위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive885

사용자 관련 문제:로셀리스 및 사용자:소니머스86

엘리 초기문차

사용자:로셀 및 사용자:소니머스86은 강간 무고라는 글과 관련해 문제를 일으키고 있다.나는 4월 26일부터 그 기사를 편집하기 시작했다.나는 5월 2일까지, 즉 5월 2일까지 계속 편집했다.나는 일주일 동안 편집을 했다.이후 사용자:로셀리스는 내가 편집한 모든 것을 풀었다.[1] 그녀의 명기한 이유는 다음과 같다.[2]

이 글과 이 토크 페이지에서 엘리타가 한 행동은 나에게 그들이 편집한 내용이 WP:V와 WP에 부합한다는 희망을 주지 않는다.NOR, 그들이 여기 온 주와 마찬가지로, 그들은 노골적으로 여러 번 출처를 잘못 알려왔다.엘리타, 정책에 따라 기사를 편집할 수 없기 때문에, 나는 당신이 토크 페이지에 편집을 제안하고, 합의를 얻어내고, 합의가 이루어지면 다른 사용자들이 그것을 실행하도록 하는 것을 제안한다.

나는 로셀리스가 그녀의 혐의를 뒷받침할 증거를 제공해 줄 것을 두 번 요청했다.[3][4] 여기 그러한 요청 중 하나가 있다.

이에 대처하는 효율적인 방법은 WP를 위반하여 작성한 편집을 지정하는 것이다.OR 및 WP를 위반한 편집:확인. 직접 링크를 통해 편집 내용을 지정하십시오.엘리타(토크) 12:55, 2015년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

Roscelese는 그러한 편집을 명시하는 것을 거절했다.다른 편집기 사용자:파덴톤은 또한 로셀리스에게 내가 편집한 내용 중 문제가 있는 부분을 명시해 줄 것을 거듭 요청했다.다시 로셀리스는 그렇게 하기를 거절했다.

게다가 로셀리스는 나를 '단일 목적 계정'이라고 비난해 왔다.[5] 내 기여도에 대한 검토는 다르게 보여준다.2009년에 위키피디아에 가입했다.올해까지 강간과 관련된 기사는 편집하지 않았다.내가 편집한 대부분의 내용은 노래, 영화, 배우를 다루었다.

그러나 나는 자주 편집하지 않았다.올해, 나는 위키피디아에 더 많이 관여하게 되었다.난 내 첫 번째, 그리고 지금까지 유일한 기사를 만들었다.레일라 아라기안(건축가)다시 말하지만, 그것은 강간과 관련이 없다.

매트리스 퍼포먼스(Carry That Weight)의 주제는 강간 혐의와 직결돼 있으며, 나는 언론에서 논의된 주제를 본 적이 있다.2월에 위키피디아에 대한 주제를 찾아봤고, WP 기사를 읽은 후, 짧은 인용구를 포함하도록 기사를 편집했다.[6. 그 후, 나는 위키링크 추가, 문법 수정 등][7],[8], [9] 등 세 가지 아주 사소한 편집을 했다.

두 달 뒤 이 주제에 관심을 갖게 됐고, 그래서 4월 중순부터 WP에 관련 편집을 시작했다.나는 4월 19일부터 시작되는 캠퍼스 강간 사건을 여러 번 수정했다.일주일 후, 나는 거짓 강간 혐의를 편집하기 시작했다.매트리스 성능(캐리 That Weight)도 몇 번 더 편집했는데, 텍스트의 어떤 단어도 바꾸지 않았다. 오히려 철자법, 참조 등과 같은 다른 이슈를 다루었다.

이상에서 보면 내가 SPA라는 로셀리스의 주장은 거짓임이 분명하다.

내가 편집한 내용에 대해 더 논의하기 전에, 그 기사에 대한 약간의 배경은 아마도 유용할 것이다.이 주제에 대해 논의되고 있는 중요한 질문은 다음과 같다: 강간에 대한 허위 고발은 얼마나 흔한가?두 개의 주요 사상학파가 있는 것 같다.종종 운동가들과 관련이 있는 한 학교는 그 비율이 약 2%라고 주장한다.종종 경찰의 지원을 받는 또 다른 학교는 그 비율이 훨씬 더 높다고 주장한다. 예를 들어, 20-40%이다.우리가 결론을 많이 내릴 만한 충분한 자료가 없다고 주장하는 사람들도 있다.

