해하고 있다.그는 의도적으로 인종차별주의적인 거짓말을 출판한 것으로 알려져 있으며, 여기서는 전혀 필요하지 않다.그의 행동은 결국 그의 계좌가 폐쇄되는 결과를 초래할 것이지만, 지역사회가 매번 그와 함께 모든 과정을 겪어야 하는 것은 시간 낭비다.

이 편집은 글의 일부를 "리벨"로 지칭하는데, 우리가 계속하여 법적인 위협인 척 할 수 있다.

그의 경상수지는 차치하고라도 그의 편집이 되돌아가고 계좌가 눈에 띄지 않도록 최소한 공식적인 공동체 금지를 받을 수 있을까?Ian.thomson (대화) 21:26, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 당분간 반대하라.그는 기사의 소재로 자신을 내밀고 있는데, 그 목적을 위해 기사의 토론에 참여할 수 있도록 허락한다면 나쁘지 않은 일이다.나는 그의 토크 페이지에서의 메시지에서 많은 것을 말했는데, 여기서 나는 둘 다 그를 토크 페이지에서의 토론에 참여하도록 초대했고, 토크 페이지에서의 시민적 토론 외에는 어떤 것이든 막힐 수 있다고 경고했다.그가 기꺼이 토론을 거치고 합의를 향해 노력한다면, 나는 그가 참여해도 괜찮다.만약 그렇지 않다면, 아마 공식적인 제재가 필요한 때일 것이다.—C.Fred (대화) 21:33, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 일단 C 당 반대한다.프레드. 단일 출처의 힘으로 기사의 선두에서 '인터넷 트롤'을 제거하려고 하는 것이 금지되어야 하는 이유를 모르겠다. --SarekOfVulcan (대화) 21:35, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 이 남자는 그의 피해자들에게 죽음의 위협을 불러온 인종차별주의적인 장난을 만들어 생계를 유지한다.우리는 그의 "도움" 없이도 그에 대한 기사의 선두에 설 수 있다.상습적인 거짓말과 인종차별을 일삼는 사람이 여기에 참여하는 것이 편치 않다.--v/r - TP 22:18, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 코멘트는 편집 전쟁을 위한 블록이 절실히 필요한 것 같다.CombatWat42 (대화) 22:28, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 인종차별적인 얼간이로서 한 블록이 절실히 필요한 것 같아. --골베즈 (토크) 22:37, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그의 BLP 기사는 주제보다 현실을 더 정확히 파악하지 못하는 사람들에 의한 공공 기물 파괴의 타겟이 될 수 없기 때문에 모든 페이지에서 커뮤니티를 금지하는 것에 반대한다.나는 백과사전의 모든 페이지를 금지시키는 것에 반대하지 않을 것이다. 그러나 그의 전기와 관련된 모든 기사의 토픽 페이지, 그리고 잠재적으로 관련된 위키백과-공간 토론과 관련이 있다.나는 ArbCom이 적어도 한번은 다른 곳에서 그런 제안을 고려(그리고 거절)했다고 믿으며, 나는 그것이 여기서 합리적이고 적절하다고 볼 수 있었다.잘 들어, 나도 영국 정부가 BLP 기사의 지위를 시대에 뒤떨어진 것으로 만드는 것에 대해 반대하지는 않겠지만, 나는 아마도 그렇게 말하지 말아야 할 것이다.존 카터 (대화) 22:39, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]
• 금지, 지지 제한에 반대하며 본힐은 지지하지 않을 것이다. 그는 게시하거나 해고할 것이다.그의 다양한 정체성의 방대한 온라인 이력이 이를 뒷받침한다.만약 그가 양말을 신으면 추가 제재를 받을 수 있는 한 명의 신원을 허락함으로써 우리는 이것을 가장 잘 관리할 수 있다.

COI에 따르면, 그는 대화에서 문제를 논의할 수 있다.그의 과거 편집 이력을 감안할 때 그는 그 기사의 어떠한 편집도 직접적으로 허가 받아야 한다.

내용에 관해서라면, 이 글에는 두 개의 컨텐츠 그룹이 있다.한 그룹인 "모럴 트롤과 사기꾼"은 철저히 조달되며, 만약 본힐이 그것을 좋아하지 않는다면, 그는 술취한 도둑질과 트위터 괴롭힘을 중단해야 한다.또 다른 집단인 '정치 지도자'는 기껏해야 보잘것없다.그의 신념과 인종차별은 문제될 것이 없지만, 그가 다른 사람들과의 어떤 지지나 관여가 있는지 의심스럽다.앤디 딩리 (대화) 22:58, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

Bonehead는 그의 블록이 데일리베일의 위키백과 사용자들에게 명예훼손의 글을 올리기 시작했기 때문이다.나는 여기서 그들과 연결시키지는 않겠지만, 그는 "명성 있는 마르크스주의자 WIKipedia 기사 퍼터, 앤디 딩글리가 폭로했다"를 가지고 있다.나는 사람들에게 본헤드는 고약한 트롤이라고 말하려고 했지만, 그의 페이지 소개에서 "트롤"은 삭제되었다.화석매드 (토크) 2014년 12월 17일 00:15 (UTC)[응답]

오, 난 악명이 높구나, 정말 친절하구나!나는 그가 "빌린" 신문사진에 대한 저작권을 무효화시켰으면 좋겠다.그가 쓴 글의 일부는 비록 대부분의 세부 사항을 잘못 이해하긴 했지만(어떻게, 찾기가 어렵지 않다) 어렴풋이 정확하기까지 하다.나도 막 그에게 크리스마스 카드를 보내려던 참이었어.위스키 한 병을 보내려고도 했는데, 그가 술을 마시면 얼마나 골치 아픈지 알잖아.앤디 딩리 (대화) 00:55, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 공동체 금지 - 나는 이것을 지원할 만큼 충분하다고 본다.만약 그가 양말을 만든다면, 양말을 막고 계속 양말을 막아라.어느 시점에서 그의 간섭은 WMF에 의해 더 많은 조치를 취할 가치가 있을지 모르지만, 그들은 지역사회가 이 파괴적인 편집자에 대해 단 한 번, 그리고 영원히 충분히 가지고 있다는 것을 볼 필요가 있다.Jusdafax 09:57, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]
• 페이지 보호를 확장하십시오.이것은 곧 만료되며 적어도 그의 선고일이 지난다면 유용할 것이다.앤디 딩글리 (대화) 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC) 18:08 [응답]

• 지지 - 나는 우리가 그의 비 WP에 대해 기사를 써야 한다고 전적으로 확신하지 않는다.NPO 통과 트롤에 경범죄 몇 건과 혐오스러운 (아이들 같은) 블로그.대부분의 보도는 그의 지역 신문에서 나온다.나는 미국이나 호주에서 온 비슷한 개인(믿어봐, 우리는 많이 가지고 있어)이 방문하지 못할 것이라고 생각하는 경향이 있다.하지만 우리는 이 친구가 그에 대해 말한 것을 없애기 위해 자신의 기사를 편집하도록 허용되어야 하는지를 알아내려고 애쓰는 데 귀중한 시간을 낭비하고 있다.우리가 그에 대한 기사를 써야 한다면, 그는 그것을 편집하지 말아야 한다.St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:08, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

AfD의 다중 투표

이 논의의 후속 조치만...나는 대담했고 위키피디아에 이렇게 추가했다.삭제 안내.– JBarta (대화) 17:33, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

와우, 아직 안에 있지 않아서 놀랐어.고마워. ansh666 01:11, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

워링 IP 편집

나는 ip가 탐구 없이 삭제된 콘텐츠를 발견했고, 나는 그것을 되돌렸다.그는 다시 그것을 제거했고, 나는 그에게 요약 편집을 사용하라고 말했고, 메시지를 남겼다가 다시 한 번 그것을 추가했다.그는 다시 되돌아갔다.내가 그것을 다시 추가하는 것은 이번이 세 번째인데, 나는 전쟁을 편집하고 싶지 않다.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=637827558&oldid=637639197https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637827558https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637828264 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=637844524https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Polsky&diff=next&oldid=638405451 고마워 Weegerunner (대화) 22:46, 2014년 12월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

일상적인 반달리즘, 나는 간단한 {{uw-delete3}}}을(를) 남겼다.계속 진행되면 블록에 대한 IP를 보고하십시오.우리는 보통 이와 같은 단순한 공공 기물 파손에 대해 차단하기 전에 IP나 사용자에게 최종 경고를 주길 바라지만, 이와 같은 기물 파손의 네 번째 기물 파손의 경우 편집-전쟁의 자격이 주어질 것이며, 우리는 모든 경고가 쌓일 때까지 기다리지 않고 IP를 차단할 수 있다.WP:3RR에는 반반달리즘 편집이 특별히 제외되어 있다는 점에 유의하십시오. 편집-전쟁 블록에 대해 "적격"되지 않고 원하는 횟수만큼 반달리즘을 되돌릴 수 있다.나이튼드 (대화) 01:34, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

충돌 및 중단 태그 제거 편집

차우린다 전투의 사용자 중 두 명이 불량 편집 요약을 사용한 각 시점과 양 시간에 대해 전혀 설명하지 않고 이슈 태그[25]를 교란적으로 제거했다.

이제 이들 사용자 중 한 명이 IP를 사용하여 전쟁을 편집하기 시작했다.제발, 뭔가 하세요.VandVictory (대화) 01:47, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

24시간 동안 완벽하게 보호됨.내가 너를 편집 전쟁으로 막지 않은 것에 감사해라.Nyttend (대화) 02:23, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

류룽의 벤데타: 페이지 프레드릭_브레넌

사용자 차단을 해제할 수 있는 사용자:프레드릭 브레넌이요?

이 통지를 통해 사용자:Salvidrim! 차단된 사용자:프레드릭 브레넌은 8chan.co의 설립자인 프레드릭 브레넌과 사용자 이름이 일치했기 때문이다.살비드림은 자신이 직접 그 정체를 의심한 것이 아니라 그것이 검증될 때까지의 예방책이라고 썼다.그래서 Fredrick Brennan은 그가 사실 User:프레드릭 브레넌.하지만 살비드림!은 밤을 위해 떠난 것 같다(그의 토크 페이지에 글을 올렸고, 오랜만이다).관리자가 차단을 해제할 수 있을까?그리고 만약 어떤 공인의 신분증이 있다면, U:FB 사용자나 토크 페이지에 그것을 올릴 수 있다면?친절하게 고마워. --GRUBAN (대화) 02:25, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

차단되지 않음."이 사용자가 OTRS를 통해 자신의 신원을 확인했다"는 사용자 박스를 제외하고는 정말 공식 신분 도장이 없다. OTRS 액세스가 부족하여 위치할 수 없기 때문에 위키 링크만 포함시켰다.블록 로그의 txt.Nyttend (대화) 03:52, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

OTRS를 통해 확인이 되었다면 쪽지를 보내주면 관련 교황판 작업을 하겠다. --Mdann52 Talk to me!08:25, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

살아있는 사람과 작가

나는 "크리스티나 크루시"를 위한 페이지를 만들었다.스위스 작가/화가그녀의 책은 볼리비아 정글에서 선교사들에 의한 5년간의 학대에 초점을 맞추고 있다.SRF1의 다큐멘터리도 제작되었다.그녀는 또한 어린이 보호를 위한 기반을 열었다.페이지를 만든 이후로 나는 사용자 SolaryVeritas가 Krusi의 책과 다큐멘터리에 대해 부정적인 삽입으로 페이지를 계속 편집하고 있다.그 결과 나는 그녀가 목격했다고 주장하는 의식적인 아동 살해 사건을 '사타닉'이라고 부르는 등 이용자의 만족을 위해 페이지에 편집된 내용을 90% 보관해 왔으며, 크루시의 명성에 부정적인 영향을 미치려고 하는 상세한 출처, 책과 다큐멘터리에 있는 그녀의 모든 주장에 '알레르기'를 삽입하는 주장, 다큐멘터리에 '노출'을 삽입하는 주장, p.'학대 청구 현황'(공개되지 않았음에도 불구하고 Krusi의 일기를 모독하는 내용 포함)에 대한 전문 단락을 제시하면서 부모들의 지지 부족을 강조하면서, "어린이 희생을 목격하고 그 피를 마시는 Krusi의 중심 이야기"와 같은 주관적인 문장은 사탄 의식 남용의 많은 유사한 설명과 일치한다.미국 연방수사국(FBI)의 케네스 래닝은 그러한 모든 비난이 증거를 보여주지 못했다고 보고한다.[22] 가디언지의 과학 저널리스트 크리스 프렌치(Chris French)는 사탄 학대에 대한 이야기는 거짓 기억에 바탕을 두고 있다고 쓰고 있다.[23"]을(를) 계속하여 사용자가 Krusi가 말하는 단어를 '믿지' 않는 방법에 대한 참조를 시도한다.지난 한 달 동안 전반적으로 솔라리베리타스의 텍스트 삽입은 크루시의 명예를 훼손하려는 의도로 삽입되었다.제발 도와줘.KHBibby (대화) 08:22, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그녀의 주장에 대한 진실성에 대한 그 부분은 대부분 미발표 종합으로 구성되는 것으로 보이며, 거기에는 확실한 POV 문제가 있다(당신이 지적하는 바와 같이, 겁먹기 인용문뿐만 아니라 족제비어의 사용).—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 08:32, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

크리스티나 크루시 페이지에 관한 ANI를 시작하려던 참에 이 모든 게 웃겨

이 3조에서 부정적인 것을 제거하기 위해 노력하는 4명의 편집자가 SPA이다.

• Coco353(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그) - "C. Krusi의 허락이 있다"고 진술한 이해관계의 충돌 편집자.
• 조나톤윙스(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그) - 2014년 12월 5일부터 편집을 시작한 SPA 편집자는 크리스티나 크루시와 토크 페이지만 편집했다.
• NYWest(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) - 브랜드 뉴 에디터, 2014년 12월 15일 시작, Christina Krusi만 편집함

네 번째는 여기서 기사작성자와 OP이다.

• KHBibby(대화 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) - Christina Krusi의 작성자,

이들 각 편집자들이 한 논평에 따르면, 위키와 협력하고 있지 않은 부분이 있는 것이 분명해 보인다.게다가 적어도 3명의 SPA 편집자, 특히 Coco353의 행동은 여기에서 하지 않는다.나는 증거가 없지만 양말 인형이나 고기 인형도 의심한다.내 제안은 OP 상의 부메랑이다.VViking_TalkEdits 13:22, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

마지막 항목으로, 이 편집[26] 코코는 명예훼손 및 책임 우려와 같은 법적 언어를 사용한다.이어 '역시 KHBibby는 SolarisVeritas가 객관적 사용자가 아니라는 증거를 갖고 있다'고 협박하려는 듯한 이 진술이 이어졌다.고마워, VViking_TalkEdits 13:31, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

KHBibby는 그녀와 그녀의 작품들 중 하나의 명백한 언론 사진을 업로드한 것을 보면, Krusi에서 일하고 있거나 Krusi와 제휴하고 있는 것이 거의 확실하다. (웹 해상도 및 나중에 OTRS에 의해 확인됨) 이 세 명의 다른 편집자 중 한 명이 Krusi와 관계를 맺고 있다는 것을 인정했기 때문에, 나는 우리가 한 무리의 동료들을 가지고 있을 가능성이 더 높다고 생각한다.기사 작업 중다시 말해서, 나는 지금 벌어지고 있는 일이 부메랑이 아니라 보살핌을 조언해야 한다고 생각한다.

SolarisVeritas가 실제로 추가한 내용을 살펴보면 특히 그렇다.두 번째 단락은 크루시의 계정이 사탄적 의식 남용에 관한 유사한 것과 일치한다는 것을 기술하는 비소싱 문장으로 시작하여, 즉시 두 개의 존경할 만한 소리 나는 출처(법 집행 전문가와 저명한 영국 언론인)를 꺼내어 사탄적 학대의 주장이 모두 거짓이라는 주장을 펼친다(어느 출처에서도 언급되지 않는다).크루시(Krusi)는 아예).그것은 BLP에서 음성 POV를 지지하는 노골적인 합성이다.그들이 좌절할 수 있는 한, COI를 괴롭히는 편집자들이 때때로 옳을 수 있다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 13:53, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 크루시의 페이지에서 일으킨 (그 반대쪽이 아닌) 솔라리베리타스의 불평을 읽고 나면, 당신은 내가 시작한 초기 페이지와 그가 지난 두 달 동안 그것에 대해 한 일을 비교하게 될 것이다(부정적인 삽입은 그의 것이다), 그가 편집한 페이지의 스토킹은 모두 크루시/책/문서를 훼손한다.그래서, 그 페이지를 만든 후, 나는 당신의 A+B+C를 읽고, 생각하기를, 당신은 이것을 이해하는가?작가/화가/창작 등 - 왜 다른 전기 작가들은 자신에 대한 책을 쓰고 솔라리베리타스는 미세한 이빨 빗으로 책을 뒤적거리지 않고 그가 찾아낼 수 있는 먼지를 뽑아내고 검증 가능한지 확인한 다음 그들의 위키 페이지에 삽입하는가?왜 안 되지?왜냐하면 솔라리베리타스는 쿠르시에게 골라서 자신의 페이지가 균형잡히는 것을 참을 수 없다는 것이 나를 비롯한 9명의 다른 사용자들로부터 명백하기 때문이다.여기에 솔라리베리타스 삽입물은 전체 페이지의 4분의 1이 넘고, 솔라리베리타스가 자신의 (주관적) 삽입물을 찾기 위해 무시하는 동일한 기사에서 검증 가능한 사실인 Krusi의 많은 논평을 담은 글에서 그가 꺼낼 수 있는 부정적인 것을 찾아낸다.그러나 이것은 크리스티나 크루시의 위키 페이지 - 살아있는 사람이며 모든 사용자가 파괴되지 않도록 개발하는데 도움을 준다.솔라리베리타스 사탄 의식 강박관념(그 주제에 대해 나에게 보내는 수 많은 대화 노트 - 이 주제에 대한 그의 편집 내용을 읽어달라), 크루시의 정신 상태 등(계속) 사이 솔라리베리타스의 의도는 페이지를 선정주의의 3페이지 타블로이드로 만들려는 것으로 보인다.또한 SolarisVeritas의 모든 '측면' 강연 사본과 그의 사용자 계정을 차단하지만 다른 사용자들에 의해 알려지는 완전한 책임의 삽입 요약을 다른 사용자 이름으로 열 것이다.나도 몇 년 동안 궁금해서 솔라리베리타스의 요청만으로 크루시에게 연락을 했다.그녀의 웹사이트는 그녀의 위키페이지와 연락처에 있다.솔라리베리타스는 크루시의 페이지에 열중하고 있다.지난 주 초의 페이지들을 비교해 보면, 내가 보여 준 것처럼, 나는 기꺼이 타협할 용의가 있다.그런 다음 갑자기 '거부자' 단락에 새로운 머리글을 추가하여 자신의 연구 결과를 강조하십시오.나는 또한 'Krusi claimes'나 'alleges'로 선을 그었고, Krusi, SIL, Wycliffe에게 공정성을 보장했다.또한, 와이클리프의 웹사이트에서 크루시, 사과, 그리고 다른 세부사항들에 대해 이야기하는 링크도 제공했다.나는 또한 SIL의 인용구를 어린이 안전 담당관으로부터 제출했는데, 부모는 지지하지 않고, 증명 가능한 사실들 사이의 갈등의 예들(예: 아동 살해, 시간 제약, 일기 - 예, 그녀가 그것을 썼어, 예, 나는 그것을 미발표라고 표현했고, 솔라리베리타스는 '비밀 언어' - 왜?)을 추가해야 해.SolarisVeritas는 또한 치료사, 부모들의 지원 부족 등에 대해 책, 인터뷰, 다큐멘터리 등 매우 상세하게 이야기하는데, 왜 Krusi가 이야기한 1000가지 중 10가지를 학대의 참혹함 등의 이야기와 균형을 맞추지 않고 골라내는가?당연하지.Try A=Krusi는 책을 쓰고(그녀의 이야기가 출판되고), B=주요 방송국(SRF1)은 이를 조사하고 그녀의 학대에 관한 다큐멘터리를 하고, C=는 학대받는 아이들을 위한 기반을 열어 유명한 작가 겸 화가가 된다.작가가 아니라도 괜찮고, 전기를 쓰고 두 단락의 '균형' 요약을 기대하는 것도 괜찮다(솔라리베리타스는 그가 내 토크 페이지에 쓴 'much cleaner'를 줄인 페이지를 원했다).제발 살아있는 사람 부분을 잊지 말아줘.다른 사용자들의 피드백을 더 받아주면 고맙겠는데, 이 페이지는 더 이상 SolarisVeritas의 불평이 필요하지 않아.KHBibby (대화) 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC) 10:00[응답]

