위키백과:관리자 게시판/IncidentArchive881

Rtc에 의한 부조화

Rtc는 2개의 편집 [1], [2]를 게르만윙즈 9525편으로 변경하여 정보 상자의 요약을 "살인-자살"로 변경하였고, 두 편집 모두 참조되지 않은 것으로 되돌아갔다.Rtc는 그들이 독일어로 된 적절한 참고 문헌[3]을 제공했다고 주장하지만, 구글 번역은 이것을 뒷받침하지 않는 것 같다[4].

배경은 제쳐두고 (사건을 악화시킬까 봐 논쟁에서 손을 떼기로 선택한 편집자로서) 내가 여기에 문제를 제기하는 것은 Rtc가 기사토크 페이지에 대한 토론을 아주 전투적인 틀에서 열었기 때문이다 [5].토크 페이지에 대한 그들의 마지막 코멘트는 다른 편집자들에게 그들이 선호하는 변화를 포함하도록 요구하는 것이었다 [6] Rtc는 주로 Prhartcom에 의해 Ahunt에 의해 인신공격/불간섭성에 대한 20분대의 공간에서 5개의 경고를 받았다[7].토론에 대한 그들의 기여에 대한 일반적인 어조는 다른 사람들이 동의하지 않을 수도 있고 그들이 문제의 문제에 대해 소수라는 것을 받아들이거나 협력하기를 꺼리는 것 중 하나인 것 같다.

또한 동일한 이슈[8]에 대한 이전의 토론에서 (인신공격으로 인한) 다른 편집자의 차단에 대해 불평하는 것이 첫 번째 편집이었던 IP 편집자 '179.153.241.50'의 흥미로운 이력을 언급할 가치가 있을 수 있다[9].토크 페이지에 대한 그들의 두 가지 기여는 Rtc의 코멘트 중 하나를 삭제하고 그들 자신의 코멘트[10]로 대체하는 것과 Rtc[11]를 지지하는 것[ 유일한 편집자]이 있다.

나는 다른 관련 편집자가 여기서 제기될 이슈에 대한 지지를 이미 표명했다는 것을 알고 있다[12].

rtc는 이 사건이 제출되는 대로 여기서 문제가 제기됐다는 사실을 통보받을 예정이다.— Wintonian이 추가한 사전 서명되지 않은 논평 (대화 • 기여) 04:59, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

(분쟁 편집 × 2) 지금 Rtc에게 [13] --witnian 05:32, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 제재가 징벌적이지 않다면, 나는 이것이 시기상조라고 생각한다.비록 나는 때때로 제재가 징벌적일 수 있기를 바라지만, 단지 억제 가치를 위해서라면 말이다.내 코멘트 몇 시간 전에 더 나은 불친절 사례가 있었을 텐데, 미안해.-맨드러스 인터뷰 05:10, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

(분쟁 편집 × 2) 말씀은 들었지만, 제재만이 필요한 것은 아니며, 결의안에는 제재가 필요하지 않다고 알고 있다.그 외에도 '예방적 제재'가 토론이 시작된 욕설의 티레이드를 막지 못한 것이 아쉽다. --wintonian^talk 05:32, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 동의한다. 그리고 나는 그것이 그때 실행 가능한 선택이었을 것이라고 생각한다.그러나 사람들은 방아쇠를 당기기 위해 너무 오래 기다렸고, 나는 가서 토론을 끝냄으로써 일을 망쳤다(생각한다).새로운 누군가가 rtc의 입장을 지지하기 위해 뛰어들지 않는 한, 그 논의는 죽었다고 생각한다.비흡수 옵션에 대해서는, 손목을 "그만해"라고 뺨을 때리는 것을 말하는 겁니까?나는 아직 그것이 어떤 유익한 효과를 가지고 있다는 것을 보지 못했다.우리가 아는 한 Rtc는 이미 이 사건에서 "그짓 하는 것을 중단했다"고 했다.그는 그런 종류의 행동이 정책을 위반하고, 지식이 이번 사건에서 그를 막지 못했으며, 단순히 그가 이미 알고 있는 정책을 그에게 참조하는 것은 무의미하다는 것을 알 만큼 충분히 오래 있었다.내가 놓치고 있는 다른 선택지가 있다면, 나는 귀를 기울이고 있다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 05:43, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

맨드루스가 멈췄고, 모든 것이 그의 변화를 편집하려고 시도하지 않았기 때문에, 나는 당신의 요점을 이해한다.그러나 솔직히 말해서 내 기다림은 게으름에서 더 벗어났다(WP:트윙클은 ANI 대본도 없어 )토론을 끝내는 것은 좋았고, 처음부터 아무 것도 진행되지 않았고, 그는 어떤 논쟁에서 이기는 것 외에는 아무 관심도 없는 것 같았다.나는 더 동정심을 느끼겠지만, Rtc는 새로운 편집자가 아니다.나는 그가 WP가 얼마나 중요한지 알기를 기대한다.Civil 및 WP:컨센서스는 그의 동의 여부와 상관없이 있다.- 패든턴 ✉ 06:43, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 내가 일찍도 그렇게 하지 않은 이유 중 하나였다.다른 하나는 '방아쇠를 당기기' 위해 더 관여된 사람을 기다리고 있다는 것이었다.만약 이것이 새로운 편집자였다면 나는 WP를 추천했다.DRN, 그러나 일반적으로 나는 편집자 수행에 관한 이슈들이 거기서 다뤄진다고 생각하지 않는다. --wintonian 19:57, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

초기에는 무엇이 좋은 짧은 요약이 될 것인지 알아내려고 시도하는 것을 제외하고, 코멘트는 의도되지 않았다.나는 infobox를 바꾸기 전에 사람들에게 대화에 대해 토론해 보라는 코멘트를 추가했다 - 이 대사들은 종종 자주 편집되는 기사의 초기에는 논쟁거리가 되어왔다. - 아론작 (대화) 07:05, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

독일윙즈 9525 기사를 업데이트하려 했던 편집자(7년 편집이력)로서의 논평은 소용이 없었고, 나는 Rtc 편집자의 좌절감을 이해하고 공감할 수 있다.특정 위키백과 편집자들의 거만한 고압적인 태도는 종종 다른 사람을 비굴하게 만들 수 있다.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

7년의 편집 이력을 가진 편집자로서, 당신은 이것을 알아야 한다.만약 당신이 유효한 불만을 가지고 있다고 느낀다면, 그것을 별도의 실에 넣어라; 그러나 WP에는 거만한 고압적 면제가 없다.Civil. (나는 이전에 당신과 교류한 적이 없기 때문에 당신이 언급하는 것은 나의 거만한 고압적인 태도가 아니다.) -만드러스 ☎ 인터뷰 09:43, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

코멘트 Rtc는 적대적 상호작용의 상당히 실질적인 이력을 가진 편집자다.토크에 대한 그의 욕설과 인신공격:저먼윙즈 9525편은 반복된 경고에도 불구하고 기사의 문구에 대한 자신만의 방법을 찾기 위한 시도로 의미 있는 논의를 불가능하게 만들었다.이 사용자는 이 문제의 이력이 있는 것으로 보이며 조치가 정당화된다. - 아훈트 (대화) 11:56, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

코멘트 나는 위키백과 편집에 꽤 익숙하지 않다...전에는 그렇게 한 적이 없다.그리고 어떤 사람들은 위키피디아의 주인인 것처럼 편집하면서 자신의 의제를 밀어붙이려고 하는 것 같아 놀라움을 금치 못한다.몇몇 다른 기사들은 조종사들에 의한 자살이라는 이름을 붙였지만, 어떤 이유에서인지 몇몇 편집자들이 그것에 강하게 반대하고 있다.그리고 많은 소식통들이 조종사가 자살해서 비행기 안의 다른 모든 사람들을 죽였다는 사실을 분명히 지적하고 있음에도 불구하고, 그들은 비극에서 그의 역할을 과소평가하기 위해 음습한 방식으로 계속 편집하고 있다.미안하지만, 정말 지긋지긋해.난 몇 년 동안 위키피디아의 독자로 일해왔고, 항상 여기서 찾은 정보가 믿을 만하다고 생각했어...하지만, 이 기사에 관한 한, 모든 뉴스 출처들이 살인-자살을 지적하는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다. 왜냐하면 소수의 편집자들이 계속해서 그것을 "지형 속으로의 계획적인 비행"으로 바꾸고 나서, 그들은 이 토론을 여기로 가져왔기 때문이다.나한테는 검열처럼 들리네, 얘들아! 179.153.241.50 (대화) 12:03, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데...그가 그의 논평에 너무 정중하지 않았는지 모르지만, 나 또한 편집이 이루어지는 방식에 약간 화가 나 있다.모든 뉴스와 당국이 그것을 지적한다면 왜 몇몇 편집자들은 살인-자살과 관련된 모든 변화를 되돌리고 있는가?계속 의견 일치에 대해 얘기하면...하지만 같은 소그룹에 의해 공감대가 형성될 때 그런 이야기를 하는 것은 좋은 일이다...RTC는 아마 화가 나서 "나쁜 말"을 올렸을 거야, 그래서?IMHO는 일부 편집자들이 그 기사를 작업하고 있는 방식(살해-자살이라는 사실을 감추려고 애쓰는 것 같음)으로 피해자들에게 존경심을 보이지 않는다.위키백과에 정말 실망했다. 179.153.241.50 (대화) 12:06, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

자, 이것을 보십시오. "IP 편집자 '179.153.241.50'의 흥미로운 역사를 언급할 가치가 있을 수도 있다." 우리가 같은 민족임을 암시하려고 한다면 농담이겠죠.나는 몇몇 사람들이 그것이 살인자살이라는 사실을 감추려고 하는 것이 혐오스러워서 그 기사를 편집했다.난 브라질 출신이고, 내가 아는 한 다른 편집자의 처벌에 대해 불평한 남자는 영국 출신이야...허위 고발을 하지 마라, 기여자보다는 여기서 검열을 받고 있다는 사실만 증명할 뿐이다. 179.153.241.50 (대화) 12:14, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 어떤 것도 암시하려고 하지 않았고 나는 너의 편집이 진실하고 선의라고 가정하게 되어 매우 기쁘다.그러나 다른 편집자들이 토론과 관련이 있다고 생각할 수도 있고 그렇지 않을 수도 있는 것처럼 보였다.새로운 편집자들이 이런 일에 휘말릴 때 항상 불행하다. 왜냐하면 나는 기꺼이 사과할 수 있기 때문이다.비록 내가 겸손하다고는 하지만, 다른 사용자의 블록을 비난하는 것이 아마도 당신의 첫 번째 편집을 위한 최선의 방법은 아니었다. --wintonian 20:10, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

(ec) 이 충돌에 대한 조사가 진행 중이다.위키피디아는 이 상황이 어떻게 보이는지에 대한 독창적인 연구를 포함할 수 없지만 신뢰할 수 있는 출처가 어떤 것을 문서화할 수 있는지를 보고한다.최근 사건에 대한 보도는 대개 시간이 흐를수록 변하고 깊어지고 공식적인 조사로부터 더 많은 세부 사항들이 나온다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 12:16, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

안녕! :) 그래서 내가 "부조종사에 의한 살인-자살로 의심된다; 조사 중에 있다"라고 이름을 붙이자고 그 기사를 제안했지만, 그 편집자들은 분명히 반대한다.이제 그들이 쓴 방식을 봐 "지형 속으로 고의 비행"...누구에 의해 신중하게, 우리는 물어봐야 한다.'공동수사에 의한 살인사건; 수사중'은 여러 신뢰할 수 있는 소식통에서 그 지원을 찾을 뿐만 아니라, 살인사건은 의심받을 뿐만 아니라 여전히 수사중임을 분명히 한다.관련된 편집자들은 아주 분명한 것을 두고 싸우고 있다. 현재의 모든 증거들은 그것이 정말로 정신적으로 약한 부조종사에 의한 살인자살이라는 사실을 지적하고 있고, 그 남자가 미리 계획했기 때문에, 그는 분명히 그 불운한 비행기 안에서 자신과 다른 모든 사람들을 죽일 의도를 가지고 있었다.나는 정말로 위의 편집자들보다 중립적인 입장을 가진 누군가가 그들의 개인 정보에 부합하지 않는 기사의 모든 부분을 편집하고 되돌리는 것을 막기를 바란다. 그들이 나를 다른 두 사람이라고 비난했기 때문에...내가 그들을 고발할께:나는 그들이 루프트한자 밑에서 일하고 있고, 그 회사가 그들의 조종사 중 한 명이 자살한 전력이 있다는 사실을 무시했다는 사실을 감추려고 노력하고 있다고 생각해!!!loll -179.153.241.50 (대화) 12:39, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

리즈가 말했듯이, 우리는 우리가 "생각"하는 것 또는 "명확한 것"이라고 믿는 것에 대해 논쟁하지 않는다. 우리는 믿을만한 출처를 기다리며 그 출처들의 말을 요약한다.Rtc는 WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:OR 및 WP:를 읽기 위해 편집하는 데 얼마간의 시간을 할애할 수 있다.CITY 플랫 아웃 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC) 12시 52분 토론하자[응답]

우리는 또한 당신이 말하는 내용 분쟁을 해결하기 위해 이 페이지를 방문하지 않는다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 12시 58분, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 관련된 다른 편집자들도 마찬가지라고 생각한다.그들은 위키피디아의 다섯 가지 기둥을 읽는 것으로 시작해야 한다.누군가에게 손가락질을 할 것이 아니라 먼저 자신을 살펴야 하는데, 현재 행동 방식이 RTC의 -179.153.241.50 (대화) 13:01, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]에 못지 않기 때문이다.

이것은 토크 페이지에서 논의되어야 할 기사의 내용 변경을 토론하는 완전히 잘못된 장소다.이 토론은 한 편집자의 폭언과 그에 대한 조치가 필요한지에 대한 것이다. - 아훈트 (대화) 13:17, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어, 미안해.글쎄, 내 의견은 그가 벌을 받아서는 안 된다는 거야.만약 그가 벌을 받게 된다면, 다른 모든 편집자들도 처벌합시다.혹독하게 들릴지 모르지만, 그것은 아마도 애초에 그 편집자들이 위키백과 같은 기사의 소유자처럼 자기 자신의 의제를 밀어붙이는 방식 때문에 생긴 좌절감에서 비롯된 반응이었을 것이다. -179.153.241.50 (대화) 13:39, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

오직 한 명의 편집자가 불경스럽고 야만적인 것을 사용했다.WP:Civil은 요구 사항이고 당신은 그의 나쁜 행동에 대해 변명하고 그것을 공손한 토론을 하려고 했던 다른 편집자들 탓으로 돌리면 안 된다.- 아훈트 (대화) 14:28, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

179.153.241.50, 위키백과 표준을 위반하는 편집자의 위법행위가 있었다고 생각되면 자신의 주장을 뒷받침하는 증거(디프)를 제공해야 한다.그렇지 않다면, 만약 특정 편집자들을 겨냥한 것이라면, 당신의 말은 인신공격으로 보일 수도 있다.차등 작성에 도움이 필요하면 도움말을 참조하십시오.안내를 위해 다른 방법을 사용하되, 이 사례에 더 많은 정보를 추가하는 대신 새로운 사례를 여는 것을 고려할 수 있다.또한 AN/I(또는 정말로 게시판에 새로운 토론 스레드를 게시하는 경우) 자신의 행동을 동시에 검사할 수 있다는 것을 알고 있어야 한다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

시간 내줘서 고맙고 답장 고마워.그 모든 게 어떻게 돌아가는지도 모르겠고, 그들과 다투는 데 낭비할 기운도 거의 없어...그래서 굳이 계좌를 이용해 여기에 올리지도 않았다.이런 환경은 새로 온 사람들에게 너무 적대적으로 보이고, 슬프게도 나는 그 논쟁에 동참하고 싶지 않다. 왜냐하면 그러한 논쟁들은 극도로 좌절감을 주고, 또한 그 사람들의 행동 방식도 그러하기 때문이다. -179.153.241.50 (대화) 11:55, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

이는 단지 내가 이 사건을 살인-자살로 의심된다는 사실을 검열하려는 소수의 편집자들의 이국적인 견해에 반대한다고 해서 나를 차단하려는 명백한 시도다.편집자들은 예를 들면 다음과 같은 많은 믿을 만한 출처들이 그렇게 말하는 것을 부인하지도 않는다.

• cnn은 "조사 내용을 상세히 알고 있는 유럽 정부 관계자는 루비츠의 행동이 '예비 살인'에 해당한다고 말했다"고 전했다.
• "조종사는 게르만윙스 여객기를 프랑스 알프스 산맥으로 의도적으로 날라다가 살인-자살한 것으로 보이는 혐의를 받고 있다."telegraph
• "이번 사건은 살인사건으로 보인다"BBC
• "비행기에 의한 살인자살:무엇이 루비츠를 그렇게 만들게 했나?"워싱턴포스트
• "안드레아스 루비츠:게르만윙스 9525편 부조종사 '자살 및 대량 살인 임무에서 비행기를 파괴하고 싶다'' 독립적
• "살인자살해 조종사 안드레아스 루비츠" 거울
• 게르만윙스 대량 살인 사건-우울증 개입의 중요성을 보여주는 자살"새로운 공화국
• "독일 살인-자살 조종사 안드레아스 루비츠" NY포스트

(더 많이 있다.)

하지만, 편집자들은, 믿을 수 있는 수많은 출처들이 이것을 살인-자살로 의심하고 있다는 사실은, 아마도 "WP:RS가 전적으로 신뢰할 수 있는 것은 아니다."(2015년 4월 2일, 19:23)와 "다수의 출처가 자살로 확인했는지는 중요하지 않다. 왜냐하면 아무도 그것에 대해 신경 쓰지 않기 때문이다." 사용자:파덴톤은 "고의적인 비행과 '대량살인'의 차이는 '살인'이 특정한 정의를 가지고 있기 때문에 피해자들을 향한 악의적인 의도가 필요하기 때문"이라고 개인적이고 더 신뢰할 수 있는 '지식'을 가리켰다.내가 이 주장을 분명히 반박할 때(다른 몇몇 주장뿐만 아니라) 그는 침묵하고 사용자:맨드러스는 메타토론을 시작한다(2015년 4월 3일, 00:17).그가 그 논의에서 진 후, 그들은 지금 WP를 이용하여 나를 막으려 하고 있는 것 같다.Civil은 그들의 견해에 대한 논쟁의 여지가 있는 비판을 잠재우기 위한 구실이다.이 구실을 두고 나는 토론 중에 이미 했던 말을 반복할 수밖에 없다.--rtc (토크) 16:33, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 검열을 위한 시도라고 생각하지 않는다.네가 주장하는 사실이 정확해 보일 수도 있다.편집자들이 말하고 있는 것은 현재 이 문제는 공식적인 조사의 대상이며 결과가 발표될 때까지 익명의 관리들로부터 나온 이러한 추측들이 믿을 만한 것으로 보이는 출처에 나타나더라도 (나는 그 사리갖춤에 의문을 제기할 것이지만) 코필로트의 동기 같은 문제에 대한 논평은 추측이라는 것이다.NY 포스트의 모든 것에 대한 친절함.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

현재 진행 중인 수사에서 이것이 살인-자살로 의심된다는 단순한 사실을 진술하는 것은 추측이 아니다.그리고 이 의혹은 증거에 근거한 수사인 만큼 추측도 아닌 것이 분명하다.비행기록장치, 페르소나 기록, 의료기록, 부조종사 수색기록, 탑승자 중 한 명이 촬영한 것으로 보이는 비디오는 모두 이러한 결론을 매우 분명하게 가리키고 있으므로, 그것은 분명히 완전히 타당한 의심이며 위키피디아가 그 존재에 대해 언급해서는 안 되는 이유를 나는 알 수 없다.책임 있는 출처그리고, 당신이 옳다고 가정하더라도, 나는 다른 편집자들이 옹호하는 "지형으로의 계획적인 비행"이라는 문구를 어떻게 사용하는 것이 이 점에서 더 덜 문제가 될 수 있는지 모르겠다.그리고 btw, "살인-살해"는 "동기"와 아무 관련이 없다.사실, 계획적으로 지형을 비행하는 것은 이미 IS 살인에 의한 자살이다.'살해-살해'라는 잘 소싱된 용어인데, '-rtc (대화) 17:13, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

@Rtc: 나는 네가 계속 내가 "침묵하다"고 주장하는 것이 네 경우를 뒷받침하듯 마음에 들어.

1. 나는 위키피디아에 살지 않는다.수업도 가고 공부도 하고 밖에 나가는 것(특히 내가 사는 해의 첫 좋은 날) 등 그 밖에 내가 해야 할 일이 있다.
2. 당신은 토론 초반부터 다른 사람의 의견을 읽는 것조차 관심이 없다는 것을 증명했다.몇 번이나 당신은 우리가 이미 인정했던 것을 확인하는 소스를 제공하려고 우리의 주장과 완전히 다른 변화를 원한다고 생각하는 척했다.왜 내가 너와의 콘텐츠 토론에 시간을 낭비해야 하지?- 파덴톤 ✉ 17:46, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

네 인생이 어떻게 여기서 연관될 수 있는지 모르겠어 네 사건을 뒷받침하는 건 말할 것도 없고그리고 물론 목소리를 높였던 유의미한 의견을 모두 읽고 회신했다. --rtc (대화) 18:01, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 찾은 유일한 명백한 인신공격은 당신처럼 멍청한 편집자였지만 WP:Civil은 인신공격 그 이상이다.그거 읽어 본 적 있어?당신은 그것을 위반하지 않았다고 주장하는가?아니면 그 내용에 대해 당신이 옳다고 해서 면제를 청구하는가?만약 후자가 정책에서 그러한 면제를 지적할 수 있는가?그렇지 않다면, 이 경우 정확히 어떤 다리를 밟고 서야 하는가?위키백과를 참조하십시오.콘텐츠 분쟁 해결에 대한 지침을 위한 분쟁 해결.-맨드러스 ☎ 17:05, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 179.153.241.50의 견해에 공감하지만 위키피디아에서는 절제된 표현을 사용하는 것이 정상이고 "살인-살인"과 같은 유료 용어를 사용하는 것에 대해 매우 보수적이라고 말할 것이다.기사에서 그 설명을 사용하는 가장 좋은 논거는 정확히 같은 문구를 사용하는 확실한 출처일 것이다.Rtc를 제거[15]하는 것에 반대했던 언급[14]은 그 용어를 사용하지 않으며, 사실 나는 그 사건을 자살이라고 부르지도 않는다고 생각한다.독일어를 읽는 사람은 확인할 수 있지만, 부조종사가 검색엔진을 이용해 자살에 대한 정보를 찾아봤다는 것만 나와 있는 것 같다.

  '지형 속으로의 고의 비행'은 신학적으로 보이지만, 일반적으로 조종사가 실수로 비행할 수 있는 비행기를 산으로 비행시켰다는 것을 의미한다(일반적으로 기계적 고장과 반대로 좋지 않은 시야와 항법 실수가 결합됨).'델리베이트'는 단지 이 경우 일부러 그런 일이 일어났기 때문에 나는 그 표현에 괜찮다고 강조한다.다른 대안은 "의도적인 CFIT"와 같은 것일 수도 있다. 만약 그것이 당신에게 더 잘 작용한다면 말이다.

  어쨌든, 콘텐츠 분쟁은 179.153.241.50과 Rtc가 DFIT 표현을 불완전하지만 사용 가능한 것으로 일시적으로 받아들이도록 하는 것이다. 만약 "살인-살해"가 더 낫다면, 몇 주 안에 그것을 사용하는 소싱이 나타날 것이다.우리의 말은 마감일이 없다는 것이다.만약 그러한 소싱이 나타나지 않는다면, 결국 DFIT는 괜찮다.179.153.241.50은 진정성 있는 언어를 사용하는 것이 위키백과 스타일이며, 과정이 다소 관료적이란 것은 상당히 전형적이다(불행히도)잠시 후에 익숙해질 것이다(그건 그렇고 위키백과에 온 것을 환영한다).