로셀리스와 소니머스86 모두 내가 운동권 학교에 대해 기사를 편향시키려 한다고 거듭 주장했다.이러한 주장을 평가하기 위해 편집 주간(5월 1일~2일)에 지난 이틀 동안 편집한 내용을 아래에 검토한다.

• 5월 2일 11:58, 요약 편집: 참조 서식 개선

이 편집은 어떤 단어도 변경하지 않고, 단지 참조를 더 잘 포맷했을 뿐이다.

• 5월 2일 11:51 요약 편집: "무근"의 의미에 대해 다른 인용구를 제시하십시오.

이 편집은 FBI가 일부 강간 혐의를 "사실무근"으로 분류한 것과 관련이 있다.편집은 하나의 새로운 단락을 삽입하는 것으로 구성되었다.이 단락은 알려진 허위 보고의 비율이 "근거 없는" 보고의 비율보다 훨씬 적다고 설명했는데, 따라서 일부 사람들은 "근거 없는" 것을 "거짓"의 동의어로 잘못 사용하기도 했다.그 단락은 아래에 복사되어 있다(참조 생략).

유진 카닌(아래에서 논의된 일)도 비슷한 말을 했다. "그런 취지로 널리 쓰였음에도 불구하고, 근거 없는 강간은 대개 거짓 주장과 같지 않다. 거짓 주장은 그들 중 하나일 뿐이고, 때로는 그 중 가장 작은 것에 불과하며, 많은 것을 의미할 수 있다."

그래서 나의 편집은 토론의 운동가 쪽에 대한 지지를 제공했다.

• 5월 1일 20:07, 요약 편집: 저작자 수정

출처에서 한 작가의 이름이 누락되었다. 편집이 그것을 고쳤다.

• 5월 1일 14:52, 요약 편집:EllieTea(토크) 수정본에 의한 수정본 660248778 미실시

5월 1일, 13:59, 요약 편집:소니머스86에 의한 660247157 개정 미완료 (토크) 나는 링크와 함께 두 번 설명하였다; 당신은 정책을 위반하고 있다.

이 두 가지 편집은 참고문헌의 포함과 관련이 있다.참고문헌은 가디언지 내 의견 사이트인 theguardian.com#Comment_is_free,의 의견집이다.이것에 대해 더 논의하기 전에, 어떤 역사는 관련이 있다.

4월 27일, 나는 매트리스 퍼포먼스를 편집했다.[10] 편집은 단어를 변경하지 않고 참조를 삭제했다.참고문헌은 theguardian.com#Comment_is_free,의 한 기사에 관한 것으로, 모든 의견이다. 그러한 이유로 나는 그 참고문헌이 WP를 위반했다고 믿었다.RS.

나는 WP 정책에 대한 전문가가 아니기 때문에 편집을 하는 것에 대해 긴장했다.그래서, 나는 또한 내 편집을 자세히 설명하기 위해 토크 페이지에 새로운 섹션을 만들었다.토크:매트리스 성능(중량 캐리어)#견해편.편집 내용은 결코 되돌리지 않았으며, 새로운 섹션에 대한 언급도 없었다.따라서, 나는 참조를 삭제하는 것에 대해 옳았었다.나는 그것에 대해 기분이 좋았다.

이틀 뒤인 4월 29일 '강간 무고죄'라는 글에도 theguardian.com#Comment_is_free의 의견조작을 참고하는 내용이 포함돼 있는 것을 알게 됐다.그러므로 나는 매트리스 퍼포먼스를 했던 것처럼 참조를 제거했다.편집 요약은 이 참고문헌이 "WP를 위반한다"고 말했다.RS#의견 진술".[11]

소니머스86이 내 편집 내용을 되돌렸다.나는 그것을 되돌렸다; 나의 편집 요약은 그 언급이 "사실들을 위해 WP 정책을 위반한다"고 말했다.[12] 5월 1일, 소니머스86이 다시 나의 편집을 되돌렸다.나는 그것을 13:59에 되돌렸다. (위 링크와 같이)나는 우리가 하고 있는 일이 편집 전쟁으로 해석될 수 있다는 것을 알고 있었다. 그러나 나는 내가 WP 정책을 시행하고 있다고 믿었다.기사 토크 페이지에도 새로운 섹션을 만들어 사물을 토론했다.[13]