Synth를 읽고 나는 내가 그것을 정확하게 이해했는지 궁금하다.합성은 두 가지 명제에 참여하여 세 번째 결론을 내리는 것을 포함한다.나는 이것을 할 생각은 없지만, 아마도 잘못 했을 것이다.두 소스(랜닝 및 피치) 모두 SRA 계정을 신뢰할 수 없다고 명시한다.(A = B) Krusi의 주장은 SRA이다. - 논쟁할 수 없다. (A) 결론은, 그렇다, 함축되어 있다. (Krusi의 주장 = 믿을 수 없다) 그러나 이것은 "A + B = C"가 아니다.그것은 단지 "A = B"일 뿐이다.질문:.이게 합성이야?감사합니다.솔라리베리타스 (대화) 01:24, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다, 그것은 합성이다. 그리고 너의 A = B 비유는 틀렸다.당신은 "쿠르시의 주장은 SRA와 비슷하다" "SRA 계정은 믿을 수 없다"고 말하며, 쿠르시의 주장은 믿을 수 없다는 묵시적인 결론을 내린다.A는 B와 비슷하고, B는 C이므로 A는 C이다.그것은 합성이며 위키피디아에서는 허용되지 않는다.Krusi의 주장이 믿을 수 없고 합성이 되지 않을 것이라는 믿을 만한 출처를 찾아라(그러나 그것은 여전히 그것의 배제를 요구하는 다른 정책의 대상이 될 수도 있다).—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 03:36, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

도움이 된다.Tx Mendaliv의 설명.솔라리베리타스 (대화) 13:06, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

공식적으로, 이것은 나를 위해 위키백과에서 첫 번째 편집이다.빨리 배우다."합성"에 대한 질문: 그러한 정보가 제공될 수 있는가?나는 주제에는 경멸적인 발언을 자제하려고 노력하지만, 불행하게도 균형을 제공하는 것은 크루시의 주장에 대한 의문을 제기한다.해결책이 확실치 않다.솔라리베리타스 (대화) 16:38, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

원천의 합성은 금지되어 있다.이 링크는 도움이 될 수 있다.블랙매인 (대화) 03:19, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

컨설팅과 함께 기고문 삭제 문제/편집자 문제 발생내 생각에 그것들은 파괴적인 것 같아.검토를 요청하고 싶다.Tx.SolaryVeritas (대화) 03:42, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

Wtshymanski는 그의 개인적인 지식을 다시 기사에 주입시켰다.

이것은 Ladder 논리에 있다.Wtshymanski(토크 · 기여 · 카운트 · 로그 · 페이지 이동 · 블록 로그)는 다시 한 번 그의 개인적인 의견을 기사로 강제하려고 하고 있다.나는 이것이 두 개의 ANI가 되어야 하는지 확신할 수 없었지만, 여기 있다.

애초에 12월 10일에 그는 글의 어떤 것이 어떤 출처나 다른 곳에서 합성되었다고 주장하는 이 태그를 추가했다.그러나, 무엇이 합성되었는지(혹은 무엇으로부터도)에 대해서는, 토크 페이지에도, 어디에도 단서가 남아 있지 않았다.따라서 나는 그 태그를 불필요한 것으로 삭제했다.

Wtshymanski는 태그 [27], [28], [29]를 반복적으로 복원했다.각각의 경우에서 토크 페이지에 토론이 있다고 주장하는 경우.4월 28일(그리고 저것은 반달리즘) 이후 토크 페이지에는 아무것도 추가되지 않았고 그 이전의 마지막 게시물은 2013년 8월 25일이었다.Wtshymanski가 과거의 논의들 중 하나에 반박하고 있을 가능성은 있지만, 어떤 것에 대한 어떤 단서도 없이 어떤 문제도 고쳐지지 않을 것 같다.

둘째: 토크 페이지에서 보면, Wtshymanski는 중계 논리 시대에 사다리 논리가 존재하지 않았다는 견해를 가지고 있는 것이 분명하다.기사에는 Wtshymanski가 {{citation need}}태그(당시 참조되지 않았기 때문에 충분히 그럴듯하다고 추측할 수 있을 정도로)한 이 의견에 반하는 진술들이 두어 개 실려 있었다.나는 간신히 사다리 논리가 릴레이 논리에 사용되었다는 주장을 뒷받침하는 참조를 찾아 여기에 추가했지만, {{citation needs}} 여기에 ref가 적용되지 않는 문장에 태그를 달았다.나는 이어서 마지막 주장이 사실이 아님을 증명하는 참고자료를 찾아 그 주장을 삭제하고 여기에 참고자료를 추가했다.

문제는 이것이 뷔시만스키의 개인적인 지식 앞에서 날고 있다는 것이고 그래서 그는 자신의 의견에 대한 어떠한 뒷받침도 제시하지 않고 이곳과 평소처럼 신뢰할 수 없는 출처라고 선언한다는 것이다.그는 또한 정당성을 위해 숨겨진 언급을 덧붙이지만, 그 논평의 내용은 참조에 없다.이것은 지속적이고 보수적인 문제로서 1년 동안 계속되어 왔다.

이 두 가지 문제는 RfC(여기서 RfC는 2012년까지만 해도 그의 계속적인 건방진 편집과 관련하여 제기되었던 것이다.)에 대한 지속적인 주의를 거부하는 것을 보여준다.86.174.67.173 (대화) 12:21, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

우연히, 그의 토크 페이지의 공지 위에 언급된 내용은 누군가를 인신공격하는 것처럼 보인다.Wtshymanski#기억해야 할 중요한 것.86.174.67.173 (대화) 12:27, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

이 두 보고서는 사실 밀접하게 연관되어 있기 때문에 함께 묶은 것이 옳다.그것들은 둘 다 오래된 편집 전쟁을 재조정하는 Wtshymanski의 산물이다.만약 당신이 편집 이력을 더 돌아본다면 당신은 그가 합성되었다고 주장했던 것을 발견할 것이다.이는 그가 의도치 않게 합성되었다고 주장하던 문장 옆에 {Synthesis} 태그를 넣었기 때문이다 [30].그러나 태그가 추가되었을 때 문장이 합성된 것에 대한 참조가 없어서 태그가 잘못 적용되었다.

Wtshymanski가 하고 있었던 일은(편집 요약에서 시사한 대로) 다시 한 번, 중계 논리 시대에는 사다리 논리가 사용되지 않는다는 개인적인 신념을 강요하려고 시도했다.이것은 토크 페이지에서 다루어졌지만 두 개의 논평을 관련 없는 논의의 맨 아래에 버리기 때문에 주장대로 논의될 수 없었다.그 자료는 현재 우리의 IP 주소 친구로부터 참조되고 있다.Wtshymanski의 문제는 언급이 그의 개인적인 의견과 일치하지 않기 때문에, 그것은 틀려야만 한다는 것이다. (그러나 그는 언제나 그렇듯이, 그는 다른 누구의 지지를 받지 못하는 그의 변두리 이론을 뒷받침할 어떠한 과도한 언급도 제공하지 않는다.)

Wtshymanski가 단순히 두 번째 참조를 목표로 한 것이 아니라, 그가 두 가지 모두를 목표로 했다는 점에서 당신은 약간 틀렸다.'allaboutcircuits.com'이 위키백과 전체에서 문제없이 자주 사용됨에도 불구하고 {message source} 태그는 첫 번째 참조를 따르고 있다.참고로 그가 두 번째에 추가한 숨겨진 코멘트는 참고문헌에 명시되어 있지 않다.

개인적으로, 나는 '사다리 논리'라는 이름이 릴레이 논리 시대에 사용되었다는 것을 확신하지 못하지만, Wtshymanski와 달리, 나는 내 개인적인 의견이 아무런 비중을 차지하지 않는다는 것을 알고 있다. 그리고 어쨌든, 나는 특별히 그렇게 말하는 어떤 언급도 찾을 수 없다.하지만 논리적으로, 그 도표가 사다리와 닮았기 때문에, 나는 기술자들이 그것에 어떤 종류의 사다리와 관련된 이름을 붙이지 않았다는 것을 믿기 어렵다. ('사다리 다이어그램' - 오!와 같은) 그리고 빠른 구글은 많은 히트곡을 냈고, 많은 히트곡들은 릴레이 논리와 관련이 있다!)DieSwartzPunkt (대화) 13:51, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

표면적으로는 ANI 문제가 아닌 또 다른 콘텐츠 분쟁처럼 보이지만, 근본적인 행동 문제가 있다.Wtshymanski는 일관되게 그의 개인 공학 경험으로 시작해서 그것을 기사에 넣으며, 만약 도전자가 자신에게 동의하지 않는 어떤 인용문도 거부하고, 그렇게 하는 인용문들을 부지런히 검색한다.문제의 기술이 어떻게 작용하는가에 대한 그의 말이 옳을 때(대부분의 경우) 그 결과는 마치 그가 가장 좋은 출처의 말을 알아내고 그 출처와 일치하도록 기사를 만드는 것으로 시작했던 것과 거의 같은 것으로 판명되었다.문제는 공학의 일부 분야에서 Wtshymanski가 진정한 신봉자라는 것은 가성과학에 해당하는 공학의 특징일 뿐이며, 그러한 경우 그는 신뢰할 수 있는 출처에 있는 것을 거부하고 매우 공격적이고 빈정거리는 상호와 결합하여 자신의 잘못된 정보를 유지하려 한다는 것이다.액션 스타일이를 "벽에 꽂힌 화살을 찾아 그 주위에 표적을 칠하는 것"이라고 한다.

Wtshymanski의 잘못은 아니지만, 관리자들이 이러한 행동을 다루기 어렵게 만드는 몇 가지 관련 문제들이 있다.첫째, 이러한 문제들은 공학적인 문제들이며, 많은 관리자들은 콘텐츠 분쟁을 완전히 이해할 수 있는 공학적인 배경을 가지고 있지 않다.둘째로, Wtshymanski의 반대자들은 대개 새로운 위키백과 편집자들이다.그들은 공학을 이해할지 모르지만(아니면 -- 우리는 프린지 클레임에서 우리의 몫을 얻지는 못한다) 그들은 위키백과 정책을 확실히 이해하지 못하고 종종 어딘가에 있는 블로그의 댓글 섹션에 있는 것처럼 반응한다.내 생각에, 이 많은 신입 편집자들은 Wtshymanski와 엉킨 후 혐오감을 느끼며 떠나지 않는다면 매우 생산적인 편집자로 성장할 수 있을 것이다.그리고 마지막으로 비공식적인 "그는 많은 일을 잘해서 그가 잘못된 행동을 할 때 우리는 기꺼이 다른 쪽을 보려고 한다"는 효과가 있다.

PS: 내 생각에 이것은 순수한 콘텐츠 논쟁은 아니지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 Wtshymanski는 콘텐츠에 대해 틀렸다.이 PLC 역사가 설명하듯이, PLC가 처음 상업적 생산에 들어갔을 때, 그들은 이해하기 쉽게 만들어졌고, 오늘날 우리가 사다리 로직이라고 부르는 도표와 배선을 중계하는 데 매우 익숙했던 당시의 기술자와 정비 전기 기술자들을 위해 프로그램되었다.실제로 PLC 대신 릴레이를 이용해 사다리 논리 도표를 구현할 수 있다.(이상한 이유로 일본 기업에서는 이것을 옵션으로 제시하고 고객 중 일부는 PLC가 확실히 우위에 있음에도 불구하고 프리미엄을 지불하는 경우도 있다.)또한 이 페이지(PDF)를 참조하십시오("릴레이 논리 비교" 섹션 참조) --Guy Macon (대화) 16:39, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

1958년 특허 출원한 것으로 사다리 도표를 명확히 보여주고 있다. --Guy Macon (토크) 17:11, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

야, 그 관찰은 정말 기사토크 페이지에 있었어야 했어, 내용상의 문제니까.DieSwartzPunkt (대화) 17:35, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

잘 짚었다.생각안하고 있었어요.나는 코멘트를 무시했다. (다음에는 ANI에 포스팅한 후 연기 갈라짐...) --Guy Macon (토크) 22:29, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

ANI는 기사 내용을 논하기에 가장 나쁜 곳이다.확실히 릴레이 논리 다이어그램이 있다.그러나 당시엔 '사다리 논리'라고 불렸을까.그게 바로 내가 반대하는 거야.PLCs가 등장하기 전까지는 "사다리 논리"라고 불리지 않았다. --Wtshymanski (대화) 17:14, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 여기서 기사 내용에 대해 논하고 있지 않다.우리는 당신의 받아들일 수 없는 편집 스타일에 대해 토론하고 있다.그러나, "PLC가 생기기 전까지는 "사다리 논리"라고 불리지 않았다"는 당신의 주장에도 불구하고, 당신은 기사에 있는 것보다 더 권위 있는 언급은 하지 않았고, 단지 거기에 있는 논리만을 망쳐 놓았고, 그것은 하나의 논거인 것 같다.이 불평의 주요 판자 중 하나야DieSwartzPunkt (대화) 17:26, 2014년 12월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자 의견을 좀 알려주시겠습니까?이 문제에 대해 서로 떠들어대는 기술자들 무리는 이미 죽도록 진행되었고, 우리는 정말로 다시 한번의 재시도는 필요하지 않다.어느 쪽이든 우리에게 어떤 행동이 예상되는지 말해줘(양측 모두 -- WP:부메랑이 아주 잘 적용할지도 모른다) 그리고 이를 좀 넣거나, ANI가 잘못된 곳이라고 말해주어서 우리 주변에 잠시 있었던 사람들이 쯔시만스키와 뒤엉킨 다음 신참에게 굳이 오지 말라고 말할 수 있다. --Guy Macon (대화) 20:06, 2014년 12월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

• 논평 - 행동거지를 모르는 성인 기고자들의 일에 개입해야 하는 것은 아마도 행정가로서 최악의 부분일 것이다. --레이저 브레인(토크) 01:48, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그래서 사실이지만 때로는 필요했다.같은 문제가 몇 달마다 ANI를 강타하는 것을 보면서 문제를 해결하려는 실제적인 시도도 없이 보는 것 역시 그다지 재미있지 않다.아아, 우리는 정말로 행동 문제를 다룰 관리자가 필요하다.62년 당시 어떤 해커가 모든 관리자를 차단하고 모든 차단된 사용자 관리자로 만들었을 때를 기억하십니까? :) --Guy Macon (대화) 12:12, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

Federal Way Public Academy 비판

Federal Way Public Academy(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기)

지난 6주 동안 한 개인이 연방 웨이 공립 아카데미 사이트에 부적절한 섹션을 지속적으로 게재해 왔다.그것은 비판이라는 꼬리표가 붙어 있다.이 게시물에는 불법행위가 있을 수 있다는 부정적인 주장들이 나열되어 있다.링크된 출처는 의견 기반 웹사이트(Rate My Teacher)이다.그 연계는 선생님들의 신원을 분명히 밝혀준다.이것은 명백히 부적절하다 - BLP 위반이며 중립적인 관점이 아니다.그 당시 세 명의 에 댓글을 있다세 명의 편집자가 게시물을 삭제하고, 편집자 토크 페이지에 댓글을 달았지만, 그것은 계속해서 다시 나타나고 있다.편집자 역시 위키피디아로부터 경고를 받았지만, 그 게시물은 새로운 사용자 이름으로 방금 다시 나타났다.