  나는 Rtc에게 우리 대부분이 동료라고 생각하는 것을 지나쳐간다고 생각하는 적대감을 되돌릴 것을 촉구하고 싶다.우선 기내에서 충고를 받아보라고 하는 것이 최선이라고 생각하기 때문에 현재로서는 행정 개입을 지지하지 않을 것이다.50.0.205.75 (대화) 20:37, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

  너는 다른 편집자들의 돌림에 빠져들고 있다.그 편집자들은 "살인-자살"이라는 정확한 용어가 많은 확실한 정보원에 의해 사용된다는 것에 이의를 제기하지 않는다.그들은 "WP:RS는 전적으로 신뢰할 수 있는 것은 아니다"라며 "다수의 출처가 그것을 자살로 확인했는지는 중요하지 않다. 아무도 그것에 대해 신경 쓰지 않기 때문이다"고 말했다.그들은 내가 명백히 거짓임을 보여준 그들 자신의 "지식"으로 이 의견을 정당화한다.위 내용을 참조하십시오.아니, 나는 "DFIT 표현은 불완전하지만 사용 가능한 것으로 임시로 받아들이지는 않을 것이다."심지어 내가 이것을 요구받았다는 것은 이것이 주장된 WP에 관한 것이 아니라는 나의 요점을 증명한다.Civil 위반, 그러나 "합의"에 동의하지 않기 때문에 편집자를 차단하려는 것에 대해. --rtc (대화) 20:51, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 의견 일치를 보지 못해서 여기에 온 것이 아니라, 노골적인 불친절 때문에 여기에 온 것이다.귀국을 중단하려면 사과하고 이 사건을 종결하기에 충분할 수 있는 모든 불경스러운 행위를 중단하겠다고 약속하라. - 아훈트 (대화) 21:33, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

물론 나는 합의에 동의하지 않았기 때문에 여기에 오게 되었다.너도 알잖아, 나도 알아, 모두가 다 알아.당신은 WP를 창안하고 있다.내 주장이 설득력 있게 "합의" 의견을 반박하고 있기 때문에 나를 차단하기 위한 구실로 CITION 위반을 들 수 있다.그것은 WP를 위반하지 않는다.Civil은 "합의"에 동의하지 않는다.사실, WP:COMITY는 "편집자가 자신의 견해에 도전할 때 지나치게 민감해 보일 수 있다"고 경고한다.rtc (토크) 21:48, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기서 생각대로 문제를 제기했다. 1. 언어(주로 초기에는)는 불필요하고 거의 건설적인 가치가 없는 욕설의 반칙한 입담이었다. 2. 나에게 일반적으로 적대적이고 전투적인 태도로 보이는 것. 3. 겉보기에는 다른 사람의 입장에서 사물을 보는 것을 꺼려하는 것.나는 50.0.205.755에 의해 주어진 위의 조언이 특히 옳다고 생각하며, 그들의 더 넓은 의견은 내가 가장 좋아하는 것이다.마지막으로, 콘텐츠 분쟁을 열려는 내 의도가 아니었다(예: WP:3RR이 깨지지 않았으므로 이것은 의견 차이로 남아 있다) 그리고 어떤 경우에도 이것은 그렇게 하기 위해 올바른 게시판이 아니다. --witnian^talk 22:19, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

"남의 관점에서 사물을 보는 것을 꺼리는 것이 명백하다"는 것은 당신의 나머지 주장이 단지 핑계일 뿐이고 나를 차단하려는 진정한 이유는 당신이 내가 "합의"에 동의하기를 원하기 때문이며, 나의 관점을 "합의" 관점에 맞게 바꾸기를 원하기 때문이라는 것을 증명한다.그것은 WP를 위반하지 않는다.Civil은 "컨센서스"와 다른 관점을 갖는다. --rtc (토크) 22:29, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

1, 블록에 대해 언급하거나 제안하는 것은 없다.내가 만약다면, diffs을 제공한다면, 나는 말하기 쉽지만 조금 편집증적은, 이 시점에 가로질러 온다고 한다. 2, 코스의 다른 사람들이 단서 조항은 이렇게 편집자들은 협력의 정신에 있는 문명의 방법으로 표출해야 한다. 하면서, wintoniantalk 22:37, 34월 20일은 완벽하게 당신의 관점에 수반되네요.15(UTC)[응답하라]

이 페이지는 사용자들을 상대로 블록을 요청하기 위한 것이며, 당신이 그것을 자세히 하든 말든, 당신의 오프닝 코멘트는 나에 대한 요청으로 이해되고 행동될 것이다.이것은 일반적인 토론을 위한 페이지가 아니다.내 생각에 너는 그것을 꽤 잘 알고 있는 것 같아.그리고 당신이 "IP 편집자 '179.153.241.50'의 흥미진진한 역사"를 그렇게 강도 높게 지적한 후 "나는 어떤 것도 암시하려고 하지 않았다"고 말할 때 나는 잠시도 당신을 믿지 않는다.아무것도 암시하고 싶지 않았다면, 왜 언급조차 하지 않았는가?내가 차단당하는 걸 원치 않는다면 왜 여기에 포스팅을 하는 겁니까? --rtc (대화) 23:00, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

어느 누구도 당신이 합의된 견해에 반대할 수 없다고 말하고 있지 않다.컨센서스가 모든 편집자들 사이에서 100% 동의를 의미하는 것은 아니다.그러나 이 합의는 소수의 관점보다는 기사의 문구와 어조를 형성하는 데 더 큰 영향을 미친다.WP 참조:컨센서스, WP:FRURED와 WP:위키피디아에 대한 컨센서스가 어떻게 처리되는지에 대한 지침을 위한 TE.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

"그러나 소수의 관점보다는 의견 일치가 기사의 문구와 어조를 형성하는 데 더 큰 영향을 미친다"는 것은 무엇을 의미하는가?어느 누구도 특정 비율에 동의하거나 '합의'에 전혀 동의할 필요가 없다. --rtc (대화) 23:15, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

물론 단 한 명의 편집자도 합의된 관점에 동의할 필요는 없다.그러나 출처나 관점의 무게와 같은 문제에 대한 견해 차이가 있다면, 그 이슈들은 토크 페이지 토론에서 기사를 작업하는 편집자들의 일치된 의견으로 결정된다.WP를 읽어보십시오.컨센서스.기사가 특정 편집, 구문, 단어 또는 출처를 포함해야 한다는 데 대한 합의를 계속적으로 반대하는 것은 WP이다.TE 그리고 차단 가능한 공격일 수 있다.그것은 PA와 예의범절과 함께 당신에게 불리하게 작용한 사건의 기본이다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

합의 내용에 동의하지 않기 때문에 진정한 목적이 나를 차단하기 위한 것임을 거듭 확인해주셔서 감사하다.아니, 이건 막을 수 있는 공격이 아니야.당신은 WP와 같은 에세이를 듣고 있다.TE는 너무 진지해서, 한 사람이 합의에 따를 의무가 있다는 이 집산주의 관점을 정확히 발전시키려고 한다.그들에 대해 좀 더 비판적이 되도록 노력해야 한다. --rtc (대화) 23:44, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

(분쟁 편집 × 2)이 페이지의 맨 위에 있는 흐릿한 글자는 다음과 같다.이 페이지는 영어 위키백과에서 관리자와 숙련된 편집자의 개입이 필요한 사건을 보고하고 토론하기 위한 것이다.이 게시판은 사용자 블록을 요청하는 데만 사용할 수 있다고 되어 있는 곳은 어디인가?나는 이미 179.153.241.50에 그들을 여기에 참여시킨 것에 대해 사과를 했지만, 나는 진정으로 그들의 참여가 관심의 대상이 될 것인지 아닌지 확신할 수 없었다[16], 이것은 내가 여기서 다시 한 번 강조할 수 있는 것이다.하지만 다른 맥락에서 더 잘 할 수 있을 지라도 다른 편집자의 지지를 받았다고 말하는 것은 적절하다고 생각한다. --wintonian^talk 23:29, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

맞아, 사용자 차단 요청은 관리자의 개입이 필요한 유일한 요청이 아니고, 다른 경우에는 양식 기록 삭제, 기사 삭제 또는 페이지 차단 또는 반차단 요청일 수 있다.그러나, 당신이 나를 사용자로 불러오기 때문에, 당신의 요청은 "관리자의 개입을 요구하는 것"으로 이해될 수 있는 다른 방법이 없기 때문에, 자동적으로 사용자 차단 요청으로 해석된다.나에 대해 사용자 블록을 요청하고 싶지 않다면, 이것은 분명히 잘못된 페이지고 당신은 당신의 요청을 취소해야 한다. --rtc (대화) 01:16, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

1을 깨뜨리다

(분쟁 편집) 그래, 이제 보니 인포박스에 관한 거구나.기사 텍스트에 "살인-살인"을 넣는 것에 반대하는 사람이 있는가?나는 특히 WP와 관련하여 충분한 RS가 있다는 것에 동의한다.INTXT 귀인.그것을 infobox에 넣는 것은 다른 문제고 보통은 가장 싱겁게 그리고 가장 중립적인 설명만이 그곳에 가야 한다."살인-살해"는 소스가 되지만 (기사에 들어가야 한다) 인포박스에 대해서는 (합의에 의해) 불충분하게 중립적인 것으로 보인다.중립성은 단순한 소싱보다 훨씬 높은 기준이며, 합의 외에는 그것을 확립할 방법이 없다.2015년 항공기 추락사고의 표를 포함한 항공기관(ICAO 아마도)의 공식 보고서를 상상해 보십시오.그것은 "시범 오류", "엔진 오작동" 또는 그 원인에 대한 다른 중립적인 용어들을 말할 것이다.그것이 인포박스가 사용해야 하는 스타일이다.저 테이블이 게르만윙스 추락사고에 대해 뭐라고 말할까?아마도 "살인-살인"은 아닐 것이다. 그 중에서도 항공용어가 아니다.아메리칸 에어라인 11편(9.11테러 여객기 중 하나)도 살인-살인(테러범 납치)이라고 적혀 있지 않다.

합의에 동의하지 않는 것에 대해서는, 그렇게 하는 것이 완벽히 괜찮다; 단지 예의 바르게 하고, 자신에게 유리하든 그렇지 않든 간에 합의가 형성되고 안정적이라는 것이 확실해지면 그 의견 불일치로부터 나아가라.그렇다, ANI는 진정 예의범절에 관한 것이다.논의가 공민적으로 진행되었다면 그 문제는 여기(적어도 이렇게 빨리) 오지 않았을 것이다.

Rtc, 위키피디아에는 많은 미친것들과 격노하는 것들이 있고 이 문제는 비교적으로 아주 작다.더 중요한 이슈에 대해서는 분노를 살리는 것이 최선이다.내용질문에 대한 보다 폭넓은 관점을 얻고 싶다면, 코멘트를 요청해 보십시오. 50.0.205.75 (대화) 23:32, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에는 NPOV 문제가 없다.NPOV 문제는 신뢰할 수 있는 출처가 이 문제에 대해 동의하지 않는 경우에만 발생할 수 있다.그러나 그것은 여기에 해당되지 않는다.내가 아는 믿을만한 출처는 이것이 살인-자살이라고 논쟁하지 않았다. 살인-자살은 그러한 비행기 사고에 대한 위키백과에서 사용되는 표준어다. 그리고 증거와 RS가 훨씬 적은 경우에 사용된다.제안된 대안은 "부조종사에 의한 자살"이 될 것이다.그러나 "합의"는 어느 쪽 버전도 받아들이려 하지 않으며, 그들은 WP를 고수하기를 원한다.또는 "지형을 향한 고의 비행"의 구절. --rtc (토크) 23:56, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

한 소식통이 살인-자살이라고 말하고 또 다른 소식통이 그 반대라고 말하면 소식통들 사이에 의견차이가 있을 뿐이다.50명의 출처 중 10명이 살인-자살이라고 하고 나머지 40명이 이 주제에 대해 침묵한다면 출처간 이견이 없지만, 살인-자살은 25%에 불과하기 때문에 실제로 NPOV라고 말할 수는 없다.그에 비해, 기본적으로 9/11 비행에 관한 소식통의 100%는 테러리즘이라고 말했다.어쨌든 WP:다른 우주 비행사들.살인-자살이라고 하는 다른 비행기 사고 인포박스의 예가 있는가?나는 크레이그 D를 안다. 버튼의 A-10 추락 사고는 USAF에 의해 조종사 자살로 판정되었으므로 아마도 그 표현은 통할 수 있을 것이다(그러나 그 충돌로 다른 사람은 아무도 죽지 않았다).

만약 당신이 폭넓은 참여로 다른 합의를 찾을 수 있다고 생각한다면, 모든 수단을 동원해서 RFC를 시작하고 당신의 주장을 펴라.한 가지 더 관찰할 점은 공감대 형성을 지도하는 기본 현실은 아무리 외칠 만한 출처가 많아도 외치는 것보다 외교와 설득이 훨씬 잘 통한다는 점이다.그래서 그 부분은 더 잘 하는 데 초점을 맞출 수 있는 영역이다(지금까지 잘하지 못했다).다른 편집자들이 바보가 아니라는 것을 받아들이고, 당신이 제공한 자료들이 당신의 제안을 뒷받침하기에 충분했다고 생각한다면, 당신은 왜 '잘못된' 합의가 나타났는지에 대한 설명으로 외교 실패 쪽으로 시선을 돌려야 한다.좋은 출처와 좋은 외교를 가진 RFC를 운영하면서 둘 다 설득에 실패한다면 다른 사람들이 옳고 그른 사람은 당신이다. 50.0.205.75 (대화) 01:59, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

"만약 50명의 출처 중 10명이 살인-자살이라고 말하고 나머지 40명이 이 주제에 대해 침묵한다면, 출처간에는 이견이 없지만, 살인-자살은 25%에 불과하기 때문에 NPOV라고 말할 수 없다." 나는 동의하지 않는다. 이것은 NPOV 문제가 아닐 것이다.그리고 출처의 0%는 "지형으로의 계획적인 비행"이라고 말한다.그러므로 그 주장은 명백히 타당하지 않다. 그것은 "25는 100보다 작기 때문에 0보다 작다"고 주장하는 것과 같다.나는 복잡한 외교 게임을 하기 위해서가 아니라 백과사전 기사를 향상시키기 위해 여기에 왔다.만약 편집자들이 논쟁의 법칙에 복종하지 못하고 감정적으로 애무하기를 원한다면, 이성적인 논쟁에 설득되기보다는 우정과 연민의 감정에 휘둘리고 싶다면, 위키피디아는 그들에게 잘못된 장소라고 생각한다. --rtc (토크) 02:26, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

차이점은 살인-자살은 감정적으로 충전되거나 표시되는 반면 DFIT는 싱겁고 항공용어처럼 들린다는 것이다.(부조종사의 행동에 큰 드라마를 유발하는) 청구된 용어가 비행기에 일어난 일만을 말하는 싱거운 용어보다 더 중립적이라고 사람들에게 결정하게 하려면 훨씬 더 설득력이 필요할 것이다.차이점을 설명하기 위한 또 다른 방법: 당신은 infobox 매개변수가 부조종사와 승객에 관한 것이기를 원하는 반면, 다른 사람들은 비행기 자체의 상태에 관한 것이기를 원한다.그것은 합의된 결정이고 그것이 비행기의 운명이라는 것을 가지면서 해결된 것 같다.설득에 열려 있지만, 기사 제목과 전반적인 내용으로 볼 때 그것은 나에게 합리적인 선택인 것 같다. 50.0.205.75 (대화) 03:32, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

"murder- used"는 일반적으로 다음과 같이 사용된다.퍼시픽 사우스웨스트항공 1771편(승객별), 실크에어 185편(승장별), 퍼시픽에어라인 773편(승객별), 램 모잠비크 항공 470편(조종사별).다른 일반적으로 사용되는 구절은 "고의 추락"인 것 같다: 일본항공 350편, 이집트항공 990편, 로열항공 마록 630편.나는 인포박스 요약이 비행기나 승무원+승객에 대한 현황보고가 아니라 사건의 원인에 대한 것이라고 생각한다."살인-살인-살인"이 감정적으로 부과될 수도 있다는 당신의 요점을 보는 동안, 나는 여전히 "지형 속으로의 고의 비행"이 괴괴하고 불미스러운 문구라고 생각한다.다른 글에 사용한다면, 나는 "고의적인 충돌"을 해도 괜찮을 것이다.'조종사 자살'이라는 주제의 기사도 있는데, 나도 그 문구로 괜찮을 거라고 거듭 말해왔다.--rtc (토크) 03:52, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 그건 합리적인 제안인 것 같아.중요한 것은 우리가 지금 하고 있는 것과 같은 차분한 논의의 맥락에서 그것들을 제시하는 것이다.당신은 "[i]f 편집자들은... 이성적인 논쟁에 설득되기 보다는 감정적으로 애지중지 되고, 우정과 연민의 감정에 휘둘리고 싶어하며, 나는 위키피디아가 그들에게 잘못된 곳이라고 생각한다"고 썼다.하지만 정말로, 나는 그 토크페이지에서 감정이 이성적인 주장을 압도하는 것을 보았고, 그 감정들은 분노와 적개심으로 가득 차 있었고, 대부분 당신이 그것을 가져왔었습니다.나는 여기 있는 누구도 쓰다듬어 주거나 우쭐해하는 것을 바라지 않고 단지 기본적인 존중과 이해로 대할 뿐이고, 반면에 논쟁적인 부분은 으르렁거리지 않고 대부분 사실과 논리를 중립적인 방식으로 제시하는 것으로 구성되어야 한다고 생각한다.

어쨌든 맨드루스의 말처럼, 이것은 이전보다 더 차분하긴 하지만 내용 토론으로 변질되어 다행이다.ANI의 예의범절 문제가 이제 해결되었다고 말할 수 있는가? 그리고 더 많은 내용 논의는 WP에 머물 수 있는 기사 토크 페이지로 돌아가야 한다.냉정하고 냉정하게 앞으로 나아가고 있는가?냉정함을 유지하는 것은 그 주제에 너무 감정적으로 관여하는 것을 피하는 데 도움이 된다.너무 몰두해 있는 자신을 발견하면 잠시 자리를 비우거나 다른 기사로 바꾸는 것이 가장 좋다.나는 DFIT가 약간 변형된 CFIT라는 기존 매우 유사한 용어에 익숙하지 않았다면 괴상한 소리를 내는 것을 이해할 수 있다.50.0.205.75 (대화) 05:15, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

• 논평 - 이 실드는 내용 토론으로 전환될 수 있도록 허용되었다. 이 실상은 (우리 모두가 알고 있지만 소수의 사람들만 신경쓰는 것처럼) 이 게시판이 무엇을 위한 것이 아니다.RTC가 RfC를 시작하라는 제안을 무시한 지 28시간이 지난 지금, 스레드는 본질적으로 비공식적인 RfC이다.나만 그런 거야? 아니면 모든 게 엉망이 된 거야?-맨드러스 인터뷰 04:21, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 뭐, 분쟁 해결이잖아거기에 들어간 콘텐츠 토론이 참가자들의 시각을 끌어내고 조금 뒤로 물러나게 하는 데 도움이 됐으면 좋겠다.상대방의 관점을 이해하는 것은 협동의 중요한 요소인 만큼, 우리가 여기서 할 수 있는 것은 무엇이든 DR로서 유용하다. 이제 상황이 좀 더 차분해진 만큼, 더 이상의 콘텐츠 논의는 기사 토크 페이지로 돌아갈 수 있다는데 동의한다.50.0.205.75 (대화) 05:15, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    • @50.0.168.75:, 당신이 누구든 ;), 당신은 현명한 조언이 있다.매일 일어나는 이런 상황에서 비공식적인 중재자 역할을 할 수 있는 당신 같은 사람이 몇 백 명 더 있었으면 좋겠다.난 그저 질서가 좋고, 좋은 이유로 일이 있는 그대로 설정된 것 같아.네 말대로 분쟁해결이다, WP:DR은 이 게시판에 대해 아무 말도 하지 않는다.-맨드러스 ☎ 05:25, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 50.0.205.75의 투입이 매우 가치 있다는 것에 동의한다. 그리고 우리 모두가 좀 더 정중한 방식으로 참여할 수 있는 한 토론이 뒤로 물러나는 것에 나도 기쁘다.--윈튼 12:31, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내가 오랫동안 믿어온 또 다른 좋은 예로서, 우리는 7일 연속으로 신문 1면을 장식할 때까지 사건 위반에 관한 기사조차 가지고 있어서는 안 된다는 것이다.ENG (대화) 00:04, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

이 모든 실마리가 편집자에 의해 매우 불온한 내용 논의로 납치되었는데, 그는 단지 자신과 의견이 다른 사람에 대한 반복된 험담에 대한 제재를 피하기 위한 수단일 뿐이었다.관리자에게 토크 페이지에서 원 이슈를 평가하고, 행동 방침을 결정한 후 이 문제를 종결하도록 할 수 있을까? - 아훈트 (대화) 12:13, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 문제가 되고 있는 기사를 볼 때 "히자레드"는 최고의 단어 선택이 아닐 수도 있다.EEng (대화) 17:08, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[답글]

그렇다 우리는 여기서 논의했어야 할 문제를 실제로 다루지 않았다. 아마도 행정관은 그 문제를 한 번 넘기고 그들의 의견을 제시해야 할 것이다.그러나 그것은 단지 내용 논의를 되돌리는 것에 동의하는 것일 수도 있다.그러나 그렇다. 관리자가 행복하다는 것을 우리에게 알리고 보드의 막힘을 멈추는 것을 멈추는 것이 유용할 것이다. 또는 도구 키트에서 사용할 수 있는 옵션의 범위를 고려하기를 원하는지 여부. --wintonian^talk 12:31, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Rtc로부터 그가 그 토크 페이지에서 무엇을 다르게 할 계획인지에 대한 짧은 진술을 듣는 것을 꺼리지 않을 것이다.적어도, 나는 어떤 약한 미아 컬파가 질서정연하다고 생각한다.만약 그가 그렇게 할 수 없다면, 그것은 우리가 며칠 안에 여기로 돌아올 것이라는 강한 암시야.-맨드러스 인터뷰 12시 43분, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 아마도 Rtc는 우리에게 그들이 이것을 어떻게 진전시키고 싶은지, 그리고 그들이 이전의 토론에서 어떻게 참여했는지에 대한 어떤 반성이 있는지 우리에게 알려줄 수 있을 것이다.Rtc는 이 과정이 유익했다고 생각하는가? - 관리자가 자기들과 함께 들어오기 전에 그들의 생각을 얻는 것이 좋을지도 모른다. :-) --wintonian 12:58, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 문제가 현재 진행 중인 것이 아니기 때문에 그 누구도 제재할 필요가 없다고 생각한다.IMHO에 대한 거의 사소한 문제로 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있었고, 토론이 가열되어 우리는 이곳에 도착했다.그것은 일어난다.운이 좋으면 하룻밤 잘 자면 사람들의 시야가 회복되고 앞으로 일이 더 순조롭게 진행될 수 있다.50.0.205.75 (대화) 21:14, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

내 해결책:모두들 진정하고, 아무에게도 조치를 취하지 않으며, '살인'의 법적 함의를 피하기 위해 '살인-살인-살인'이라고 부른다.부조종사는 어떤 조사 결과가 나오든 다른 승객들을 살해했다.단지 직무 태만이라고 해도(잠에 빠져 자는 것과 같은 행동을 취하는 것) 여전히 살인이다.스티비가 남자다!^{Talk • Work} 2015년 4월 4일 19시 5분(UTC)[응답하라]

나는 누구든지 제재를 받아야 한다고 말하는 것은 아니지만, 나는 내가 그 결정을 내릴 자격이 있다고 생각하지 않는다.어쨌든 누군가 토론을 다시 시작하는 것을 상상한다면 한두 가지 제안이 있는데, 이제 우리 모두는 뜨거운 크로스 번즈보다는 행복한 토끼들이라는 것이다-(뒤에서 어디선가 그르렁거리는 소리를 들었나?) ☺. --wintonian^talk 22:28, 2015년 4월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

그 실타래는 관리자에 의해 닫힌 것이 아니다. 그것이 내가 생각하기에 더 이상의 논의가 부적절할 것이다.추가할 것이 있으면 추가하십시오.아무도 회답할 의무가 없다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 00:59, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

미안하지만, 내가 여러 가지 메시지를 보내서 화내지 않았어?내 말은, 내가 언제 (만약?) 논의를 재개할 것인지에 대한 몇 가지 아이디어가 있다는 것인데, 그것은 우리가 여기서 끝난 후 우리가 어디로 가고 있는 것처럼 보이는 것이다.명확하지 않은 점 사과드립니다. --wintonian^talk 01:09, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 이제 알겠다.자, 여기 내가 할 수 있는 일이요, 그게 무슨 가치가 있는지.Rtc의 상술한 코멘트가 없다면, 나는 그 문제를 가능한 한 오랫동안 묵혀두고 싶다.하지만 그건 나뿐이고, 어쨌든 그렇게 오래는 불가능할지도 모른다.-맨드러스 인터뷰 02:21, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이 경우에 나는 Rtc에게 그들이 바깥에서 더 흥미로운 삶을 살고 있고 때때로 잠을 필요로 한다고 가정할 때, 그리고 여기에 은행 홀이 많은 부활절이기 때문에 사람들은 가족과 함께 외출하는 것을 좋아한다.Mon day GMT/UTC(예: Mon day GMT/UTC)가 아니면 관리자가 종료할 수 있다.결국 보고서가 발표될 때(다음 예정된 종말론 이전 시기) 이 문제는 어쨌든 다시 논의될 가능성이 매우 높다. --wintonian 03:14, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이 기사를 편집하는 사람들은 부조종사의 행동(자살)이 모든 승무원과 승객의 죽음을 초래했다는 사실만 받아들여야 한다고 생각한다.그렇다면 '지형 속으로의 고의 비행'(위에서 다른 사람이 지적한 바와 같이, 그 용어는 GROST!!!)보다 더 나은 용어를 사용하기 위해서, 그리고 이러한 유형의 사건, 즉 살인-자살이라는 보다 일관된 용어를 사용한다.독일에서는 살인이 X나 Y에 의해 정의된다는 IMHO의 주장은 의심스럽고 다소 기회주의적인 주제 논의 방법인데, 독일에서는 분명히 충돌이 일어나지 않았지만 프랑스에서는...어쨌든, 나는 진심으로 네가 개인적인 문제를 제쳐두고 이 문제를 해결하길 바라.나는 그 글에서 몇몇 사람들이 행동하는 방식에 정말 실망했다...중동 분쟁과 관련된 기사를 떠올리게 해그곳에는 항상 자신의 의제를 추진하거나, 물건을 "이유"하거나, 불필요한 것을 옹호하려는 사람이 있다. -179.153.241.50 (대화) 12:22, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

(나를 포함한) 모든 사람들이 흥미를 잃고 넘어간 것 같아 폐업을 고민할 때가 온 것 같다.의심의 여지 없이 콘텐츠 문제는 언젠가 다시 고개를 들겠지만 아마도 다른 그룹이 기꺼이 떠맡을 것이다. --Wintonian 02:41, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

솔라푸르에서 민족끼리 싸운다고?

Samuel TheGhost - "실리 버거" ES

Samuel TheGhost(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 편집-경쟁이 위험에 처하여 그를 템플리트로 삼았다.그는 이어 ES로 "바보 같은 놈으로부터 공허한 위협을 제거한다"[18].관리자가 이 사용자에게 경고할 수 있는가?나는 개인적으로 이런 종류의 WP에 개의치 않는다.PA, 하지만 다른 사람들은 그럴지도 몰라.알렉스브렌 (대화) 13:29, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 거의 너만큼이나 오래 여기에 있었다.기성 사용자를 마치 신참인 것처럼 묘사한 것은 종종 모욕적인 것으로 여겨지고, 그는 당신을 모욕했다.그리고 그는 자신이 원하는 모든 것을 자신의 토크 페이지에서 제거할 수 있다.위키백과 확인:단골손님을 본뜨리지 마라.【베이스볼 버그스카라믹스^{What's up, Doc?}→ 2015년 4월 6일(UTC)】 [응답]

(비관리자 의견) 공평하게 말하면, 기존 이용자는 자동으로 출입증을 받지 않는다.그래서 나는 그 에세이가 결코 가이드라인이 되지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:26, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

단골들을 개조하는 것은 그 나름의 인신공격이다.【베이스볼 버그스카라스틱^{What's up, Doc?}】→ 23:40, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 전적으로 반대한다.이것은 어떤 일을 한 누군가를 템플리트로 삼기 전에 그들이 단골인지 확인할 것이라고 가정한다.템플리트는 "이걸 봤는데 좀 이상한 것 같다"고 말하는 비인격적인 방법일 뿐인데, 그것 때문에 모욕을 느낀 사람이 있다면 더 두꺼운 피부를 길러야 한다.스파클릭 (대화) 11:21, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:필 A.튀기다

필 A. 프라이는 장기간에 걸친 파괴적인 편집 패턴을 보였다.나 자신도 그가 편집한 내용을 지난해까지 살펴봤을 때까지 이 사실을 모르고 있었다.