토크 페이지의 새로운 섹션에서, 소니머스86은 이 의견서가 이 작품의 저자에 의한 진술의 출처로 인용되고 있을 뿐이라고 지적했다.나는 어리석게도 그것을 알아차리지 못했었다.그리고 나서 나는 기사에 있는 참조를 복원했고(14:52에서, 위 링크와 같이), 이것에 대한 메모를 토크 페이지에 남겼다.[14]

누구나 가끔 바보 같은 실수를 한다.그러나 소니머스86은 토크 페이지에서 다음과 같은 주장을 하며 "사실 강간 혐의의 극히 일부만이 사실이라고 알려진 자신의 POV와 출처가 모순되기 때문에 엘리타가 (참고를 없애야 한다고) 믿고 있다고 생각한다"고 주장했다.[15] 내가 인용한 것은 호주에서 행해진 연구에 대해 논의하던 중이었습니다.이번 연구에서는 강간 혐의의 15%가 가해자에 대한 강간 혐의를 공식화했다. 따라서 그 중 약 15%만이 사실인 것으로 알려져 있다. (그러나 2%만이 허위인 것으로 알려져 있고, 나머지 83%는 진실성을 결정하지 못했다.)나를 맥락에서 인용함으로써, 소니머스86은 마치 내가 들고 있지 않은 POV를 들고 있는 것처럼 보이게 한다(그리고 사실 터무니없다고 생각한다, 나의 진짜 POV는 17%의 혐의만을 평가하는 연구는 거의 가치가 없다).Sonichouth86은 또한 내가 악의적으로 편집했다고 비난한다.

Sonicyouth86이 나에게 불리한 판결을 내렸다는 POV 고발도 앞서 4월 29일에 이루어졌다.[16] 그런 다음 다음과 같이 덧붙였다."이 기사 편집과 다른 사람들이 좋아하는 기사를 왜 굳이 편집하지 말아야 하는지 의심해야 할 경우를 대비해서 그렇게 공개적으로 POV를 표현해 주어서 다행이다."나는 위의 문제를 15%로 정중하게 설명함으로써 응답했다(즉, 연구에서 제기된 비난 중 17%만이 진실성이 결정되었다).[17],[18]

내 설명 중 어떤 것도 관찰할 수 있는 효과는 없었다.실제로 5월 4일 소니머스86은 "강간 혐의 중 극히 일부만이 사실이라는 의견을 반복적으로 진술했지만 WP를 읽어야 한다"고 말했다.NPOV 및 그에 따라 편집하십시오.아니면 다른 주제 영역에서 변경 사항을 편집하는 것이 더 나을 것이다."[19]

• 5월 1일 10:35, 요약 편집: 정확한 Turvey 참조

참조를 지정하는 방법에 오류가 있으며, 편집이 이를 수정했다.

• 5월 1일 08:59, 요약 편집: 필라델피아 경험 추가

이 편집은 기사에 새로운 단락을 추가했다.이 문단은 경찰이 허위사실 공표 횟수를 심각하게 초과 신고했다는 증거를 제시했다.단락은 다음과 같다(참고 생략).

2000년 필라델피아 경찰청은 1995년, 1996년, 1997년 당시 '비범죄'로 분류됐던 약 2000건의 강간 보고서를 검토했다.검토 결과 실제로 허위이거나 범죄에 해당하지 않는 강간 신고는 600여건에 불과하다고 판단했다.나머지 강간 신고서에는 진실 강간 705명, 기타 성범죄 532명, 비성범죄 131명 등이 포함됐다.이후 경찰청은 여성 단체들이 사건 파일을 검토할 수 있도록 허용하기로 합의했다.

편집자는 명백히 토론의 운동가 쪽과 경찰에 대한 강력한 지지를 제공한다.

앞서 말한 내용을 요약하면, 나는 7일 동안 편집했고, 그 중 마지막 이틀에 대한 편집은 위에서 간략하게 정리했다.지난 이틀 동안 편집된 내용 중 운동가 쪽에는 반대되는 내용이 하나도 없었고, 운동가 쪽에는 두 가지 편집이 있었는데, 하나는 강하게 반대했다.이 기간 동안 두 사용자 모두:로셀리스 및 사용자:기사 및/또는 토크 페이지에서 Sonichouth86이 활성화되었다.그러나 그 후 그들은 내가 반활동주의 POV를 추진하고 있다고 주장했고, 내가 지난 7일 동안 편집했던 모든 내용을 되돌렸다.