복도 모니터(대화) 06:55, 2014년 12월 18일(UTC) 복도 모니터[응답]

나는 그 기사를 반보호하는 것이 여기서 최선의 선택일 수 있다고 생각한다 - 명백하게 인용되는 출처는 받아들일 수 없고, 책임이 있는 기고자는 멈출 생각이 없어 보여서 블록만으로는 작동하지 않을 수도 있다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 07:03, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

분명히 적절한 출처는 아니었고, IP는 아마도 개인 도끼를 가지고 있을 것이다.그러나 SPA의 말을 들으니 이곳의 고소인은 겨우 지난 금요일부터 시작되었고, 문제의 기사는 대체로 SPA의 시리즈에 의해 만들어진 것으로 보인다.「프로모션」SPA의 경우는 「비판적인」 SPA의 당근보다 더 적절하지 않다.「베이스볼 벅스→12:39, 2014년 12월 18(UTC)」(응답)

지속적인 중단 없는 소스 편집 및 부정 행위(계속 진행)

빌리보우덴311(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 유저 · 블록 로그)은 위키피디아에 가입한 순간부터 엄청난 양의 파괴적 편집에 여념이 없다.[[31]][[32]][[33]], [[34]][[35]][[36], 출처 변조,[37][38], [39], 파키스탄 민족주의 확산, [40][41][42][42][43][43][44]], 모든 것에 대한 친파키스탄 입장을 추진하면서 서아시아(터키어/이란), 아프간, 인도 관련 주제가 대부분이다.

그는 자신의 토크 페이지에서 이 일로 보고받았다는 통보를 받았음에도 불구하고 다시 이를 이어가고 있다.그는 자신의 안건을 퍼뜨리기 위해 사기/배달원을 하는 것을 좋아한다.이것은 위키피디아의 내용에 큰 폐를 끼친다.[[45]]

그는 전에 이 사실을 통보받은 적이 있지만, 여전히 별로 신경 쓰지 않는 것 같다.그의 편집 내용을 보라(이것은 단지 일부분에 불과하다) 그리고 같은 일을 하기 위해 계정을 만드는 다른 수천 명의 위키백과 "사용자"들을. 94.210.203.230 (대화) 11:27, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

명백한 거짓말로 차단됨: 죽은 링크에서 정보를 추가함, 쿠르디스탄이 부분적으로 파키스탄에 있다는 제안 등.나이튼드 (대화) 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC) 13:59 [응답]

빌리 보우든이 아니길...러그넛 19:24, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

낭파르바트

다른 사용자와의 광범위한 장기적 대규모 문제

맨하론 모니스

프리예신딕싯

분명히 WP:NOTHER HERE

몇몇 편집자들이 이 토론에 참여했고, 이전의 인신공격과 비난에도 불구하고, Darreg는 이후 논평에 대한 논평으로 돌아가지 않았고 기사는 삭제되었다.어제 다레그는 기사와 토크 페이지(이후 G4에 따라 기사가 삭제됨)를 모두 재창작하고 토크 페이지를 인신공격과 욕설로 가득 채웠다.내가 그렇게까지 신경 쓰지 않는 불경스러움(가능한 한 불쾌하게 설계되어 있는 것이 분명하지만) 그러나 인신공격은 이것이 백과사전을 짓기 위해 분명히 여기 있는 사람이 아니라는 것을 암시한다.나와 위키리콜로지 둘 다에 대한 명백한 인신공격들이 있다.

그리고 나서 그가 다시 기사를 삭제한 후, 철학자의 토크 페이지에는 이것이 있었고 이것은 그의 인신공격에 대해 그가 24시간 블록을 보고 있다는 것을 암시한다.분명히 더 많은 걸 제안하는 거야무기한...그것보다 더.

이 사람은 비사과적으로 동성애 혐오증이 있는 사람인데, 그가 인간적으로 가능한 한 반향 없이 공격적일 수 있다는 것을 보여주려는 의도가 있는 것 같다.그가 틀렸다는 것을 증명해 주시오.St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:10, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 사람이 더 이상 여기에 없다는 것이 말이 된다고 생각한다.존 카터 (대화) 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC) 23:12 (답변)

문제가 있는 것 같아.헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 23:13, 2014년 12월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 24시간 동안 차단됨.가말리엘 (대화) 00:49, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 의견: – 내가 이것에 대해 조언을 받았기 때문에, Darreg는 그들이 백과사전을 짓기 위해 여기 온 것이 아니라는 것을 지역사회에 분명히 증명했다는 사실부터 시작해보자.편집자는 더 이상 프로젝트(위키피디아)에 대한 관심이 없다는 것을 보여주었기 때문에, 나쁜 상황이 최악이 되기 전에 빨리 행동할 필요가 있다.그러나 Autopatrolled 플래그가 있는 편집자가 의도적으로 WP를 위반할 수 있다는 것은 실망스러운 일이다.CSD#G4, 삭제 검토 과정(더 이상 위키백과 정책이 그들에게 중요하지 않다는 의미)을 무시한 채 AfD(그가 참여한 디스커버리)에서 합의에 따라 이전에 삭제된 기사를 재작성한다.이러한 파괴적인 행동은 그들의 기사 자동작성 특권을 빠르게 철회해야 한다는 것을 분명히 시사했다. 왜냐하면 그 권리는 핵심 위키백과 정책을 명확하게 이해하고 존중하는 편집자들을 위해 고안되었기 때문이다. 다레그는 그들이 만든 기사들의 수와 상관없이 분명히 부족함을 증명해 왔다.솔직히 말하면 나는 그들이 이 깃발을 부여받은 이후 그들이 만든 모든 글에 대해 더 이상 자신이 없다(적절한 견제가 필요할 수도 있다).예를 들어, 그들이 최근에 만든 기사는 필모그래피 섹션에 약 4~5편의 영화가 수록된 단 한 문장에 불과하다.주제가 분명히 WP:N을 만난다고 해도 하나의 문장을 기사라고 생각할 수는 없다.이것은 Autopatrol User 그룹의 멤버에게 예상치 못한 것이다.

그들이 고의적으로 파괴적인 행동을 하기 전에 24시간 동안만 차단될 것이라고 재빨리 시사한 것에 대한 차단 정책과 어떠한 행정 조치도 존중하지 않는다는 사실을 계속 말해보겠다.우리는 이 문제에 대해 그들이 틀렸다는 것을 증명할 수 있다. 아마도 위의 스탈와트 제안들에 의해 변명의 여지가 없을 것이다.그들이 백과사전을 짓기 위해 여기 있는 것이 아니기 때문에 여기서 쫓겨난다면 위키피디아는 손해볼 것이 없다는 사실로 결론짓고 싶다.위키슬로지t@lk to M£ 02:30, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 가말리엘, 신속한 대응은 정말 고맙지만 그것이 장기적인 문제를 해결할 수 있을지는 잘 모르겠어.문제의 행위는 개인적인 이유로 반달간의 휴식 기간 중 어느 한쪽이 되었다.어느 쪽이든 AFD의 붕괴, 인신공격, 삭제된 기사의 뾰족한 오락, 더 많은 (더 심한) 인신공격과 같은 방식으로 계속 편집하겠다는 약속을 그의 행위에 포함시켰다.나는 24시간 안에 이곳으로 돌아오게 되어 매우 기쁘지만, 이곳의 혼란은 24시간 블록이 해결할 수 있는 어떤 것보다 훨씬 더 길다.St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:14, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그가 또 말썽을 부리면 너는 나에게 직접 연락해도 된다.나 또한 만약 다른 행정관이 더 강력한 제재를 가하기를 원한다면, 나는 단지 내가 무기한 제재를 가하기 전에 필자가 필요하다고 생각하는 필요한 조사를 했다고 느끼지 않을 뿐이다.가말리엘 (대화) 04:16, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

• 고마워, 고마워.자네가 제거했군(그래서 분명히 봤겠지만) 하지만 이 끔찍한 인신공격과 또 다른 편집자를 괴롭히겠다는 약속을 문제의 편집자와 덜 친숙한 사람들을 위해 이 보고서에 추가하겠네.St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:24, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:라이트브레서

Joshclark82의 법적 위협

사용자에 의한 지속적인 중단 편집:스톡홀름의 라슬로 바줄보날

내가 며칠 전에 이 사용자를 여기서 보고했는데, 아무것도 안 된 것 같아.다른 IP 편집자들은 내 토크페이지의 그의 편집에 대해 우려를 제기했다.나는 그들을 대신해서 이것을 기르고 있다.WP의 사례:CIR. 러그넛 11:07, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

qscvb

저작권 위반을 계속 업로드하는 Qscvb(대화 · 기여 · 로그)를 차단하십시오. --ManFromNord(대화) 11:17, 2014년 12월 19일(UTC)[응답]

Copyvio 이미지가 삭제됨, 사용자가 한 달 동안 차단됨.윤수이 11:29, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Binksternet 위반 WP:BRD

사용자가 편집을 완료할 수 있는 4분의 시간을 제공하는 것에 대한 자세한 내용은 사용자 토크를 참조하십시오.가이 마콘#ANI 토론. --Guy Macon (대화) 15:39, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

특수:기여금/Cal 505

그는 네이티브(앨범)에서 두 차례나 소스와 함께 '팝 록'을 삭제했다.오 그래, Cal 505의 패턴은 Special과 비슷한 것 같아.기부자/지미 루이스.데스티니 레오 (토크) 09:30, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에게 통지함. --Richard In (talk) 15:42, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

사칭

사용자:CrenshawKing81, 거의 확실한 사용자:NakowY는 경고 후 류룽 - [59]을 사칭하고 있다[60].히포크라테스 (대화) 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC) 16:25 [응답]

살마자나티 - 보고 #2

안녕, 나는 여기서 Salmazanaty 사용자를 보고했어.그 보고서는 참여 부족을 이유로 보관되었다.사용자는 기사에 거짓 내용을 추가하는 데 전념한다.나의 첫 번째 ANI 보고서는 모든 세부사항을 포함하고 있다.고마워!사이포이드폭탄 (대화) 17:08, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

잘못 작성된 페이지를 이동할 수 없음

게르빌리00

Wikipedia의 Talk를 중단하라는 법적 위협:리에오. 오리가미트^ⓣⓒ 18:11, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

신경 쓸 필요 없어 - 이 아이는 내년에 가족을 위해 만들 "앨범"에 대해 쓰려고 애쓰는 아이야.그는 곧 포기하거나 막힐 것이다.JohnCD (대화) 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC) 18:30[응답]

단지 FYI - 사용자가 해당 기사를 다시 작성했다.에이크코렐 (대화) 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC) 18:44 [응답]

웨스타트

메메타에르건과 나는 고용차별에 문제가 있는 Westat 페이지에 '고용차별'의 범주를 추가하는 것에 대해 약간의 이견이 있는데, 나는 이 범주는 그러한 차별에 대한 사건/법규에 대한 기사에 대한 것이어야 하며, 그러한 사건이 있는 회사 기사들을 분류하지 말아야 한다고 생각한다(이 범주는 다음과 같다).참조된 직원-직원에 의한 소송은 거의 없을 것이다.우리는 중립적인 피드백을 받기로 했고 기사 토크 페이지가 별로 방문하지 않아서 나는 여기에 왔다.만약 있다면 미리 입력해줘서 고마워. A m i t 20:12, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

@A.아미트쿠마르:이것은 당신이 Talk에서 토론할 수 없는 논쟁인가?웨스타트? --리처드 인 (토크) 20:22, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

@리처드 인: 내가 언급했듯이 기사 토크 페이지는 그다지 주목을 받지 못하고 있다. A m i t 웃 20:26, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:DISPUT가 당신에게 유용할 수 있다.– JBarta (대화) 20:29, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집) @A.아미트쿠마르: zzz 난 읽을 수 없어, 미안해.어쨌든, 카테고리의 다른 페이지:고용 차별은 모두 법률 사건이나 법률, 과학적 개념, 또는 넓은 지역에 대한 일반적인 개요와 관련이 있는 것으로 보인다.한 회사에 관한 페이지는 아마 포함시킬 자격이 없을 것이라는 데 동의한다. --리처드 인 (토크) 20:33, 2014년 12월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이 IP에게 문 좀 보여줘도 될까?

콘텐츠 분쟁 및 기타 문제

Opencart 아티클 생성 잠금

안녕, 이런 요청은 특별히 다루는 곳을 못 찾겠으니, 여기서 해 볼게.나는 OpenCart 소프트웨어에 대한 기사를 작성하려고 한다.이 글은 이전에도 여러 번 만들어졌으며, 공신력을 나타내지 않아 삭제되었다.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCart을 참조하십시오.

이 소프트웨어는 전자상거래 세계에서 주목할 만하며 향후 삭제 요청에서도 살아남을 수 있을 것으로 믿는다.그러나 가장 최근에 삭제한 관리자 User:Kww가 레크리에이션 시도를 차단한 것처럼 보여 재현할 수 없다.나는 기사에 있는 창조 블록을 공개해 줄 것을 요청한다.나나 다른 사람들이나 그의 토크 페이지에는 수많은 요청들이 있었지만, 바쁜 업무량 때문인지 행정관이 응답하지 않고 있다.나는 한 명의 관리자가 이런 식으로 기사 작성 과정을 지연시킬 수 없다고 믿는다.그 기사는 지역사회에서 검토되어야 하며 주목할 만하거나 그렇지 않다고 간주되어야 한다.

블록을 해제하기 전에 소프트웨어가 공신력을 증명할 가능성이 있는지 물어보는 것이 타당하다.나는 그 분야를 꽤 잘 알고 있고, OpenCart는 전자상거래 소프트웨어의 가장 주목할 만한 예들 중 하나로서, 많은 기사들보다 훨씬 더 그렇다.나는 이것이 믿을 만한 출처라고 말하는 것이 아니라, 빠른 검색은 OpenCart가 오픈 소스 전자상거래 소프트웨어의 다양한 비계열 목록에 지속적으로 등장한다는 것을 보여준다.예: [75], [76], [77].

OpenCart has also had it's share of controversy. I'm not sure if this is the right link (it's down now - it's Reddit and will hopefully be back soon! - [78] ), but I remember some quite notable criticism, and this should be included in the article as well. But this cannot be started if the article remains locked from creation, so I am requesting that the article be permitted to be created. Greenman (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When asked to unsalt the article, I always make the same request: show me a set of reliable sources that examine OpenCart directly and in detail. Not a quick mention on a list or a blog, but reliable sources that examine the topic directly and in detail. When someone produces some such sources, I will unsalt the article. Not before.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding this time Kww. To add to the lists I found before, the article already exists in 6 languages on Wikipedia: [79]. It is unreasonable for you to presume that you can personally decide when an article is worthy to be created or not. I understand that it has been abused before, but it is a community decision, not yours alone. If quickly Googling returns a list of results that almost all include OpenCart, and by blocking even the first step in creating an article, you are taking upon yourself the sole responsibility to decide and have imposed a far higher standard on this article than for the creation of a regular article. Greenman (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you, User:Greenman, create the article in your sandbox and ask User:Kww to review it in your sandbox? However, as Kww says, you need to source it with reliable sources. The title is currently salted because the article was created five times and was not encyclopedic any of those times, and re-creation was blocked to avoid wasting the community's time. Until you create a sandbox draft that passes Wikipedia standards, this request is also a waste of the community's time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I will, but I would prefer to work in the spirit of Wikipedia and contribute to an article as part of a community, or contribute to improving an article once it's been created, and would prefer that the community decides on its worth, not a single administrator. The article to me is self-evidently notable, but there is an administrative obstacle to working on the article collaboratively. For example, there was a request to User:Kww by an editor in June where they claimed to have written an objective article, which was not responded to. [80]. Perhaps this could have been a good starting point. Unfortunately the request was never responded to, and the user never contributed their work. Potentially valuable editors should not be chased away because of an administrative decision. The option you propose asks me to single-handedly research and create an article outside of any potential community input, and have it approved by a single administrator, a far higher barrier than for creating a regular article. I strongly feel this is an abuse of process, and a hoop that few other editors will be able to jump through. I don't see any policy that an article that in the past has been abused can only be created if a single administrator decides to permit this, and if there is such a policy would object strongly. Greenman (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenman, please don't paint this as some kind of thing a single administrator has done. We've had two separate versions of this article go through AFD and two more administrators speedy-delete subsequent versions under G11 and A7. The community has spoken as loudly as the community ever does on such things. I prevented it from being recreated specifically and intentionally to prevent it from showing up again until someone could produce a draft of an acceptable article. If you want there to be such an article, create such a draft using acceptable sources.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community has loudly spoken up about previous versions of the article saying that those versions gave no indication of notability. I understand your reasons User:Kww, but am saying that intentionally preventing an article from ever appearing again unless you personally are satisfied is not policy, nor is it reasonable to expect an editor to navigate these hoops before contributing to a future article. Most editors would not find this page (or even easily know to request on your page), and in at least one case in the past when you didn't respond, simply left. Perhaps the editor in June did have a satisfactory article. You were maybe too busy to respond at the time, but it is unreasonable to require you to do so each time before an article can be created. Greenman (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [81], I did reply, and the requestor came back with a vague and unsatisfactory complaint. In February, I told you that you didn't have any suitable sources. Today, I've told you that you don't have any suitable sources. I'll say it again if it makes it more apparent that I'm listening: you don't have any suitable sources. When you have suitable sources, feel free to come back with a draft article that incorporates them. So long as you don't have suitable sources, there's no reason to unsalt the article.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it here: Draft:OpenCart. Once it's sourced adequately Kww or any other admin can move it into mainspace. NE Ent 23:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with NE Ent and others here. I don't see any good reason why the article can't be worked on in the Draft space or a sandbox. There's nothing stopping you "contribute to an article as part of a community" or "contribute to improving an article once it's been created" in the draft space and this isn't something extremely unusual. Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll weigh in here on some of the statements made here. I'd love to say that in a perfect Wikipedia society an unsourced article would be edited and sourced moments after its creation, but unfortunately the process here is far from perfect. The onus is on the article creator to provide sources to establish notability from the moment the article is posted in the mainspace. You should always assume that your hands and eyes will be the only ones that will potentially show notability for whatever article you create- don't assume or expect other editors to come in and supply sources or to rescue the article before they nominate it for deletion. Ideally yes, editors should try to find coverage in reliable sources, but I can personally state that this does not always happen for various reasons- maybe they couldn't find sources, maybe they didn't look enough, or perhaps sources just didn't exist that would pass WP:RS. (Mind you, I am not stating that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed in this instance nor am I endorsing notability for the article, this is just a general statement.) I honestly do wish that this didn't happen, but this is something I've learned through my own experiences on Wikipedia. Arguing that an article should be made, that someone else will add the sources, and ultimately saying that you don't really want to do the work just aren't good arguments for inclusion. I know that searching for sources and writing out an article is a meticulous, time consuming process- believe me, you don't know how many times I've combed through the Internet looking for things for various articles, only to find that I've wasted hours of time on something that fails notability guidelines. It's not a pleasant experience in many circumstances. But it has to be done and you just can't expect others to do the work for you because quite honestly, if nobody did this the first five times that the article was created (assuming that nobody searched for sources, which is likely not the case here) then odds are that they won't do it on the sixth or seventh time something was created. If you really want to ensure that something is done, you have to do it yourself. Some will try to help and meet you half way, but in 99% of the time you'll have to do the work yourself. (Although I certainly understand the frustration with AfC.) That's the long and short of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that this sounds cold and maybe even a bit condescending, but this is something I've learned the hard way. I've had several instances where I've asked people for help in finding sources... and got no help whatsoever. There are people on here that will respond to requests and are more than happy to help, but there are also a lot of people who won't. I've just learned that when it comes to showing notability for articles I create or edit, it's up to me to do the leg work and to create the article. That's actually the whole reason I joined Wikipedia- I got tired of waiting for people to create or update pages and I realized that if I didn't do it, odds are that others wouldn't either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander redux

This may be jumping the gun slightly, but I'm going on past events here. Long story short, last year there was a kerfuffle surrounding the Chris Alexander (editor) article. It had been nominated for deletion and Alexander himself came on to the articles for deletion talk page and accused one of the nominating editor of being someone that has been going around to various pages and trying to make his life miserable. The AfD ended as no consensus, partially because I had been able to find sources to show notability. Soon after someone came on to the page and began removing content from the article, including removing Alexander's bibliography and filmography. It was pretty clearly done in order to make him look as non-notable as possible and similar edits were made to Blood for Irina ([82], [83] these are a few examples, there are more blankings on both pages). Eventually it required a non-involved admin to step in and semi-protect the page until February 2014. I also want to note that there were attempts to merge the page into the larger page for Fangoria and on more than a few occasions I've been accused of being a friend or family member of Alexander's.