다음은 그가 저지른 범법행위 목록이다.

• 설명되지 않은 콘텐츠 제거:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=654357528
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_Con_Carne&diff=prev&oldid=646564663
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=646455056 (그들은 WP와 함께 그것을 정당화하려고 시도했다:시즌, 그러나 잘못 해석)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Codename:_Kids_Next_Door&diff=prev&oldid=645877550
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dexter%27s_Laboratory&diff=prev&oldid=645855000
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=639516651
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons&diff=prev&oldid=654983326
• 설명되지 않은 미지원 날짜 변경 사항 변경:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=635477715
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon&diff=prev&oldid=636355232
• 반달리즘:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cartoon_Network_programming&diff=prev&oldid=651088426
  • https://https:///en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Boomerang&diff=654945322&oldid=652694492
• 의 기사 문 의 기고문 사::
  • https://https:///en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=651075552

그는 또한 "방영하는 프로그램 목록" 페이지를 방문하여 뚜렷한 이유 없이 일 년 단위로 날짜를 단순화한다.만약 우리가 몇 년만 사용한다면, 사람들은 프로그램이 방영되기 시작했거나 연말에 방영을 중단했다고 생각할 것이다.정확한 날짜가 알려지지 않은 경우 우리는 1년 범위만 사용해야 한다.

그래서 필 A가 그래야 한다.튀김이 다 막혔어?일렉트릭버스트^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:23, 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 방금 그가 CBS에 편집한 이상한 것을 발견했는데, 거기서 그는 존재하지 않는 템플릿을 추가했다.좀 이상하다.스티비가 그 남자야! 2015년 4월 4일 4시 49분 (UTC)[응답하라]

공공 기물 파손처럼 보이지는 않지만 필은 편집 요약을 더 많이 사용하고 편집 내용을 뒷받침할 소스를 추가하기 시작해야 한다고 생각한다. 그렇지 않으면 역량이 차단된다.에픽 지니어스 (토크) 13:06, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

중단 동작에 대한 IP 고발

Jayron RGlucester 나는 타이틀의 존재가 불공평하다고 생각했고 그래서 그것을 바꾸었다.그레그케이 13장 19절, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

50.101.237.232

나를 겨냥한 LTA 반달

사용자:Bucklebuckleburyman

저스틴 비버 페이지가 파손되었지만 보호되어 있어서 되돌릴 수 없다.

세 마리

나는 <세 곰의 이야기>라는 기사를 FA 리뷰에 보냈다.그러나 한 편집자는 내가 삭제한 미인증 자료에 대해 논점을 만들고 있다.이 사람은 자신이 누구보다 잘 알고 있다는 것을 증명하려는 고집 센 고등학생인 것 같다.난 그가 물러나길 바란다.이 시점에서, 그는 기사가 FA 지위를 획득할 수 있는 어떠한 기회도 효과적으로 파괴했다.이 기사는 FA 가치가 있지만, 이 바쁜 벌들이 미인증 물질로 소란을 피우는 상황에서 그 지위에 이르지는 못할 것이다.SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:17, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 편집자 이름 없이 여기에 추가해야 하는 편집자가 누구인지는 확실하지 않다.상각(T)(C) 18:20, 2015년 4월 5일(UTC)[응답]

그의 사용자 이름은 Paine Ellsworth(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그)이다.그의 바쁜 모습은 그 기사의 토크 페이지에서 찾아볼 수 있다.그는 또한 나를 위협하고 있다.SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:53, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

정확히 어디서 협박하는 거지? (잘 들어, 내가 이런 종류의 헛소리를 듣는다면, 나 자신도 좀 위협받고 싶은 유혹에 빠졌을 거야.FA 기사에 이름을 붙였다고 해서 그 기사에 대한 당신의 모든 작업이 비난으로부터 면제되는 것은 아니며, 당신 이외의 누구도 그 기사에 대해 손댈 수 없게 만드는 것도 아니다.Deor (대화) 2015년 4월 5일 19:15 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그들이 이 위협을 되돌리기 위해 언급하고 있었을 것이라고 생각한다.[23] 상각 (T)(C) 19:23, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

(관리자 이외의 응답)내 추측도 그렇다. 즉 WP보다 훨씬 더 관대한 WP로 가는 것은 다음과 같은 것이다.BDR의 BRD 주문은 협박을 받았다고 불평하는 편집자.불평하는 편집자는 또한 80년 이상 죽은 예술가가 그린 1890년에 발행한 이미지의 무료 사용 현황을 부정하면서 위키피디아가 '원하는 것'에 대해 아무런 근거도 없이 진술하는 등 인신공격에 나서고 있다.만약 편집자가 "누구보다도 더 잘 알고 있다는 것을 증명하려는 고집 센 고등학생이 될 것 같다"고 말한다면, 그들은 그들 자신의 행동을 고려하기를 원할지도 모른다.이는 단순한 콘텐츠 불협화음을 놓고 누군가를 관리자 게시판으로 끌어들이려는 것으로 보인다. --Nat Gertler (대화) 19:40, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 자세한 내용은 스팟 실행을 참조하십시오.사건의 타당성이나 그 밖의 사항에 대해 즉각적인 의견을 제시하지는 않지만 절차적 참고 사항으로서 나는 당신이 고발한 사람에게 핑계를 대거나 통지하지 않고 사건을 제기하는 것에 반대한다; 잘못한 것으로 추정되는 행위(비교적으로 작은 점)와 당신의 입증되지 않은 관점에 대한 언급을 제시하지 않는다(비교적으로 작은 점)."그의 바쁜 벌 네스.."관련 가이드라인 내용을 인용해도) 사실이 아니다.그레그케이 08:09, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:User:SeeSpot Run은 현재 Sockpuppet 조사를 받고 있다.돈두스크 (대화) 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC) 19:57 (대화)[응답]

사용자는 자신이 좋아하지 않는 경제 관련 기사를 매우 공격적으로 리디렉션하고 있다.

찾을 소스 없음

NPOV의 지속적인 위반

Chealer에 대한 모든 위키백과 관련 페이지에 주제 금지 요청

WP로 이동:A, 이건 저쪽에 있으니까.나이튼드 (대화) 21:32, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:도로시 커밍고어

리자 마자

공인은 국적이 잘못 전달될 경우 위키피디아를 고소하겠다고 위협했다. [26].32.216.140.250 (대화) 22:05, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 OTRS가 잘못된 정보라고 생각하는 것에 대한 도움을 요청하기 위해 OTRS에 연락하는 것에 대한 그들의 대화 페이지에 몇 가지 조언을 추가했다.나는 또한 그들에게 법적 위협을 철회할 필요가 있다고 조언했고 왜 그들이 그렇게 해야 하는지에 대해 적절한 페이지를 가리켰다.그들이 연락을 취해서 위협을 철회할 수 있기를 바라며, 그저 기다려 봐야만 한다.상각(T)(C) 22:13, 2015년 4월 6일(UTC)[응답]

(갈등 편집)(비관리자 논평) 그 후 다른 사용자도 그녀에게 주의를 주었다.Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:15, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

CombatWat42는 비소급 blp 정보를 삭제했다.그것은 또한 AFD를 위해 세워졌다.하지만 여전히 법적 위협을 철회하지 않는다.상각(T)(C) 22:24, 2015년 4월 6일(UTC)[응답]

고마워 @Amortias: 동정적이면서도 유익한 메시지를 고맙게 생각한다.인식된 잘못된 정보에 대해 분명히 감정적인 기사 피실험자들이 그들의 법률적 위협에 대해 대담한 텍스트와 큰 빨간 손 이미지로 장식되는 것을 보는 것은 정말 실망스러운 일이다.이 예만 있는 것이 아니라 매주 한두 번씩 사람들이 총구를 활활 타오르는 상황이 일어나는 것 같다.결국 OTRS에서 우리에게 연락할 때 다른 쪽 끝에서 일을 더 어렵게 만든다.내 0.02달러만...다니엘 (토크) 22:33, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

문제 없어, 템플릿은 제자리에 있지만(그리고 나는 자주 템플릿 사용자야) 가끔은 뭔가 다른 것을 필요로 해.상각(T)(C) 22:36, 2015년 4월 6일(UTC)[응답]

그녀는 한 번 편집했고 다시는 위키백과를 편집하지 않을 수도 있다.그녀의 기사는 정말 아프디드여야 하는가?약간 보복성인 것 같다.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 보복이라고 언급하지 않았다.만약 당신이 그녀가 WP:Notable이고 그것을 증명할 수 있다고 믿는다면, 공천에 대해 그렇게 말해줘.CombatWat42 (대화) 22:47, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

컴뱃톰바트42가 기사 뒤에 남는 것이 적절치 않다고 생각했다면(어떤 것을 끌어들이더라도) 만약 그들이 다른 무언가가 될 수 있는 빠른 속도로 태그를 달았다면, 적절한 결과인 것 같다.그들이 (적어도) 고민이 있었던 것 같고, 그것을 다루기 위해 적절한 장소로 보냈던 것 같다.상각(T)(C) 23:15, 2015년 4월 6일(UTC)[응답]

FWIW 나는 AFD를 보복으로 보지 않았고, 그것은 내게 그 프로젝트를 보호하려는 열망에 의해 동기 부여된 행동인 것 같았지만, 그 이상은 아니었다.WCM_email 23:36, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그때의 나의 실수.미안하다.리즈 01:04, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 OTRS의 편집자와 소통했고 법적 위협에 대한 우리의 입장을 설명했다.편집자는 그들이 불만족스러워했던 내용들에 대해 관여하고 있으며 나는 그 위협이 반복될 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.이번 건은 관리인에게 넘겨주길 제안한다또한 편집자는 아직 토론 내용을 통보받지 못했다. 플랫 아웃 2015년 4월 7일 03:53 (UTC)[응답]

• 그것은, 무엇보다도, 내 부분에 대한 과실이다; 미아 culpa. 32.216.140.250 (대화) 04:03, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답하라]

코멘트 - 아직 한 개도 없었기 때문에, 나는 너를 위해.플랫 아웃 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC) 06:14, 7에 대해 논의하자[응답하라]

고마워나는 편집자의 토크 페이지에서 상세히 설명하였다.위 통지의 부재를 과감하게 직시하는 것이 일리가 있었다; 단순히 나에게 끝까지 따르라고 하는 것이 훨씬 더 좋았을 것이다. 32.216.140.250 (대화) 12:27, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것이 놓쳐서는 안 되는 별개의 중요한 점이기 때문에 대담하게 말했고 나는 당신이 그 실책을 인정한 후에도 편집자에게 여전히 알리지 않았다는 것을 주목한다.플랫 아웃 2015년 4월 7일 12시 41분, 7일 (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

글쎄, 난 그냥 무능해.나, 아니 어떤 편집자라도 그들에게 통지해 달라고 정중하게 부탁하는 것이 좋았을 것이다.다시 한 번 감사드린다. 32.216.140.250 (대화) 12:44, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:리자마자는 OTRS에서 법적 위협을 철회할 수 있는 방법에 대한 방향을 물었고, 나는 그녀에게 그것을 주었다.플랫 아웃 2015년 4월 7일 23:07, 7 (UTC) 토론하자[응답]

가능한 WP:슈로캣과 관련된 DONTLYKIT의 문제

ANI의 아카이빙은 어떻게 진행되고 있는가?

사용자:Painwithholder

사용자:Wikikian777 AFC 프로세스

기여도 조사를 바탕으로 위키위키만777(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)은 ⑴ IP나 양말을 사용하여 초안을 작성한 후 AFC에 제출하고, ⑵ 직접 초안을 승인한 후 메인 스페이스로 이동하는 패턴을 따르고 있다고 확신한다.문제가 된 기사는 유니터리 기억론, 정교한 인코딩, '할머니' 세포의 대체 설명 등 여러 가지다.모든 제목의 MOSCAP 오류에 유의하십시오. 다른 몇 가지 텔테일이 있는데, 모두 미시건에서 온 IP(어쨌든 내가 찾아본 IP)이다.이 편집자는 2013년 11월부터 이런 방식으로 작업하고 있다.그 기사들은 사실 내가 알 수 있는 한 나쁘지 않다. 하지만 나는 그것들을 자세히 살펴보지는 않았다.나는 이 섹션의 편집자에게 통지할 것이다.루이496 (대화) 15:23, 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

AfC가 여전히 위키피디아 토크에 있을 때:공간, 우리가 임의로 기사가 메인 스페이스로 옮겨지는 것을 원치 않았던 가장 큰 이유는 NPP에서 기사가 픽업되지 않기 때문에 표준 점검을 우회했기 때문이다(A7은 명백한 것이지만, G12는 AfC 초안에 훨씬 중요하며, 합리적으로 일반적이다).오늘날, 드래프트: 스페이스와 함께, 드래프트에서 메인 스페이스로 이동하는 것은 사용자 스페이스 드래프트를 조립한 다음, 준비가 되면 메인 스페이스로 옮기는 것과 별로 다르지 않다고 생각한다.공인 AfC Tools(TM)를 사용하는 것은 아니지만, 실제로 중단되는 것은 아니다.나는 그 주제에 대해 충분치 않아서 Child Laying이 유효한 백과사전적인 주제인지 아니면 독창적인 연구로 가장한 주제인지에 대해서는 언급할 수 없지만, 그것은 확실히 빠른 기준을 통과하려는 것처럼 보인다.리치333^(talk)(cont) 15:33, 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

양말을 사용하는 것은 분명히 기만적인 것이며, 기만적인 것은 무엇이든 파괴적인 것이다.루이496 (대화) 2015년 4월 2일 16:17 (UTC)[응답]

내가 보기엔 네가 백과사전을 쓰는 것보다 양말 조각을 더 중요시한다면 말이다.그는 로그아웃을 하다가 우연히 편집한 것일 수도 있다.리치333^(talk)(cont) 16:36, 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에서의 너의 논평은 도움이 되지 않는다.루이496 (대화) 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC) 17:00[응답]

욕설과 욕설의 증거는?기사 크리에이터를 보면 루코그사이치(Lutucogphych)라는 IP와 로렌스 테크놀로지 대학교(Lawrence Technical University)를 편집한 IP, LTU로 직접 가는 IP가 있다.기사 자체에는 학생 편집 도장이 곳곳에 찍혀 있다.이건 그냥 사람들이 숙제를 하는 것처럼 보여.Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:09, 2015년 4월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

오파비니아 레갈리스가 이 미스터리를 풀었다고 생각한다. 50.0.205.75 (토크) 01:15, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여기서 내가 할 말은 OP. AFC가 기술한 것처럼 여기서 따르고 있는 단계는 전적으로 무의미하다는 것뿐이다. AFC는 옵션 과정이다.오토콘 확증 편집자는 언제든지 메인 스페이스에 기사를 작성할 수 있다.이것은 우리가 새로운 사용자에게 광고하는 것이 아니다. 몇몇 흥미로운 사회 심리학적 이유 때문에 나는 여기에 들어가지 않을 것이다. 그러나 근본적으로 어떤 새로운 기사도 언제 승인 과정을 거치도록 요구하는 규칙은 없다.누구나 기사를 만들어 주요 기사 공간에 넣을 수 있다.AFC를 통해 자신의 기사를 "승인"하기 위해 두 명의 편집자가 되기 위해 "예뻐"를 할 이유가 없다.그냥 빈둥거리기만 하면 기사가 나온다.물론 적절한 기준(AFC가 제작한 기사에도 해당된다)을 충족하지 못하면 간단히 삭제될 수도 있다.어떤 물건도 면역성이 없다.만약 OP에 의해 기술된 교란이 실제로 진행되고 있다면, 그것은 두 배로 어리석다: WP의 종류일 뿐만 아니라:게임 위반은 금지로 이어지며, 그것은 주요 공간에서 기사를 얻는데 전혀 가치가 없는 방법이다.그냥 거기서 만들어. --Jayron32 01:40, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • (인지심리학에서) 강사가 학생들에게 드래프트 스페이스에 기사를 쓰게 한 뒤 강사가 이들을 메인 스페이스로 옮기기 전에 다시 살펴보고 있다는 것이 오파비니아의 이론이라고 생각한다.그 강사가 학생들보다 위키백과에 더 친숙하다면 내게는 좋은 과정으로 들린다. 50.0.205.75 (토크) 02:54, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그렇다면 나도 동의한다.그것도 질 좋은 생각이고, 또 문제될 것도 없어. --Jayron32 02:58, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 이론이다.기사를 보면 품질관리의 질에 의문이 생길 수 있다.그러나 창조의 과정은 아무런 해악도, 어떤 반칙도 없는 상황으로 보인다.Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 록 네스 몬스터에서 길고 관련된 일련의 편집이 이 결과를 이끌어낸다.나는 그 주제에 대해 전문가가 아니지만 여기서 의도적인 파괴는 보지 않는다.내가 다른 곳에서 본 그의 편집은 주로 삭제된 것이다.그레그케이 21:28, 2015년 4월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
• 우리 스스로를 놀리지 말자.이는 잘못되었다.만약 우리가 여기서 말하는 이 사용자가 IP를 사용하여 자신이 승인한 기사를 제출했다면, 그것은 정말로 그 과정의 남용이다.자, 백과사전이라고 해도, 다음 질문은, 왜 그가 그것을 하고 있는가?그는 자신이 쓴 글에 자기 만족을 하는 것이 아니라 그만큼 쉽다.공식적인 절차를 생략하는 것은 단순히 불공평하다.우리가 AfC를 가지고 있는 이유가 있다. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:56, 2015년 4월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 여기서의 생각은 강사가 기사를 쓰지 않았기 때문에 자신의 계정에서 직접 제출하는 것이 다른 사람의 일에 대한 공로를 인정받는 것이었을 것이라고 생각한다.기사의 공통점은 강사가 주제를 정했고 각주 스타일을 특정했기 때문일 것이다.위의 설명을 참조하십시오.AFC가 존경할 만한 과정인 한, 참가자들의 선한 의도와 노력에도 불구하고, (많은 위키피디아가) 헛소리 관료로 성장했으므로, 가능한 한 형식적인 측면을 우회하는 것은 좋은 일이다. 50.0.205.75 (토크) 01:09, 2015년 4월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

Loie496 이 시점에서 당신은 두 가지 선택권을 가지고 있다: AfD에 받아들일 수 없다고 생각하는 기사를 올리고, 그것들로 무엇을 해야 하는지에 대한 합의를 얻는 것이다. 두 번째는 WP 중 하나를 열어둔다.SPI 또는 위키백과의 스레드:사람들이 이 수업을 대신해서 무엇을 제안할 수 있는지 보기 위한 교육 안내판.급서 (대화) 2015년 4월 7일 12시 49분 (UTC)[응답]

지금까지의 모든 징후들이 이것이 학급 프로젝트임을 지적하고 있기 때문에, 나는 교육 게시판에 게시할 것을 제안한다.에픽 지니어스 (토크) 13:04, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

단일 기억 이론은 괜찮은 기사로 보여서 이 불완전한 과정의 최종 결과는 가치가 있어 보인다.누가 그 일을 했든 간에, 그들은 다른 사람들과 더 많이 교류하는 것이 좋은 조언이 되겠지만, 우리의 관습을 꽤 잘 이해하는 것 같다.제목에 너무 많은 대문자를 빼고는 분명히 고쳐야 할 것이 없었다.카피비오에 대한 현장검증을 몇 번 했지만 아무것도 못 찾았어.인용문 템플릿을 사용하는 참고문헌 목록에는 거의 필요하지 않은 트윗이 있다.에드존스턴 (대화) 04:34, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 법적 위협

템플릿:유지됨

익명 편집기의 지속적인 문제

다시 편집자

아르칸겔라마리빌라

• 아르칸겔라마리빌라 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 69.94.169.165 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

나는 편집자와 IP가 같은 사람이라고 생각한다. 둘 다 문제를 백지화하면 문제가 없어질 것이라고 생각하는 것 같다. (참조: 그들의 토크 페이지 이력)그들은 AfD 템플릿을 제거하는 것은 받아들일 수 없다고 충분히 경고받았지만, 그들은 계속 그렇게 하고, 그들이 그것을 봤다는 것을 증명하는 그들의 토크 페이지에서 경고를 제거한다.시작/끝(페이지가 삭제된 이후 최소한 두 번 이상 토크 페이지 경고로 링크)에서 이 작업을 수행했으며 AfD 페이지 자체에서 두 번 블랭킹(Wikipedia:삭제/시작/종료 내역).기사는 결국 삭제되었지만, 그들은 그것을 복구했다. (현재 빠른 속도로 태그가 되어있으며, 곧 삭제될지도 모른다.)오늘 그들은 죽음의 카드에서 AfD 태그를 두 번이나 제거했다.

IP는 오늘날 Catharsis(Sworn In EP)에서 PROD 태그를 제거했다. PROD 태그를 제거하는 것은 허용되지만, 그들이 (아마도) 로그아웃한 동안 IP를 편집에 사용하고, 음악 녹음 관련 기사를 보호하기 위해 통신 대신 블랭킹을 사용하는 또 다른 예다. (여기 언급된 기사는 모두 메탈코어 밴드의 앨범이다.)

(그냥 WP에서 보고했을 것이다.AIAV 그러나 설명이 필요 없을 정도로 문제가 명백한지 잘 모르겠다.) — 제라핀 그리폰 19:31, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

잠재적 sockpuppetry를 보고하려면 WP에 보고하십시오.SPI(그들이 IP를 계정에 공개적으로 연결하지 않을지라도)와 AfD 템플릿의 제거에 대해서는 공공 기물 파괴 행위 하에서 절대 자격이 주어지며, 만약 그렇지 않다면 내가 보고하겠다.IP가 PROD를 삭제하는 것은 단지 의심일 뿐이지만 나는 만약 더 이상 흉악한 사람들이 나타날 경우를 대비해서 그 페이지를 목록화했다.Tutelary (대화) 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC) 20:58 [응답]

날 좀 내버려 둬, 난 밴드들이 기사를 얻도록 돕는 것뿐이야. 그게 다야.Jerphine은 불량배 : ( — ArcangelLaMarivilla가 추가한 서명되지 않은 코멘트 선행 (대화 • 기여) 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 이 게시물을 만들었을 때, 나는 실제로 당신이 여기서 그 게시물을 지워버릴 수 있는지 궁금했고, 실제로 그렇게 했다.어떻게 지금쯤 효과가 없는 것을 배우지 못하셨습니까?네가 어떻게 차단되지 않았는지 난 아직 모르겠어.FYI 나는 실제로 밴드의 주요 기사를 찾고 돕는데 시간을 보냈으며, 그들의 음악 종류에는 관심이 없다.그것이 당신이 도움을 주는 방법이고, 당신은 기사의 주제의 공신력을 증명할 수 있는 출처를 찾기 위해 연구를 한다.— 제라핀 그리폰 18:33, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

IP 주소가 손상되지 않음

Flyer22라는 편집기의 문제

사용자:Greatink

66.74.176.59

정말 심각한 사건.

아이러니컬하게 "평화는 전염된다"라는 제목의 이유 없는 전투 편집

지속적인 태그 제거, 오스카 페냐스 자서전 양말 인형극 가능성

사용자:Openas는 오스카 페냐스의 주요 저자로, 그의 사용자가 다소 중복되는 기사를 게재한다.COI, 자서전, 지나치게 디테일한 것에 대해 기사를 태그했고, 세 개의 다른 IP는 편집 요약과 다른 커뮤니케이션 없이 그것들을 삭제했다.크라카토아카티는 페이지를 보호했고 이제 오프나스는 돌아와 태그를 다시 제거했다.그들 중 아무도 메시지에 응답하지 않고 있고 그것은 거의 확실히 멈출 기미가 없는 양말/고기 인형극의 경우이기 때문에, ANI는 이 시점에서 가장 적절한 길처럼 보였다.만약 그것이 선호된다면 SPI를 만들 수 있지만, 우리가 주로 여러 개의 IP를 보고 있다면, 그것이 표준인지 아닌지는 잘 모르겠다. 따라서, 다소간 오리 테스트.— Rhodendrite \\ 00:13, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

질문 - 이 상황을 WP:CONE의 주목을 받게 했는가? Atsme☯^Consult 00:38, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 하지 않았다.COI도 있지만, 나는 양말 인형극과 편집 전쟁을 동반하는 COI보다는 내용에 대한 내용과 토론에 영향을 미치는 COI의 게시판을 본다.하지만 내가 틀릴 수도 있다. 그냥 단순한 행동처럼 보였다.— Rhodendrites \\ 01:24, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이들의 설명에 따르면, (COIN) 페이지는 특정 기사에 대해 특정 편집자가 이해충돌(COI)을 가지는지, CONE 선언 COI 편집자가 편집한 내용이 이해충돌 가이드라인 요건을 충족하지 않는지를 판단하기 위한 것이다. 이해 상충은 편집자가 기사 주제와 개인적 또는 업무적으로 밀접한 관계를 가질 때 발생할 수 있다. CONE 선언 COI 편집자에 의한 편집은 편집이 위키백과의 목적을 진전시키는 것보다 더 많은 외부 이해관계를 진전시킬 때 COI 지침의 요건을 충족하지 못할 수 있다. 편집자가 COI를 가지고 있으며, 중립성을 희생하고 자신의 이익을 증진하기 위해 위키피디아를 사용하고 있는 것이 염려되는 경우 여기에 게시하십시오. 콘텐츠 분쟁의 경우, 먼저 기사 토크 페이지에서 변경 사항을 제안하고 다른 방법으로 위키백과를 따르십시오.분쟁 해결 절차 정책.일단 거기로 가져가는 게 좋을 거야.아마도 Jytdog는 더 충고할 수 있을 것이다.2015년 4월 ^Consult8일 01:30 (UTC)[응답]

어차피 이런 행동을 많이 하는 편집자들의 주목을 받기 위해서라면 코인에서 그 이야기를 꺼낼 것이다.여기서 SPI를 하기에는 충분할지 모르지만, 나는 그 사람이 그 문제의 직원인 것으로 판명된 유사한 사례를 다루어 보았기 때문에, 그들이 항상 진정한 양말은 아닐지도 모른다.나는 그것을 코인에게 가져와서 다른 사람들이 그곳의 가장 좋은 행동방식이 무엇이라고 생각하는지 볼 것이다.코인은 또한 잠재적인 COI 문제를 다루는 방법을 논의하기 위한 것이기도 하기 때문에, "편집자가 COI를 가지고 있는 것에 대해 염려한다면 여기 포스트"는 기본적으로 그것을 명확하게 말하지 않고 가능한 일반적인 것으로 요약한다.질문하러 가는 곳이야.Kingofaces43 (대화) 01:40, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

CONE에 관한 편집자들은 분명 좋은 의도를 가지고 있지만, 그것이 항상 좋은 결과를 전달하는 것은 아니기 때문에, 만약 다른 관련 게시판/대화 페이지/그것이 있다면, COI와 관련된 것은 반드시 거기서 논의되어야 한다고 주장하지는 않을 것이다.보브레이너 (토크) 18:28, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

잠깐 자리를 비워서 미안해.RFP 요청 후 페이지를 보호했는데, 이는 양말 테스트를 통과한다는 데 동의하고 등록된 사용자가 태그를 계속 제거할 것인지 확인하고 싶었기 때문이다.그 남자가 눈에 띈다면, 그는 눈에 띄지만, 그것이 그가 자신에 대한 기사(또는 다른 어떤 것에 관한 기사)에 여러 개의 IP로 자신만의 인형극을 운영하게 된다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.나는 코인과 SPI를 여는 것을 제안한다.그리고 나는 그에게 파행적인 편집에 대한 경고를 주었다.더 도울 수 있으면 알려줘. :-) 크라카토아카티 08:06, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

빠른 차단 필요, 장기적 학대 사례

동일한 국가의 다른 IP를 확인하십시오. [41].브링크스터넷을 핑킹해서 리스트를 업데이트하는 거야OccultZone (Talk • 기여 • 로그) 12:41, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이미지 정책 및 기타 중단 남용

이러한 운영 중단을 초래하는 여러 계정 남용자를 처리하려면 도움이 필요하다. 사용자:StanTheMan(현재 사용자:StanTheMan87 및 사용자:스탠맨87).[42] [43] 그는 반복적으로 "제발 이 태그를 제거하지 마십시오." [44], [45].나는 그 이미지가 독특한 역사적 이미지가 아니라 파키스탄에 있는 것으로 추정되는 살아 있는 사람의 이미지로 분명하기 때문에 그 이미지를 지명했다.[46] 그러므로 그에 대한 자유로운 이미지가 만들어질 수 없다는 것이 어떻게 가능한가?우리는 2015년에 살고 있는데 모든 사람이 사진을 찍는 핸드폰을 들고 다니고 있고, 그의 팔로워들은 각자 핸드폰을 가지고 있을 겁니다.스탠더맨87은 여러 위키백과 기사[47]에 같은 이미지를 삽입하고 있는데, 그가 태그에 "이 이미지를 위키백과나 다른 곳에서 다른 용도로 사용하는 것은 저작권 침해일 수 있다"고 되어 있는 것을 알고 있을 때, [48]이다.이는 그가 기여하기 위해 온 것이 아니라 다른 목적으로 온 것임을 보여준다.--크지호스22 (대화) 13:21, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

먼저, 사용자:스탠더맨은 내가 아니야내 유일한 계정은 이 계정(사용자:StanTheMan87)과 이전 계정(사용자:StanMan87)은 두 계정이 동일 인물이라고 진술했다.이것은 크즈호스22가 나를 양말 인형극과 연결시키려는 시도일 뿐이다.이 계정, 내 다른 계정 및 사용자에 대한 조사 실행:스탠더맨, 관리자가 원한다면.이 사용자가 나를 양말 인형극으로 고발한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.