처음 5일 동안 나는 토론의 양쪽을 지지하는 편집을 했다.그 당시에도 편집된 내용은 믿을 수 있게 소싱되었고, 나는 공정하다고 믿는다.반활동주의적 측면을 지원하는 편집의 예로서, 위에서 인용한 호주 연구를 고려한다.내가 편집하기 전에, WP 기사는 (참조 자료를 포함) 연구를 다음과 같이 설명했다.

2000년에서 2003년 사이에 빅토리아 호주의 812건의 강간 혐의를 조사한 결과, 2.1%가 결국 경찰에 의해 거짓으로 분류되었고, 그 후 고소인들은 허위 경찰 신고를 한 혐의로 기소되거나 협박되었다.

대부분의 사람들은 2.1%를 제외한 모든 비난이 거짓이 아니라고 가정할 것이다. 따라서, 그 서술은 매우 오도되었다.내가 편집한 후, WP 기사는 그 연구를 다음과 같이 설명한다.

2000~2003년 호주 빅토리아주에서 경찰에 제기된 850건의 강간 혐의를 조사한 결과, 2.1%가 결국 경찰에 의해 거짓으로 분류된 것으로 나타났으며, 고소인들은 허위 경찰 신고를 한 혐의로 고소 또는 협박을 받았다.또 다른 15%의 고발은 가해자에 대한 강간 혐의로 이어졌고, 나머지 고발은 철회되거나(15.1%) 더 이상의 경찰 조치가 없거나 연구 당시에도 조사를 받았다.

새로운 버전은 분명히 더 많은 정보를 제공하고, 더 이상 오해하지 않는다.그것은 정말로 그 토론의 운동가 쪽에 대한 지지도가 약하지만, 단지 그것이 더 이상 오해의 소지가 없기 때문이다.그럼에도 불구하고, Sonichouth86은 나의 편집[20]을 되돌렸고, Talk 페이지에서 나의 편집은 기사에서 "심각한 POV"를 부과하려는 시도라고 주장했다.[21]

내가 편집하던 한 주 동안, 나는 두 번의 중요한 실수를 했다.한 가지 실수가 위에서 설명되었는데, 의견의 일부에 대한 언급이 삭제되었다.다른 하나는 FBI 보고서의 통계를 인용하는 것이었다.

FBI 보고서에 따르면 강간 혐의의 8%가 "사실무근"으로 분류되었다.그 보고서는 추가적으로 52%의 고발이 "삭제"되었다고 말한다.WP 기사를 편집하면서, 나는 "cleared"가 "최종 지위가 결정되었다"는 것을 의미한다고 추측했다.[22] 사실 그것은 다른 의미가 있다. (예를 들어, FBI가 108건의 고발을 접수하면 그 중 8건은 근거 없는 것으로 분류되고 52건은 범죄혐의로 이어지며, 그 중 52%의 무혐의율을 의미하는 (거절) 8건은 무시된다.)

내가 편집을 한 후, 로셀리스는 나에게 "cleared"의 정의를 확인해 달라고 부탁했다.그리고 나서 나는 FBI 웹사이트를 검색했고, 내가 실수를 했다는 것을 깨닫고 수정했다.[23]

그러나 로셀리스는 나에게 "깨끗한"의 정의를 확인해 달라고 부탁하기 전에 내가 청산된 비율을 보충했다고 제안했다.[24] [25] 그 후 나는 FBI 보고서 중 "강간(52%)과 가중 폭행(58%)의 절반 이상이 무죄"라는 관련 항을 인용했다.[26] 그 후 로셀리스는 52%의 수치가 실제로 실제라는 것을 분명히 깨달았다(그리고 나서 나에게 정의를 확인해 달라고 부탁했다).

로셀리스가 내가 편집한 내용을 모두 되돌린 후, 내가 모르는 다른 편집자가 관여하게 되었다, 사용자:패든턴.Padenton은 WP를 인용하여 기사를 나의 마지막 버전으로 되돌렸다.RETURT. 그러자 나 역시 모르는 또 다른 편집자가 패든튼이 했던 일을 되돌렸다.[27] 다시 마지막 버전으로 되돌아갔다. 요약 편집:"이러한 행동에 대한 합의도 없고, 아직 근거도 없다; 대화에 대해 더 논의하라."[28] 내 편집은 손시머스86에 의해 취소되었다.[29]

파덴톤은 그 후 토크 페이지에 로셀리스와 소니시우스86으로 주소를 쓴 몇 개의 댓글을 남겼다.그 논평에서 나온 몇 가지 발췌문은 아래와 같다.