A few months after that expired, IPs came back into the page and began pulling the same shenanigans, removing information and adding a controversy section about a review Alexander wrote for one of his films under a pseudonym. I'd cleaned it up somewhat and changed it to a briefer mention, but this was contested on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate got involved and eventually Alexander himself came on to the page to defend himself, saying that this was a well known pseudonym of his and that the name of the pseudonym (Ben Cortman) was a tip of the hat to it being Alexander himself. Eventually it was decided that including the bit about the pseudonym was a BLP issue since largely nobody cared about it enough to write about it and as such we have to go by what Alexander said: it was apparently known that the review was written by himself. However despite this, the page got edit warred to where the page got re-protected several times and some of the accounts were blocked.

So what has happened now is that recently an IP asked if it was possible to create a page for the sequel. I was a little concerned over the light coverage, but decided to create the page with the intentions to redirect it to the main article. I found a mini review from NOWToronto, which kind of made me feel like it barely squeaked by notability guidelines for films enough to warrant a mainspace article- but I did stress that I'd be fine with it redirecting to the main article for the first film if there were any serious issues with it (ie, it going to AfD). Now an IP has come to the page and looks to be the same editor that came onto the Alexander article.

From what I can see, all of this is mostly the act of a blogger that really doesn't like Alexander at all, Dave Pace. (He openly identified as such at the Alexander page.) I did try to give him the benefit of the doubt with the stuff on the Alexander article, but I'm pretty much forced to acknowledge that he's essentially trying to use Wikipedia as an outlet to harm Alexander's credibility and career. I'm not posting here to get backup for the Queen of Blood article's notability- I honestly have no problem with it getting redirected to Blood for Irina. However I can pretty much easily state that this will end up much like the Alexander article and will need a few good editors to come in and try to run interference. Since the whole Alexander thing ended with some account blocks (for edit warring and as possible socks), I'm somewhat afraid that this will become necessary here, especially since the IP in question was previously blocked as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to post a link to the BLPN discussion about the whole Cortman/pseudonym issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a issue that can be watched. If Dave does something on the article again that suggests his point of view again, i'd suggest a Topic ban. He has too much of a Non-neutral point of view to contribute to the article in my opinion. Lor^{Ho ho ho} 07:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have no problem with a topic ban, assuming that he would agree to this. My biggest concern is that he'd log on with a different IP or create an account to try to get around this. There are a few SPA type accounts that have made me slightly concerned about sockpuppetry, although those were never pursued. I suppose I should probably tag them so they're mentioned in this ANI in case they are Pace or maybe even if they aren't, since they were pretty much editing with a similar modus operandi. The accounts in question are User:Cthwikia and User:Bud Cortman. Bud Cortman hasn't edited since July, but Cthwikia has made an awful lot of Fangoria and Alexander related edits, plus they've made similar COI accusations on their talk page, accusing NPR of having a COI with Fearnet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, there've been a couple accusations thrown my way, none of which I treated seriously. User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#Chris Alexander resulted from me requesting temporary semi-protection on Chris Alexander's bio after another edit war broke out between what I assume is Dave and Chris. Very few other people on the planet seem to care about this mess. I think that it's prudent to view any new accounts who take part in the conflict with a degree of suspicion, especially when they reference Dave's blog as a citation. If they were both posting as logged-in users, I'd say that an interaction ban and topic ban would be appropriate. But I don't know how useful such would be in this case, since both seem to primarily contribute as IP editors. I think Bud Cortman and Cthwikia both ran afoul of the duck test, but neither has been especially disruptive beyond the usual POV edits associated with this drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now the IP is saying that I deliberately brought it to ANI because the page is protected and he couldn't post his side of the story here. He's also saying that he's not Pace and maybe he isn't, but the IP does have a similar edit style and also tends to make similar arguments of various people being associated with this or that person. If he isn't Pace then there would probably still be a benefit in making a wider topic ban for this IP as well because of how very similar the Alexander related edits and arguments have been. NinjaRobotPirate, do you think that I should make an SPI in this case to see if the accounts are linked in some way? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since each has denied any sock puppetry, yeah. They all have a rather brief list of contributions, so it's not hard to spot the same patterns in each account. If no uninvolved admins want to block based on WP:DUCK, then I guess SPI would be the best course of action. I wouldn't bother requesting a checkuser. Bud Cortman (talk · contribs) is stale. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NinjaRobotPirate, I've opened the SPI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubeus Hagrid

Hi, I have been trying to upload a photo I have taken onto this article but I have been directed here for help. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack

What is your query?--5 albert square (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jack, the way to do this is to upload the image without using the word "Grawp" in the image name. Because of an issue with a vandal account that often used this word in vandalism, the abuse filter will cause you problems if you do. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your help. I will try again and rename the file. Jack1956 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should I submit un-aired episodes on the lists of episodes?

Hi there. I want to know that should I submit un-aired episodes on TV shows with unknown description and airdate but with a reference? Minecraftseeds (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely better to ask that question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. This forum is suited for user conduct issues more so than content style issues... (and I honestly don't know the answer. If you can reliably source the anme of the episode, I'd guess it would be okay. But the Wikiproject folks know TV articles infintely better than I do.) Courcelles is travelling (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sounds more like something for List of lost television broadcasts too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably talking about not-yet-aired episodes. --NE2 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User 117Avenue persistent vandalism

User:László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (editing unlogged under the IP 213.114.147.52)

Disruptive tagging by Redban

User:Calidum is arbitrarily removing material up that being discussed on the Talk Page

Edit warring on Electronic Cigarette by Doc James

Greek genre warrior – TECHNO rampaging maniac .

This guy has been rampaging on Wikipedia, replacing trance and house with techno to everything he sees. Can you find the IP's and block them. Thanks JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not without at least a clue as to which articles are affected, no we can't. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only article I've been immediately able to identify, based on Malmsimp's contributions is Aiii Shot the DJ [116]. The IP there was 5.55.243.208 (talk), whose contributions all stem from today. The history of the article shows that this person was likely using 79.166.75.10 (talk) in late July. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute between two users

• At 22:16, 19 December 2014‎ two users started a dispute with accusations in my user talk page, at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Report. See also User talk:Actionfanman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone close this please? The other editor's bogus warnings or deletions on several editors' talk pages have been reverted, and he has been indeffed as a sock. The next probable sock, User:Thekillerofmeters has already been indeffed for continuing the harassment, and his death threats against me and my family have been RevDeled from my talk page. If you don't want to take my word for it, check with the other editors who were targeted by or dealt with Actionfanman: User:HelloThereMinions, User:Avono, User:JamesBWatson, User:Kansas Bear, User:Worldexplorer2014, and User:Skylark2008.

I also suggest that User:Anthony Appleyard be a bit more careful about his wording at ANI. I didn't start a dispute on his talk page, and I didn't make any accusations there. I made exactly one edit to Appleyard's talk page. I simply responded to the other user making a bogus request for me to be blocked, with links to the correct places to make such a request (either ANI or AIV) here.

And if someone is going to drag me to ANI for something like this it would be nice if they gave the mandatory notification. I wasn't notified, and neither was Actionfanman. Meters (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem, I'm sure Anthony can take it up with User talk:Actionfanman. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The main discussion about this matter is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Template:Infobox Song Contest. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I was not involved in that and Actionfanman was not involved in that. Neither was Thekillerofmeters, or the master Theshitman and his other known socks. This is getting very strange.

Again, would someone please look at this matter and close it. Meters (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:File:Revell Logo.png - unhide previous revision?

Given that File:Revell Logo.png is now licensed as PD-ineligible-USonly instead of as non-free content, would it please be possible to consider unhiding the previous higher-resolution revision of the image? Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible disruptive editing

After working on some pages that TheriusRooney (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has edited, I began to notice a trend with their edits. TheriusRooney either creates or edits existing pages by adding both needed and questionable information. TheriusRooney adds to automobile and racing car articles, placing large lists of highly technical data in a "Technical Specifications" section. Some examples: I worked on the Audi A4 DTM and Audi A5 DTM pages, which is where I first noticed the edits, then I went to the contribs page and saw this, this, and this. Most of this user's other edits are along this line. TheriusRooney has just over 1800 edits as of now, without creating a user page or ever replying once to a post on their talk page.

My dilemma is:

1. This extremely detailed information is not needed in the body of the article, just in the infobox categories. Should it be removed?

2. Would this be considered vandalism? I considered posting on that noticeboard, but had second thoughts and decided this was a better option.

3. As far as I can tell, never once does this user cite a source for all of this information. This is clearly an issue, and most likely a copy-and-paste situation. I also considered posting on the original research noticeboard, since this probably falls into that category.

Is this grounds for some sort of review or inquiry? I haven't reverted any edits, just cleaned the aforementioned Audi pages up a bit, so there is no edit war going on here. I just want to get a more experienced user's perspective on this situation. I feel like Rooney is making all of these edits and going unnoticed for it, and it seems fishy.

Thank You! Cheers --Stratocaster27^t@lk 04:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some help would be appreciated on this issue, since TheriusRooney is continuing to do this at this very moment.--Stratocaster27^t@lk 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. The user isn't required to make a user page. Have you attempted to communicate with them on their userpage? As far as content I can't say anything. If you think the material has no place in the article and it's unsourced then remove it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New editor claiming my photo as her own

Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles

User:LearnedElder citing antisemitic conspiracy theorist on Jesus

Personal abuse and anti-Australian slurs by User:E-960

E-960 (talk · contribs) is posting increasingly strong abuse of myself and other editors in a discussion over the infobox of the Allies of World War II. This has included personal abuse (including accusations that the editors who disagree with their position are some sort of cabal intent on seriously damaging the article), sarcasm and anti-Australian abuse. Requests that they provide sources to support their position and moderate their language have gone unmet, and E-960's abuse is steadily getting worse. Could an uninvolved admin please look in and take whatever action they consider appropriate? The discussions are Talk:Allies of World War II#"Allies" in other languages and Talk:Allies of World War II#Removing native names of the Alliance and diffs include [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126] and [127]. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under attack, the same group of editors that deconstructed the WWII infobox has migrated to the Allies of World War II, to remove detail form that Infobox as well. Using the same coercive tactics. First, they suggest that there is a exception to the rule as to how the subject matter is presented, then argue that this is "too complicated" an issue to properly illustrate on the page and then suggest that all detail should be striped form the section. All you have to do is look at the WWII Talk page and see that very same group of editors push their POV. They were nowhere to be found when the Allies of World War II was in sore need of clean-up, but now they show up and start to remove stuff based on their POV. Now, they are trying to use every minor infraction to block opposition. --E-960 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "anti-Australian slurs"? In the diffs above, I see nothing that can be construed as such. Any better diffs? Doctalk 11:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious "anti-Australian" comment would probably be "The material add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks" from [128] which doesn't seem to be helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) E-960 said here that adding the foreign-language names of the Allies would "add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks". To me this is a clear personal attack on an editor disagreeing with him, Nick-D, on racial/national grounds. When I advised E-960 to reconsider his tone and desist from apparently racist comments, he said "I'm confused a bit by your statement, what Australian race are you referring to?" — Cliftonian (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very slippery slope. I do expect that it will be handled accordingly. Doctalk 12:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please notice how the same group of editors keeps trying to instigate a crisis. Then once they block me, they will take apart the article. Recently there was even a RfC to remove the infobox all together, now that it failed, they want to start to remove individual detail from it! --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. But you may be blocked for "anti-Aussie" leanings anyway. Doctalk 12:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that one joke in bad taste does not suggest "anti-Aussie" leanings. In any case, That group of editors who voted in favor of removing stuff from WWII page also, took shots at me sarcastically asking if english was my second language. Where was the outrage then, no one stood up for me, now they all close in rank and try to get me blocked. --E-960 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not part of any "group of editors" as you seem to think and I'm not closing ranks with anybody. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any content dispute. I took issue with your comment because of what you said—racist, nationalist, whatever you want to call it, it's just not on—not because of differences in opinion or because it was made by you specifically. Your assertion that I reacted in the way I did for vindictive reasons is, frankly, an affront to my character. I have never said anything about trying to get you blocked—I advised you before, and I still advise you now, to acknowledge this remark was out of line and apologise for it. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: I think this issue can be more effectively resolved if you acknowledge that your comment was out of line, apologise accordingly for it and refrain from making similar comments in the future. Or you can take the hard way out and risk getting blocked for it. —Dark 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960: - can only echo the sentiments of DarkFalls here. As an aside, there are a few "classic" signs that for a particular someone, English is their second language. Confusion with regard to pluralisation is one such "classic" English-as-a-second-language struggle (having worked closely with foreign students). Whether it is for you or it isn't, you've made pluralisation errors twice in this discussion. Some proof-reading before hitting "save" might avoid such suggestions. I don't their suggestions along that line were "sarcastic". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User talk:Stalwart111 the comment. Such statements can be considered as a red herring. They are irrelevant to the actual debate. Also, i like to point out that in the middle of heated debates I've see users (who's first language was English) who also skipped words, missed plurals, and just formed lousy sentences. So, in respect to the talk page, such comments are petty and cynical. More importantly, you just made and example out of yourself: since I almost overlooked the statement form User talk:DarkFalls, because of the "proof reading" comment. And, this is my point… if there is a serious debate such statements can be used to distract, or divert the flow of the actual debate. --E-960 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before the joke was in poor taste in regards to Australians in general as it was irrelevant to the debate. But, I do have reservations about making a direct statement to User:Nick-D regarding this issue. For the following reasons… I simply do not know who is standing behind this profile. And judging by the actions (edits) on the WWII article, I have serious reservations as to the motives of this user. When a few months back (Talk:World War II/Archive 49) there was a debate to use word "genocide" in a section title it was User:Nick-D who in the last minute jumped in to oppose this change suggesting that it would be more appropriate to use the term "mass killings" instead. When looking over this users edits this action blew me away, since how could anyone argue that Genocide was not a significant part of the war (down-play it); a planned and stated goal of some of the totalitarian regimes. This needed to be openly and clearly stated in the WWII article. So, by reviewing this users actions it became very apparent that there was a persistent effort on his part to sanitize the article (you can call it content dispute, but the above example is very hard to argue against, as simply an issue of different interpretations). And, after hearing about Wikipedia edits being done by special interest groups or individuals, paid editors, or even intelligence agencies. I simply do not know who or what is standing behind this profile. And thus, I will acknowledge my error in labeling the average Australian as lacking depth, but, I have reservations about make a direct amends. --E-960 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your mention of "the totalitarian regimes" in reference to Nick as fulfilment of Godwin's law. Please allow me to remind you again of the site policy on personal attacks. Incidentally, I personally find it hard to accept the argument that one "simply does not know who is standing behind this profile" when the person saying this is himself using a handle made up mostly of numbers. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not hard to come up on Godwin's law, when there is a discussion regarding WWII. Also, regarding the comment about my user name and what may stand behind it as well… you can rest assured that I come from the ranks of the simple folk given my lack of proof reading skills and poor grammar. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheSawTooth behaviour

Is this worth concern?

WP:EMERGENCY followed, revdelled, nothing more to do here. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I routinely patrol the Special:PendingChanges and just ran across this rather random edit [135]. Is this something to be concerned about? It just seemed rather specific. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Scalhotrod: WMF now aware, revdelling is probably best. I'll see who I can find. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term pattern of edit warring

I listed this concern here originally, but another editor recommended I list it here instead. I'm concerned about the pattern that User:Jimjilin has established. I'm requesting advice specifically about that. There is a lengthy record (going back about 2 1/2 years) of reports of edit warring and blocks from the same on Jimjilin's user page, and Jimjilin appears to be edit warring now at Jesus (although I'm not raising that directly as an issue here). If Jimjilin doesn't understand the policies regarding edit warring and 3RR at this point, no one does. Yet Jimjilin continues to engage in edit warring. Is there a longer-term solution for this? Perhaps a longer block with a request to review Wikipedia's policies and a stronger warning to cease future edit warring? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that no consensus exists on a certain page and Airborne84 keeps threatening me. His actions seem inappropriate.Jimjilin (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - An administrator should take a look at Jimjilin's talk section. I second Airborne84's concern. The user has a pattern of inserting (often very pointy and agenda driven) sentences, then engages in a edit war with users until the user is reported. From what I have seen on some of the talk sections that jimjilin had argued with, there is a strong sense of WP:Ididnthearthat and deliberate disagreement believing that "equality" and "balance" means his POV pushing sentence should have some space in the article, no matter how irrelevant, wrong, or Weighty it may be. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats from Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

Persistent vandalism by User:TMDrew

When I came across the B-theory of time, it was in extremely poor condition, and urgent need for re-writing, which I have done. The original article mostly contained information regarding A-series of time (despite there being a page on A-series and B-series), additionally there was a single paragraph on the physics support B-theory, and the physics potentially behind B-theory. The remaining (50%) writing on the page was several paragraphs on William Craig a somewhat Christian fundamentalist, theologian philosopher. The article described his opinions on the theory, and there are a number of problems with that.