태그가 제거되고 있는 이유는 2014년 9월 같은 편집자가 삭제하기를 원했기 때문이다.합의된 내용은 현행 면허가 허용되었고, 이 이미지는 이 비무료 공정 사용 면허에 따라 위키백과에서 유지될 것이라는 것이었다[49].이미지 제거에 대한 새로운 논쟁은 여기에 추가되지 않고 있다.그것에 대한 새로운 명분이 없다.WP별:CON, 이 모든 논쟁은 무효다.

최근에 사진을 찍지 않았기 때문에 그 개인의 자유로운 이미지는 얻을 수 없다.이 개인이 카메라를 수줍어한다는 것은 비밀이 아니다. 어떤 이슬람교도들은 생물을 촬영할 수 없다는 엄격한 이슬람 신념을 가지고 있다.탈레반은 일부 예외에도 불구하고 그들의 통치 기간 동안 녹음 장비의 사용에 제한을 두었다.이 사진은 매우 드문 변칙이며, 예외로 복수의 출처가 이를 증명하고 있다.이런 의미에서 그것은 매우 독특하고 역사적 관련성이 있다.탈레반의 선전에도 불구하고, 그 개인이 정말로 살아있는지도 알려지지 않았다.그들은 어떤 대가를 치르더라도 이 사람이 그들의 운동에 대변하는 생각을 살려둘 의제를 가지고 있다.어쨌든, 나는 탈레반 통치 기간 동안 아프가니스탄에서 카메라 사용이 금지된 것에 대해 이전에 썼던 것 때문에 이 이미지가 어떻게 가짜인지에 대한 현재의 논쟁을 꼬이게 하지는 않을 것이다.이 이미지는 높은 평가를 받는 출처인 [50], [51], [52], [53]에 따라 누구를 보여주는지를 보여준다.마지막이야.

이 이미지는 관련 기사, 즉 주제 기사, 아프간 국가원수에 관한 기사, 그리고 이 개인이 속한 민족 집단에서 사용되고 있다.공정한 사용 합리성은 각각의 이들에 대해 사용되고 있으며, 이것은 위키피디아의 공정한 사용 정책에 대한 위반으로 구성되지는 않는다.이미지가 하나의 기사로만 제한될 수 있다고 명시되어 있지 않으며, 그렇지 않으면 WP는 여러 개의 공정 사용 근거 템플릿을 사용할 수 없도록 할 것이다.그리고 나는 "한 기사에만 사용"에 대한 노골적인 표현조차 찾을 수 없다.

마침내, 나의 기여는 이 백과사전에 더 좋은 결과를 가져왔다.나는 밀어붙일 POV가 없고, 내가 개인적인 의견을 표현했을 때, 그것은 항상 사용자 페이지나 기사 토크 페이지에 있고 결코 기사 내에 있지 않다.스탠더맨87 (대화) 14:07, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

대체 가능하다는 생각은 솔직히 터무니없다.CIA가 못 찾으면 우리도 못 찾겠지가이 (도움말!) 2015년 4월 7일 15시 49분 (UTC)[응답]

• 내가 이전에 언급했던 긴 글의 수신 끝에서 편집자였기 때문에 이 실로 가는 길을 찾아야 한다는 것이 흥미롭다.전반적으로, 분명한 건 가식적이지만, 나는 그것이 많은 사회가 분명히 인권 유린이라고 규정할 수 있는 관행에 대한 분명한 목적을 가지고 있는 종교를 상당히 깨우친다는 것을 알았다.내가 보기에 매우 가식적인 접근법에도 불구하고 나는 스탠더맨87이 내가 본 바로는 접근법이라는 것을 알았다.

Stan TheMan87에서 마지막으로 편집한 내용은 IP 주소의 문의에 대한 응답이었습니다(Special:위키피디아에만 추가된 기여/193.87.99.186)는 ISIL 토크 페이지에서 "IS는 공식 웹사이트와 같은 것이 있는데 아마도 검열을 막기 위해 TOR 은닉 서비스로 운영될 것이다.주소를 아는 사람이 있는가?" 이 웹사이트가 국제적인 합의에 의해 반복적으로 함락된 이전부터 있었던 것을 기억하면서, Stan TheMan87은 토크 페이지에 참고할 편집자였다[54].

나는 방금 Special을 대충 보았다.기여/StanTheMan87에서 긴 최근 편집: 2015년 4월 7일 기준 개정.여기서 본문을 찾았어: "신앙운동은 수니파 이슬람사원들에게 종교의식과 의식을 행하는 자유를 더 많이 허용해 수니파 이슬람주의자들 사이에서 정권에 대한 반감을 상당 부분 줄였다.나는 이것이 아마도 수니파 이슬람주의나 살라피즘의 어떤 형태든 따라올 수 있는 사과를 기반으로 한 관행의 징후가 될 수 있다는 것을 다시 한번 매우 우려한다.나는 이와 같은 편집이 여성이나 성소수자 사회의 구성원이나 시아, 수피스, 기독교도들의 자유가 확장된 수니파 이슬람 사원에 의해 영향을 받았을 수 있는 것과 같은 문제와 관련하여 내용과 균형을 이루고 있다는 것을 알고 싶다.나는 Stan TheMan87이 NPOV 백과사전의 구축에 우선순위가 없는 순수하거나 대체로 가식적인 편집자가 아니라는 것을 나타내는 것을 아무것도 본 적이 없다.

나는 이것을 도끼 없이 말한다.이슬람 극단주의에 대한 언급을 추가하는 데 중요한 역할을 한 편집자임에도 불구하고 나는 이 페이지에서 주요 비난 중 하나가 이 언급의 삭제였다.그에 비해 나는 스탠더맨87이 그의 의제에서 매우 의욕적인 것으로 이해된다고 생각한다.그레그케이 16:47, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자는 Stan TheMan이 사용자라는 것을 확인했다.StanTheMan과 StanTheMan87과 똑같이 행동하고 쓰는 MadTim.이것과 이것만 비교해 보십시오.양말 이름을 만드는 동일한 방법은 말할 것도 없고, TheMadTim과 StanTheMan87에서 사용하는 특정 단어들도 눈에 띄었다.--Krzyhors22 (대화) 22:49, 2015년 4월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

24.236.232.136 (토크) 00:33, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC) [응답]

IP 주소를 알려줘서 고마워.그렇게 하면 양말을 확인하는 것이 훨씬 쉬워질 것이다.base야구 벅스 당근→02:25, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

IP, 비록 태거(KK2)가 관리자였지만, 사소한 오류였지만, TheMadTim의 [55]와 StanTheMan의 기여[56]를 보면, 우리는 둘 다 동일하다는 것을, 특히 다음과 같은 것을 확인할 수 있다.[57], [58][59], [60], [61], [62].과도하게 사용되는 '유형'은 은폐에 불과하다.--크르지호스22(대화) 18:26, 2015년 4월 8일(UTC)[응답]

위키피디아에서 반말을 사용한 기억이 전혀 없고, '듀드'라는 말도 쓰지 않는다.이 계정이 User:와 동일하다고 믿는 유일한 이유인 것 같다.스탠더맨은 비슷한 사용자 이름과 우리 둘 다 언젠가 위키백과 편집을 중단하겠다고 말한 사실 때문이다.우리 둘 다 영어를 사용하고, 우리 둘 다 '그저'와 '그저'라는 단어를 사용한다고 덧붙이는 건 어때?시시해.다시 말하지만, 내가 크르지호스22로부터 양말 꼭두각시 인형이라는 주장을 받은 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.사용자:DocumentError와 나는 둘 다 Krzyhors22에 의해 동일 인물이라는 비난을 받았다.만약 나의 진실성에 대한 의심이 여전히 지속된다면, 나는 혐의를 잠재우기 위해 이 문제에 대해 양말 인형 조사가 실시되는 것을 환영한다.스탠더맨87 (대화) 04:59, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

DocumentError는 그가 이란에서 왔다고 주장했다. [63] 이란은 현재 편집에 지장을 주지 않고 있다.[64] DocumentError는 항상 너를 옹호하는 모든 곳에 나타났다.당신이 편집한 내용을 보면 이란과 연관되어 있다는 것을 알 수 있다."난 나방 족쇄에서 벗어났어, 개자식들."[65] 그러면 네 진짜 모습이 드러난다.나는 네가 수년간 투싱, 편집 워링, POV 푸싱 등을 해왔다는 것에 의심의 여지가 없다.나는 과거에 네가 여러 이름을 사용하는 것에 대해 그렇게 걱정하지 않아, 네가 원하는 모든 것을 요세미티 샘처럼 행동할 수도 있지만, 나와 다른 사람들은 네가 무엇을 하고 있는지 볼 수 있어.지금 여기서 문제는 당신이 이미지 라이선스 정책을 남용하고 있다는 것이다. 이것은 위키피디아 문제일 뿐만 아니라 미국 연방법도 관련될 수 있다.[66] 연방법에 관한 한 사법권이 없으며, 법원은 이제 인터넷 활동이 허용 가능한 증거라고 판결했다.요점은 우리에게 명시적 허락을 하지 않은 사람에게 법적으로 속하는 이미지를 사용할 수 없다는 것이다.--크지호스22 (대화) 14:56, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위키피디아 토크 페이지에 내가 원하는 것은 무엇이든 쓸 수 있다.내가 말하고자 하는 요점은 당신과는 달리 다른 편집자와 의사소통을 할 때처럼 경멸적인 맥락에서 결코 반말을 사용한 적이 없다는 것이었다 [67].당신은 또한 당신의 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해 CIA 국장 존 브레넌[68]과 접촉했다고 주장했을 때와 같은 몇 가지 기괴한 것들을 진술했다.이미지 라이선스 정책 문제는 지난해 뚜렷한 공감대를 이룬 가운데 해결됐다.이 논의는 무의미하다.아, 그리고 실례가 되지 않는다면, 요즘 CIA 국장은 어떻게 지내시는지요?스탠더맨87 (대화) 13:06, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이전의 지명은 분명히 잘못 수행된 것이 분명했지만, 그 외에도 하나의 기사[69]에 대해서만 이미지를 허용했는데, 이것은 정상이고, 그 후 당신(다른 두 명의 이름을 사용)은 2개의 합리성을 더하고 [70] 다른 기사들[70]에 이미지를 사용하였다.[71] [72] 나는 네가 작년부터 한 일을 매우 기대하고 있었다.아니, 네가 원하는 건 아무 것도 쓸 수 없어.나의 엽기적인 것은 정보계만이 이해할 수 있는 농담이다.--크르지호스22 (대화) 14:39, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 양말 꼭두각시 문제가 얼마나 관련이 있는지 모르겠다.주요 쟁점은 언급된 바와 같은 혼란, 강압적인 편집, 그리고 스탠더맨87이 종교적인 POV를 옹호하기 위한 목적으로 여기에 있는지 여부다. (스탠맨87은 활동적이지 않으며 만약 이것이 스탠더맨87이었다면, 두 계정 모두 활성화되고 사용되기 쉬울지도 모른다. "stan the man", "stan man" 그리고 "stantheman"은 구글에서 꽤 높은 인기를 얻는다. 스탠 더 맨으로부터 리디렉션을 받는 미국 야구 선수 스탠 뮤지얼과 함께 스탠 더 맨(동음이의)을 참조하십시오.그레그케이 12:51, 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

게임/어워드 쇼 기사의 반복적인 기물 파손

사용자:Lydiafox19

이 사용자의 편집에 대한 거래가 무엇인지 알고 싶다(Lydiafox19(대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 블록 사용자 • 블록 로그)).사용자는 지금까지 다음과 같은 두 가지 종류의 편집을 했다.

• 유로비전 공모전에 관한 기사의 정보 추가 또는 변경
• 시큐러티에서 사이비 고문 작성, 토크:미숙함과 대화:로시나야.

이상하게도 두 개의 토크 페이지는 등록되지 않은 사용자들에 의해 편집된 광범위한 이력을 가지고 있다.일부 IP 사용자들은 또한 유로비전 기사를 편집했다(다른 어떤 것도 편집하지 않음), Talk를 만들었다.몰도비.

정말, 뭘 주는데?(이들 사용자/IP주소에 의해 편집된 모든 기사들은 그들에게 유입될 수 있는 오류들에 대해 확인되어야 한다고 생각한다.) - 마이크 로소프트 (토크) 2015년 4월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그리고 사용자가 비기사를 로시나야로 다시 만들었다. - 마이크 로소프트 (토크) 16:24, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

비보증블록

개인정보 보호 우려로 인한 수정 요청

보호요청 : 지노다카포 기사

이는 WP:RFP에 교차 게시되었다. WP를 커밋하기 위해 수십 개의 서로 다른 IP 주소와 잠자는 계정이 사용되고 있기 때문에 이 페이지에 행정 지원을 요청한다.BLP-공포 편집.안녕하십니까, 야마구치生 21:45, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

[86] --NeilN 21:48, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

최소 2명의 관리자에 의해 보호됨... Zad6821:53, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

다음의 IP 주소와 반달리즘 전용 계정을 추가하는 것이 고려 대상이다.일부 계좌는 2013년 이후 활발히 운영되고 있다.이 경우 특별한 사정으로 인해 AIV를 바이패스하는 경우.

• Wilkiro1 (대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 사용자 • 블록 로그)
• 방해물(대화 • 기여 • 삭제된 기여 • 핵 기여 • 로그 • 필터 로그 • 사용자 • 블록 로그)
• 86.0.36.249 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 90.221.175.181 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 151.228.187.80 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 78.144.39.188 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 176.249.75.92 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 92.134.171.127 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 213.205.194.99 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 95.83.253.249 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)

일부 편집은 다른 편집보다 더 끔찍하므로 신중함을 사용하십시오.여기에 나열되지 않았으므로 추가 IP 편집기에 대한 문서 기록을 참조하십시오.

안녕하십니까, 야마구치生 22:08, 2015년 4월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Moxy_reborn

단지 프로모션 사용자 페이지

내 페이지와 템플릿을 좀 삭제했으면 좋겠어.

User:Irishman on the wikicircuit

Sock/Meatpuppetry at Talk:MyWikiBiz

Contributions deleted on Szekely Land (again)

Fakirbakir deleted the contribution mentioning that Szekely land became part of Romania in 1918. Please see details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655523554&oldid=655522794

It's the 2nd time this statement is deleted. It's perfectly referenced and the info is already validated on other wiki pages (Szekely Land is located by the very page under discussion in Transylvania and the page on Transylvania states that Transylvania united with Romania in 1918). The references posted together with the statement on the Szkeley Land page are links to: - original documents of the Declaration of Union and English translation (Romanian archives/National Institute of Heritage); - original documents of acceptance of the Union by the King of Romania and English translation (National Institute of Heritage); - link to History of Transylvania/XIV. REVOLUTIONS AND NATIONAL MOVEMENTS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE MONARCHY (1918–1919) by Zoltán Szász on the Hungarian Electronic Library; - link to Elemér Illyés / National Minorities in Romania on hungaryhistory.com (Corvinus Library); - link to the book of prof. Laszlo Kurti (teaching at the Miskolc University in Hungary), The Remote Borderland (published by the State University of New York Press). To all this Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting, "the sources don't state that "Szekely Land became a part of Romania in 1918", a "proclamation" is not an internationally recognized treaty". However Szekely Land is part of Transylvania (which he surely knows, as it's stated on the page) and the significance of a proclamation is clearly not under discussion (we have the references from both Hungarian and Romanian sources mentioned - and wikipedia - stating when the moment of the Union took place, Austro-Hungarian administration was removed by the Romanian Army, border was established and he should have read this before deletion).

Fakirbakir also deleted the statement about the area of the counties Covasna, Harghita and Mures. Please details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655659306&oldid=655659069

It's the 2nd time this is deleted too. Again Fakirbakir replies with an attitude when deleting "(totally irrelevant)". However the only information on the page about the area of the land is an estimation from a disputed source (James Minahan, see debate on the talk page). As the Szekely Land is located by Minahan in the counties mentioned their area is very relevant as it's the only official/reliable information that could give an idea about the size of the land. The same principle was used on the page in respect with the population, where the population of Covasna, Harghita and Mures from the census is stated together with an estimation for the Szekely Land.

As Fakirbakir has deleted correct, relevant and referenced info without an actual reason (his notes are generic, contradicting the facts and based on personal opinion only - no references) please revert his changes mentioned above and warn him about deletion. Please notice, Fakirbakir doesn't use to answer to me on his talk page as I have already contacted unsuccessfully on other subject.

Thank you. ID Idsocol (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idsocol, there is a big, bright warning at the top of the page when you added this case that states you need to notify editors you're bringing a complaint against which you failed to do. You need to do this even if they have failed to answer your notices in the past. I've placed a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. Please remember to do so in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liz! I did put a notice on Fakirbakir's talk page. It's under the one to which he didn't answer. I've just checked and it's there. ID Idsocol (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fakirbakir (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) vandalized the page Szekely Land by malicious editing my contribution (said Transylvania was occupied by Romanian & Soviet army instead of liberated) and supported this by my references which were not saying this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sz%C3%A9kely_Land&diff=655811951&oldid=655800923

He also reedited the info about the Union with Romania without any references and based only on his own opinion (despite the dedicated pages for this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania where he could debate). I think there more than 3 edits in a short period of time. Idsocol (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing editor making libellous allegations about a public figure

"Phantom" Consensus Talks

Hello! I have encountered a few situations where editors state a "consensus talk" exists that over-rules a certain edit but, when I ask where said conversation took place, I have been told, [paraphrasing]"I don't have to tell you that."

Is that correct? Can an editor simply state that a consensus talk exists but, never state where? What would prevent an editor from pretending a consensus talk happened (when it really didn't) just to further their own agenda (which I believe is the case - this editor has been making this "consensus talk" claim for years now but, never once backed it up - nor has any other editor confirmed they were a part of it) even though every other related page follows the guidelines myself and other editors have been attempting to implement? Thanks in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you link to some of these discussions? Reyk _YO! 11:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main one is here (with the most recent revert happening here - although there have been many over the years).

However, an un-related issue (that has since been resolved) did have a user(@Raintheone:) stating "As if you have to link it" after I'd asked (multiple times) where a conversation happened.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have to tell you that </humour>
• I believe the disussion referred is with Rm994 which links to Project:Soap Operas SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I suggest just starting a WP:RfC. The discussions about this are a couple years old, so maybe consensus will change to your opinion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Also, if someone won't tell you where a consensus discussion is and a quick search can't find it, simply inform them that you are going to assume that no such discussion exists and behave accordingly.

Question: does the material being added/removed have a citation to a reliable source attached to it? WP:V cannot be overruled by local consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the original question: Yes, when asked to provide a link to the discussion by which the alleged consensus was established, the challenged party has to provide it. Without exception. If no link is provided, the discussion may be presumed to not exist, and users may proceed accordingly. There are no "phantom" discussions, the challenger is not required to search for something that somebody else alleges, it's not easy to check 10 years of archives at 4 million talk pages and all archives of all noticeboards. Kraxler (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As someone who has questioned Rm994 about said-discussions a few years prior — in context of adding recurring years to the List of Days of Our Lives cast members — they were never able to pin-point the discussion and nor have I ever been able to pin-point the location of the discussion. They simply revert on their own accord citing this discussion, which seems to be a case of owning the page to their own beliefs and preferences, yet allowing the years when characters are adding to the "Prior" section of the list (now re-directed to List of previous Days of Our Lives cast members. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've also been at the hand of these 'phantom' consensus discussions and it's really quite annoying as well aggravating. If they can't cite a discussion, it's easy to assume that there isn't one and that they are making it up. But you can't really assume malice, considering WP:AGF. Honestly, if they keep stonewalling any type of discussion citing this non-existent consensus, I'd say bring them to WP:DRN or ANI if that's already been tried. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With the haphazard nature of Wikipedia, it is not uncommon for an editor to recall that there was consensus on a certain issue, but be unable to locate the relevant discussion. So I would not assume that the claim is false. However, as others have noted above, without evidence of consensus, a claim of consensus has no weight. Deli nk (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Comment I've also run into editors who say if they made an edit to an article, at some point in the past, and it wasn't reverted, that this means it represents the consensus point of view because it wasn't challenged. This, of course, is faulty reasoning as most editors do not comb through an article history, checking each edit to see if they agree with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to the nifty flow chart over at WP: Consensus, an unchanged edit is current consensus. However, I would say it's a weak consensus compared to one that involves any sort of discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this would mean that any edits to all articles, including vandalism or copyright infringements, are considered to be consensus until a time comes when a new editor would like to remove them. If there is not an immediate reversion or if there are further edits after the original edit, the new editor would have to get a new consensus on the talk page to change the article back. This might be what the flow chart says but this is not how editing actually occurs on Wikipedia. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and copyright infringements would be an exception to that, just like they are exceptions to the 3RR rule.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems pretty straight forward. The consensus or not of a previous edit isn't particularly important in these scenarios. What is important is getting consensus for whatever change is being proposed. Arkon (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems at Islamic calendar with SPACKlick and others who maintain that a discussion at Talk:Muhammad prevents a consensus being formed at the local talk page. They also say that the consensus of an RfC is "assessed against all our policies and guidelines whether specifically raised or not". This claim is made in the context of an allegation that following an RfC it is disruptive to strengthen an article by adding further reliable sources. Comments anyone? I'm not notifying SPACKlick as s/he is already party to this discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is raising the issue of Muhammad images yet again and is ignoring the RFC concluded on that talk page yet again and is canvassing yet again. --NeilN^{talk to me} 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to NeilN's comment. This user is objecting to the conclusion of an RFC a couple of months ago at Talk:Islamic Calendar about the use of an image the IP claims is NPOV. The RFC concluded the image was appropriate but the IP will not accept that formed consensus and so seeks to discredit editors that disagree with them and canvasses in the hope of a new opinion rather than moving on. SPACKlick (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of a man preaching in a mosque. Unfortunately the artist is not on hand to tell us what he had in mind. However we do have unimpeachable sources telling us that Mohammed prohibited intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage>The Farewell Pilgrimage was delivered in the open on camelback in front of thousands of pilgrims. The above editors have removed sourced confirmation of what this picture represents and replaced it with speculation. The old saying about camels passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind here. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now SPACKlick accuses me of seeking to discredit editors and stalking them and conflates the discussion on the local talk with this one here. He's also having a go at another editor who thinks it's a good idea when showcasing art to tell the readers what it signifies. That's what I wanted to do - explain to the readers that the Farewell Pilgrimage was one of, if not the most significant events in the relationship between Muhammad and his followers and that to relegate it to a sermon in a mosque is disrespectful. But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God. Both of them are arguing that they can satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV by citing a doubtful source and that other editors who want to cite better sources are being unreasonable. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"But then NeilN has said he doesn't believe in God." What are you on about? --NeilN^{talk to me} 16:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got that slightly wrong. What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious. But it's a fact that he's obsessed with sex, and that's inimical to the ethos of a believer. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "slightly wrongs" happen pretty often. "What Neil said was that all representations of Jesus are fictitious" Diff please? And "obsessed with sex" - seriously or are you just trolling now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cebr1979, wouldn't removing citations without prior discussion also be an exception to that rule?87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can you elaborate please? What exactly do you mean by "removing citations without prior discussion?"Cebr1979 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebr1979:This. --NeilN^{talk to me} 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, that's a lengthy conversation that has been going on for over a week now with no references to any pages I have any interest in editing so I'll politely abstain from the IP's invite to comment. Thank you for you clearing up the confusion, @NeilN:.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To those still following along, be aware that these "general" questions from the IP all have one goal in mind. I've responded to their actual goal here. --NeilN^{talk to me} 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first point see [89]. As for your second point, here’s a sanitised three months of editing (it’s much worse later).