보다는 두 의 결여…이러한 선의의 편집과 토론 시도보다는 두 분이 보여준 예의와 편집의 부족

@presenthyss86: 를 가지고 수 그 를 할 가 있다그러면 구체적으로 어떤 변화가 있는지 정보를 제공하고, 우리가 이것을 끝낼 수 있도록 그 변화에 대해 시민적 논의를 해야 한다.

나는 엘리타가 자신의 변화에 대해 토론하려는 시도를 토크 페이지에서 많이 보고, 당신이 토론하기를 거부하는 것을 본다.

나는 내가 편집한 결과 그 기사가 훨씬 개선되었다고 믿는다.내가 보기엔 내가 편집한 마지막 버전과 로셀리스/소니머스86이 되돌린 버전의 모든 차이는 개선된 것이다.로셀리스와 소니시우스86 둘 다 어떤 반례도 하지 않았다.

나는 관리자에게 내가 편집한 마지막 버전으로 기사를 복원해 줄 것을 요청한다.나는 로셀리스와 소니머스86의 제재를 더 요청한다.

엘리타 (대화) 21:08, 2015년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

너무 오래, 읽지 않았다.로버트 맥클레논 (대화) 21:41, 2015년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 로버트의 말에 동의해.사실 이 과목에 관심이 많긴 하지만 글의 벽에 거의 흠집을 낼 수가 없었어, 엘리타.이는 중재 사건에서 제시된 증거와 같은 것으로 단순한 행정관 주의 요청이 아니다.리즈 23:16, 2015년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 내 진술의 대부분은 여기 있다: 위키백과:중재/요청/시행#요청_컨설팅_로셀리스.핵심은 로셀리스와 소니머스86이 1주일 반 동안 편집한 내용(70개 편집)을 되돌린 것으로, 반전의 설명을 거부하고 엘리타에게 논의를 허락하지 않은 것이다.그들은 그의 여러 차례 논의 시도를 무시했고, 종종 무시했다.매스 리턴에 대해 설명하라는 요청을 받았을 때, 그들은 이미 언급된 우려사항보다 더 많은 정보를 제공하는 것을 거절했다.로셀리스는 토크 페이지에서 콘텐츠 반전을 설명해야 하고 설명 없이 롤백-반발하는 것을 금지해야 하는 Arbcom의 제한을 받고 있기 때문에, 그녀의 행동에 대한 다른 주장이 없는 한, 중재 집행 요청으로 그녀의 조치를 처리해야 한다.- 패든턴 ✉ 22:00, 2015년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

요약해줘서 고마워, 패든튼이 사건의 일부는 AE에서 처리되고 있는 것 같다.리즈 23:19, 2015년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

엘리에게 가능한 부메랑차

• 엘리테아(토크 · 기여)는 SPA로, 편집 대상이 (캠퍼스) 강간 및 허위 강간 혐의의 소재로 한정되어 있다.그들의 편집 중 극히 일부만이 이 주제에 관한 것이 아니다.ET는 POV에 대해 "(강간 혐의 중) 극히 일부만이 사실로 알려져 있다"고 홍보하고 있다.그들의 편집은 명시된 편향과 일치하는 분명한 편향을 보여준다.ET의 강간 무고죄에 대한 기여는 특히 파괴적이고 우리의 콘텐츠 정책을 위반했다.몇 가지 예.

• ET는 이 페이지에 대한 첫 편집으로 짐 크로우 린치와 "연쇄 강간 히스테리"를 비교하는 자작극을 추가했다.

• 허위 강간 고발이 상대적으로 드물다는 믿을 만한 출처를 제거한다.

• 합의 없이 되돌아간다.

• 허위 강간 혐의는 드물다고 진술한 신뢰할 수 있는 출처(최근 CPS 연구에 대한 Keir Starmer의 진술) 제거.

• 합의 없이 다시 돌아간다.

• 합의 없이 다시 돌아간다.