The first problem is that most of the paragraphs did not even state that those beliefs were Craig or even that they were beliefs, for example, "B theory suffers a incoherence as all other theories, that time is illusionary. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming", This was not quoted, or stated as an opinion of Craig's rather User:TMDrew placed it in the description of B-thoery section. Craig being of Christian philosophy and faith, you should note the dig at buddhist philosophy. Firstly that kind of aggressive bias material shouldn't be on a page about metaphysics and theoretical physics, secondly supposably this was supposed to be opposition to B-theory, why are we talking about Buddhism. The general persuasion of the article and the following edits by TMDrew have been of similar suit. The writings of Craig's despite being stead outright as fact rather than opinions were also, not necasrrily philosophies, but aggressive ranting. Some of the 'opinions' (stated as fact), actually contradicted themselves, others made no sense, some parts were opinions (stated as facts) from books on his critique of scientific support for B-thoery, a book which was highly criticised by the scientific community, showing Craig has no understanding of relativity and labelled as pseudoscientific. (Outside note: Craig has been criticised by all community for seemly pushing A-thoery and therefore opposing B-theory simply because otherwise it would conflict with his religious beliefs, and this was evident in the 'opinions' given of Craig's). Generally speaking, most of the information belonged on his biographical page not a page on metaphysics and theoretical physics.

I since have significantly changed the page, I have improved the quality of the article, removed irrelevant information (see above), quoted statements when necarry, finally creating a Neutral POV, and despite this User:TMDrew continuously vandalises the page with a personal bias and agenda (supporting Craig and A-thoery). For example, I quoted prominent research papers that stated, factually, thatA-thoery supporters were by far in the minority, and B-theorsits (the sister theory) has majority support from the metaphysics and theoretical physics community. User:TMDrew removed this information, and any other information regarding B-theory's favourbility amongst all, then inserted the above Craig quote (on buddhist philopshy) with a load of other Craig 'babble' stating his opinions as fact, such as 'B-thoery has many philosophical inconstancies', not Craig argues 'B-the.... You get the picture. Additionally he has continuously degraded the rest of the article, jumbling things around (so they are in wrong sections), removing the scientific evidence behind B-theory, (which also happens to oppose A-theory). The editing is pretty consistent in this sense, that User:TMDrew is serving a personal agenda regarding A-theory and William Craig.

I have added reasons for edits, left multiple messages on his talk page page, and the page talk page (which I will get too in a moment) and left him multiple vandalisation warning (which he has now surpassed his final warning - hence here I am). BTW: I originally posted this on 'Admin intervention against vandalism', though they believed it would be best suited here.

You merely need to read the version that user:TMDrew put in on Craig, to understand how awful it really is (be sure to notice the deliberate degrading of the rest of the article aswell in his most recent edit, though slightly less vandalous than previous vandalisations).

Other random points that may add to your decision:

• He frequently wipes his talk page, looking back you can seek numerous vandalism accusations and warnings by various users. User:Mojowiha, not only also had an issue with vandalisation from User:TMDrew but on the B-theory of time page specifically. (it seems he gave up)
• In the B-thoery of time argument, I believe he logged out and posed as his IP address, then did the exact same thing, wrote an extremely similar wording as explanation. This revert and minor discussion on whether the Craig info should be included, amusingly was this IP's only edit, and after I called him out, no further edits have been made with this IP. (I could of course be wrong, but see it for yourself)

Either way, I'm getting sick and tired of this user, and I believe the feeling is mutual with number of other editors. There have been numerous examples from numerous different editors with disruptive editing and violating Neutral POV and serving a personal agenda. e.g.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Process_theology#Neutrality_dispute
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=624866980&oldid=624866887
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TMDrew&diff=609261906&oldid=609229609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:B-theory_of_time#Support_by_physics

Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. This guy recklessly edits the B-theory of time page, gets warned[[138]], continues to persist in edit warring, and now edits against consensus. After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates. I hope that this investigation does a WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMDrew (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because my precise reasons on what and where you vandalised just reeks of recklessness, while you reverting days of contributions to a page, decreasing the article quality significanting doesn't? Firstly, as I have said before, I was warned for entering an edit war, instead of reporting you (which I should of done & I am now), not for the edits themselves. "After being sent to the 3RR boards again, this user retaliates." Actually you recently WRONGLY filed a report for 3RR and edit warring when then was/is no warring going on. I do not need to argue with someone who simply wants trouble. The edit history over the last few days, the attitude and way in which you edit, and the sheer number of people who have problems with you (to the extent you have to wipe your talk page on a daily basis) speaks for itself, let along the number of rules you are breaking when you edit; disruptively, while serving a personal agenda, not providing a neutral point of view, etc. DocHeuh (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Hostage Crisis Photo

I have doubts about whether the following photo can be used. Please clarify.

File:Sydney_Hostage_Crisis_flag_raising.jpg

Sardaka (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the image as a link, hope that's ok. Is the concern that the image is non-free? If so this might more usefully be discussed on the article talkpage than here, or potentially at WP:NFR. If not, please expand on your concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notified RazorEyeEdits (the uploader) of this discussion, which you should have done with {{ANI-notice}}. Since each article in which it's used has a detailed fair use rationale, do you have any other concerns? All the best, Miniapolis 00:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the OP, but I'm mildly concerned that one of the hostages is recognizable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that an article should not permanently show the face of a victim. Is there a precedent for someone to take that copyrighted photo and blur the face? Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that on the Upload page, under Licensing, it says "Fair use Not allowed, image will be deleted." So what is the situation with fair use?

Sardaka (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse by user FelixRosch

• Metropolitan (1990 film) (edit talk history links watch logs)
• FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.31.249.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user FelixRosch has recently been responsible for some minor vandalism to the page Metropolitan (1990 film). When I initially edited the plot synopsis, it was vague and incomplete. User FelixRosch replaced it with a poorly written, incomplete synopsis which contains many grammatical and syntactical errors that make it sound as though it were written by someone with only a moderate grasp of the English language. Attempts to correct FelixRosch's summary resulted only in FelixRosch reverting the page to his own edits and demanding a discussion on the article's talk page. A request for protection resulted in FelixRosch's poorly written summary being protected, and user FelixRosch is now stalling discussion on the talk page unless other users validate him. A look at FelixRosch's talk page will demonstrate a pattern of abusive editing and combative behavior towards other editors and admins, and his edits to the Metropolitan article have themselves demonstrated a disregard for the article's quality versus his own desire for validation.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. The only conduct issue is the IP's personal attack, the claim of vandalism, in what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User FelixRosch is refusing to engage in dialogue about the edits until other users "acknowledge" him. How is that not abuse? And how is it not abuse to revert an article to broken, grammatically improper language?76.31.249.221 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<>::Please refer to this exchange, taken from the talk page:

This page has been dormant for some time before I edited it. Not every single edit on Wiki requires a discussion beforehand, especially to delete poorly written information on a low-importance article. You have offered nothing in the way of criticism on the improved information other than you don't like the fact that it was changed without your approval. Your user page shows a history of disciplinary issues with other Wiki articles and a difficulty getting along with other editors. Unless you can provide a cogent reason for why the actual content of the rewrites done to the article over the past week shouldn't be posted, you have no basis for maintaining the old, poorly written, summary.76.31.249.221 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that I am the one who initiated Talk discussion. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.221 (talk) <>

This appears to be a single purpose account IP-editor filing multiple reports. I requested Page Protection from User:CambridgeBayWeather for Metropolitan (1990 film) which was granted on the same day. User:EdJohnson also closed out one of the other disputes filed by this single purpose IP-editor with dynamically changing IP-addresses. I am supporting both of these administrators on their actions concerning this article. If there is further information needed, I can be reached on my Talk page for anything further needed here. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now fully protected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The anonymous editor seems to have used three different IPs in the edit war since 11 December (one IPv4 and two IPv6s). This article was also submitted in a 3RR complaint on 18 December. Continuing to file the same issue at multiple venues is called forum shopping. Each time gets the same advice: use the talk page to get agreement. Use WP:DR if you are stuck. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this conflict ....and have a few things to say. First we need to understand that in all likely hood (or assuming good faith) the IP editor probably has no clue about our procedures that all keep blabbing about. To be chastising him for things he/she has no clue about does not help move anything forward. In the future all just needs to be a bit more informative over being assertive. Being proactive of the bat with links to polices and not using Wikijargin shortcuts that mean nothing to someone new (assuming the IP is new as indicated by the edit history). Not one part of this post makes any sense. Then we have these nice responses all in an aggressive tone. The problem here is the interaction the IP has had thus far....again not one person even remotely discussing the content problem they have been talking about....even telling them to shutup when they are seeking help. This is the reason we are having editor retention problems. All I have to say is... everyone really drop the ball here. So anyone have any comment on the content??? -- Moxy (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding aggressive tone (in the wikilink above): that wasn't my intent at all. I was trying to make the point that arguments alleging vandalism or incompetence against an experienced WP editor are not likely to be result in a good outcome. (I also said "whatever you do, don't let anyone chase you away from contributing to Wikipedia.")

Regarding content: See my comments in the article talk page at [139]. After having actually done some homework, I believe the new plot summary, posted by User:76.31.249.221 better describes the plot of the film, provides a better foundation for commentary, is better English prose, better fulfills the guidelines at WP:PLOTSUM, and serves to improve the article. There are talk page comments by two other editors (including 76.31.249.221) which also support the new plot summary. So far, no one (not even FelixRosch) has made an argument in favor of the old plot summary. And I suspect that no one will, given the pragmatic need to locate and watch a 24 year old movie in order to make such an argument credible. So, for now, the consensus is with the new plot summary.

My take on this episode is that the involved parties should read WP:HUMAN, and remember that "unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia." Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive and prejudicial comments

The following users are suspected sock puppets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.173.116 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.163.93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.163.93

I raised an issue on fair use policy with respect to his image on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg and left a notice on the uploading user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HudsonBreeze&diff=prev&oldid=639212832

Within minutes of doing so user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.245.173.189 left a number of messages on another users account and a WP admins account. This particular admin had previously used profanity on me, blocked me while being involved in a dispute see this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eng.M.Bandara#Sri_Lankan_presidential_election.2C_2015 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_19_December_2014.

Contribution of all 3 users seem to linked.

The user has offended by accusing me of being complicit with extra judicial killings and having 'sri lankan mentality' https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=639302547

The user has been attempting to disrupt me among admins https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Black_July_1983_Colombo.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=639303056 with groundless and highly prejudicial allegation with respect issues and I raised in a proper manner. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself is a shock and created your account only on 16 December 2014 but cleverly turned the Red link into a Blue one. First explain here if you don't have hysteria mindset or agenda, why within a week of account creation, you nominated for deletion an image and an article which have been visited by hundreds of editors and dozens of administrators over the time.61.245.173.116 (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting interaction ban with User:Beyond My Ken

An editor who goes by the name Beyond My Ken has been following me about for a couple days. It is the equivalent of harassment. Personal attacks continue. I have done nothing to him. Instead, he disagreed with one of my own actions, which is fine. However, that does not justify stalking and continual assault. I'd like to request that an interaction ban be placed on me and him, so that this does not continue. It is disruptive, and inappropriate.

• Origin of the stalking at an AN thread about my own behaviour. Perhaps it was poor, but that does not justify his stalking and attacks. He made false accusations about "restoring discussion to a state more to my liking", amongst other things, including attacking me for a proposal I put forth at the Village Pump.
• Comments at a deletion request unrelated to him, where he explicitly acknowledged following me.
• Comments at an arbitration case request unrelated to him. He is targeting me personally, rather than bothering to deal with the dispute, which I am not involved in.
• Final personal attack.

I'm tired of this. There is no reason I should be subjected to stalking by a vindictive editor. I will not engage in a long-drawn out AN/I slugfest, so I hope he doesn't try doing that in the same way that he is trying to derail and ArbCom case that has nothing to do with him. Regardless of your opinion about my actions at the Cultural Marxism article, that does not justify badgering or harassment from an editor such as BMK. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the "hypocritical liars" edit remark is beyond blatant. I myself warned BMK about personal attacks only a few days ago. He simply blew me off. I don't know if he just doesn't understand what the guidelines ask or is just refusing to comply. But given the defiant tone, I suspect it's the latter. User:Msnicki 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the case that Gloucester denied editing the article, when he actually did edit the article, what's a better way to say it? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No "lying" involved. My only edits were copyedits at the moment it was created. I have not edited it since the start of August, and again, my only edits were copyedits, and two reverts. None of that has anything to do with the present dispute. Regardless, nothing I did justifies being stalked. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to disagree with someone's claims and even to criticize their behavior without making it an attack on the person. Fundamentally, if you'd like to express an opinion, you need to find a way to express it within the guidelines – which prohibit personal attacks – or not at all. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned with personal attacks, and more concerned with the fact that he has been following me around to matters that he otherwise would not have been involved in. The only reason he has done this is because he wants to "look into my edits", which hardly seems appropriate. He is editing to make a point, and to harass me. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. WP:Wikihounding is prohibited but it's not nearly so cut-and-dried because all of our edit histories are public and anyone can look at them. It's not such a bright line we can say he's crossed as there is when he utters the magic word, "liar". Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are prohibited, there are rules that describe the elements of each, and the history that supports a finding of either is discoverable by looking at edit histories and diffs. Of course, editor analysis is required to make a determination of an infraction, in either case. Some cases of hounding are actually clearer than some cases of personal attacks. I gather that Msnicki feels that there is a clear case of a personal attack, while RG is most concerned with putting an end to what he feels is ongoing hounding (and no doubt if he were not followed, that would serve to decrease the possibility of personal attacks in the future). Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: A block for the personal attack seems justified by the bright line violation, especially given that he's been recently warned, and might end both problem behaviors. Msnicki (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• RGloucester has the habit of claiming to be unbiased and non-partisan in various disputes, when his actions show quite clearly that this is not the case. He also regularly misinterprets Wikirules and policies, as in his attempt to close an RfC on Talk:Cultural Marxism despite being an involved editor, and then to overturn an uninvolved editor's subsequent close. [140] This behavior did indeed lead me to take a look at his contributions, to see if there were other instances of his misapplication of Wikipedia principles, which lead me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders. As I remarked there, I took a look at the article and the sources, read the comments from other editors, and then posted a comment based on that evidence, a comment which differed from RGloucestor's view, which caused him to accuse me of vindictivemess, with the threat to "take action" against me.

  My going to the ArbCom request concerning Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 had nothing whatsoever to do with RGloucester, as I regularly monitor that page, and comment on requests with moderate frequency. However, I did find there that RGloucester was once again claiming to an uninvolved editor with no stake in the article, so I questioned him about it, politely.

  As for Msnicki, she is an editor who is virulently adamant about Dangerous Panda being desysoppped in his ArbCom case, a view I have opposed, and her comment can be ignored for that reason.

  So, this claim of me "following him around" hangs on an AfD that I admit I went to because I saw it on RGloucester's contrib list, and a Arbitration request that I saw because I watch the page regularly. I also watch AN and AN/I, where there have been other interactions with this editor, none of which I got involved with because I was "following him around". I suggest that if RGloucester doesn't want his editing to be examined that he correctly follow Wikipedia policy, and not misrepresent his position in regard to disputes he is involved with.

  I'd also like to point out that it is not only my observation that he claims to be uninvolved while, in fact, acting in a partisan manner. The admin Dark Falls also expressed that view in re-closing the Cultural Marxism dispute, when he responded to RGloucester's claim that he was "merely doing what is required by Wikipedia policies". Dark Falls wrote:

  Oh I was not aware that policy mandates you to open an AfD straight after a merge discussion ended with no consensus, when you are fully aware that it will achieve nothing besides make a point. You are hoping that by complaining about the matter loud enough, you will be able to change the result to your liking, yet try to shroud this under a cloak of neutrality and a pretence of not caring about the result. [141]

  BMK (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, if someone wants to say "RGloucester, you don't have to be non-partisan and uninvolved in order for your comments in a dispute to have legitimacy, so just stop misrepresenting your position as being uninvolved and disinterested and go about your business," and "Beyond My Ken, you can't change a person by annoying them about their perceived faults, so please give RGloucester the space to edit without your pointing out his deficits", I could live with that. BMK (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not under any "cloak". Feel free to examine my edits. I do follow Wikipedia policy, and I do state my position as it is. If you don't believe me, that isn't my fault. That's no excuse for following me around to matters you are not involved in and targeting me. I am not involved in the Malaysia Airlines dispute. I have never been. You can examine it all you like. It is clear that I'm not involved. I'm not going to play that game again. As far as "Cultural Marxism", I did not say I was "uninvolved". I said that whether I was "involved" or not was irrelevant. I also said that I did not care about the result. These are true statements. I don't care about the result. What will happen, will happen, and that's that. None of that justifies you following me and making a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, your scare quotes around the word "cloak" seems to imply that I wrote that word somewhere in my comment, but I don't believe I did. BMK (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Try Ctrl-F. You quoted it in bold in this edit. I presume you did that because you agreed with that quote and thought RG should answer it. Msnicki (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I see. I did not write it myself, but quoted it, which is why it felt unfamiliar to me. Thanks for the correction. BMK (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK -- how about if someone were to say "BMK, inasmuch as you've indicated you've followed RG's edits, which matches what the editor interaction diffs indicate, perhaps it is best for you to not do so to confront RG, but agree of your own accord to rather let other editors and normal editing processes address it?" You point out above that an admin shared a view you had ... perhaps you can rely on that sort of normal process, and eschew following RG? Voluntarily? Without any community or admin action? Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I indicated that I "followed RG's edits" to one AfD, period. The rest of our interactions occured in the normal course of my editing. That's not stalking, or harassment by any definition, and it's barely even "following".