Sex symbol (2), Lovespoon, Temple of the Five Concubines, LGBT rights in Germany, Crumpet, Grease (lubricant) 3, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender, Slavery (13), Buttocks (4), Dolly Parton (3), Excretion, It sucks, Female reproductive system (5), Scumbag, Randy Brown, Scrotum (3), Blonde stereotype, John Dicks, Anti – pedophile activism, Flyleaf (2), Nine Inch Nails, Fafafini, Yaoi, Marquis de Sade, Gay (2), Epaphroditos, Cradle of Filth, Paraphilia, Daughters of Liberty, Nick Abbot, Steve Allan (2), Co – sleeping, Prostitution, Hepatitis (2). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing everyone on here why you shouldn't be taken seriously. By the way, if the numbers in brackets are the number of edits I've made to each article... I have 2,731 article edits in 2015 so far. --NeilN^{talk to me} 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one going to block the IP for trolling/personal attacks? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a look through the talk page history at Talk:Islamic calendar, it seems there has been one or another IP from London advocating and wikilawyering to have this picture removed for spurious reasons for over five years, in spite of very clear and very thorough consensus to include it. This ongoing campaigning is disruptive, plain and simple. They need to drop the stick and respect consensus, or else it's pretty clear they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to NeilN and Ivanvector, WP:V is not a vehicle for pushing an editor's personal point of view, it's a mechanism for ensuring articles are factually accurate. The undisputed facts are

• the Farewell Sermon was delivered in the open, on camelback, in front of thousands
• the prohibition of intercalation was made during the Farewell Sermon.

Therefore, to caption a picture of a man in a mosque preaching to a congregation of six cannot be accurately captioned "Muhammad prohibiting Nasi" (which is the native term for the practice).

As for wikilawyering, NeilN has argued that the fact that the French president walked into a clinic is justification for adding crappy content to Wikipedia. The serious argument is taking place at Talk:Islamic calendar. According to SPACKlick, an image that creates a fictitious scene for propaganda purposes is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. According to him, an image created with nefarious intent can be used with impunity. So it's OK for us to daub our houses with swastikas then. Then he says it's OK to use the caption because it follows the thinking of one source (which it doesn't). So the opposing views of dozens of experts are irrelevant. Finally, he makes the amazing claim that there is a consensus to exclude the good sources in favour of the bad.

When I point out that this is exactly the "phantom consensus" being discussed here I get abuse. All this was explained yesterday afternoon in great detail (not by me) and since then the advocates of crappy editing have been silent. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors should look at the full discussions rather than assuming the IP has accurately summarized the situation. They have a history of getting things "slightly wrong". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive multi-party disruption at Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean-related ethnic articles

Fellow admins: the situation of multi-party POV warring on Assyrian-related articles is out of control. Background info: this is about a group of minority populations in Syria and Iraq, whose diaspora communities are riven by deep-seated infighting between rival ethno-religious factions, regarding their preferred appellations and the preferred ancient peoples ("Assyrian", "Aramean", "Chaldean") upon whose alleged inheritance they build their claims of "identity". There have been constant petty naming wars ever since the beginnings of Wikipedia. It has always been the case that virtually every user who ever took an interest in editing the topic was a member of one of the rival factions and here to pursue their pet agenda; editing from all sides of this mess has been equally bad. In recent months the disruption has reached new heights. There have been at least three massive sockfarms fighting each other for several months. I just blocked half a dozen accounts the other day; new accounts and IPs sprang up immediately. Just yesterday I took great pains in explaining to all involved that a certain contentious quotation (about which they had all been edit-warring) was indeed demonstrably a fake (as one of the factions had been claiming) [90]; today I find the quote re-inserted into yet another article yet again by yet another new IP [91].

I need more eyes on all the articles involved, especially:

• Assyrian people
• Assyrian continuity
• Assyrian
• Terms for Syriac Christians
• Name of Syria
• Arameans
• Michael the Syrian

... but there are many others into which this mess has spilled over, basically any page related to this group, their name or their various ancient homelands.

I don't know what to do. There are no "good" versions to revert to, because whenever you remove one side's tendentious crap, you are only reinstating the equally tendentious crap of the others. Normally, I would ask for discretionary sanctions, but those will be of little use: DS arrangements are for protecting potentially constructive editors and giving them a safe space to work in by shutting the disruptive elements out – but here we have nothing but disruptive elements.

Unless others have better ideas how to deal with this, I'm thinking of applying the radical "Liancourt Rocks"-type strategy: stub all the affected articles down to a skeleton version or delete them outright, fully protect the lot of them for half a year, and allow gradual rebuilding only through edit requests to be vetted by uninvolved competent editors on the talkpage.

Ideas? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Liancourt Rocks page blank my screen???? Just curious. It doesn't now. Odd! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it this looks like a good strategy for certain intractable problem pages. I have a question. Could you give us a brief overview of how well the strategy worked on the Liancourt Rocks page? Has this strategy been used anywhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf's Liancourt Rocks option and full protection sounds like a good idea, we'll just have to monitor the onslaught of edit requests but, at least the pages will begin to grow objectively. Also some kind of guideline for blocking repeated frivolous edit requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liancourt Rocks-related articles have been on my watchlist for years and aside from brief flareups on talk pages, everything is quiet and stable now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is the right solution. Such disputes mirror off-Wiki ethnic and religious controversies, and will not be resolved until the off-wiki issues are as well. If ever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess. I've tried to follow some of the discussions and it seems like outside editors can't participate without them being falsely identified as being affiliated with one ethnic side or the other. It's like the concept of neutral editors is not accepted by the primary parties. And there is also talk about Wikipedia cabals/cliques influencing the articles. It all discourages uninvolved editors from jumping in and editing. Some of the sources are also tainted by bias. This area needs editors knowledgeable about the Middle East field who have thick skins and can avoid being provoked into disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Lt. Ripley once said: Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Fully support the Liancourt option here. It will bring some sanity to a very problematic area. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how this totally unrelated dispute resembles, in a sense, the protracted dispute that is discussed in the "handling COI" discussion above. Different subject, similar issues. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: I was thinking the very same thing when first reading the above COI discussion. Just a note, for editors adding Fut.Perf. list to thier watch, please add Mosul. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm not belittling the powerful views held on all sides in all these kinds of disputes. In fact, it's just because of the sincerity of such views that such disputes are so intractable.Coretheapple (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a obvious reason that the pages in this topic area need protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks, for this feedback so far. Based on this apparent consensus, I have begun with the protection and partially stubbing back (or reverting to old versions) of a few articles (starting with Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden, which had been left with a completely nonsensical lead sentence ever since an edit-war in 2010, without any of the warriors ever noticing; I also deleted a long-standing POV fork of the same article at Assyrians in Sweden and removed some apparent source abuse at Name of Syria). Please note that in making these content edits and then imposing protection, I am WP:IAR'ing on our normal admin "involvement" procedures; I'm putting it on the record here that I believe this to be justified on the basis of the consensus here. If anybody has procedural objections, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general observation: as more contributors to Wikipedia come from new parts of the world, we will see more of this deep-seated infighting over names & facts. (A mild example of this is the chronic but low-level edit-warring over numbers of Christians & Muslims in Ethiopia: historically Ethiopian Christians have been in the majority, but due to population trends & the growth of Protestant Christianity there, Muslims are now the most numerous group -- per the Ethiopian government's own census returns. But this does not stop individuals in or from Ethiopia from "correcting" the figures. So far it's just been a matter of reverting & moving on, but I expect one day this will become a Yet Another Flashpoint.) About the only solution I have is to get ahead of these problems -- if you know of them, which is the trick -- & provide reliable citations for the preferred name/factual assertion. Otherwise Liancourt Rock-style protections will become more common. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, before Wikipedia, I was moderator at a forum in which a subforum dealt with the Assyrian/Syrian issue. My experience was exactly that of Fut.Perf.: endless infighting, high on insults and low on substance, and both sides convinced that nobody could be neutral; moderating a poor post by somebody from one side was immediately taken as a sign of belonging to "the enemy". That experience makes it easy to understand that this situation has no good solution. Few neutral users willingly walk into this mine-field, and those who edited all have deeply held beliefs, many are probably on Wikipedia just for this purpose. In other words, the Liancourt Rock option is likely to be the least bas solution here.Jeppiz (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Middayexpress editing my comments on a talk page

Abuse of rollback by User:Aurora2698

Legal Threats by 124.180.131.32 (talk · contribs)

Request for a warning about editor-focused discussion /WP:BLOCKDETERRENT for personal attacks on Miscellany for Deletion Project Page (user: Petrarchan47)

(adjusted per admin input)

I recently nominated the essay Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks for deletion based on my concerns that it undermines consensus-building and collaborative editing, instead expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content. user:Petrarchan47 has taken great exception to this nomination, and has expressed this objection by off-topic attacks on my editing history on the deletion Talk page and with personal attacks in various discussions on other Talk pages.

In the discussion on the essay Talk page, I am singled out as a “COI duck”. The criticisms of my edits include using the FDA as a source for medical information (it is “non-neutral and non-independent”), removing a redundant sentence about birth defects from the SSRI article, and removing material about an antipsychotic from the Antidepressant article.

The same material is later posted to the MfD discussion page, in which I am referred to (directly) as a “COI duck” and (indirectly) as part of a group of editors who “gather at the same articles to create faux consensus, and flock around noticeboards to silence opponents through bans, etc”. (I believe this is only my second or third time bringing someone to ANI in 2 years of editing).

I responded to these attacks with explanations for my edits, and was soon thereafter hit with another list, also on the MfD discussion page.

I offered a civil statement that this Talk page was not the appropriate place for her demand that I justify a lengthy list of edits to other articles and demand that I defend myself from charges of bad faith editing.

She responds with more accusations of “pro pharma spin doctoring”

I left a standard “no personal attacks” template message on her user page and she responds again on the MfD Talk page accusing me of “bullying” behavior and suggesting that the NPA template I left was retaliaton for her vote.

I really don't want any conflict here and would just appreciate it if an admin would put in a word. I'm happy to discuss edits on the article page in question and to defer to an RfC if no consensus can be gained. But edits which have never been contested by Petra on the Talk pages of the articles in question are being used to attack my good faith and undermine my credibility on unrelated pages, and this is unhelpful. Thanks. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware of this recent case where incredibly problematic and dangerous POV editing had a very real-world effect, and is damaging WP's reputation even further. If you read this Newsweek piece, you might note the similarities between the editing I pointed out with regard to pharmaceutical articles, and the editing done by WifiOne - mostly removing criticism of the New Delhi school. If an admin would skim the edits I brought to light, and consider the implications of the particular whitewashing that emerges, they would see that this is a serious matter, and it is much bigger than what a single volunteer should be expected to take on. It is a systemic problem, and given the prolific editing to pharmaceutical articles by F98, this case in particular deserves a closer look. If the method I have used to attempt bring this editing to light is considered more problematic than the edits themselves, well, I guess that's par for the course, but I hope that the content of our articles would take priority over drama. petrarchan47tc 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra, if you are unhappy with my edits, please open a case on me here or at COIN. The purpose of this discussion is your violation of the talk page and WP:NPA by questioning my integrity on article and project Talk pages, which are not for that purpose. This behavior is disruptive and interferes with a constructive discussion of content and sources. Whether or not my edits are "POV", the talk pages are not the appropriate place for questioning my good faith.

Once again, I respectfully request that you either take your concerns to COIN, open an ANI case on me, or keep your thoughts to yourself. The talk and project pages are not the place for all this invective. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 23:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense to me. However, you are well aware that the first set of diffs was posted to my talk page on 19 March. You raised no objections whatsoever until now, so you might forgive me for thinking it wasn't being considered an "attack". petrarchan47tc 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::In addendum, in spite of the very detailed description in this complaint of the exact behavior that I think is problematic, Petra just posted to the MfD project page suggesting that this filing was in retaliation for her vote against deletion.

I specifically said that I wasn't sure whether it is related to what some editors are referring to as a 'pattern of retaliation' regarding your copious warnings. petrarchan47tc 03:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote in your diff is "I'm not sure if this is related to supporting this essay, I was just taken to court for giving examples of the OP's pro-pharma editing in the survey section". Which has nothing to do with what you are saying here, but could probably have been interpreted more benignly than in my comment above, which I have struck.

Would you please just agree to limit your commentary to sources and content going forward and stop the personal remarks? I really hate these boards and do not like doing this. But on the other hand, I cannot have every controversial discussion that I get involved in disrupted with these silly diffs that you post, showing that I've made edits you disagree with and calling me a shill POV editor and "COI duck", ""spindoctor" and "tendentious editor" over edits that you never disputed at the time they were made. I really don't want to have these battles. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 04:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry that you find the diffs silly - I'm sorry for our readers. I would not waste my time on this if these diffs didn't show extremely tendentious editing in a way that could be dangerous to human health. I consider the 'spindoctoring' that the diffs show to be of utmost importance. And yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. I have brought the diffs to only one venue beyond my talk page, so I'm not sure what you meant by "every controversial discussion that I get involved in". My advice would be: stick to the facts, don't spin or exaggerate, and there will be fewer problems with your edits. petrarchan47tc 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you are now claiming that I called you a shill? When did I do that? F98, if you can't stop misrepresenting me here why should anyone believe you are truthful and unbiased in your editing? I have not called you a shill, please strike that. I did confront you about several edits, like here and here, so I would ask that you strike another false claim. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 05:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve struck and corrected to describe the accusations more precisely. I'm sorry you're concerned that my edits are a "threat to human health". Because it is reducing threats to human health caused by misinformation in articles that are read by hundreds of people daily that motivated me to become an editor. Generally speaking, I've removed poorly sourced material (and in a remarkable number of cases, statement that contradict their putative source) and added better sourced material. By itself, that may not be a guarantee of NPOV, but it beats the hell out of the opposite.

If you will confirm that we have an agreement that you will restrict your criticism to appropriate venues, including COIN and ANI, I will request that this complaint be closed without action. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy what I said above as a confirmation: yes, the next time you see a list of your diffs from me will be at the proper noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have no doubt I will be hearing from you again, but as long as it is in the appropriate forums, there will be no hard feelings on this side. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 18:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. I do need to ask you to be more careful when quoting me. You brought me here because the list of diffs was taken to be an attack, since it wasn't presented in the appropriate forums. My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. Please don't extrapolate beyond what I have specifically said. I would also note that Geogene has made untrue claims about me in this thread and deserted the scene when asked for proof or to strike them. It seems obvious that you should be against personal attacks regardless of what 'team' is flinging them. It does not appear that policy, rather than personalities, is of primary concern, and that is disturbing. Groupthink is perhaps the greatest threat to this project, IMO, as the rules aren't adhered to evenly. It's hard for me to trust an editor for whom this is the case. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra, I'm generally against personal attacks, but like most people I tend to react more strongly to perceived attacks on myself than on others.

I'm quite cognizant of the fact that you are dilligently building the mother of all COI cases against me. Thats' ok. I'm not concerned by that because

• My conscience is clear
• My conflicts of interest are nil
• My work gets positive reviews from other medical editors, and
• With the exception of occassional mistakes of the sort that everyone makes, everything I do here is completely defensible. I'm not the one adding medical claims using tort attorney websites, blogs, and fringe primary research papers as sources, making statements that contradict the putative source, or skipping over the last 8 years of meta analyses so that I can find one that says a drug doesn't work. (Yes, I can provide examples of all of these, an no, I'm not saying you do, just that those are the sorts of things I fix here).

I'm absolutely certain that people are alive today who would be dead if I had not rewritten the fluoroquinolone articles, which were a REAL example of COI editing by people in litigation against the manufacturers, and seeking to influence the jury pool.

So please, go ahead. You have a right to your day (second day, actually, we've already done this once) in court. What I object to is being required to defend myself against the same charges over and over. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Formerly 98: I think you should reflect carefully on what @Petrarchan47: is telling you above by saying My answer is very specific: the next time I present a list of your diffs, it will be at the proper noticeboard. That wording seems unusually precise to me, and s/he has used that exact phrase three times now. Are you sure you two have reached agreement? Geogene (talk) 19:30, Today (UTC−4) And by that I mean that I'm not sure Petrarchan47 understands here that the problem is not posting diffs in the wrong places, but that s/he posts personal attacks in the wrong places. It seems odd to me that s/he keeps referring specifically to what s/he is doing as "posting diffs". But this is not "my" ANI thread. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly 98 is correct, Petrarchan47, if you are going to make such claims against another editor, you need to present a case and provide evidence. Otherwise, it can be seen as a personal attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that last spring, the same user was accusing me of COI on article talk pages? Here's an example diff of Petrarchan forumshopping on an admin talkpage to get me blocked. User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI. [96]Geogene (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you probably shouldn't add accusations without evidence. "User is always hounding somebody over alleged COI." That is a serious claim, and it needs to be proven with diffs or removed. It is an outright lie. petrarchan47tc 02:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If needed, I will produce those diffs. But I don't want to go dig all that stuff up if nobody's even going to look at them. It's a waste of time. Geogene (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is needed, as you have already logged this statement, which is untrue and probably falls under "personal attack". If you don't provide links showing that I am always hounding someone over COI, you need to strike that statement. You cannot use these forums to take revenge on editors, and you certainly shouldn't muddy the water with lies. petrarchan47tc 03:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support warning. If it looks like the behavior will continue, a short block might be warranted to get the point across, but I'm not sure if that's needed yet. Looks like very clear WP:HOUNDING behavior and violates WP:COI in the manner petrachan has been approaching this. Bringing actual evidence of COI to WP:COIN to air it out with the community is what should be done if there are legitimate concerns, but interjecting this into various talk pages to this degree rises to the level of nothing more than WP:ASPERSIONS. Looking at some of these discussions, it looks like there may be a much longer term interaction where I'd be apt to suggest a one-way interaction ban against petrachan47, but considering the person being hounded is just asking for a warning, that seems fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose warning. Please tell me that providing diffs to past discussions to support an argument is not cause for a warning. Editors are warned for casting aspersions when they don't provide diffs, and now they are warned for providing diffs? I find this very confusing. To begin, the MfD was initiated before the ink was dry on the essay - no discussion first as our guidelines suggest. What we see now are arguments between Keep and Delete positions resulting from an ill-conceived MfD. Unfortunately, our overworked admins are now forced to deal with these spurious allegations at a delete request? Please tell me it isn't so. Atsme☯^Consult 00:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:NPA which states:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 00:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There is no official warning at Wikipedia, and this board is also not necessary for that official warning (which does not exist). Admins are needed to enact sanctions such as blocks, but if someone needs warning for violating principles at Wikipedia, just warn them. I'm not sure what additional weight a discussion like this will have. They can't claim they aren't aware that they are being warned, so further votes asking them to be warned are not meaningful here. If a ban or block or other sanction of some sort is needed, then perhaps that discussion needs to be had, but to hold a long discussion where a bunch of people say "Please stop..." is not particularly meaningful. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? Formerly 98^{talk contribs COI statement} 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose anything. I am not familiar with the situation. But the purpose of a warning is to let someone know that their behavior is in violation of Wikipedia policy. It takes exactly one person to do this, and doesn't require a vote. If violations continue after the warning, then this board is appropriate for sanctions for continued refusal to comply. I don't really have an opinion on this one incident, except to note that a vote on a "warning" is a meaningless, time-wasting endeavor. The person knows they have been warned. Further piling on for the exact same incident is meaningless, unless there is either a) additional problems after the warning or b) we decide that something more severe than a warning is needed, I'm not sure what is to be gained by this. I have no actual opinion on this user in this case, I am merely noting the fruitlessness of lengthy discussions and "votes" that cannot actually lead to any action. --Jayron32 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community issued warnings are issued here all the time, and have a lot more weight than a single user giving a warning. It's generally meant as in indication to the user they have gone too far in their behavior, especially when they don't take user warnings seriously are believe the warning is incorrect. It also makes it easier for the community to impose additional sanctions like interaction bans if needed if the behavior continues. ANI warnings are usually the first step in actions taken here when it appears the editor can reverse their behavior problem that could otherwise result in a ban. That's the general spirit here anyways since most prefer to treat a ban as a last resort. Maybe that's not the official stance, but if that's the case, I guess it's become practice for better or worse.Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first thing I read in the first diff presented was the OP's statement which I found to be extremely accusatory of Petrarchan47. It really doesn't make any sense to be asking an admin to issue a warning to an editor you accused of WP:TE as follows: "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." Let me get this straight - the OP requested a warning against the accused for, and I quote, "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." This is the same OP who initiated a MfD within a few hours of the essay going into mainspace - no prior discussion, and no GF interaction - just a MfD to get rid of it. Also notice, the first diff he provided is a quote wherein he accused the editor of WP:TE? The remaining diffs devolve from there. Forgive me, but this doesn't represent battleground behavior, it looks more like playground behavior. I now have a better understanding of why admins are overworked. Atsme☯^Consult 02:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme::

• The quote about "I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support." was not made by me to Petra, but was made by Petra to me.
• The quote about "expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content." was not an accusation addressed at Petra, it was a criticism of the essay, and one that was repeated by more than half of the editors who provided feedback on the essay on the MfD page.

I respectfully request that you strike and correct your statements above. Thanks, Formerly 98^{talk contribs COI statement} 02:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Formerly 98 - mouse over on diffs makes it difficult to determine who said what which just taught me a valuable lesson. Click on it to see the full conversation. I did a strike. Atsme☯^Consult 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, and things have gotten heated lately, but I understand that you are trying to do the right thing. I apologize that I have not been very good at communicating that the last few days. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 03:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support admins reviewing the situation. The fake essay is more like a how to guide for pro-quackery editing on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with identifying COI editors. If admins review some of the editors who want to keep the garbage Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks page you will find many interesting edits. Unless admins deal with the problematic editors the disruptions will continue indefinitely. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say anything of the quality of the essay, as that seems to be a discussion for the deletion review already underway, the essay seems to be written in good faith based on a discussion with multiple participants. I'm really not seeing anything at that essay that requires admin intervention.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As to the charge here for a warning, there does seem to be reason to do so. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highly debatable. The author is on the losing side of a months-long attempt to whitewash promotion of quackery by a minor crank, G. Edward Griffin. This essay is identified by several of those involved in that dispute, as a blatant invocation of the "pharma shill gambit". Those of ius who do have extensive experience of dealing with COI editing, both directly and in in my case via OTRS, do not recognise this essay as a productive or useful one, especially since it appears to identify use of guidelines such as WP:MEDRS as a signature behaviour of COI. Guy(Help!) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language I would use would be tendentious in this case and I do personally find that the essay unhelpful. I agree with the position that it is a "Pharma shill gambit" and would suggest that some users have invoked a "pharma shill gambit" in defense of the essay in the deletion discussion. However I don't really see any actual evidence that the creation of this essay is tendentious or intended to be. It does seem to be a good faith effort by individuals with poor knowledge and understanding of policy. Unless there's an argument of a failure to get the point, I don't really see any necessary action to take other than the deletion discussion that has already been opened.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Petra has agreed to limit her editor-focused comments to the proper forums for such discussions, I respectfully request closure of this discussion with no administrative action. Formerly 98 ^{talk contribs COI statement} 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it “editor-focused” to link diffs of editing you find problematic and/or non-neutral?

I’m confused here. Is linking diffs from an editor’s contributions during a discussion (at a location other than an admin board) against policy? I think some clarity on this issue from ANI would be helpful. I’ve noticed such diffs often seem to be linked at locations other than admin boards. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of user behavior should normally be limited to user talk pages and to pages designated for that purpose. See WP:TPYES:

"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

Also the summary at the top of the WP:TALK page states: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."

WP:AVOIDYOU on the WP:NPA page states

"As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people."

WP:NPA further states

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

The purpose of this is to keep the article discussions from becoming personalized. Discussions of editor behavior are physically segregated from discussions of article content.

Formerly 98^{talk contribs COI statement} 19:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that linking diffs to past editing is related to content, although the contributor is also listed. I'm not sure how this applies to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See CLOSURE request, no admin action per OP above Atsme☯^Consult 17

24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by Niteshift36

I have been creating a number of new articles. The vast majority of them are related to african americans. A certain group of individuals have bee nominating them for deletion to which I would debate to keep them. [97] At this time, they are not the issue. Apparently, one individual took notice [98] and he won't nominate an article for deletion that I wrote but he certainly votes to have a large amount of them deleted. [99] [100], [101], [102], [103], and [104], . In a short amount of time, he has stalked my profile and edited on a decent amount of articles that I have written on. [105] . His behavior has been noticed [106] and excessive sarcasm and rudeness [107], [108] to which he readily admits [109], [110] He admits to rude behavior [111]. He uses WP:BULLY. I admit to not being the most knowledgeable wikipedian, [112] but I do want to make it better! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry CrazyAces, but you're wasting your time. I've been involved with the Martial Arts project for a long time. I was less active for a while, but when I returned, I became involved again. When I noticed your persistent pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating articles with no intention to make them meet the standards, I looked at other ones. Have I been sarcastic? Yes. (and that's without the alleged "admission" that wasn't) It's hard to not be when you falsely accuse people of racism. It's harder when editors attempt to help you produce better products, use reliable sources and actually improve and your response is "I create so others can work." [113]. Fact is, I haven't nominated a single one of your article for deletion. I did try to help you in the beginning and you displayed a flippant "who cares" attitude. I've voted in other AfD's that you aren't related to in the same time period and edited many other articles you aren't involved with. This is a giant waste of my time. I'll respond to legit responses from other editors, but I'm not going to do a back and forth with you here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum: The title "noticed by others" is improper. Second, let's look at some of that "stalking":

1. Ron Hubbard: Nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
2. Greg Baines: Nom by another. No consensus.
3. Joe Marciano: nom by another. CA was the only keep vote. Article deleted.
4. Robey Reed: nom by another. CA and an IP voted keep. Article deleted.
5. Natalia Baron: nom by another. CA came to the discussion after me and also voted to delete.
6. Tyson Jennette: Nom by another. AfD in progress.
7. Shotokan Karate Union: Nom by another. CA and a new SPA voting to keep. In progress.