• FBI 통계를 잘못 제시하며, 52%(15%)의 고발 중 8%가 허위라고 잘못 주장하는 경우, 실제로 출처가 더 큰 표본 크기로 100% 중 8%를 말한다.

• 합의 없이 되돌아간다.

• 허위 신고는 경찰이 9%(2284년 216명)를 허위 신고로 분류했다고 주장하면서 사실상 8%를 허위신고(2643년 216명)로 분류했다. 허위혐의로 분류된 사건은 216건으로 전체 경찰에 접수된 2643건 가운데 8%p에 달한다(47)

• 합의 없이 잘못된 표현을 복원한다.

• 불명확한 법원 판결에 연관성을 추가한다(판결: 청바지를 입은 여성은 강간할 수 없다).

• 수복과 철수에 관한 정보를 추가하여, 허위 주장으로 그들을 혼란스럽게 하고, 철회에 기소되지 않은 허위 고발과 고발의 구분이 없음을 암시한다.

• 합의 없이 되돌아간다.

ET는 몇 가지 통지를 받았다.이들은 이 페이지가 남성 인권 기사 보호관찰 대상(허위 강간 보도는 남성 인권 운동가의 궁극적 문제)임을 알고 있다.게다가, 그들은 그들의 편집이 게이머게이트 재량 제재의 ("모든 성 관련 분쟁 또는 논란")의 범위에 포함될 수 있다는 말을 들었다. 불행히도, 사용자는 그들의 행동을 조정하지 않았다.

ET는 통계와 WP에 대한 이해 및/또는 주의의 부족을 보여준다.그들이 FBI의 수치를 직접 산출했을 때와 같은 NOR (보고의 8%는 거짓이고 52%는 체포로 귀결된다!= 52% 중 8%는 거짓이다.)게다가, 그들은 협력적으로 편집하고 BRD 주기를 따르는 것을 불가능하거나 원하지 않는 것을 보여준다.그들은 명시된 POV를 홍보하기 위해 편집한다.이것은 그들이 선택한 주제 영역(강간에 관한 모든 것)에서 편집하기에 매우 부적절하게 만든다.일반적으로 ET는 백과사전을 짓기 위해 온 것이 아니다. --소닉Y(토크) 09:20, 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

소닉, 부제목을 추가하는 건 자유야이 부분은 읽기 어렵다.–로셀레스 (토크 ⋅ 기여) 14:23, 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

@EllieTea:경험 많은 편집자들의 반대에도 불구하고 합의 없이 선호하는 편집 내용을 반복적으로 복원하는 것이 왜 지장을 초래하는지 아직도 이해하지 못하는 것은 유감스러운 일이다.무엇보다도 가장 걱정되는 것은 당신이 출처를 잘못 알려준 것에 대한 (계속) 방어다.너의 논평은 나의 논점을 반박하지 않는다. 너의 논평은 출처와 모순된다.SPA나 "슬립어카운트" 같은 걸 뭐라고 불러야 할지 모르겠어기사 편집은 222건, 기사 편집은 올해 134건, 기사 토크 편집은 66건, 기사 편집은 올해 65건 하셨습니다.2015년의 모든 기사 편집은 강간과 관련이 있었다.그리고 134개의 기사 편집 중 거의 100개가 강간 관련 기사였다.비강간 관련 편집(Re Araghian 편집 제외)은 경미하고 대수롭지 않았다.당신은 2009년과 2014년 사이에 다른 주제들을 편집했을지도 모른다.그러나 2015년에는 당신의 (보조) 편집과 토론은 강간죄의 대상으로 한정된다. --소닉Y (대화) 23:02, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

소니머스86의 답변에 답하다.

소니시우스86의 회답 제1항에서 제기되는 문제들은 대부분 나의 초기 성명에서 다루어지며 회답에서는 무시된다.특히 SPA의 존재에 대해서는 다음과 같이 다루었다.2009년 6월 WP 편집을 시작해 올해 들어서야 주로 4월 중순부터 강간 혐의에 관심을 갖게 됐다.그리고 "강간 혐의의 극히 일부만이 사실인 것으로 알려져 있다"는 인용문에 대해서는, 제 초기 진술에서 자세히 논의되는데, 소니머스86은 다시 제 입장을 잘못 표현하고 있다.소니시우스86의 회답에 나오는 13가지 예는 아래와 같다.