But to answer your question, yes, I could allow the normal Wikipedia community process -- which is sometimes like trying to turn a fully-loaded container ship -- to catch up to RGoucester's foibles in its own time. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My "foibles"? What are your foibles, BMK? I have no foibles. As I indicated before, it seems you've taken a disliking to me, and I've taken the brunt of it. Please stop this emotive and irrational rage against me. RGloucester — ☎ 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My dear sir, all God's children have foibles. BMK (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That we do, BMK. However, I have none that you've seen me exercise here. I've seen yours. RGloucester — ☎ 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made it abundantly clear that I thought RGloucester's conduct in regards to Cultural Marxism was dishonest. BMK, I am sure you have done the same. However continually mentioning it will not elicit a positive response, as you can see. It is up to RGloucester to see faults within his conduct. I suggest that you avoid mentioning it in the future. —Dark 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dark Falls: Yes, I stand corrected and will alter my behavior accordingly. BMK (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest RGloucester (Richard III's) sole purpose of late has been disruption and personal attacks with insults and condescension wherever I have encountered him. I'll list half a dozen diffs tues afternoon NYC time. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More hounding, eh? Not surprising. My purpose is never "disruption". You may not agree with opinion, personality, or methods, but that doesn't mean that I'm trying to "disrupt" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joyunity does not want to discuss his changes

This user keeps changing infobox image of articles without discussing the matter on talk page first. When I asked him to start a discussion first he completely ignored my request saying that I'm vandalizing his edits. I really don't know how to keep this editor in line. He doesn't even explain his edits using edit summary. I notified him multiple times to use edit summary but he blanked his talk page. I have a feeling that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Diffs 1 2 3 4 5--Chamith (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to ChamithN's comment by saying that I really do care about helping Wikipedia reach high standards. I also believe that users should work together to help Wikipedia but ChamithN hasn't ever asked me politely to stop fixing the page to its correct format. and he is now trying to block me from editing, some tantrum. I know he left a comment wanting to band me, but this is me saying I care about Wikipedia and I want it to be as great as possible. I'm not asking you to band ChamithN, but please block me because of listening to his foolish comments about my style of editing. Thank You, JoyUnity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyunity (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone else changed the image - see the history of File:Meghan_Trainor_iHeart_1.jpg. They replaced the large high-res image with a very tiny crop. A crop might make some sense but such a reduction in size does not, so I've reverted it. Squinge (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was being polite and I even posted a message on your talk page explaining how to use edit summary, but you completely ignored and kept changing Wikipedia's content as you please. You didn't even provide a single edit summary. And yes you are right users should work together to improve Wikipedia that's why posted tons of messages on your talk page requesting to use edit summary.--Chamith(talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I think this can be solved on the talk page. As an apparently new user, Joyunity probably will make mistakes. We should try to calmly and politely steer Joyunity toward the right direction. Accusing new users of not being here to build an encyclopedia after a minor content dispute isn't really going to help. From what I can tell, nobody has ever posted to the talk page. @Joyunity: you've received a bit of feedback on your talk page about discussing edits, using an edit summary, and signing your posts. It would be helpful if you did those things. It's fine to be bold, but discussing changes on the talk page and using edit summaries are important parts of collaboration. I suggest you read our simplified sets of rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you NinjaRobotPirate. I think Joyunity made those mistakes because he is new to Wikipedia. As you've provided a good explanation to him I hope he wouldn't continue making the same mistakes repeatedly. So Joyunity, make sure to provide an edit summary from now on and please discuss on the talk page of the specific article before changing something like infobox image.-Chamith (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User with multiple accounts editing pro-terrorist

GentiBehramaj

Renault dispute with 83.157.24.224

This is my first involvement with ANI so apologies if I'm getting anything wrong.

There are some issues surrounding the editing of the article Renault with the user 83.157.24.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (heretofore referred to as Mr. IP).

There has been a content dispute regarding Mr. IP's addition of awards information for Renault car models [145] to the main article and lead.

A talk page discussion was started in an attempt to resolve the issue here and subsequently an RFC was opened.

During these debates Mr. IP has engaged in the following:

• Incivility: accusations against vrac, Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr.choppers of vandalism [146], sock puppetry, dishonesty, bias, "malevolence", bad faith (see RFC for details). Calling three of us "gangsters" and saying we should be banned from Wikipedia here [147]
• Threatening to disparage Wikipedia in the press (Mr. IP claims to be a journalist) here [148]
• Threatening to engage in sockpuppetry here [149], although I suspect Mr. IP already has this sock engaged in the debate: 193.252.173.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another IP from France who displays strikingly similar linguistic quirks to Mr. IP).
• Canvassing for the RFC here [150] and here [151]

Attempts to engage and educate have not been successful. Lately the dispute has degenerated into edit warring. The content dispute we can deal with, however I feel that the incivility has passed the threshold and needs to be addressed by an administrator. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: This is interesting, Mr. IP appears to be engaged in a cross-wiki crusade against Volkswagen, see this entry [152] on the Renault article talkpage on fr.wikipedia in September. Note the last line where Mr. IP says there is a "Volkswagate sur[on] Wikipedia", just like they said there was a "Volkswagate scandal on Wikipedia" here [153] on the en Renault talk page.Vrac (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I write on Wikipedia for several years on Wikipedia and I've never created any dispute. But since October, I am harrassed by Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte etc. Yet, all my contributions are fair and with some sources.

On the contrary of a dispute, before Vrac created a dispute here to kick me and my fair contributions away, I wrote here Portal_talk:Cars#Non-equal_treatment_of_articles_-_Vandalization : for me there is no dispute, I talk about CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands. That is why I cite the Volkswagen article as an example. I have no preference for any brands, I just ask that the same rules and content can be added in ALL the brands articles, with the same section order etc. I even removed a spam link from the VW article and my action has been validated [[154]]. So I do protect Volkswagen. Notice that Mr.Choppers (a friend of Vrac and Urbanoc, that I contacted to make a mediation and hopefully make stop their harassment against me, but they continued) admitted himself As for VW, there are simply a LOT of VW fans in the US as it is the only European brand with youth appeal to have been here for a long time. So a lot of VW fanboys write in English as a result, meaning lots of text added to the VW articles. And... many photos too, and for VW, height more current models photos are allowed than for Renault... Notice that saying that VW has a lot of fanboys in the US is a VW fanboy statement itself. The truth is that VW sells a little in the US (-11% in 2014, in a +8% growing market) and is not popular among young people. That is what statistics reveal.

When Vrac writes about me "linguistic quirks", it is incivility and a personal attack. I heard some racists saying the same words about an Indian man someday. Vrac also accuses another person of being a sock-puppet or something like that, so he can do what he accuses me to do, but that I did not. As to me, I just mentioned that pseudonyms are more anonymous than a precise IP addr.. It is a real possibility that one person uses several pseudonyms, not an incivility.

About : CONSISTENCY : same rules and same structure of sections for ALL the automotive brands and harassment of Renault and a few other brands :

• Urbanoc does not apply the same "rules" between Renault and VW for example. Here Urbanoc removed a photo of the Megane current model in the Renault article, stating that the photos are too numerous [155] whereas there were only 4 photos of the current models in the Renault article, but there are 3 DOZENS of photos of the current models in the VW article and in the case of VW, and Urbanoc and his friends do not remove even one photo. 8 times more photos in the VW article is not too much, but 8 times less photos in the Renault article is too much : it is inconsistent and unequal. Urbanoc even explained here [[156]] that there is a rule (?) "two images of relevant current products would be enough". Where is written this "rule" ? And why Urbanoc does not ask that his "rule" to be respected in the VW article where there are 3 dozens of photos of the current models not only four ? Such unequal treatments are not acceptable. Yet, I obeyed Urbanoc and I did not add a photo of the Megane current model. So, no I don't create any dispute.
• Here Urbanoc removes the photo of Renault Captur that is the most sold in Europe, but keeps the second SUV [157]]... Not logical... Yet there is enough space to put 2 photos.
• Here Urbanoc removes AGAIN a Renault model (that's why the word harassment is justified and proved) from a list, because he says that it is too long, but why 20 models can be cited and not Renault ? [[158]]. Why does he have the power to "decide" arbitrarily and alone when a list is "too long", and why removing Renault and not one of the others ? Notice that someone put Ford and Opel first in the list, but after these 2 brands the list is in alphabetical order... But Urbanoc did not correct that, he only removed Renault.
• Here Urbanoc wrote the typical anti-Renault rhetoric : "proved unsuccessful" or "uncompetitive" and Renault is bad, because "100 years ago it built some tanks", exactly what he added here : [[159]]. Notice that his source is unverifiable (a book that nobody could find) and on the contrary there are some historical facts that the Renault plane engine won some races and beat some speed records, so how could it be "proved unsuccessful" ?
• Here Vrac [160] removed from the Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." Why ? It is a true information. Removing that without any discussion is to vandalize the article, isn't it ? Else what is the definition here of vandalize ? Renault introduced the turbo for the first time in F1, and won 12 engine manufacturer title and 11 drivers titles. It is fair to mention : Renault "is known for its role in motor sport, and its success over the years in rallying and Formula 1." and Vrac should have not erasing that. Notice that this sentence was in the article for a long time and that I did not add it.

I will write more proofs about the unequal treatment of the brands on Wikipedia later. I am fair, my contributions are true and sourced. I am not uncivil. And there is a real problem of unequal treatment of brands on Wikipedia. The positive informations are regularly removed from the Renault article by Urbanoc, Vrac etc. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice evening.

Frankly, the kind of edits I made in Renault and Renault-related articles is clearly visible through my edit history, so anyone can judge if I'm editing "against" Renault. The IP editor actitude has always been beligerant and he has made a lot of wild accusations he has still to prove. Urbanoc (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has refused to engage with a number of editors, and makes some ridiculous claims. He confused difference of opinion with vandalism. I find the tone and unfounded allegations distasteful, and would go as far as to suggest a temporary block may be useful so s/he has an opportunity to read the WP conventions and policies. As with Urbanoc above, my edit history will demonstrate significant content I have added and edited over the years to various French car articles. Warren (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed writing of articles for pay

We have a bunch of accounts that are writing articles for pay. This is just the first of many. One of the most recent articles is here Jerome Katz which I have nominated for deletion.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Do we allow someone to pay to have their CV or business put on Wikipedia and if we do not what measures do we put in place when we discover it is happening? What should be our response when sock puppets are involved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest you say there are "a bunch of accounts" and that "this is the first of many", but you link to an AN/I about one paid editor. Who are the others?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI covers this pretty well. That said, unpaid advocacy by ordinary editors is a much bigger problem in my opinion. Far too many editors wouldn't know a neutral point of view if it fell on them and are perfectly happy to push Wikipedia and its articles in whatever direction they personally think is proper. The only difference is that a very small few have managed to get paid in cash for it while the vast majority simply get paid by thinking that they're doing the noble deed of "fixing" or "improving" or "protecting" Wikipedia. Through that lens, the few who are getting paid for it are a minor problem. And while there are certainly smarter and more sophisticated efforts to shape Wikipedia articles via paid agents, the best are probably never found out. As long as Wikipedia is influential there will be efforts to "make it work for us", and making a big show of busting a couple small fry here and there probably won't make much difference in the big picture. – JBarta (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Doc has nominated was already nominated for deletion once tonight, and passed as clearly notable because the subject holds a named chair at SLU. I'll note that I haven't received any money for it but have already declared it on my user page, so as far as this particular article is concerned I don't see any real transgressions.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD is alike but different than WP:AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree when you call them "small fry" if more editors are encouraged to edit and get paid for it then it will become an issue. To be paid editing undermines what Wikipedia is about it being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That being said there is also the possibility of the paid editor doing real harm to things such as BLP articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anyone ask for edits to a BLP page, although it might be worth looking at Freelancer.com; it's pretty low end and there are some very dubious jobs on it. Here are today's requests for Wikipedia edits from Elance.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pretty interesting read, considering you are a more or less a publicist if you accept money to put someone's CV or company on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:For publicists publicizing a client's work. Even a 2-second glance at Elance reveals enough to churn your stomach. There's someone asking for two pages to be written, and they say they want it to be just like Zeus Mortgage, which they probably paid someone else to work on in the past. That one leads to Blueskymorning (talk · contribs) and further down the rabbit hole. --Laser brain (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. When they say they want it to be "just like" some other page it usually means they've trawled for examples and picked one they like. It happens with web page content too; they'll say "I've seen this awesome site, can you do me one just like it?" The obvious answer is "Copy it and change a few words, you lazy sod," but meh. I have bills to pay.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. So we have lots of concerns. The next question is how should we respond? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on what you mean. I don't like you very much, Doc, as you know, but I'm here for now. If you mean how to respond to me I'll leave you to it. If you mean how to respond to freelancers in general, well, you have one right here who has nothing to gain or lose, and if any of you have any questions fire away. Frustrating as you all are I do generally like Wikipedia, so why not?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No this section is not about you specifically, it is about paid editing generally. Your friends have sent me lots of your tweets so I am clear on your feels. Happy to hear what suggesting you have wrt "frelancers in general" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm almost touched. No, I'm not really. I still don't like you at all. However. I don't personally see anything wrong with paid editing if the result is a notable, neutral article. If good content is added, what does it matter? What you need to stop is advocacy and malicious attacks on company websites; people request that. They're against Wiki TOCs, so that means posting them is against Elance TOCs and if you ask them they'll take the jobs down. As for paid jobs that comply with COI, add a note to the create article screen mentioning the disclosure rules. I really didn't know about that because it's not exactly prominent.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you never know, but if you ask nicely I might just have something that can help you :-)--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better question might be... how or why is WP:COI and current remedies insufficient? – JBarta (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In theory they're adequate, as long as editors abide by the rules. Here's a problem; I genuinely didn't know I had to disclose the paid articles. Obviously that doesn't excuse the fact that I tried to hide one, but that doesn't matter. Some freelancers are going to make genuine mistakes like that and end up in the crap. Some, and they will be the ones who advocate or vandalise (probably company) pages will not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't like Elance you're going to hate this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I'll mention again all the advocacy work going on by folks who don't get paid in cash and are arguably an issue a thousand times as large. That Zeus Mortgage was written or edited by someone who was paid a few bucks is an infinitesimally small issue that has zero impact on the integrity of Wikipedia in any pratical sense. You could add a thousand more articles like it and the impact would be the same... zero. I think WAY too much emphasis is placed on "paid in cash" editing. As if somone getting paid is going to have any more potential to be a POV editor than any Tom, Dick or Harry on a mission to "fix" or "protect" Wikipedia. Or that a paid editor is less likely to follow policy and guidelines. Just look at most any talk page to see all the editors not getting paid a thing and variously disregarding the rules. This just smells like a savior with a solution desperately looking for a problem. – JBarta (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. I wrote a few that got deleted because I didn't understand WP:N well enough to know I should turn down the jobs. I really wish I hadn't taken on the one I tried to hide, because it was advocacy. But if someone writes a notable, NPOV article that actually adds worthwhile information I don't personally see an issue. But I think you're underestimating the scale it's happening on. Elance and Freelancer are the tip of the iceberg. There's oDesk, Fiverr and a bunch of other scummy sites like that. Elance has fairly strict TOCs. Freelancer does in theory but never enforces them, especially not on cheating clients. The rest are a free for all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly there are a ton of sites out there offering these services. It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it has occurs. And many of these people are using sock or throw away accounts because they wish to stay undetected. Only a very small minority is above board. I guess there are two question:

1. Should we care about paid editing
2. Even if we do care is there anything we can do about it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. But if the article meets N and NPOV, no, why should you care? I disagree that only a minority of paid editors are above board; most mean well. The problem is the clients have no idea about notability and neither do most editors. I've had people ask for an article, I say no, not notable, and they're like "What if I put out a press release?" I said yes a couple of times, which is how I learned about WP:N.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads on to: It is fairly easy to pick up the cases in which it occurs. It's not, really. I was doing paid edits for nearly 2 years before anyone noticed, and that's only because VMS had my Twitter handle on her site. And I haven't exactly been a low-profile editor.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But then, if you don't notice a paid editor is there actually a problem that needs solved? A lot of the time, probably not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that stuff is small potatoes. Of more concern is the unpaid advocacy of more important topics, like major political, major events, divisive issues, etc etc... even down to medium importance stuff. A dozen highly motivated unpaid editors can do a whole lot more damage to the integrity of Wikipedia than a hundred people getting paid to whip up largely minor articles that are lucky to get 10 pageviews per week. And Wikipedia has a LOT of these highly motivated editors... all "legitimate" in the context of this discussion. Think of it as rigging a mosquito net while ignoring the tiger standing next to you. And keep in mind, that paid editor is on the clock while the unpaid one has all the time in the world. – JBarta (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I don't think paid editing is a problem as long as the content is N and NPOV. There are paid advocates though. The case I tried to hide, I got accused of running socks. I've never done that because I truly loathe sockpuppets, but I'm bloody sure the alleged socks were being paid by the same person as me. A group of motivated amateurs can do a lot of damage, but eventually they'll get weeded out by AN/I. A malicious client with enough cash can send in an endless string, and an SPI won't pick them up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that, as much as possible, you pick them off at the job sites before anyone is hired. Traditional freelancers won't touch wiki jobs. So a daily patrol of Freelancer and Elance would let you flag the egregious ones and get them delisted before anyone was hired. The sites have mechanisms to prevent clients talking to potential freelancers before hiring, so they don't take the job (and commission) off site.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree with User:FergusM1970 the best way to deal with this is at the sites in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose doing that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, my suggestion was scanning the main sites a couple of times a day and flagging any jobs that violate WP TOCs. Elance, and probably Freelancer, will delist them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean tagging an article with something like "The editing of this article has been listed at whateverlance so good editors be on the lookout and have your pikes at the ready"? – JBarta (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a template for that yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whipping up yet another template is the easy part. But without some automated system, some poor sop is gonna have to manually scope out these sites and place the tags, then someone else is gonna have to remove them, blah blah blah. More problems than it's worth in my opinion. However, if someone wants to come up with some sort of automated tool that regularly scans certain websites looking for this sort of thing and place tags automatically and remove them automatically when "the danger has passed", that would certainly be fine by me. But keep in mind, the minute someone invents a lock, someone else figures out how to pick it. The end result of all this will be just as many paid editors... but they'll be harder to detect. Maybe a more practical approach would be to welcome paid editors and allow them to operate in the open. Editors have all sorts of motivations to edit here.... money is simply one of them... and not necessarily an evil one in my opinion. And if it's any consolation, the percentage of paid editors probably always has been and always will be very very very small. – JBarta (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the specific article target isn't determinable from those other sites, then the my above post is useless. It's very possible my inexperience with these freelancer sites is showing through... I should probably talk less and read more. – JBarta (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, nine times out of ten it's impossible to identify the specific article from what's publicly displayed. The only way to tell would be from the post-hiring discussions and you're never going to be able to see that. The client name also won't likely give you any clues. However if you flag the article using the Report Violation link it will most likely be delisted.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a bad time to suggest you hire me to do it for you? $25 an hour. Cheap at twice the price. No, really, it will take a small amount of manpower but you could potentially get quite a few. It won't work with the crappy little sites, but the problematic clients with more cash will be on Elance or Freelancer anyway. Nobody's going to trust a lot of money to Fiverr's payment system.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess FergusM1970 is blocked now. I assume he's blocked from talk as well. Fine timing. Oh well. Sayonara dude, and best of luck... – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970 is unblocked at the moment. What I've seen is that the talk page include Template:Paid article for clarification. This isn't policy though so that may be something to consider. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another suggestion: An article may have a mix of paid and unpaid edits, and usually unpaid ones are going to dominate. If a stigma is going to attach to paid edits - and personally I don't think it always should - marking the article seems harsh. Better to do it at the level of edits. Currently you have a check box for "Minor edit". Add another one for "Paid edit". Obviously it depends on compliance, but with the exception of doing what I suggested and screening the main freelancing sites, what doesn't? That way someone can patrol the work of good-faith paid editors.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe they could get paid to patrol them, right? Might be a nice little earner. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally if that happens I'll be the first to apply, but plenty editors spend time patrolling edits anyway. This would just involve them giving a bit more priority to those marked as paid. Then they could give the editors (who after all are good-faith ones, seeing as they're doing it openly) some help on complying with N, NPOV or whatever.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, shucks. I nearly fell for that! Darn it. Martinevans123 (talk)