Again, none of those were nominated by me. One article was a no consensus. The others are in progress or deleted, consistent with my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even here he just referred to me as CrazyAces . He states that I said people were racist and that was blatantly false. [114] Even admins stated that it wasn't the case. [115] . I pointed a statistic that has been called WP:WORLDVIEW. He admits to his rude behavior. I don't own articles, so if people want to change it. I rarely make a big deal about it. Some people work on DRV, some on AFC, some on AFD's, etc. I like creating articles. His numerous blocks for the same behavior displays a pattern of behavior. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazyAces, in your SPI attempt[116], you made an issue about "MDTEMP listed 7 highly referenced articles, 6 of which are of African American Athletes all at once" and that the one "who happens to be white" was the one that survived AfD. I see you intimating a racial motive there. I wasn't the only one. Mdtemp read it that was, as did the uninvolved Invector [117]. The fact that no admins got involved in the ANI thread about that very issue [118] is luck on your part. As for my block record, yeah, there were some early on and a couple a year ago. A single one of those had to do with civility. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CrazyAces489. Userpages contain a "Contributions" link for a reason: people are supposed to be able follow the contributions of other users. That's not a crime. On the contrary, to check up on the editing of a problematic user is a good deed, and helps the encyclopedia; admins do it all the time. Keeping an eye on a user with a pattern of using non-reliable sources and creating non-viable articles, as Niteshift has been doing with your contributions, is a good thing. It's just rude to accuse people of "stalking" for doing that. Unfounded accusations of bullying are even ruder.

You say the new articles you have created that have been nominated for deletion "are not the issue". Yes, I'm afraid they are, because when you take somebody to ANI, your own behavior and competence will come under scrutiny as well. Since early February, you have created 7 biographical articles that have been deleted because they were non-notable and unsourced, and I don't know how many more that are currently up for deletion and mainly trending towards delete. (Perhaps User:Niteshift36 can help us with a ballpark figure.) You also have created a frivolous SPI in an obvious attempt at retaliation against several users who have been reasonably nominating your articles for deletion.

All this has created a lot of work for other users, and your carefree attitude about that ("I create so others can work") suggests you're not prepared to learn nor slow down. I think you're here to help the encyclopedia, but your attitude is actually unhelpful. Please do your article creation through Articles for creation from now on. It exists to help people with just the kinds of problems your creations have. You say above that you're not the most knowledgeable wikipedian but you do want to make it better. Please show it by doing as I suggest here. If you continue to create non-viable articles directly in mainspace, I'm afraid I'll have to consider blocking you for disruptive editing and willful timewasting. To make sure you see this warning, I'll put a few words about it on your page as well. Bishonen talk 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonentalk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• You're right, it wasn't appropriate. I've removed it while mulling the irony of CA repeating it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating harmful comments can sometimes be a bad idea. Other times though, it's the easiest way to explain what the problem is. This case seems to fall much more in to the later example. Whatever else CrazyAces may or may or not have done, you really shouldn't be mulling of the irony of CA being forced to repeat offensive and inappropriate comments on your part to point out that you did so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it was removed a while ago, before your comments, it's sort of pointless to try to tell me what I should or shouldn't think. "mulling it over" is thinking. Surely nobody here is supporting thought control, are they? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not surprising that other editors are getting frustrated with CA. His strategy has become to attack all editors that disagree with him. He accused a number of editors of racism and filed SPI allegations against them with no supporting evidence. More than once he has stated at discussions that it's not up to him to supply sources on the articles he creates because that's everyone else's job. He seems quite proud of the fact that he's creating lots of articles and doesn't care if they don't have supporting sources. He repeatedly posts the same sources and arguments at AFD discussions and tells everyone else their views are just opinions and don't really matter--even when supported by policy. It's probably time for WP:BOOMERANG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling and edit-warring IP

86.24.128.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), probably a logged out editor, has been trolling the ref-deks over te past week, and is curently engaged in edit-warring. Sample diffs: [119], [120]. Can some admin apply the needed block ? Abecedare (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a case of long-term abuse. He's been at it for months, and he hops IPs. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 31 hours for the 3RR violation. If another admin concludes a longer block is necessary based on the long-term abuse, I have no objection to it being increased. Monty₈₄₅ 22:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Parallel discussion at AN3. Am fine with either thread being attended to. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: The user has been blocked for 31h in response to the AN3 thread. Pinging @Ian.thomson and Jayron32: in case they want to suggest any further action to resolve the longer-term issue. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Found the previous threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive870#Mandruss (a boomerang block when he tried to report Mandruss for reverting his stupidity) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#Refdesk_troll_resuming_activity_after_returning_from_block. There were other IPs after that.

The IP usually registers to the UK, but they seem to use proxies or spoofing as well (quack). They usually ask some lurid or fecal question that they clearly did not bother checking our articles on, or even think about. When reverting other editors, they put their response in the piped link for the reverting editor's talk page (like here or here), and regularly bring up "AGF" despite their obvious trolling.

The only way we're going to deal with this is if admins are given carte blanche to block and page protect any time that IP becomes active. Don't even wait for him to edit war, just revert, revdel, and block for a long time. If he hops, page protection. Everything short of that has regularly and completely failed, and he clearly gets off from it all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the troll used the account User:Csssats, can we just treat any and all activity by the user as block evasion? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by User:Panewithholder?

AIV backlog

Incivility by Prashant and suspected sock

I recently opened a sockpuppet investigation on Prashant! and Daan0001. Soon after opening it, Prashant! went into a barrage of personal attacks directed towards me on my talk page, on the investigation page, and on his own talk page by misusing the "help me" template. A sample statement would be: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are..". Soon after, the suspected sock Daan0001 vandalised my user page by posting this threat: "Told you to keep away from me ! I won't repeat lol". Prashant and Daan also had this gem of a conversation on the latter's talk page. Even if the two accounts aren't related, which we'll only know when the investigation reports comes, both these users need a lesson or two in civility. --Krimuk 90 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is after me since day one and first prove that Dan is my sock and then say this. You have dragged me in this situation without any fault. That's why I busted on you as you didn't even replied my message on your talk page. I just want to say that you manipulate things very much. Who knows Dan might be your sock.—Prashant 03:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this exchange, I'd endorse the SPI investigation. There's something odd going on here. Nakon 03:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was saying. Plus, Krimuk90 and I does not get along, so obviously he would try every trick to avenge me. He is very frustrated person. When I posted a message on his talk page he didnt replied and reverted with no reply. But, he is good at manipulating things. So, I guess his story is quite interesting. But, is abolutely fiction.—Prashant 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, please we know we are totally different people. Please let the admin do their work. We don't need to communicate or interact with haters. This sock thing between you and me really cracked me up last night ! I'm still laughing for this fact. Lol Daan0001 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were so nonchalant about it, you wouldn't have vandalised my user page. --Krimuk 90 (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have my viva exams today and I'm here to prove something that is as claer as water. So, who won't be unhappy about this. Tell me?—Prashant 06:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, please concentrate on your exams as it's much important like I was last months. As it's priority. We don't need to prove anything or make any statements or waste our time on this silly accusation. ( This really crack me up though how people hate others lol ) For a moment I thought it was April 1st haha. Take it easy and let ADMIN sort this. Daan0001 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:KWW abusing revision deletion

Issue with Kelami

Anglicanus - constant hounding

User:TYTA Mahesh

Advocate

User:Takkla telling other users that they are blocked

Protection expired vandalism continues

RFPP Backlog

Kristina451 edit war

Sorry my English is not very good.

This person is keep undoing my edits.

First I make good edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:120.137.174.133&diff=prev&oldid=655757780) but she don't like the edit so she delete.

Every edit I make she follow me and undo my edit!

I try ask her nicely why (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=655756643) on her talk page but she threaten me about some lawsuit.

Then I make edit to other article that have 2 good refs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_running&diff=prev&oldid=655823479) but she still delete and ask me to use talk page because she don't like me.

So I did use the article talk page ! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Front_running)

Now why she still make up this story and report me? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=655856044) She never even look at the evidence I give on the article talk page !!

I see other admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) already tell her on her talk page not to edit war and insist undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.137.174.133 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

by the way she say I use IP??? this is static ip register to my company, I just forget to log on, this is my account. crazy!! Mkb764920 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you forgot to log in, you ipso facto an IP-editor. No shame in that, BTW, many IP-editors make useful contributions. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you!! Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, do you have any connection to User:David Adam Kess or his Japanese account? Because your use of English is quite similar as is your interest in Dark liquidity and Front running and both of you accused Kristina451 of stalking. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is impersonation by the same person with a history of socking and proxy abuse. The blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk·contribs) previously tried to implicate David Adam Kess when he almost certainly was not involved. "David, Melissa and I agreed to stop WP:MEAT." [130]Kristina451 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She accuse me of everything now, no fact just pick fight. (;´д｀) ...like her edits. Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that person look like what we call a gaijin. （＾-＾） I never even accuse her, she report me on admin noticeboard first when I ask her nicely on article talk page and user talk page . did she edit war with mr gaijin before? i can expect because her user page got a lot of warning. [131] Mkb764920 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remenu and Aromanian articles

Disruptive editor refusing to allow consensus, violations of WP:CIVIL

Hello, I need some help with an editor, Cebr1979. They have insisted on adding dates to recurring cast members of the List of Days of our Lives cast members page. Originally, when the page was created, the dates were added. They were removed in 2007 because they can't be verified. Recently, Cebr1979 has decided to add them back, despite the fact that they do not pass WP:V. He/she says that WP:SOAPS allows the show itself to be used as a source, even though the recurring cast members are not listed there every day. My first issue with this editor is the violation of WP:V, and their insistence that "there doesn't need to be a consensus", his/her unwillingness to wait and see what other editors have to say. My second issue with this editor, is his/her blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. There are several instances on my talk page User:rm994, where he/she has calle d me names like "roadblock" and "bully". I also believe we are seeing an issue with WP:OWN. I tried to offer this up for consensus, and he/she did not respond or wait. I need some help to resolve this. Otherwise, it's just going to turn into an edit war, as you can see by his/her contributions, they are determined to make the page how they want it, despite what anyone else may think. Rm994 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rm994, there is a big, orange notice that asks you to notify all involved parties that you have posted this report. I've alerted Cebr1979 on their talk page. It's an important step so that they can respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Was doing that right when you did it for me. Thank you for doing it :) Rm994 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Unfortunately, it's a step that is often overlooked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"despite what anyone else may think" is wrong. Rm994 is the only one that doesn't want them there and he's been preventing it for years. This has already been discussed three times here on wikipedia, I'm not doing it a 4th. Thank you for notifying me, Liz, but I won't be returning to this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, here are the other three conversations: 1, 2, 3. Cheers.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has been preventing it for years? How can one editor override a consensus? Maybe because there isn't one, and when I tried to make one again, you won't even bother, and just assert that you're right and nothing needs to be discussed further? And no, I am NOT the only one who thinks these are unverifiable. No mention of the name calling I see. Please admins, we need your help on this one. Rm994 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) "How can one editor override a consensus?" Um...it appears that that's Cebr1979's whole point. Anyway, I read the other three discussions and, well, it looks likes you'd better watch out for the boomerang, Rm994. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Have I resorted to name calling or edit warring? I don't think so. And since when it is a crime to want something to be verifiable? Isn't that what the point of WP is? And if there was such a consensus, why weren't the dates added then? My only point is that a consensus should be reached before controversial material is added, and as of now, no such consensus exists. Rm994 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by CrazyAces489

CrazyAces489 accused a number of editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PRehse of being racist saying they were biased against African American athletes. Besides the original comment, he made additional ones that were removed by Vanjagenije [132]. The SPI accusations are bad enough, but accusing a bunch of editors of being racists is a total violation of WP:NPA. Mdtemp (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a WP:AGF Issue. Did they redact their allegations? Weegeerunner (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He could have made his SPI complaint without the nasty stench of a racism allegation. It was unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weegeerunner, you'll notice he not only hasn't retracted his allegations, he keeps spreading them (see below).Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply make a larger number of articles that consist of individuals who are African American. [133]. I pointed out the statistic that 6 of 7 articles nominated for deletion all at once were African American. Every article was deleted except for James Thompson (a black national champion in Judo) and Karl Geis (who happens to be white). [134].

Racism did exist in the martial arts especially in the 1960's and individuals formed federations to combat it such as Steve Sanders (karate). In AFD,I stated that racism existed in Judo [135]. To which I received a reply of "it didn't seem to stop other African Americans from reaching the Olympics. [136]. I stated that only 1 black person reached the Olympics during that period of the 1960's. [137] . Racial discrimination existed in the United States as we can see via programs like Affirmative action in the United States, John Carlos was kicked out of the Olympics in 1968 for protests against racism, the US Government was actively working against civil rights groups via COINTELPRO, even Olympic Gold Medalists suffered huge discrimination for being black and engaging in interracial relationships Milt Campbell. My point being that ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that many of the individuals werent given a lot of media attention to which can plausibly be attributed to discrimination. Fact remains that Racial inequality in the United States still exists. Now I am deemed a racist because I pointed out a statistic? Should I ignore that statistic?

I believe this is retaliation for putting up a Sockpuppet Investigation on the individuals (which wasn't the first sockpuppet investigation into the trio). They have accused me of being barely literate. [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]. Have told me to "stick my head in the sand" [143] They claimed there was no indication of race in my articles [144] I stated the articles of individuals who are black are tagged with African American Portal. [145] CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to get into the racism part of this except to say that CA489 has highlighted some... interesting... statistics and anomalies and from the outside, his interpretation those statistics doesn't seem way off-base. That doesn't mean those interpretations are correct but I don't think he's wrong to suggest it should be investigated. That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. The suggestion that editors have worked together to secure particular AFD results in this area is not new. In fact, it was the basis of the last sock-puppetry investigation which (while not drawing specific conclusions) did point out that there was a high degree of correlation between specific accounts in AFDs in this topic area, and we're talking now about some of the same accounts. This was admin Dennis Brown's closing statement there. Rather than do their damnedest to get some separation between the accounts and broaden their horizons to ensure that the same accusations couldn't be made again, it seems little has changed from the situation that concerned Dennis 3 years ago. Even in defending himself, one editor confirmed that, "yes when someone like [...] puts an article up for AfD (most often for good reason) I will often check if there are others (he does it in spurts) and edit both the AfD and the article...". At a minimum, this is a form of WP:TAGTEAM which, while not sock-puppetry, is concerning. I don't think anyone's hands are clean here. Strongly suggest CrazyAces489 leaves the SPI to do its work - there's a fine line between raising legitimate concerns in an SPI and making accusations you simply don't have evidence for. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, are you saying the victims are too blame? That it's OK to call editors racist and bigoted if they vote to delete poorly written articles on non-notable African American martial artists? This isn't about sockpuppets, it's about CrazyAces 489 calling a group of editors racist simply because they voted to delete some of his articles.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That also doesn't mean he can simply draw his own conclusions and make personal attacks. - I think I made myself pretty clear on that point. You need to perhaps have a look at this from the perspective of an outsider - a group of editors who have been accused of meat-puppetry in the past (with well-respected admins drawing the conclusion that there was at least some collusion) collaborate to delete a series of articles. Upon being called out for the "collaboration" part (and before any accusations of racism) one of the editors confirms he does indeed track and tag-team on some articles. So an admittedly collaborative effort deletes a series of articles - what do those articles have in common to warrant that effort? The particular personal attacks used in retaliation certainly don't help. Whether you meant to or not, the result remains the same. CrazyAces489's comments were not appropriate, but you guys aren't helping yourselves either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to just leave this alone but a couple points need to be made. First of all it is my name on the SPI title and I have never previously been part of any investigation - this constant referral to the previously investigated trio is nonsense. Secondly in an attempt to answer the allegation I described how some of the overlap could occur. I actively search out and comment on newly created martial arts articles and those put of for deletion and make sure they are visible via categories, project tags, deletion sorting. This is not tag teaming by any stretch but knowing the behavior of other long term AfD contributers making the search more efficient (if this is so wrong wikipedia should remove the user contribution tag). I certainly disagree with the one example I gave enough to make that pretty clear. Now to the allegations of racial bias - I challenge anyone to find any sort of bias of any of the people listed in that SPI investigation. They/I are long term editors with a very long history in martial arts AfDs. The person making the allegation chooses to write articles about African-American athletes (no issue there) that have questionable notability (where the issue arises) - and that and only that is the overlap. I am at a loss what the false accusations of Sockpuppetry and suggestion of racism are meant to accomplish - both are certainly upsetting.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CrazyAces489 has again missed the point. The discussion isn't about racism, it's about him calling a set of editors bigoted and racist without real proof.Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused why we're allowing this to get so far off points. Hundreds of words about racism and the martial arts.....but nothing even sounding like Crazy retracting his allegations of racism. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• He lumped many editors together in his claim of racism--a number of whom didn't even vote at those AfD discussions.Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked CrazyAces489 indefinitely for all this. Indefinitely because this was such an egregious violation of the WP:WIAPA standards, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." I'm open to an unblock if he's ready to repent or otherwise behave more properly. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Isn't this too harsh? CrazyAces489 has never actually called anyone a racist. He just pointed out that some articles were nominated for deletion by a group of users, and that those articles were about black people. I agree that this is a kind of bad faith accusation, but it's not really the kind that deserves indefinite block. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You got indefinitely blocked in this incident, and he's done worse than you: why does he deserve a lesser sanction? I don't follow your reasoning :-) Speaking seriously, while the charge of racism is a problem, the big problem is the extensive accusations of WP:SOCK violations without any evidence whatsoever. We routinely block people for making a pile of "ordinary" personal attacks, and per WP:WIAPA, this kind of accusation is as bad, or worse, if made without evidence. Do you think I ought to unblock him completely, or reduce the unblock? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed momentarily, and I'll be offline most of tomorrow; any admin who believes it appropriate should feel free to remove or reduce the block without further discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a difficult case. I do believe the guy is here to try and improve things and there are article he's created which are going to be useful additions (though arguably the work required to bring those up to scratch offset the values somewhat). And I do believe there are elements of systematic bias which end up causing some of the articles to be deleted (That bias will be related to our policies and outside world factors), though much of it is that the subjects are at best borderline.

The racism thing to my mind (and I was one of the editors listed at the SPI) was undoubtedly an attempt to smear those being listed, as is the repeated referral to previous accusations against individual which led no where (the SPI, he's done the same to me in other contexts) (He also created and article on the racism topic synthesizing the same accusation of such racism on wikipedia)

But the real problem is the amount of time and effort to get him to see where the problem lies and adapt his ways.

• The unblock request for this he still doesn't seem to understand that casually mentioning statistics on race in an SPI case for that context is going to be taken as implying something, and could be deeply offensive.
• The Ron Duncan article, where a DRV last year had several editors point of the poor references, the same got pointed out again by at least one new editor in the more recent DRV. Yet when it came to another editor doing the heavy lifting to sort it out, he complained essentially it was all an attempt to gut the article to have it deleted, he readded the references which were removed to the talk page as "needed for later", it took a fair bit of effort to move him to the idea that the references were simply no good. And even in the last 24 hours he seems to still not really get it [146] again thinking others sorting out the articles were the problem.
• A few of his articles have gone the one event way, so we end up with him listing articles for deletion on that basis Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crispus_Attucks

I'm sure I can dig out much more, but all this is offseting the positive work he puts in. Really I don't think indefinite block is right at this stage, but he really really does need a mentor and some restrictions around certain actions without using that mentor. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the comments by Bishonen in the ANI (Questionable behavior by Niteshift36) got it right and I certainly did not expect an indefinite block. There is a cycle of victimhood that has developed (clear when one reads the request for block review) and now that the block has been imposed a cool down period makes sense. If it is lifted clear restrictions on article creation (must go through AfC) and zero tolerance for the type of accusations he has engaged in would be a good idea.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock on hold. Not having noticed the comment by Nyttend about being offline today etc (I only read the other ANI thread above), I put the unblock on hold and asked Nyttend about it on his page. Now that I've been advised of Nyttend's note about it in this thread, I'm planning to unblock without waiting for him, provided CrazyAces responds constructively to the note I've just put on his page. You make a very good point about the "cycle of victimhood", Peter Rehse; I hope CrazyAces will be able to break out of it. Compare also my earlier comments on my own page. Bishonen talk 13:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• I agree that an indefinite block was too harsh, but a shorter one might provide an appropriate cooling off period. CrazyAces489's argument that he never called anyone racist is, at best, disingenuous when he repeatedly (in at least 3 separate discussions) claimed the only reasons articles were deleted was because they were about African Americans. Even several independent editors said he was calling people biased. It's even more egregious because a number of people he included didn't even vote at those discussions. Clearly he needs to learn appropriate WP behavior. I've fixed several of his articles (one of which didn't contain a single complete sentence) by rewriting, correcting facts, and adding sources and his response was to accuse me of hounding him. I like Bishonen's idea of not allowing him to post any articles directly to mainspace--that seems like it would alleviate much of the problem. Given his combativeness and poor track record at AfD discussions, it might be best if he avoided them (either by mandate or voluntarily) until he has demonstrated a much better understanding of WP policies. Papaursa (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I was a bit surprised about the indef (though in fairness, indef means no set length. It can be a day or forever). Papaursa's comments are pretty accurate. When we tried to talk to CA about his constant use of sources that weren't RS's, and adding trivial lines just to stuff more sources in, his response was to tell us that "I create so others can work". When we tried to discuss that with him, his focus was solely on the number of articles he has created and refused to see that Wikipedia is improved more by some quality articles than by 3 times as many crap ones. I did make a suggestion to him on Bishoenen's page that I thought would really help him grow into a productive editor (to go through the process of trying to bring one article to GA status), but the response to it was mostly reasons why he didn't want to. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted, I was open to an unblock; I just wanted to ensure that an unblock was consequent on his agreeing to behave properly (or someone deciding that the block was improper), rather than him simply waiting out a definite-time block and coming back without understanding anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Niteshift, Papursa, 86, Mdtemp, Prherese, .... I am finishing up some articles and you won't have to bother with me. It is obvious that in my attempts to make wiki a friendlier places for some martial artists and minorities in general by creating articles that might interest them - I have rubbed most of you the wrong way. Even after my unblock (which no lesson was learned but my own opinion solidified), I took the time to read Gender bias on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Systemic bias and many similar articles [147] via RS. People going after people who are nice to me [148] . Fighting on wikipedia isn't a new thing. [149]. Fighting on WP isn't my thing. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I was stunned to see someone give you a civility barnstar immediately after you were blocked for personal attacks (the very opposite of being civil). However, you seem not to have noticed that most of those editors that you attacked came to your defense here to oppose your indefinite block. In thanks, and avoidance of facts, you continue your rants. They may be nice, but I won't miss your accusations and ignoring policies. I think you could have been a plus for WP, but you chose a different path.Mdtemp (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Silverstein page antisemetism

RFC: comments by Ymblanter

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis

Manipulated and mystified sources

User:Montanabw

Attempted outing and harassment

78.167.175.123

Bad article restore

someone or group trying to sabotage computers using wikipedia

Come to think of it, this could be a good way to obviate all those annoying Wikipedia contribution appeals. EEng (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of talk page while blocked

User:JacktheHarry

Jack has been adding CSD templates to user pages, some of them have not even been updated for a few years, for what he perceives to be "rubbish" without really explaining why. He also appears to have a history of uncivil behavior, such as outright accusing some people of trolling. - Amaury (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JacktheHarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In addition, is repeatedly adding poorly sourced content to BLP Cory Williams (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) after being informed that the sources are inadequate (blogs and chat rooms) to support the claims. Discussion re. RS: Talk:Cory Williams#View count inflation Reverts: 1 2 3 4 The cite supplied: gigam.com Popular YouTuber Cory “Mr. Safety” Williams has admitted to doing this (artificially inflating youtube views) as late as April. Those who game YouTube or make naked appeals for popularity are known in the community as ‘cheaters’ or ‘chuds.’ The first link is youtube, the second is 404. Jim1138 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleting other's talk: [150]Jim1138 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I reinstated the talk page info that he deleted, but judging by his recent contribution history (not to mention all the warnings on his talk page), I would support some kind of block. Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't just jump straight into a block, maybe put him on notice or something that doing this behavior would cause a block in the future as it's disruptive, unnecessary, and against policy. However if he does it again, I would support some sort of block (short--24 hours) to rectify the situation. Tutelary (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JacktheHarry has reverted three editors on Cory Williams (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) Discussion seems WP:DONTGETIT More dontgetit: User talk:AbigailAbernathy#Sources Is arguing Argumentum ad populum. Jim1138 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanus - constant hounding

Chrisdecorte

Since his arrival here in 2013, Chrisdecorte (talk · contribs) has been using Wikipedia almost exclusively to promote his own self-published work in mathematics. (Some of many examples: [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159], plus dozens of edits in his own userspace.) Today he's using Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge to solicit money for his mathematical hobby [160].

Since 2013, three different users (including myself) have explained to him four times that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for publishing or discussing original research, and we have asked him to stop his self-promotion ([161] [162] [163] [164]). He has never responded.

Chris is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I suggest his editing privileges be removed until he agrees to stop promoting himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) To date, this user has made three (3) contributions in article main-space, two of which promote his own work and the other is trivial. I tend to agree with the nominator. WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging David Eppstein who's probably in a good position to keep an eye out should this person reemerge in some other guise. EEng (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I agree, NOTHERE, should be blocked. But at least he's mostly keeping his original research out of article space, I guess? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Invited by Psychonaut) I haven't researched his edits since I interacted with him (whenever that was), but I still don't see any which are not promoting use of his own unpublished research. At least he's staying out of article-space, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread got archived despite unanimous agreement that this user is being disruptive, and no opposition to three users' agreement that he be blocked. Could an admin please take action? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The latest at User talk:Chrisdecorte#Sorry suggests he's done, so I see no need for a block unless he starts again. Perhaps just a reminder of WP:OR and a warning to stop trying to promote his own work? Squinge (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a friendly explanation. Squinge (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I see people have approached him on his Talk page before without success, but this time he did actually respond to the ANI notification. Squinge (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor requesting undeletion of student sandbox

Long term vandalism of Utica, New York and related articles

User:Haji Sultan Rahi - Possible WP:CIR issue

User :Klõps

he keep edit warring over the articles of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and Template:Republics of the Soviet Union he keeps removing Preceded and Succeeded in the infobox but all other soviet republics use that, he keeps classifing equal republics in the soviet republics template by the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s when another user already warned it by him!, yes i reverted many times but so has he but the diffrence is that hes reverts are unconstrutive 81.235.159.105 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I notified the IP that They should discus their ideas on talk page before.
• IP copied all the warnings I left on Their talk page to my talkpage
• The IP is arguing is that there should be predecessor and successor flags on these three pages. This in fact is overly complicated. Lithuania is both predecessor and successor and Reichskommissariat Ostland also goes both directions. Template:Infobox former country states that If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. Instead, make it clear what this state was somewhere in the events section (if necessary). --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I sympathize with the IPs frustrations, this isn't the way to settle a content dispute. It's best to get a consensus at the article-in-question, for any changes. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) WP:EWN might be the place for this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:DRN if the underlying content dispute still can't be solved. Blackmane (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCreaterFighter and plagiarism, again

Mahendra Niraula - competence is required

Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88

78.162.160.4, etc

This article is randomly vandalised without discussing changes inside the talk page by unsigned IP's all the time. I suspect this is the same person editing from different IP's. [172] [173] [174] [175] --92slim (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Sounds like WP:RPP is the place for this request. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

What alerted the IP to this situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarioMarco2009

MarioMarco2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive WP:SPA. A review of contributions shows nothing other than promoting homeopathy at the article's Talk page, where the usual WP:IDHT is in evidence. I think a topic ban is warranted, or possibly simply show him the door. The frustration engendered among good faith contributors by his obduracy is not pretty to watch. A vote of thanks on his talk page from Dana "Mr Uncredible" Ullman is probably all you need to know about this editor. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a topic ban will be effective in this case. EEng (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting is that this topic area has a history of contention and disruptive conduct, and is subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved admin is free to impose a topic ban on MarioMarco2009 (MM2009), as he was notified regarding discretionary sanctions in January. (Shortly after which he went on a six-week break, before resuming his disruptive editing at Talk:Homeopathy.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point well made. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Zukas and rail transport articles

Alexbrn and Jtydog inserting OR material despite being warned

Personal attack (once again)

Pushing to include unreliable sources still going on

Possible legal threat

IP editor writes about gaming the system in Bengali

This IP editor has written here in Bengali that "Do you want to know why the checkuser failed to punish me. I login from cyber cafe first and then login using laptop." This is a confession that he is trying to WP:GAME and confuse us. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they do that. Catch the SockMaster LoverBoyInGarden and CosmicEmperor ,lol. Both of them are one and they will create socks after socks. ZORDANLIGHTER is innocent.He was always innocent.--ਬਬਿਤਾ ਅਰੋਰਾ (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat?

Midnight Rider(film) and Randall Miller Large Scale deletions

User:NorthBySouthBaranof has deleted massive sourced sections of both Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller that relate to the felony criminal conviction of Randall Miller. User sighted incorrectly WP:SUMMARY which would not apply to simply deleting material. Seems like a clear effort to remove only information related to crimes that are highly notable and sourced. Concensus on talk page is that there should be a spinoff from film page to one focused on tragedy and crimminal convictions. As this is a substantial effort the active editors familiar with complicated issues surrounding page had agreed on talk page to wait until completion of criminal trial, OSHA hearing and report by the FRA which could result in federal criminal issues. These edits have been done such that edit conflicts do not allow for a revert.DFinmitre (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do anything. This is a garden variety dispute, and there has not been enough time given to normal dispute resolution processes. No one (has yet) done anything inappropriate, except maybe the OP, who ran here seeking some sanction against someone merely on account of a single disagreement. Make your case on article talk pages, listen to the statements others make, and allow the consensus building process to work. Otherwise, I can't see there is any reason to do anything right now. It is really bad form to run to get someone sanctioned as soon as a disagreement begins. --Jayron32 21:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you bring an issue to ANI, you are required to notify the other editor, which you did not. I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof for you. However, as Jayron32 notes, there is nothing material to discuss here. This is a content dispute. Discussion on the article talk pages is still underway. You have provided no indication of conduct issues by the other editor. Read the dispute resolution policy. If talk page discussion is not successful, follow one of the various content dispute resolution procedures described in that policy rather than coming here about a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies for not notifying editor, thank you for doing that. Thank you to the admin that resolved this. The clear issue, and why I brought it here was that due to the inability to revert due to edit conflicts, there was no way for regular users to fix this without the assistance of an admin.

This can now be closed as resolved. Thank you. 76.97.45.210 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "vandalism" involved here. The article in question was far too long, far too detailed and violated NPOV in several areas. The reporting user is effectively a single-purpose account with an axe to grind and a clear advocacy interest in this issue. For example, they have repeatedly made unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about people related to this event, have called such people "cold-blooded murderers", "sick sick people", etc. This is not the behavior one expects of a neutral Wikipedia editor interested in creating articles which accurately and dispassionately describe events. It is clear that they have some sort of vested interest or deep-rooted personal feelings about the issue. While those may be understandable in the wake of a tragic workplace accident that could and should have been avoided, Wikipedia is not the place to further such a campaign, nor is it a place to express displeasure or hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed the issue at Midnight Rider (film) and Randall Miller from a report at WP:BLPN. As NorthBySouthBaranof has hinted, there are SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to punish a living person (albeit, one imprisoned for involuntary manslaughter) and further eyes on the articles would be useful. The issue is that a person working on a film was killed and the director has been held responsible. The SPAs want to trumpet the details of the director's problems, when the correct approach is to write an article on the incident, if WP:N is satisfied. If a separate article on the incident is not warranted, the articles on the film and the directory should not be turned into fake articles on the incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DFinmitre is now accusing good-faith editors of vandalism and requesting that others not edit the article without his permission. I think someone might have to explain WP:OWN and WP:NOTVAND to him. I doubt he's going to listen to me or NorthBySouthBaranof, as he considers us vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin, but I just left DFinmitre a personally written message on their Talk page about that Talk:Midnight Rider (film) message. So consider the editor warned. Hopefully, this will cause some reflection on DFinmitre's part. --IJBall (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just summarize the accident and the manslaughter conviction. Let's compromise where the page isn't so long with so much uneeded info but doesn't just ignore the notable fact. Popish Plot (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if it may fall under this but some editors regularly break WP:CIVIL

Due to the nature of their edits and their position I wonder if I'm allowed to ask for them to be more civil, but a recent dispute caused an editor to warn me over edits and called me profanity while doing so on Template:Microsoft Windows family, in fact these are 2 editors with a history of such behaviour and I wonder if due to their position in the project they are exempt of WP:CIVIL or if their behaviour is acceptable (this isn't a report, but a question on whether one would be useful or not), my edits were based on WP:BOLD as happened recently in the MSN article and since general consensus was reached upon whether or not the operating system was a part of Windows Phone or Windows 10 in Talk:Windows 10 (mobile) I was merely doing the edits that were agreed upon, but was then directed to another talk page where previously an editor's arguments were fallen on deaf ears by the same editors, I'm also not claiming that they practise WP:OWN though it comes close, but the language they use against editors such as called me "damned". --Lumia930uploader (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: WP:BOOMERANG!

Long answer:

• You started this ANI discussion against me without calling me first! This isn't the first time: In response to the dispute in Template:Microsoft Windows family, you have started a discussion in an out of the way place, in Talk:Windows Phone version history. Of course, that time you pinged me by mistake and I came; this time, you made sure not repeat that mistake, so that you can ambush me?
• "my edits were based on WP:BOLD". No, they weren't. The edit-first rule is null an void in the Template namespace, because of its high visibility. You haven't even studied WP:BOLD, have you?
• "general consensus was reached ... in Talk:Windows 10 (mobile)". Let's assume this is not a lie. You didn't mention this point in your revert summaries (another ambush?) and your reverts were not just about that particular point. And all the while, you didn't study the pre-existing consensus in Template talk:Microsoft Windows family. And let's face it: Your edits were initially out of careless and then out of stubbornness.
• "I'm allowed to ask for them to be more civil". You already commanded me [287] and made clear your intention to punish me with a revert. But okay: I am evil. I have made peace with my past. As for the other editor, Codename Lisa, when I filed an WP:ANEW case against you; she said "Not edit warring or 3RR violation"! "Lumia930uploader is evidently attempting to improve based on objections that I register." (Still, admin EdJohnston wasn't that naive.) She let you off the hook and you are so blind with your battlefield mentality that cannot see such ridiculously out of proportion act of kindness, which nobody extended to me during all the years that I was in Wikipedia.

@Codename Lisa: May I suggest you change your username to Codename Very Naive?

Fleet Command (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand: Hi. You should really learn the art of not replying! e.g. A simple ping would have brought me here and probably made me think the same thing that you spelled out loudly. But when you do spell it out — there is an extremely unpleasant metaphor for that, which frankly I've only seen in films. I am going to encode it with ROT13. They call it: Ehoovat vg va fbzrbar'f snpr. And generally, your entire laborious response is unnecessary.

@Lumia930uploader: Before making a monster from someone in your mind, try talking to him. You'll be surprised how rare there be monsters.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Pass Christian, Mississippi

I know this is closed, but an admin should probably take a look at this guy's talk history since his block. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to answer that question for an administrator. But frankly, if you were to actually do what I asked, it should be very clear to you what the problem is. If it isn't, one has to question why you are posting here, especially since my last edit prior to this was to restore over 10,000 characters you deleted from another editor's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC),?[reply]

User:Leonardo Escarosa certainly hasn't taken his block well. Upset that the article he had been messing up was reverted--and his many dubious edits deleted--he wrote here on his talk page (while blocked):

"Page looks like s--t now....good job! I'm out You f---ing retards can have it."

I doubt this user will be any more willing to cooperated with other editors at the end of his block, and frankly, I'd rather not work with this potty-mouth again, as he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help resolving an episodes page that only admins can do

The episode page for the show 'Young and Hungry', has had an investigation of potential copyright issue going on for some time now, and it needs an admin to fix/review the page, and I was wondering if you could please do this. It would be greatly appreciated.

--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desks edit protected

What's up with that? 88.112.50.121 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You might want to ask Jac16888, as s/he is the admin who protected it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szekely Land article issues

The article Szekely Land continues to have issues on the subjects Union of Transylvania with Romania and return of Northern Transylvania to Romania. Referenced contributions were deleted and replaced with personal opinions of Fakirbakir (no references).

Currently on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sz%C3%A9kely_Land#Peace_treaties (and in the deleted contributions) the personal opinions of the Fakirbakir are opposed by references to historical documents and the interpretation of those documents by reputed authors contradicting Fakirbakir.

If nobody wants to revert his changes, please at least mark the page with "article with issues", "disputed neutral POV and accuracy".

Thanks Idsocol (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Is there a reason why you can't add those tags yourself? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I contribute on Szekely Land is deleted without reason. Basically there is a constant abuse of the same guys and nobody takes action against them.

What exactly should an editor do if they are constantly reverted without discussion?

Editor creating useless, redundant stubs

Semi protection done to protect registered editors in content dispute and 3RR violation ignored after semi protection

• Page in dispute: Satyendra Nath Bose (edit talk history links watch logs)

1. 17:49, 12 April 2015‎
2. 18:48, 11 April 2015‎
3. 03:56, 11 April 2015‎
4. 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
5. 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
6. 10:59, 10 April 2015‎

[299]Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose States he is Indian not Bengali
• Replaced Indian with Bengali this is a content dispute not resolved and no use of Talk page 2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution

Satyendra Nath Bose Watch WP:3RR please. Might help if you opened a talk page discussion. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) [300] 3rr violation by user Ctg4Rahat ignored by EdJohnston in 2nd report.182.65.251.17 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is amply justified by the nationalist edit-warring. Take it to the Talk page. Guy(Help!) 07:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)"SEMI PROTECTION DONE TO PROTECT REGISTERED EDITORS IN CONTENT DISPUTE..." Yes, that's exactly why articles get semi-protected. Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a dispute about the physicist Satyendra Nath Bose as to whether he was Indian or Bengali. It is disappointing that neither side seems to feel much of a need to provide evidence for their position. If this continues, we may want to either full protect the article or start blocking anyone who won't follow the usual steps for forming consensus. It is of interest that Britannica describes him as Indian but we don't always follow Britannica. There was a prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 54#2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution but I'm not sure that it reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 may be back

Copying from my talk page:

Banned editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34) returned to targeted articles: Scythian languages, Alans, other articles. [301], [302], [303], [304]. Now edits as both IPv6 and IPv4. What we should do? --Zyma (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he never quit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added PC1 indefinitely to his target articles and semi-protected for a month.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 17:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, WP:NOT3RR applies, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.
— Berean Hunter(talk) 17:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 seems like a fairly clear cut exemption to 3RR. Amortias (T)(C) 17:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith editing and falsehood summary description by 213.164.7.130

• User: 213.164.7.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Synthesizer (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Revision: 655672937 on 12:58, 9 April 2015‎ (UTC)
• Summary of editing: "English, slight clean up"

This IP user continuously pretend to fix the bad English on above article since several months ago, and he always summarize his editing as "English ..." (i.e. "fixed the bad English". see summary fields on his contribution page). However, his above editing is clearly not in the scope of grammatical correction nor rewriting of expression, but in the delusional rewriting without reliable sources. I have already pointed out the issue on his talk page [305]. However, he don't admit his mistake on the summary field, and even not admit the falsehood on his rewriting [306]. As a conclusion, his above editing seems an intentional vandalism. I need a solution to handle his bad faith editing. --Clusternote (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This IP user started the reverting war on above article [307] before reaching a consensus on his talk page, thus I've reverted it as vandalism [308]. --Clusternote (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, reverting that isn't fixing vandalism. At best you can call it disruptive editing, or editing against consensus. And I'm guessing from the mdash in the text you restored that they were undoing your edits? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this is not delusional rewriting but correcting seriously deficient English--is this one of the edits you mean? (It corrects a verb error--I noted a few verb errors in your complaint as well.) This edit is an improvement (it corrects your earlier edit), as is this, and this. I don't think someone needs talk page consensus for grammatical corrections. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your valuable advices before editing the article... I will try to re-examine my editing by following your advices, from now! --Clusternote (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clusternote, you know a lot of useful stuff; this IP editor knows a few different things. It's from the collaboration that we get decent articles that make this encyclopedia so worthwhile. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Sorry for my late response. After then, I tried to examine and response for the points indicated by you. And, I've recognized that at least I should thank to the users who try to fix my bad English, because sometimes I can't enough recognize which point is grammatically incorrect (it is cause of this issue). Thus, I want to reduce the grammatical issue on my posting, and I'll try to improve the cooperative manner. Many thanks. --Clusternote (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the above, I'm not "pretending" to fix bad English, I'm actually doing that. Clusternote is obviously not an English native speaker and has a tendency to write overly verbose sentences that are grammatically incorrect - and are often incomprehensible. There really is no point in having articles on wiki that only one person in the world can understand. I'm not sure what information that is contrary to the sources I'm supposed to have removed. Clusternote, you would be much better served by taking the improvements to your texts in your stride and accepting that English is a challenge for you. You may well have a lot of knowledge to contribute to wikipedia, but providing that information in a form no one else can understand serves no purpose. Wikipedia isn't for just a platform for you, it's a platform for everyone, and they need to be able to get something out of the articles. That starts with the article being comprehensible in the first place. 213.164.7.130 (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be over and done with now, is it safe to say it can be closed? cnbr¹⁵ 20:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered user is canvassing

Check out this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.233.41.152. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) -- Wow. That is pretty impressive. (Just observing.) HullIntegrity^{\ talk /} 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't appear to be working at least some of those canvassed have gone for delete. Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a polite block warning for the user on their talk page. Mike V • Talk 20:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteen minutes after the IPs last edit Vampirelord1985 (talk · contribs) resumed the canvassing. This editor has been blocked so this is a procedural note meant to keep the IPs and names who are pursuing this in one thread. MarnetteD Talk 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allie X/WordSeventeen/WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:LISTEN, WP:HA, WP:HOUND, WP:TWINKLEABUSE

• [309]
• [310]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_X
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CollXtion_I
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catch_(Allie_X_song)

WordSeventeen is continuously misrepresenting guidelines and persists that no primary source of information, even without interpretation, is not acceptable. Does not even bothering to check what he's saying; he keeps calling pages with over a thousand characters "trivial mentions", and will not cede to anyone's argument against that. Keeps calling archive.org radio interview archives and album art archives self-published material or unreliable/unverifiable (as evidenced in some of the brief summaries for reason of editing pages.) He doesn't even bother replying to me now. SanctuaryX (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first of those diffs (it was too treacly for me to want to look at the rest) so this should be taken as a throwaway comment not resulting from a careful examination. It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article. I don't think WordSeventeen's approach as described by SanctuaryX is ideal since I'd say there's a neutrality problem rather than a sourcing problem per se with those edits. The stuff I saw isn't contentious in the BLP sense so I don't think overboard demands for sourcing provenance are called for. The issue is that secondary sources document not only the factuality of the info presented, but also its notability (notability is what makes it encyclopedic instead of WP:IINFO). Under strict interpretation of the WP:RS criteria, primary sources are ok if they fill in details of topics whose notability is confirmed by secondary sources existing about them, that should also be cited. In practice if a primary source has something non-contentious that readers are likely to find relevant, I'm ok with using them without a secondary source in place, as long as the material's presentation in the article is brief and neutral. If that article were written more neutrally I'd say it is ok to use bits of those interviews as long as the info is uncontentious and there's not significant questions about authenticity or relevance. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is I just need to make it a bit less promotional sounding? Does that mean I should undo all the edits he did to remove citations etc and then fix the gushiness? The second diff only highlighted that I an archive.org page (for archiving of cover art) was removed for being "a primary source" (even though it wasn't). So which article did you find to be not brief and neutral? The page for Allie X, CollXtion I, or Catch? Or all of them? And so do I just let the AfD proposal play out? I tried to include as many secondary source information as possible, and I tried to keep the primary source things to straight-forward facts. SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) As mentioned I only looked at the first diff, which is about Allie X. 2) All articles should be written neutrally, which means not promotional at all, not "a bit less promotional". 3) I didn't look at the edit history except for the one diff I mentioned, but the current state of the article is in my opinion bad, full of irrelevant info like what brand of energy drinks the person likes. So yes, I'd say that that should be cleaned up. 4) Looking at the diff about the archive.org cover art, I'd say the main problem is that the archive.org link doesn't actually document the statement that sites it (it doesn't say when or where Allie X began her career). If the cover actually says that (say on the liner notes) and the photo showed it, I'd say it is ok under WP:ABOUTSELF since that particular info is not promotional etc. 4a) As a separate matter, if an album is notable (WP:NMUSIC) then we generally want the cover art to be uploaded to the Wikipedia server rather than linked from an external site. 5) If AfD's are in progress, then they will likely be decided completely on the basis of secondary RS, so the best thing to do is add more of those to the articles. Cleaning up the cruft is a mostly-separate issue but of course that should be done too. I hope this helps. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice 50.0.205.75 that you mention, "It looked in that first diff that the primary source was being used to include semi-promotional somewhat gushy self-description in the article." Another editor User:Miniapolis at the AFD for CollXtion I at [311] stated "Merge to Allie X. EP fails WP:NALBUMS, and there's a lot of source overlap with Allie X and Catch (Allie X song) (both of which are also at AfD). Looks like a publicity blitz to me. Miniapolis 5:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)" and to quote User:Miniapolis again this time at the AFD for Catch (Allie X song) at [312] comments, "Merge to Allie X. Although the song has charted, I don't see it meeting WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NALBUMS) yet. This seems to be a trend with marginally-notable musicians: creating individual articles about them and all their recordings, in the apparent hope that something will survive AfD. I hope it's nipped in the bud. User:Miniapolis". I find it ironic that the OP of this thread first named the thread AllieX but soon changed it to "Allie X/User:WordSeventeen/Possible gaming of the system?" In my view it is the publicity blitzer or blitzers that are attempting to game the system, and get free advertising right during the window when the debut EP is supposed to be released. For some reason the release date keeps getting pushed back. See here: [313]. Perhaps the publicity blitzers are waiting for the AFD's to close and get this messy ANI locked down. Who knows? Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is but that was beyond presumptuous. Stop whatever your lttle vendetta is against me, please. The only reason I changed the name is because I misread what the guide said to name your complaint as. I reviewed to make sure I followed protocol. And for your information the EP is already released. Now stop playing the victim, and start following your own constantly spewed Assume Good Faith.SanctuaryX (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the OP SanctuaryX is in violation of WP:BULLY by the use of hidden text in an unacceptable fashion on the article Allie X. Please see this diff here: [314] OP has left hidden messages within the source code that say in short, DO NOT REMOVE, DO NOT DELETE, and DO NOT DELETE. The full hidden messages can be viewed in the diff here: [315]. The OP has even gone so far as to leave a hidden message that says, VICE Do not remove. Have contacted VICE editor to dissuade erroneous claims of unreliability. --> That is really a little scary. The OP has WP:OWN and WP:BULLY issues with the Allie X article to the point of being disruptive at the Allie X article, as well as its current AFD, and also at the other three articles which are cited at the top of this ani report, and their respective current AFD's. I would ask that the OP user SanctuaryX be blocked to prevent further disruption at the three articles and their respective AFDs. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize WP:BULLY removing them now. I apologize, that was in very poor taste. Though did I really violate it?"If there is any information that is constantly added, removed, or modified in any other way, and there may be a better alternative, hidden text may be used to let others know of that alternative. In this case, it should mention the alternative and point to a discussion, if one exists." I just didn't want you removing it again since it complied with WP:ABOUTSELF, which is something I noted and you failed to mention as well. Anyway, I have nothing further to say to you. I just hope that whatever administrator sees what's really going on here. Though I really do not appreciate you leaving out portions of that quoted text to make yourself look better. And there's nothing scary about me asking the editor of Vice magazine if they fact check, etc. And I have no OWN issues, anyone who looks around a bit will see I have told you many times I claim no owner ship. I poorly chose the word "my" in reference to an article to describe that I had substantially contributed. There was no intent of claiming ownership. I've told you this at least five times now. Please get over it.SanctuaryX (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I have bundled all three AfDs (not to mention !voting "keep"). And although I agree that SanctuaryX didn't use quite the proper method in ensuring that the articles would be retained (and I think they will), you really should let the whole thing go, WordSeventeen. That being said, we should let the AfD run its course; I don't think there's anything else ANI can do about this issue. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert:@WordSeventeen:@Ansh666: I feel as if wordseventeen is in violation of WP:HA and WP:BULLY. He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again. It was VERY blatantly stated that they had been consolidated, and by Erpert, NOT ME. This random person, Ansh666, reinstated the AfD on Catch and CollXtion I for no reason. I have no evidence that Ansh666 is a sockpuppet but that makes me curious. This is getting to be ridiculous and very demeaning. I feel like WordSeventeen needs to be blocked from these articles. He is very clearly singling me out for no good reason. Please, someone who can actually do something, stop this nonsense. I am literally begging. Stop this before it gets any more deranged.SanctuaryX (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even when related AfDs are bundled, you generally aren't supposed to alter the AfD template, SanctuaryX—although I do understand what you were trying to do, and I do also see that it wasn't done maliciously. That being said...WordSeventeen, you really do need to leave him/her alone. (BTW, I doubt Ansh666 is a sock of anyone; s/he was just returning the template to its previous state.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in short form here, diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&diff=655786072&oldid=655700312

Also, please review this statement here at ani from user SanctuaryX:

He has had the audacity to harass me again on my talk page, detailing the consequences that will be brought upon me if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

Yup, " if I ever try and remove the AfD for Catch or CollXion I again."

It is just more disruption caused by user sanctuaryX. I posted a warning about ALTERING a AFD template. Here is the warning on her page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to ALTER Articles for deletion notices, as you did at Catch Allie X (song), you may be blocked from editing. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not alter Articles for deletion notices from articles. as you did with Catch (Allie X song) Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead.

At the Catch (Allie X song) article the user SanctuaryX altered the AFD tag, changing the article name, date, and timestamp.

Later, User Ansh666 edited and adjusted the time stamp and numerical date to the original, and left the edit summary of (replacing tag) See the diff here: [1] WordSeventeen (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) diff [316][reply]

Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert:@WordSeventeen: Ok I'm saying the point is I never DID touch the AfD. It was still there. I did nothing. And if you notice his diff doesntactually link to anything . Look at the diff. This is my last edit compared to Ansh666. The AfD notice is STILL THERE and it is unchanged when compared to the original AfD nomination by WordSeventeen. [[317]] This next edit is WordSeventeens last edit compared to Ansh666's to the page. Notice that its got the same information on the notice as mine. [[318]] And finally notice on this last diff that his first edit to the page, this edit is the one in which he nomjnated it for deletion and it is compared to Ansh666's. The AfD notice was never changed by anyone except Ansh666. [[319]] His behavior is obviously malicious and full of lies, because while he could have made an honest mistake with not including the diff, if he had actually ever LOOKED AT THE DIFFS he wouldve noticed I didnt change ANYTHING on the AfD.He is now trying to extort me by saying I am personally attacking him on this noticeboard. He is again telling me to stop under threat of being blocked from editig on wikipedia. Well guess what? I'm not letting you extort me into letting you get away with your bad behavior. And he keeps cherry picking what I said. Like saying above in his quote that "If I ever try to remove the AfD for Catch or CollXtion I again," as the whole quote, even though immediately after I said that, I refuted that I ever edited it and explicitly stated the only edits ever dome to the AfD were done by Erpert, NOT by me. He is trying to slander me now. and Ansh666 didnt just change things for no reason, he also reopened each individual AfD and made them separate again. Why is no one stopping this? I haven't done anything wrong and everyone is just letting him try and screw me over.SanctuaryX (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I may: SanctuaryX never touched the AfD tags. WordSeventeen put up three different nominations, two of which were closed by Erpert procedurally in order to bundle the AfD. I changed the tag on those two articles such that they pointed not at the individual closed AfDs, but the main one which is still ongoing, per the instructions at WP:BUNDLE. (IMO, the discussions should have stayed unbundled, as songs, albums, and artists have different criteria, but that's besides the point.) Hopefully this clears things up. ansh666 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would a mutual I-ban be out of the question? SanctuaryX (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All three articles have now been speedily kept, and both users have steered clear of each other for the last few days, so this thread can probably be closed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination after consensus, further misconduct

@Erpert:@WordSeventeen:@Esquivalience: He has renominated CollXtion I for deletion with the exact same complaints, even though all of those complaints don't exist anymore as I fixed them during the AfD process. As of now (12 hours after it) he has not added any of the other pages. I am formally requesting an interaction ban or that a community ban be considered. This is ludicrous. I have done nothing to deserve this very obviously malicious behavior. He is in violation of WP:DE, WP:POINT, WP:LISTEN, WP:TWINKLEABUSE (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CollXtion_I_(2nd_nomination)&action=history ), and WP:HA, more specifically, WP:HOUND. And not only is he violating these policies, he isn't following procedure. If he had such a problem with the consensus reached, he should have requested a deletion review. He also did not notify me.SanctuaryX (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt s/he will be community banned for that, but his/her behavior is disruptive, so I warned him/her and listed the AfD (which I !voted "speedy keep" in) at WP:ANRFC. Erpert^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but not the interaction ban, I wouldn't think. SanctuaryX (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purrum

In January 2014 a CCI regarding User:Purrum was started Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum after multiple problems with copying content, brought up at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Copyright violations - User:Purrum.
It appears the cavilier attitude to copyright persists. In December 2014. On the Angus Litherland article Purrum's diff [here] introduces more content. Much of it is copied from the source here. this dif on Billy Hartung (footballer) comes is cobbled together with bits of [320]. April 2015 the start of James Sicily[321] has content copied from here and here. (Noticed this after seeing the overly flowery language used). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Global / Mick Featherstone

Hi, we really need more uninvolved admin eyes on this article. There is apparently a big scandal breaking in Queensland, Australia involving possible police corruption and we have a slew of aggressive and inexperienced editors wanting to load up the article with allegations. Additionally an IP claiming to be the son of one of one of the principals has been editing/blanking etc, I also posted at BLPN but it has been a bit of a ghost town there, and we really need admin attention. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miraclexix and harassment

User Miraclexix made an article. Me, ignorant of the fact that A7 doesn't apply to software. Tagged it for speedy deletion. In his contested deletion, he tried to paint me as a disruptive editor that is only here to destroy the encyclopedia. I gave him a general notice, and he edited my comment. I warned him for it, and he continued doing it. He then wen't to EAR and sent even more put downs my way, and continued to antagonize me. According to him I tried to harass him and blackmail him with warning templates. It's gotten to the point where I feel I should bring this to ANI. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user talk page discussion just reads like an ordinary, if irritating, dispute between editors. But with Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Help with a kind of unproductive capture of my Talk page by editor - claims after claims and blackmail with blocking in own case more than 3RR - got passive .26 bold - but am unsure, he took it up a notch and made things very personal.