Fair one. If you mean what I think you do it would be more accurate to say there's a reasonable chance they're good faith; obviously bad-faith ones could use that as a fig leaf. In that case it would be down to the editor to decide on the merits of the edit itself. If a paid editor had fixed bad grammar, obviously no problem. But if they'd just deleted all reference to a controversy it would need investigating.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or was I seeing a level of meaning you didn't actually intend?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even intend this level of meaning. D'oh! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any paradox written by a mathematician tends to baffle the shit out of me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read that three times and still have no idea what it means. Luckily, "baffled" is a condition I've become comfortable with over the years. – JBarta (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think "baffled" is my ground state of existence, especially where maths is concerned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not something that is going to be decided in this venue. Admins. don't have the power to dictate such policy, and despite numerous RfC pages, Jimbo's talk archives, and various other discussions - nothing can be or will be done here. If everyone is done venting, perhaps seeking a new well structured RfC (or series of them) would be a better expenditure of time. I'd suggest closing this thread since it's not an admin incident that can be resolved on this page. — Ched : ? 03:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes a RfC is needed. Would be useful to have some better guidance around when paid editing is blockable. Should really have posted at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. I will look at putting something together in the new year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&diff=prev&oldid=639442726 Funny, but not helpful. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted by Cluebot. If vandalism continues, ideal palce to report it is WP:AIV. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kapoork

@Kapoork: has been edit warring at Kanika Kapoor to insert unsourced biographical details, and has responded with a personal attack when being reverted. Explanations and friendly warnings have been given, and on their own I don't think those edits are cause for action yet. But I think editing under a user name that implies this is Ms Kapoor herself is problematic, especially editing in this way, as it could bring disrepute on Ms Kapoor. (Brought here as there are several different policy issues involved). Squinge (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for taking it to AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks almost certain to be kept now after having been expanded with multiple sources, but I think the behaviour (and user name) of @Kapoork: still needs to be addressed as I originally asked - they are still adding their own unsourced claims (while removing sourced material). Are they allowed a to use a username that suggests they are the subject of the article without verifying who they are, and should they be stopped from adding unsourced material? Squinge (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm getting further attacks for reverting their unsourced changes. Squinge (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and please see my latest warning/request at User_talk:Kapoork#Kanika_Kapoor Squinge (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And their latest at my Talk suggests they're not actually Kanika Kapoor herself, so I don't think that username should be allowed for someone editing that article. Squinge (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for AfD in this situation was ham-fisted. We need to avoid this sort of thing and educate rather than alienate new editors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Range block genius wanted for dealing with Tamaulipas vandal

Hi admins, a Mexico-based IP keeps vandalizing articles and hopping IPs. This has been going on for the better part of 2014 (I first noticed them circa April/May 2014.) I believe they are the same operators who were disrupting Ilion Animation Studios and United Plankton Pictures, which resulted in both articles being protected. Most of the IPs geolocate to the Mexican state Tamaulipas, and I think most of them are from the ISP Uninet S.A. de C.V. There has been a recent flurry of activity at Peep and the Big Wide World.

Anyhow, it's clearly disruptive, so if anybody can come up with a plan for dealing with this user, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subranges are 189.235.0.0/16, 189.250.192.0/18. I looked as a CU, and both of them have significant logged-in editing, as well as a small amount of productive logged out editing. There is also some account creation. If we were to block them, it would probably be best to start with a short term and see efficacy, and then extend length if necessary. Also, account creation should probably be left enabled, at least at first, to minimize collateral. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any other thoughts are welcome, if nobody else has an opinion I'll action it in a couple hours. NativeForeigner^Talk 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NativeForeigner:, thanks for looking into this! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble loading some WMF tools today, so can't view the range contributions to see if other pages are also being targeted. The article Peep and the Big Wide World (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) had just come off a 3-week semi-protection that expired just over 24 hours ago. Due to the considerable IP disruption today, I have extended the semi-protection for an additional 3-months. If this article is the primary focus of the disruptive user behind the IP, then range-blocks may not be necessary if there's risk of collateral impact. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the extent of the editing--I mentioned Ilion and United Plankton above, also Peep. Dragon Tales is another. I don't get the sense that they are interested in too many articles, but they are persistent, and as soon as a protection expires, they come back fairly quickly to damage the article, as you already mentioned with Peep. Another example, here they returned within 3 days of the protection being lifted. I hadn't linked specific logged in users to this IP vandal, so depending on what those accounts are editing, a different story could unfold. Grazie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this I'll do some fairly extensive semi=protection, and we'll see how that holds, or if he gains new interests. NativeForeigner ^Talk 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the above, I'll look into it in some more detail. Not all of it is pure vandalism. The following articles have been edited by the IP ranges, and are in the same subject area: Dragon Tales, Cubeez, Fetch the Vet, Peep and the Big Wide World, Engie Benjy, Oggy and the Cockroaches, Henry's World, ¡Mucha_Lucha!, Franklin (TV series), Zoboomafoo, and maybe a couple others, this is just the last three months. NativeForeigner^Talk 00:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Native, I took a look at some of the articles you linked to. This edit from the IP range at Oggy and the Cockroaches is vandalism. We would never have that many companies listed in the network parameter for instance, and the content is a resubmission of this At Cubeez are eight consecutive edits that have zero net result followed by another two pointless edits at Fetch the Vet for a total of 10 "test" edits. Most of the IP range's edits at Henry's World were reverted, like this unsupported cat and these obviously disruptive category changes. At Mucha Lucha we find an unsourced network addition, unsourced company, a bizarre addition after the bcdb template at the bottom, but if that's not convincing as vandalism, this edit a few hours later at Dragon Tales again floods the company parameter. There was this useless edit at Zoboomafoo. I have yet to see anything of value come out of this range. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Rapper Nyn T

The Rapper Nyn T (talk · contribs) has repeatedly shown that he does not have the minimum competence to be editing at Wikipedia. He has repeatedly created articles about himself, and then recreated the article content in Talk: space, and in his own User talk page. This edit shows him completely disregarding attempts to contact him, once again to create article content (about himself) in his user talk page. This edit shows him trying to create material about himself in the Wikipedia talk: space. I have asked him to stop, read the guidelines, and seek mentorship, but he apparently wants no part of that. I believe a temporary block will serve to stop his incorrect behavior and force him to learn the ropes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 31 hours. I was tempted to indef this time, and I definitely will if the behavior resumes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It resumed. See User:Nyn T ( Rapper ). I've blocked both accounts indefinitely now. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my position for some time that an account in the name of a brand-name, such as a performer's stage name, is a species of advertisement for the "personal brand" they are attempting to build. Every such account I've ever seen has been used to publicize their career, either on the userpage or by creating a promotional "article" or both. I routinely block such accounts as spamusernames, and leave the usual message urging them to open new accounts without the spammy name, and to respect our rules on COI, promotion and autobiography. --Orange Mike Talk 04:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

being pestered by admitted sock of banned user:whereismylunch

Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg

Can an administrator please look at the histories of Priscilla Chan Zuckerberg, Dr. Priscilla Chan, and Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg) and figure out the page histories. I think there has been some cut-and-paste moves that will require an administrator to merge histories and/or rename. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everything should be fixed now. With the exception of the fact that the article almost certainly does not meet our notability criteria and it seems a tad sexist to use someone's husband's last name as their disambiguator when they have not themselves chosen to adopt it. NW(Talk) 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It seems like that page was created only to represent her as Mark Zuckerberg's wife. In my opinion that article is totally redundant.--Chamith(talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that she is not yet personally notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but my personal opinion is that she may well be soon, as a philanthropist perhaps, and it is plausible that people will increasingly search for information about her, given her family's massive wealth and influence. She is a talented, appealing young woman with the resources to make a difference. The skills of an administrator talented with disambiguation, merging several deleted articles, and evaluating emerging celebrity notability would be very useful here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

India Against Corruption (Assam) image

86.2.216.5

This individual has accused me of copyright violations, but after I have asked him where. He has simply ignored my questions. [161] He basically called me a liar [162] and has had a very rude tone with me in general. [163]

Ater I repeatedly asked him where my alleged copyvio's were he stated my userspace. [164]. I am sure that he knows that userspace isn't for copyright as he has fixed references on my userspace. He puts forth the claim that I am upset that articles I wrote had delete votes. [165] I have authored over 40 articles, and if someone votes to delete it, I don't take it to heart. What I find bothersome as per WP:HOUND is that this user has been going through wikipedia, editing a good number of articles that I am at, my userspace articles, and AFD's. [166] .

This is not his first issue of disruptive editing. [167] and warning to those who report him. [168] I asked that he stop following me on pages, insulting me, and editing my userpages. [169]CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through those links, what exactly is the behavior in question? It simply appears to be someone taking a contrary point of view and expressing concerns. If I am missing something please point it out. Chillum 07:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am being falsely accused of copyviolations, called me a liar, etc. Also about 50% of his edits this month have been on articles I created or participated in or on my userfied articles. 30% of his edits from mid october are on my userspace, articles I created or userspace. I am not sure who (s)he is, but his recent behavior has caused me to become annoyed as per wiki hound. I ask that you have him stay away from me. I am only trying to create good articles. His name calling and otherwise rude behavior isn't helping my desire at doing this. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "userspace isn't for copyright"? (A copyright violation is a copyright violation, wherever it is). Squinge (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squinge, I have not copied any text from any website. I summarize information and place a reference on my userspace. CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your question re the copyvio and posted the relevant link at least twice. Two of the pertinent parts: "I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. " and "You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises.". If you followed the link WP:CWW it's about copying within wikipedia, cutting and pasting an article around wikipedia loses attribution. That is the case here (and another you recently have done into user space). That's a copyright issue. It's not the biggest issue in the world and in this case would be easy to fix, but it's an issue.

As for the rest of your claims I'd like you to back them up, I have presented a situation with the evidence, you are inferring from that various things and then attributing those things you've inferred to me. As for hounding you, that's laughable. I've engaged with you on two discussions both in the last few days, other than those (and this now) there is no turning up everywhere and making your life difficult. I noticed one article on DRV a while back and put some effort into fixing the citation into proper citation templates, something which was highlighted by others in the DRV and something others have spoken to you about. You know I did that because I half suspected if you stripped away the junk there might be an article there. If helping out constitutes hounding then I am at a loss.

In this overall case I have pointed out and instance where you have ignored the consensus in a DRV and gone ahead and recreated the article, I've fixed citations on a user space draft or two, I've fixed citations on a mainspace page and tagged it for questionable notability. Rather than accept that the recreation wasn't too wise and appreciate the effort spent tidying the articles you'd rather attempt to ban me from pointing out any future problems like the first one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing with regards the mudslinging suggesting I've been warned before please see this. My user talk page was tagged with a warning by an obvious vandal since I'd tagged one of his hoax articles for deletion. Another user obviously not familar with user page policy decide I wasn't permitted to remove such warnings from own talk page. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you stay off of articles that I am editing in my userspace. The point of me using it is to create an article and move it to userspace. I neither invited you nor did I want your edits. You have followed me onto many articles for I am not sure what reason. you openly mocked me and have put me down on even this AN/I . How are over 50% of your edits this month on articles I have either created or interact on? You have been following me on articles since the middle of October. I created this article Latoya Hanson and you edit on it within two days? That is WP:HOUND . I am not sure who you are or what you want with me. If I have interacted with you on a username or an article before, please tell me so that I won't edit on that article. I am unsure why you are following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#User_pages the edits are valid edits fixing the citation style. I have not followed you onto many articles, I have edited that one in your userspace having seen it at DRV to fix citations, more recently I fixed a duplicate citation in another article you listed on DRV (I hang around DRV generally) and finally I fixed some citations on Latoya Hanson which I saw when reviewing your edits. That is 3 articles where I have fixed citation style, not many articles. I am not hounding you (You should read WP:HOUND "...and joining discussions on multiple pages..." as noted above I've engaged in two related discussions with your over the last few days and that's it, hardly following you around), as previously stated I could easily have gone to the AFDs which are running at the moment and just blindly voted delete if I wanted to annoy you. Your sole annoyance seems to come from the fact that I was willing to point out that you had recreated an article in direct contravention of the DRV consensus. If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace. I will not be restricted from fixing issues on articles on mainspace regardless of who wrote the or commenting at DRV/AfD. If you want to avoid scrutiny I suggest you start reading and understanding the policies before acting, perhaps a mentor? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote as you please. That isn't what bothered me. Following me around making inflammatory comments toward me is annoying. You stating that I am disingenuous and knowingly violating wiki policy is bothering me. I have not done this.

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that you can go on. A large percentage of your edits are on my articles since October 14!

1. Latoya Hanson
2. User:CrazyAces489/Ron Duncan
3. User:CrazyAces489/Jorge Gracie
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) ‎

"Wikihounding WP:HOUND is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am telling you now that I am annoyed with you following me around. Please stop! Please!CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted the significant part for you and I'll do it again. joining discussions, which I haven't done, but you seem to think "you can vote as you please" is fine. You have this policy 100% the wrong way around. Of those you list one is a discussion I joined in (and one doesn't make following around), and one is a discussion where I made a minor tweak to not include fair use images outside article space where our WP:NFCC requires them to be. These are both in the last few days. Again your complaint of this on going hounding is nonsense. I've been fixing citations that is not some dark way to irritate people, it's a way of improving the encyclopedia. I've been doing this without any other interaction with your for a while, since the DRV where one editor pointed out " Needs work on the format of the references.", and another "the references are very poorly formatted.", I'll contrast that with your response to the DRV where people bemoaned the poor formatting, using unreliable sources etc. Your response - ignore the formatting and just pile in a load more trivial and/or unreliable references. I'm really wondering if there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since we are here having this discussion and I don't want to now go to one of the AFDs and comment, can someone independent take a look at this and this which appear to be notes to two editors who previously opined keep and seems to be a WP:CANVAS problem. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two of you only seem to be talking to each other you can do this on one of your talk pages. If you wish a response from an administrator then just wait for one. Chillum 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for an admin. I simply ask that he stops following me around. CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other admin has commented I will give my opinion. I think that CrazyAces has taken offense at what is legitimate criticism. I think that Mr. 86.2.216.5 may be in the right but despite that should be the bigger person and avoid CA as much as is reasonable to do. If neither of you object I would like to close this discussion. If not then I will take that to be an indication that administrative action is desired. Chillum 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I object to CrazyAces489 characterization of following him around, let alone on many pages. He managed to come up with 5 pages we had in common, two of which were drafts listed at DRV which I frequent and have done so for a long time, if he wants to avoid DRV then that's fine, but I'm certainly not going to feel bound to ignore stuff listed there due to the authorship, nor making tweaks to obvious minor problems with the articles like citation style. The other two are not articles, but deletion discussions related to the DRV, so same there. I'll also note his main gripe of me editing his userspace is somewhat peculiar, since as I noted I've been gradually chipping away at the cites for two months without a word or problem. It's only now that I point something out he's all in a flap about it, I'll contrast that to other similar things from DRV like Honour (film) which in part is back in main space due to the effort I put in, the original author of that is flapping around shouting the odds. That all said, as I said many paragraphs ago and this could easily have stopped then, but has just continued to be poked at "If it helps I will voluntarily agree not to bother trying to fix the articles in your userspace." And with that it's Christmas and I'll be away for a few days, so have fun --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His "help" has come with relatively rude comments to me on "AFD's." I am again asking an admin to speak to him about these comments to me. I wold prefer he NOT follow me around Wikipedia. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it is not likely this is going to get an admin response. I see nothing wrong with the IPs actions, CA needs to take criticism better. This IP has been working in the AfD areas for several weeks now and if you edit there you are likely to see this IP. Since no admin actionable behavior is happening here I suggest you two work it out of your talk pages, learn to work together or just ignore each other. Chillum 16:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest account repeatedly inserting promotional material

Note: I am not involved in this dispute, but have observed it in passing.

A new editor has recently appeared CarlThompson (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) whose sole editing contribution is to repeatedly add material promoting his company's product at PCSO-524.

[170] Original insertion.

[171] Removed as advertising.

[172] Restored by CarlThompson. Note the edit summary clearly betrays the conflict of interest as he admits that the 'facts' are approved by his company's scientific panel.

[173] Removed again as 'snake oil ad'.

[174] CarlThompson asks on remover's talk page why he keeps removing his promotional material.

[175] CarlThompson is directed to the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interest.

[176] CarlThompson ignores the policy and restores the promotional material.

[177] CarlThompson is directed once again to the policy on Conflict of interest, this time on his own talk page.

[178] CarlThompson once again restores the material ignoring Conflict of interest policy.