Weegeerunner, you do need to leave him a notice informing him of this discussion on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I did leave him a notice, but he deleted it. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That means s/he has read it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, noticed & deleted, I may so if Weegeerunner approves? He should leave my TP alone eventually? -- Kind of an interesting depiction he gives of the case (he started). He made an error and should have said sorry and let things loose and should have went on with constructive work in WP. But, User:Weegeerunner did breach the same WP guidelines on my TP over and over when he felt the urge to revert my TP and deleted comments and the like on his way, he violated the same guidelines of what he accused me of doing in the first place! I let him and did not approached him with his violations directly (did not made a case), because I have other things to do in WP. Until he tried to block me. I felt why can he do this to me over minute stuff on my own TP because of his errors based on his "ignorance", as he admitted. Please look up my TP history log and get the full picture, if - I say it again - if you like to get involved in this petty quarrel. He could not substantiate his point so far and did not show any understanding of the possibility to be wrong from the beginning nor gave a clear pardon for his doing, nor taking full responsibility for his errors & own violations. P.S.: His contributions log may reveal interesting scores and indicating signal/noise ratios, if I am not wrong. Cheers --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After my deletion of the ANI message from Weegeerunner, an IP repubished the ANI message ... why all this?? --Miraclexix (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:Duffbeerforme deleted the anon ANI message from my TP! -- ??? --Miraclexix (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now what? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Third-party intervention isn't needed here as User:Weegeerunner is perfectly capable of handling the situation on his/her own by simply discontinuing his/her interaction with the other user. If it hadn't been for User:Weegeerunner's pointless antagonization of the other user, which I discuss in this comment, the other user wouldn't have gotten as agitated as s/he did. User:Weegeerunner should take a step back and ponder on that for a while. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how using warning templates is "pointless" antagonization but accusations of harassment and blackmailing are not. As we can see in WP:HA#NOT, "one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one." I was not intending to harass or antagonize anyone. WP:AGF is being completely ignored here. While it is true that I could have handled the problem better, to say that the dispute is all my fault and because of my "harassment" is ignoring WP:AGF. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointed emphasis is not helpful, because we had this already discussed many times and you miss the summary-point of Iaritmioawp altogether. --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't miss it. Many times we have talked about this and when I get to the part about WP:AGF, the conversation stops. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have three guesses why! And, inherently WP:AGF is a two way street... Would you contemplate a time off? --Miraclexix (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Laxminarayansah

CIVIL, POV, and EW vios - Hostile IP-hopper based in the Indian state of Kerala

First encountered this editor at Bollywood film article PK (film) where he had a problem with box office values, and kept changing them to fit his POV. My dispute with him centered around one issue: We were both using reliable sources, but the reliable source I was using was more recent. IP editor didn't seem to care, and kept arbitrarily disregarding Reliable Source A if it didn't conform to his perspective. TheRedPenOfDoom stepped in and changed the box values to an approximated range, which seemed like an appropriate compromise, yet the editor returned weeks later to change it back to their POV. (Some discussion details logged: User talk:117.196.167.238 and Talk:PK (film)#POV editing with regard to box office gross)

User basically began his editing with a serious chip on his shoulder. Editor has reappeared again at a number of articles recently, and is doing the same stuff. For some scope, Bollywood film articles suffer a lot of damage from paid editing rings, sock operators, (AniceMathew comes to mind) people who are on missions to elevate Person/Film A while trying to smear Person/Film B, etc.

• 117.196.167.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I believe this was my first encounter with this editor circa March 6, 2015: "who the fucking bastard changes it from 608 to 650 crore?? is this film produced by your father?? bloody assholes...anyone wats to change it again can kiss my ass...middle finger ovation to all.." When asked by another editor for help fleshing out some box office values in another article: "who the fuck are u bastard, i never edited your fucking article"

• 117.196.158.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - March 11, 2015: "what the fuck...bloody bastard, son of a bitch cyphoidbomb, is this movie produced by your father? worthless piece of shit..."

• 117.196.174.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - April 13, 2015: "the same site is backed with authority by International Business Times...if there was that page from ib times, everyone would be happy...so fuck off.." "adding much more reliable source for budget...so dont fucking change it..." "not possible to cite two diff figures in the infobox when the BO section cites only one reliable source, and that is BOX OFFICE INDIA...who the fuck added two sources in infobox and y the fuck no one changed it??" "fixing this fucking page vandalized by bastard AJITH fans..do not change anything from the page w/o more reliable source..all given ref are used in those film's pages also" and here he removes a valid reference with the explanation: "both references conflict..only one is relevant" as if he unilaterally gets to decide what the community considers a reliable source.

• 117.217.237.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - April 14, 2015: "i cleaned up the section...bloody son of a bitch"

Obviously none of this is constructive in a community editing project. IP was warned about WP:CIVIL violations here and continued via another IP. I'm not sure what the most effective approach is. Topic ban? At this point I don't see any value in communicating with this editor since they seem to lack all ability to control their anger. This presents a WP:COMPETENCE problem. It would be easier to simply be able to clear out any changes they make per WP:REVERTBAN. I'm also curious if they can be linked to any known sock operators, since this type of "fury" seems to make more sense coming either from someone with medical issues or from someone with a paid agenda. I'm also reminded of Jackthomas321, another hothead from India who famously launched into a misogynistic tirade against me unaware that I am not a woman. There may not be a connection, but it's worth a look. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first three are in the same range, 117.196.128.0/18, but today he jumped to a different range. There's no guaranteeing he will return to the previous range, so there's no point blocking that range. If you could collect a couple more IPs that start with 117.217., I will look at doing a range block. Let me know on my talk page. If there's a smallish group of favourite articles that are targeted (say 5 or 10 articles), we could consider protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Diannaa, but what consideration should we, the proletariat, pay to this guy who clearly has no regard for basic civility? It seems that at least a symbolic block would allow reverts per either WP:RBI or WP:REVERTBAN. Like, when he springs up again, are we reasonably expected to climb the warning tree with him and deliver the usual toothless chastisements, or can we just ignore the nonsense and revert on the basis that he has no interest in community editing? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point blocking IPs he is no longer using. He won't even notice. He will notice when he gets range-blocked, though -- Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are clear grounds for protecting the article so that only logged-in users can edit. Pax 09:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flickr image usage

Can I use flickr image of an institution on the institution's Wikipedia page if I credit the institution as the copyright holder?61.245.173.248 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) WP:IUI is probably the best place to ask this question. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You may only upload an image from Flickr onto Wikipedia or onto Wikimedia Commons if it is released under one of the THREE licenses that are acceptable on Wikipedia, listed at the bottom here, with the green check-marks: Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. If the license on Flickr is anything but one of those three licenses, it cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd "Secondary Review" comments in a few talk pages

See Talk:Connexon and Talk:Calyx of Held and maybe others. It seems that a class or something has assigneed students to review a couple of WP articles. The result is a confusing mess of talk-page reviews. Is there anything we should do about this, or is it cool? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've also made this odd parallel-universe-article-in-a-talk-page thing such as I've never seen: Talk:Pre-Botzinger Complex. It's article link goes to Pre-Botzinger complex which has its own talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except I just moved the actual article to Pre-Bötzinger complex. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@1415jacobsx: In this edit they replaced the whole article with new contents, including losing some contributions of my own, such as the sourced bit about the endbulds of Held. Is that OK? Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that article title sounded familiar. Prior discussion of this on WP:EN/I here, explaining how the pre-botzinger complex issue came about. Working in a sandbox and then replacing everything does seem to be a pattern.

As for the talk page stuff, I don't see any harm in it. Isn't discussing the quality of the article what talk pages are for? Given the length of the reviews, maybe they should be prompted to give their sections more descriptive titles, or put them on a subpage. But these are pretty low-traffic articles; hard to see who's going to mind if they have busy talk pages for a while.

Meanwhile, aren't the talk pages better places than ANI to take up objections to the edits themselves? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a {{course assignment}} notice at the top of the page Talk:Calyx of Held... Epic Genius (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never quite sure what I think about these reviews - as class assignments, you could argue that the best place for them is a sandbox or the course's talk page. On the other hand, since they are aimed at article improvement and might be useful to any editor working on that article, there's something to be said for putting them were people editing the article might find them. And if they're overly long, well, talk pages have archives (which often fill up with far less enlightening prose.

Should we (that is, Wiki Ed) be recommending that reviews like this stay in userspace, where they bother people less, or should they be on talk pages, where they might help integrate student editors and their contribs better into Wikipedia? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/User:Guettarda 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me (opinion only) the best option would be for it just to be made clear what's happening. Maybe putting it all under the same descriptive second level heading with each student's review in a third level section, for example. It can be a lot of text, but it does seem in line with what the talk page is there for. Also, I -- as a Wiki Ed person as well as an editor interested in the page subject -- would want to see the reviews in case some of them look to push in a direction that doesn't make sense per policy/guideline/consensus. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) (User:Rhododendrites) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page use and norms are pretty arcane to new users. Wikipedia has always had a habit of being particularly generous about talk page use provided it's about improving the article (which is what's happening).The repeated section titles and lack of grouping make the page a pain to read, no doubt. I think the best way is to try and talk to the students about how talk pages work and how they can help keep the talk page navigable without having to archive something they worked hard on. To that end, I've left a comment on the course page about this issue. I didn't ping every student, but hopefully Ian (Wiki Ed) and MMBiology can point students there if they feel that's valuable. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prisonernonkeys

Although this particular sock has been dealt with, the sock puppeteer remains at large. So, It think time might have come to do an investigation of the underlying IP's to determine whether the aforementioned three accounts are connected and whether they are all connected to another user. Tvx1 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AHLM13

• User:AHLM13 is engaging in a blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited. The most recently, he has started

editing war including this edit, in which he accused me and ignored to discuss the dispute. He remains reverting and imposing some sort of policy that is not the description of the rules. I asked AHLM13 twice, 1, 2, but he did not notice and he left this on my talk page. In his latest edit war including accusation. I notice that he does not care what the other editors have been asking him to follow the rules this and that. No any editor should have to put up with such blatant accusation that leads to harassment that is clearly intended to be disruptive.Justice007 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to her talkpage. She accused me that I am ruining all articles everywhere. -- AHLM13 talk 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please first correct, I am not "She", I am male. You did not discuss the dispute, you reverted without explaining, and accusing as vandalism. Justice007 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did I accuse you? Actually it was you to accuse me. As I said before, you removed some reliable sources, and links such as these "[[Pakistani people Pakistani]], [[Indian people Indian]], [[Bangladeshi people Bangladeshi]]", without giving a valid reason. You also stated that "YOU ARE THE MAIN EDITOR". -- AHLM13 talk 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of issues with AHLM13's editing style, this being one that several other editors have noticed and left messages on AHLM13's talk page warning them. See [323] and [324]. I had also left a message here, trying to explain WP:VANDAL to them and that using the term when it's not warranted can be considered an attack. From AHLM13's response, it didn't work. If they disagree with the edit, it's vandalism. AHLM13 needs to stop calling good-faith edits from other editors vandalism when they disagree with them.

AHLM13 also has a problem with the edit matching what the source says. They are prone to exaggeration and puffery for articles in their area of interest. When challenged, they revert and revert and only discuss if absolutely forced. Current example is this edit. "...regarded as the most powerful Oriental and Muslim women in Western Europe", but sourced to two articles that only mention the UK. When I changed it to UK, noting that the sources only supported UK, I was reverted with "Who is stronger than her?", classic WP:SYNTH at best. I change it back, pointing out that we have to follow the sources and was reverted again with "Which sources? You mean that you don't care about wiki policies". Go through their talk page and you'll see discussions from previous edit disputes. A big part of their problem is they have to be drug to the talk page and rarely really discuss the issues there. This needs to stop. I'd like to see a 1RR limit per page per day to force them to use the article talk page to discuss. They need to follow the sources they use exactly and stop exaggerating claims. Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use the talk page, but He reported me just because he doesn't like my edit, and maybe he does not have enough patience, as he did with User:VandVictory. -- AHLM13 talk 16:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When an edit of yours is reverted, you need to use the article talk page immediately. Not revert again and again and only go to the talk page when forced or warned for edit-warring. You've got a history of hitting revert over and over and not much discussion. Editors disagree with edits all the time and reverting back and forth does NOTHING. You, AHLM13, need to start discussions more. Focus on the edits ONLY, not the editors. You were blocked for doing that recently, hopefully that stopped it from happening again. You've been told this before but it hasn't worked. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This my first report about editing a specific article and it is also done by a user. Ravensfire, why have you shouted to me regardless on your userpage? I have felt strange and little bit afraid. I just wanted to know why I was not able to view userpage, not copy and paste your stuff. -- AHLM13 talk 16:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHLM13, please choose and use the words that lead you toward the constructive way. Other editors have also tried to assist you, but you did not follow that. We are here for co-operating each other, but we are not for discouraging. It seems that you create the issues yourself.Justice007 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes the degree to which some of your edits approach personal attacks rather ironic, of course. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update - both Justice007 and AHLM13 have been blocked for edit-warring. If someone has some time and wouldn't mind reviewing some of their recent edits and interactions and offering them some advice/suggestions, it may help the situation. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible T-Ban violation?

Quack

User:The Gilobreaker

From dandtiks69 about mangolia677

Blocked Editor Possibly Socking as IP

I was looking through lupin, and saw this edit, saying that this IP was blocked. They said they had deleted things on this page and so I looked for them, and found this editor blocked with the same wording. Im not sure if this is the correct place for this, however I wanted to at least notify somehow. cnbr¹⁵ 12:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These links are not working. OccultZone(Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not great at linking when it's not to an article, but it's this IP and Barney_the_barney_barney -cnbr¹⁵ 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the two original links above by removing a pipe character from each. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that this IP is BtBB. They also might be 2A02:8388:E201:AD80:2C19:1856:B04F:C4DC who edited Terry Duggan which is mentioned on the user talk page but neither account is blocked. And BtBB is no longer blocked any more although I don't know if he is aware that he is unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool by me, just looked suspect so I figured I'd list it. cnbr¹⁵ 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crovata on Counties of Croatia

Competence issue of User:68.194.85.167

Block evasion

Subtle vandalism, user warned multiple times

Flyer22

User:207.163.15.107

William Sommer

Hi,

This user has just returned from a short block and appears to still have a WP:CIR issue. Their editing appears to be misguided at best or tendentious at worst. Not sure if their editing needs yet another review or if someone is willing to offer them some additional guidance but it looks like something is in need of addressing again.

We've got[343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350][351][352][353]. Amortias (T)(C) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those repeated "clarification needed" taggings of obvious typos is somewhat odd and unnecessary, but the user does seem to have done some vaguely OK copy editing as well, for example [354]. I'm unsure if the edits above are deliberate obstruction, or just a little naive. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Previous thread and summary thereof: editor had some language issues, accused everyone of racism, showed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that made the Crusaders seem like Kent state students, and was blocked for all that.

The edits that Amaury links to include sticking mis-formatted "Clarify" tags after rather contextually clear misspellings of the words "other" or "the" (or just some dude's middle name). There's also this singular/plural switch. Two users have discussed the issue with him, he was civil enough, and he's stopped editing since then. Because of this, I'm content to wait to see if there are additional problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also happy enough to wait and if theres nothing nessecary to discuss the I'll quite happily shut this down myself. Sections of his last ANI do seem directley relevent to current behaviour. Also appoligies for managing to (edit conflict) delete your post Ian.Thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, major competence issues and basically dropping tags all over the place, and leaving the work for others to do. I have made a couple of changes - his edit count while tag bombing is quite high - but I do not wish to be accused of stalking or some such. He currently has a problem with using the word "but" in any "non-contrary" sentence and is changing them where it is unnecessary. While it is not incorrect, it also changes the tone of each sentence it touches. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is about right leaving the work for others to do. Does this look familiar: Innis Brown later wrote "Sewanee in all probablity had the best team in the South." on "1907 Sewanee Tigers football team" article. Your response to the clarification notice that it was as good as dandy as the first day it was posted after the scorched earth march. Last I heard the ACJ was not about to let any spelling error slip through. Definitely competence; but which direction.William Sommer (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gees be to all, Stalking? Oh, no. That honour would be held all around by someone else by their own contributions on the pitch to be far more spun about me they having risen from the ashes, if there should ever be a characterization to use, from the start and then to make appearances at various times never making a landing on any one else. But if your contri's should go mono then the other just might have some competition.William Sommer (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, there is the tagbombing of "it's" in episode plot summaries

• It's^(clarify) a cockroach it's referring to "her Prince"
• he thinks it's^(clarify) their best chance Self obvious.
• Aile members tag along because it's^(clarify) their job to protect Ren. Self obvious.

If you look at his edits on this sublist with an addition of about 28 bytes, most seem to be confusion about what "it's" refers to. Which usually is defined in a previous sentence or clear in of itself. A major competency issue. Jim1138 (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you or would you not agree about the foolishness of being characterized by Moosehadley about vandalizing an article then after cautioning by Cyphoidbomb strikening their statement on the issue on 02:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)? There is not always clear understanding with WP contributors about some things especially with very strong forms of expression are used to back wrong pronouncements. You need to decide what is it that you want to see being done. Otherwise it all becomes flavor of the week decided upon by the participant with the most influence.William Sommer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any links so that someone could actually understand what you are talking about. Not that it matters, because that event is completely irrelevant to a discussion about your competence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the issue of competence: I count 8 misspellings of the word "grammar" in his edit summaries, yet he's actively engaged in grammar edits and leaving snarky edit summaries like Too many "her" 's to pass as good writing? I've poked through some of his more recent copy/edits and he seems to be on a crusade to replace the word "Mexican" with "Mexico" as if "Mexican" is a slur or something. This has had some questionable results, for instance in these edits, which result in oddly-worded statements like "the only Mexico player" rather than "the only player from/for Mexico" (assuming that the objection is that Domínguez isn't actually a Mexican? I have no idea.) And while still editing as an IP user there's this from March 27, "The team ... was composed of players having citizenship of Mexico". That sentence structure is not consistent with English. And there is the misspelling of either descendent or decedent (dead person). Also "unexpe3cted". Or here where again he's randomly swapping out "Mexican" for "Mexico". And while we understand that people from all over the globe may edit Wikipedia, changing grammatically sound content into content that is grammatically flawed is not an improvement, and if done persistently and without any regard for other users' objections, is disruptive and teeters over the edge of vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weve also got refactoring of comments still ongoing at their talk page here. Diffs [355][356]. Amortias (T)(C) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the refactoring is symptomatic of his previous battleground attitude and failure to even understand good faith. Also, comparing the situation to the Romans crucifying Jesus would indicate that Sommers sees no fault in his actions, and nothing but fault in others -- not an attitude that works here. His competence with both language and playing well with others have only gotten worse. It's looking like we need to raise the issue of indefinitely blocking him. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: In my first draft of the above I did consider including that, but I figured it was best to let it go since it wasn't the core of our problems with him. However, since he's taken to making another spectacle of himself by inventing new rules to justify the refactoring, I agree that it's worth mentioning. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

Proposing an indef block of William Sommer for battleground behaviour competence issues and refactoring other people s talk page comments despite multiple offers of help, requests to desist and previous block for similar issues. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support As proposer. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as someone who is trying to clean up the mess. Of course, it does increase my edit count... ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not convinced the guy is here to be constructive. To everyone other than him, it's clear that he is editing beyond his abilities, and he gets disproportionately defensive when it's explained that his edits are problematic and that they do not meet encyclopedic standards. And as far as I know, he hasn't even acknowledged the possibility that his edits could be problematic, having deflected every discussion into meandering race-centered diatribes targeted at other users. That, coupled with his incoherent (possibly machine translated?) ramblings lead me to suspect that either he is completely oblivious to his deficiencies, or he is trolling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User has elevated their behavior to mass refactoring of the comments on their talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised? You have reached your objective especially when you are found out to make reverts of what is correct and are called on the carpet. Bye, forever. All the best for an organization that works to eliminate people participating. I am not surprised by this as I have heard it from others thsat I speak with about WOP.William Sommer (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a trick, get an axe". Even if Sommer intends to leave, the block would indicate that we did not condone his behavior and that we do not intend to let him return. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of the editor deflecting responsibility and blaming others for his experience here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support User has been continually hostile and incompetent, has tried to wikilawyer his way out of anything, and when all else failed hypocritically presented his actions as something to be unquestioningly accepted while decrying any imagined slight against him. His current tantrum in response to finding out that policy forbids refactoring other's comments indicate some combination of trolling, instability, or immaturity beyond any workable level. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hostility, competency, unwillingness to take advise, and as a editor whose spent a fair amount of time cleaning up after him. Jim1138 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read the thread about his return, & thought about it overnight, & have come to the conclusion this is an case of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:POINT, or simply a troll. (Who the heck would not simply change "othe" to "other" instead of tagging it? Anon editors make changes like that all of the time & no one raises an eyebrow.) If this is the first case, Summer needs to either get a mentor or be a regular at the Teahouse. But after reading his last edit to his talk page, I doubt he'd be sincere about going that route.. -- llywrch (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves of DC Metro stations.

JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

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

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Wikipedia that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Wikipedia as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. They do not even understand the basics, and are brainwashed/too emotionally connected with these topics to edit sensibly. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I might consider restricting the ban to main space if the user adheres to his comment below and if others agree. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: at his block log I see only "17:58, 22 July 2005 Angela unblocked JoeM (Jimbo has unbanned JoeM. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026676.html)" Where can I see the original block and any discussion explaining the reason for the block? Also, what's up with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JoeM? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban at this time, based on JoeM's response below. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per below. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I sense an attempt to silence an editor for ulterior partisan reasons. For instance, in one of the edit examples provided above, JoeM's changes are demonstrably more neutral-toned than the blatantly POV version it replaced. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose siteban per response below. Noteswork (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Wikipedia exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Wikipedia's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

The community forbids the editor JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you are not in a position to judge the reason he posted as he did and whether or not it was due to emotional instability, and you should not be doing so. Squinge (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming good faith, that was the best I could come up with. You got any better motives? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban at this time based on JoeM's response above, which essentially seems to be a voluntary topic ban for an unspecified period. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but ease of enforcement should not be our priority. Our priority should be getting an editor to edit constructively with the best good faith we can muster and with the minimum of sanctions. And if they're willing to do what the community wants anyway, there's no need for force. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that we've given him enough rope? This is merely a fallback to prevent him from drawing all the rope. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Wikipedia have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  A one-day block wouldn't be appropriate if he's not editing problematically now, as blocks are only for preventative purposes and it wouldn't be preventing anything. (And there's no such thing as a "block on topics mentioned" anyway - you're either blocked or you're not.) Squinge (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from archive. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk)
• Oppose per Joe's response. You cannot hold what happened 12 years ago against him - if anything, I'm stunned he remembers his handle and password. What Joe does need is a firm warning (which he has received and acknowledged the lesson learned here) and, in my opinion, a WP:MENTOR. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Overly harsh proposal. JoeM has demonstrated that he has taken heed of the feedback given to him. I think with an appropriate mentor JoeM will be able to contribute to his areas of interest but within the acceptable bounds. Mbcap (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I think broader wording may be desirable (see my comment above). It is clear from Joe's response above that he does not understand why a change of behavior is necessary ("too bold to build consensus" - he isn't a brave maverick, he's just editing disruptively). Moreover, I think his absence for the past week cannot be taken as evidence that he will edit neutrally in the future; rather, to me it shows that he either edits disruptively, or doesn't edit at all. Topic-ban him and see if he finds anything to do when he can't push his agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't see any JoeM edits that improve articles, and his edits create unnecessary work for those who would improve articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for reason stated earlier. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more lenient proposal

Because JoeM seems to have demonstrated that he is taking the feedback given to him, however others are still concerned, I suggest a temporary topic ban:

The community forbids the editor JoeM for six months from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of up to one year, unilaterally enforce an indefinite topic ban, or both, if he/she edits in the foregoing fields during his/her topic ban. If an indefinite topic ban under the foregoing terms is enacted, then JoeM may discuss the ban with the banning administrator, or appeal the indefinite topic ban immediately here. If, after an appeal at WP:ANI, the community does not wish to vacate the ban, then JoeM must wait another 6 months, then another 6 months thereafter.

- Esquivalience ^t 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though not withdrawing my support for an indefinite ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for reason stated earlier. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]