[179] A new editor removes the material though does not specify why in the edit summary.

[180] Restored by CarlThompson again.

[181] Removed by a third contributor as promotional.

[182] This third editor leaves yet another note on CarlThompson's talk page.

This account is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but exists solely to add promotional material for his company's product in contravention of Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy (single purpose account). It is also clear that if he works for the company who makes the product and the material being added is 'approved' by that company than he is most likely being paid to add the disputed material. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the account has not been active since I (the "third editor" mentioned above) reverted him and left a detailed warning on his talk page. I suggest waiting to see how CarlThompson responds before taking administrative action. He has a choice to comply with my suggestions (to use talk pages, stop edit warring, and publicly disclose his COI), or not. No action is required if he makes the right choices. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make my intentions clear (probably due to Christmas guests turning up). I was not expecting any sanctions against this account. What I was going to suggest was an appropriately worded authoritative warning on this account's talk page from an administrator which would underline the policy on the point. This is because this user has ignored two warnings on the conflict of interest, and one warning on paid editing. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For information only: A further warning has been left at yet another discussion started by CarlThompson here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was my request closed by an admin or deleted by an editor?

"HowNutsAreTheDutch". Confirmed socks.

Missouri footnote on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map

I'm being harassed cross-wiki

Gowtham avg

Off site recruitment by temporarily blocked tendentious editor

DonaldKronos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Donald Kronos's Google plus page

DonaldKronos was blocked for edit warring at Evolution (report here), and has begun recruiting on his Google plus page. Kronos initially responded to reversion by calling it vandalism (continuing even after being asked to stop), and has since gone on accuse others of "CENSORSHIP", "HIDING THE TRUTH" (with a rant about religion that probably goes against AGF), and "HIDING WHAT EVOLUTION IS" (even though his edit made things less focused). He thinks that undoing his work is "an attack against humanity". With posts like this, it's clear that he has little-to-no capacity to assume good faith.

He claims he was blocked "FOR TRYING TO WORK WITH PEOPLE" and that he was never given the chance to explain his edits, which is a patent lie. He was told repeatedly to use the talk page, and warned about edit warring. He has regularly asked for explanations that have been repeatedly explained at both Talk:Evolution and on his talk page.

I think we're looking at a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. He clearly sees Wikipedia as a platform for his writing, not for collaboration. He believes that he's "trying to defend humanity" (source) with his tantrums.

And if anyone wants to try to make this a content dispute, his edits were reverted by multiple editors for being off-topic and not being a summary of the rest of the article. Heck, even his own fans are arguing against his edits.

I welcome the possibility of improvement from any inexperienced editor, but it's not our hopes that determine whether that happens. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:98.247.126.245 here in good faith wants to refer to Talk:Evolution#Inappropriate_discussion as well. I don't think the discussion needs to be copied. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about WP:OUTING but what is required right now? We can't stop him from his off-wiki conduct. He's current blocked here. If you believe User:TheProfessor is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT puppet, report it at WP:SPI if you'd like but that editor has been here since 2011 so otherwise you need to assume good faith . I'll review his user talk page and see if removing talk page access is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe TheProfessor is a sock or meatpuppet (which is why I never mentioned him), but DonaldKronos's Google plus post does call for help on Wikipedia, his block is only going to last about another day and a half, and the off-site recruiting is part of a larger problem with DonaldKronos. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the other editor did at the talk page so I wanted to clarify that. It wasn't directed at you, my apologies for any confusion. I asked User:EdJohnston to review it rather than me just increase it at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ricky81682 and Ian.thomson, I'd like to address this. Where would be appropriate? TheProfessor (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he gets it or not, at the very least, I think the discussion on his talk page has calmed down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having read most of what DonaldKronos has written on his talk page, this is a clear case of WP:CIR. Any expectation the behavior will change and he'll become a useful contributor is just wishful thinking. My view is cut him loose and who cares what he writes on his Google+ page. Next. – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean block him completely now? His block is only for three days. I'm pretty certain a WP:NOTHERE block will follow instantly after that if his behavior hasn't changed by then but I'm still in line with waiting it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean just indefinitely block him now. – JBarta (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. I think we should at least give him a second chance. Also, a mentor would probably help a great deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to give a second chance. And block him instantly if he continues to be tendentious, disruptive, and uncivil. TheProfessor (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: Kikichugirl

Legal Threat

Very obvious legal threat. But is there any merit to the complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the number of reasons given for a complaint is inversely proportional to its validity, even more so when several of them are contradictory. Dating back to November on Commons: "photoshopped forgery" (of the IAC logo worn by several people in the image). Then here two days ago: "This cannot be Arvind *KEJRIWAL*" (in said image). Well, actually it clearly is Arvind Kejriwal, so... "This forged image has been photo-shopped to defame CM candidate Arvind Kejriwal by showing him consorting with Maoist terrorists", and then when all else fails and despite previously claiming twice that it was a photoshopped forgery "this image is copied from a photo set published in India by IAC on 28 May 2012 and its copyright vests in IAC". Online evidence suggests even this latter claim is dubious in several respects. In any case, this is a matter for Commons which hosts the file and its description (and has already blocked multiple IAC socks)—not English Wikipedia. Bugs, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm for background. Voceditenore (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. It's possible they have a valid concern, but if it's about the alleged trademark status of their organization's name, etc., it would seem their quarrel should be addressed in the Indian court system, not in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický refuses to change tack

AdamDeanHall

Topic ban for Cwobeel for BLP violations

User:Pagesclo

I had the temerity to revert[213] an edit by Pagesclo (talk · contribs) which introduced ungrammatical English into the article on Aztec empire. The user then tracked all my recent contributions reverting them wholesale (including removing several sources requested by another user that I had spent most of the morning tracking down[214]). It doesnt appear that I can talk them to reason. There is a good chance that the user is a simple troll who was luring someone to revert them. Here they are making similarly nonsensical edits at other pages: [215][216] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foolish complaints. Pagesclo (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what to call this here. It seems kind of WP:pointy. [217] <Here Pageclo is reverted for "doesnt work in English". [218] <Here Pagesclo reverts Maunus for "doesnt work in English". There are no apparent reason for Pagesclo's Revert. [219] <This diff makes me question their competence in English. I'd like to review to see if there are more issues like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that was a straightforward WP:POINT revert. I've had a look through Pagesclo's edits and have had to revert a page move to a name that appears not to exist, and some spelling and grammar. I've dropped a warning onto their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words exist; always that this is "something Mexican", putting "maximum extension", that looks ugly. Pagesclo (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Back trolling the same pages. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've given them a warning about Schenectady that mentions blocking, and a note about edit warring. I've also come up with different wording at Aztec Empire, both wordings sounded weird. Not sure if that will be the end of it or not; we'll see. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since last updated, User:Pagesclo has gone back and wiped content again[220] and continued the same silly little edit war[221] on the same pages despite warnings. There have been no 3RR violations (at 3 at each of the two articles currently) but I thought this should be mentioned if the discussion is about ongoing disruption.(Non-administrator comment)♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parkwells and User:maunus

User:Parkwells has been adding information without citations to multiple articles along with changing links to disambiguation pages, which if you look at his/her talk page he/she keeps getting warnings from a bot over the multiple disambiguation links he/she (good lord can I just call the user it?) has added to multiple pages over and over and over again. The changes to articles include- information the user believes should be common knowledge (Europeans having huge intermarriage children with Native Americans who went on to run Native communities is a common view it has added to multiple pages), which isn't backed by any sources about the specific communities it is adding this information to claiming it is specific to those communities which I cant find that it is. Other problems is poor wording and grammar, including capitalization of Town in every instance, when we don't generally do so, even in "town of ______", let alone like it is doing where in a sentence of "in 1980 the Town decided to build a park" which IMHO capitalizing town is more than an honest mistake it is unencyclopedic and something not to be encouraged. There are MULTIPLE articles, the one I'm having the most problem cleaning up is Schenectady, New York, where User:Maunus is blocking my ability to remove wholesale the huge one edit Parkwells did, and I would like to go back and put in piecemeal individual good ideas Parkwells has. However Manaus believes he should edit war to keep Parkwells info in and I should cite individually every little thing and take my time disputing on the talk page every problem. If one adds a massive edit of unsourced material, per our policy I don't have to do jack but remove it, I don't have to cite it. I'm frustrated and would ask for admin opinions on the procedure when one sees an editor add the same POV unsourced material to multiple articles and claim it is specific for all the geographic area because it is common knowledge (per their response on their talk page).Camelbinky (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show which policy it is that shows that someone challenging material is encouraged to remove it without subsequently engaging in consensus building on the talkpage and minimally explaining the reason they are challenging the material and pointing out which claims they would like to see sources for. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The top of WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.NE Ent 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says "may", not "must". And the section on "responsibility for providing citations" says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable" So clearly it is not best practice or even condoned by policy to remove swathes of edits and then refuse to explain what one considers to be problematic about them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "may" means "may" and WP:BURDEN means burden. So it's not "clearly" best practice. If it's unsourced and there's any doubt in an editor's mind, that's all that's required for them to remove it. NE Ent 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt appear we are in the same conversation here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unless I'm missing something, Maunus added sources for the disputed material in the Schenectady, New York article - at which point Camelbinky removed it all again. [222] The claim that this dispute concerns 'unsourced material' thus seems to be on shaky grounds. AS for 'POV', there is nothing on Talk:Schenectady, New York that I can see which amounts to an explanation as to what specific 'POV' is being objected to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)Sorry, the POV apparently is a write history in a manner that portrays Native Americans better and Europeans as aggressive takers of the land. While I applaud historians who write TRUTH in history to show the barbarianism of white conquerors this is not a job for Wikipedians who wish the world know that whitey is wrong. I myself don't give a shit about how white people are portrayed, I'm Jewish/Middle Eastern and I know very well the barbarianism of Western Europe to minorities. Wikipedia is about sourced material. Plain and simple this is about several massive edits to multiple articles that created problems others have to clean up (look at the user's talk page the multiple bot notifications of references templates being broken and links becoming disambiguation links). This adds up to simply "unqualified" when it comes to massive edits at once. Simply I'd like a warning for the editor to start doing piece meal edits that can be looked at individually and assessed (and possibly reverted) individually if there is a problem. Look at the person's full talk page please and you might get an inkling of what set me off.Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your pov is also a Pov. The question is which pov is supported by sources. Nowhere did you state that your objections was to the portrayal of how the colonization was handled by the Dutch. That is a matter of looking at the sources. I looked at the sources yesterday, and found nothing there that contradicted Parkwells edits. Have you looked at the sources? Have you read Burke's Mohawk frontier? Nothing suggests you even know the sources here so what basis you are arguing on is a mystery to me. Could it be that you simply believe that your own POV is supported by the sources without actually having looked at them. That seems to me to be the case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What POV? I don't give a shit about whitey (including Dutch colonists) are portrayed. I want an editor who adds material, especially in a big single edit to back up THEIR OWN EDIT with sources. Not to leave it to others to put in sources, clean up their changes to perfectly good links that become disambiguations because of that editor's quirks, and their sloppy edits create broken references. Look at the long list of bot notifications on their talk page. This isn't some thing new that the editor just didn't know they were doing. They have a habit of shoot first, some one else will patch up the victim. Yes, I threw out the baby with the bathwater but my intention was to always go back and introduce piecemeal the info that was good without affecting the information already there.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Camelbinky has a very odd perspective on the issue. Parkwells added information about certain topics related to minority history in two localities in New York, without providing sources, and introduced some orthographic oddities. Calembinky reverted it wholesale, calling it dubious and POV (due to the minority focus probably) and made various borderline personal attacks on Parkwells. I reinstated the edit as I could see no obvious problems with the content, nothing counter factual, no extreme POV statements etc. Camelbinky flew off the handle and continued to be confrontational while simultaneously refusing to specify which of the unsourced statements they were challenging, making it difficult to fix. We editwarred a bit back and forth - admittedly I did this just as he did, he citing his version of BRD (which apparently doesnt include the D) and I arguing that his complaints were unactionable as long as he refused to justify his reversion with anything more than invective and personal attacks. I then spent my morning yesterday finding the sources for Parkwells original content which I introduced, adding citations, copyedits and some minor corrections. Then in the afternoon another used made a POINT reversal of all my edits to the article after I had reverted them on an unrelated article. blackkite reverted back to my sourced version this morning. Which Calebinky then reverted - clearly without having looked at it since they still described it as "Unsourced". All the way Camelbinky has been abrasive and very un-collegial and uncollaborative, and even though I have now clearly told him three times that I have added sources and citations to Parkwells additions they continue to claim that I am defending the inclusion of unsourced material.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maunus I do apologize for flying off the handle. I also applaud you for finding sources. And I believe it is great for a collegial environment for people to work together... But.. If I hadn't reverted and you stepped in, would you not agree that the additions and "orthographic oddities" you described still be there? Would the articles not be for the worse WITH the additions than they were before the additions? Is an editor who means well but does massive additions that bots have continually been informing the editor about, not deserve to be told- hey, maybe you need to step back and do smaller edits, find sources first, and look at your work and fix your own problems? Why should you have to come forward and protect this user and fix THEIR mistakes? Yes, I should have done some thing different to help the user than be an ass. I apologize to User:Parkwells sincerely. But I hope some one can back me and say "this user needs some help in editing". Meaning well isn't always an excuse.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept that apology, and offer my own if I have similarly come across as abrasive or uncollegial. And yes, probably the capitalization of Town and broken redirects would still be in the article if you hadnt removed it. But it would have eventually been fixed. And the article would have had additional information that it didnt have before teaching our reader more about the history of Schenectady. The reason we all have to fix the mistakes of others here is first that we are undertaking a collaborative endeavor here and secondly that we all make mistakes that needs to be fixed by others every now and then.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology as well. I actually don't think those errors would have been fixed (by someone other than me) any time soon. Coxsackie, New York is one example I randomly pulled up with the same Town capitalization anomaly, and that probably wont get fixed... ever? And that's just a random rural upstate town I picked (first try), I'm sure I could find more. That's one example. The reference and disambiguation link problem is some thing I do believe is serious and some thing that needs to be addressed with this editor however. A bot notifying the editor constantly and yet ignored shows a lack of willingness to work with Wikipedia policy, and may be a symptom of simply wanting to get their POV out there and only wanting to do that. All editors deserve some coaching and help on getting to be better editors, including you and I who have both been here quite a long time and worked together in different discussions and yet still have disagreement (unfortunately and I take responsibility for that). I'd rather see this editor talked to and informed of their responsibility to not create more work for others than to set the example that the editor can continue in this manner and it is ok because some one will defend them and fix their mess for them, they will get the idea that their message of truth is more important to get out than the technical aspects of Wikipedia markup.Camelbinky (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwells is a competent and longstanding editor with considerable expertise in American minority history as I tried to tell you at one point. But they are a content writer, not a stickler for formatting or MOS issues. I am like that myself and I would probably neither have noticed or fixed the capitalization issues (which Parkwells introduced with what is actually a reasonable argument that I just dont think works in practice (namely using the capitalization to point out the difference between the colloquial use of "town" and its use in official classification)). I also make lots of work for wikignomes and bot when I work, fixing bare refs and redirects and typoes en masse. Some editors never add content or sources, only make thousands of edits correcting other editors formatting mistakes. For me this is part of the division of labor here, not something that is grounds for dismissing other editors work. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] The question is not "which pov is supported by sources". Our core policy is "Neutral point of view", not "Majority point of view". Camelbinky, you need to provide evidence for your assertions. You've provided only two pages, one of which (Schenectady) doesn't appear to have bits portraying Europeans as aggressive takers of the land, and the other of which (Coxsackie) hasn't been edited by Parkwells, as far as I can see. Please note that WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a form of personal attack. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken Nyttend. There is no such thing as "neutral point of view", there is no "view from nowhere". And that is why we rely on sources to determine what is the closest thing to neutral in a given context. Our NPOV policy describes how to achieve balance of multiple POVs in porder to approach neutrality, not that there is a neutral POV that should be taken to the exclusion of "non-neutral" POVs. Your reading of the policy is simplistic and unpracticable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to enforce a specific point of view must not be tolerated. Let me quote from the earliest available version of WP:NPOV. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. Present both (or all, if applicable) perspectives; if you write for the majority, you are still producing something that is not neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "enforce" you mean introduce to the exclusion of other pov's then we are in essential agreement, but that would be irrelevant for this case since that is clearly not what the edits in question are doing. What Parks does, and what they do very well, is to include recent historical accounts written by historians that focus on the experiences of minority groups who have traditionally not been part of mainstream US history (prior to the 1990s more or less). That kind of POV history is what mainstream professional historians have done for a couple of decades now - trying to correct for a long tradition of "majority POV" historiography. Parkwells does not advance any fringe views, or rewrite history to give exclusively minoritarian accounts about "evil whitey" as Camelbinky suggested. They merely insert their existence in to historical articles (in this case their edits added the Mohawk, the Dutch and the African-Americans to an article on Schenectady history which did not adequately represent these aspects). And their edits were easily sourced to recent works on the topic. Now your idea that we need to represent "both or all" POVs is a clear misreading of the policy because it fails to take into account the question of Weight. Fringe POVs cannot and should not have equal weight to mainstream viewpoints, and sometimes they should have none at all. But in this case it is irrelevant because the POV inserted by PArkwells was a clear mainstream POV within contemporary historiography, a POV that simply asserts that "minorities existed in the past and they should have a place in history as well".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't the very simple solution here for Camelbinky to tag the edits he finds problematic CN and correct the orthographic errors while letting Maunus provide the citations as Camelbinky has said he is doing? If the tags are not addressed the edits can be removed after a grace period. (Note there seem to be no diffs here, just the bald assertion that Parkwells is incompetent in general, and hence all his edits deserve reverting. That's not fair play at all.) When I read things like "don't give a shit about whitey" I begin to suspect there's something else beside the supposed issue at hand really going on. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would have been the simple solution. But even without CN tags I already managed to find sources for the information added by Parkwells, and we Camelbinky and I both apologized and accepted the other's apology, making the entire discussion basically moot at this point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question in the original post; no you may not call another editor "it," personally I recommend theyNE Ent 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"They" - But only outside of articles. Grammarians do not yet recognize the use of "they" for a singular person -- although they will be forced to sooner or later, as the change seems quite inevitable -- so it shouldn't be used as part of the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not even if you suspect the editor is an AI? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]