1. 그 기사에 대한 나의 첫 편집은 정말로 손니시우스86이 인용한 것이었다: 4월 26일에 만들어진 것이다.그 당시 나는 강간에 대한 허위 고발을 하는 주제에 대해 거의 아는 바가 없었다.피사체를 검색해보니 무엇보다 '강간의 거짓 고발'(아마존에 등재)이라는 책이 나왔다.이 책이 그 주제에 관한 유일한 책인 것 같다; 게다가 그 책은 막 출판된 상태였다.그런 이유 때문에 그 책을 WP 기사에서 그 주제에 대해 내가 그때 했던 '더 먼 독해'에 포함시키는 것이 타당해 보였다.그러나 나는 그 책을 보지 않고 그렇게 했다.

그 후 로셀리스는 그 글에서 그 책을 삭제했다.나는 그것을 받아들였다: 나는 삭제 내용을 되돌리려고 시도하거나, 토크 페이지 등에서 삭제에 대해 논의하려고 하지 않았다.실제로 나는 그 책을 본 적이 없고 본 적이 없기 때문에 그 내용에 대해 논평할 수 없다.그러나 WP 기사의 주제에 대해 막 출판된 책으로서, 처음에는 그것을 포함시키는 것이 타당해 보였다.

소니시우스86은 이 책이 "짐 크로우 린치와 "비록 강간 히스테리"를 낳았기 때문에 비판한다.나의 의심은 이것이 수잔 브라운밀러의 '우리 의지에 반대'라는 책에 대한 암묵적인 언급이라는 것이다.브라운밀러의 책은 강간 혐의에 대한 논쟁의 운동가 쪽 사람들이 매우 많이 인용했다.브라운밀러의 책은 강간과 백인 집단 린치를 비교한다.따라서 나의 의혹은 거짓 강간 혐의를 린치에 비유할 때 '강간 거짓 고발'이 브라운밀러의 책과 평행선을 긋고 있다는 것이다.

2. 우리는 토크에서 이것에 대해 토론했다.거짓_accusation_of_강간#DiCanio, 4월 28일.이유를 설명했더니 아무도 대답하지 않았다.그러므로 나는 나의 이유가 다른 편집자들에 의해 받아들여진다고 가정했다.소니머스86은 현재 그러한 이유를 받아들이지 않고 있다는 것을 시사하고 있지만, 그렇게 하는 것에 대한 어떤 정당성도 제시하지 않고 있다.

3. 여기서 정책 위반이 보이지 않는다.하지만 만약 누군가가 그런 것을 원한다면 나는 더 자세히 설명할 수 있다.

4. 이것은 나의 초기 진술에서 상세하게 논의된다: 참조의 잘못된 제거에 관한 것이다.Sonicyouth86의 답변은 그 논의를 무시한다.

5. 이것은 이전과 같은 문제다.

6. 이것은 이전과 같은 문제다.

7. FBI 통계 문제는 내 초기 진술에서 자세히 논의된다.Sonicyouth86의 답변은 그 논의를 무시한다.

8. 이것은 이전과 같은 문제다.

9. Talk에서 이것에 대해 긴 논의가 있다:거짓_accusation_of_강간#British_홈_오피스_스터디_(2005):_the_property_rate.그곳에서의 나의 논평은 소니머스86의 요점을 상세히 반박한다.

10. 이는 이전 사항과 동일한 문제와 관련된다.

11. 소니시우스86은 내가 "불분명한 법원 판결"에 연결고리를 추가하는 것을 비판한다.그 법정은 이탈리아 대법원이다.법원의 결정은 소니머스86이 말한 바와 같다: 청바지를 입은 여성은 강간할 수 없다.즉, 여성이 청바지를 입고 강간 혐의를 제기할 경우 법원은 그 고발이 허위라고 판결했다.이것은 이탈리아에서 실제로 있었던 일인데, 1999년 현재, 즉 결정 날짜였다.

나는 내 편집이 무엇 때문에 비판받고 있는지 이해할 수 없다.그것은 분명히 허위 강간 혐의에 대한 WP 기사와 직접 관련이 있고, 상당한 의미를 지닌다.더욱이, 그것은 콘텐츠의 세계화를 위한 기사의 맨 위에 있는 요청을 지원한다.

(아마도 나는 법원의 결정에 대해 POV가 있다고 덧붙여야 할 것이다.나는 그 결정이 터무니없다고 생각하는데, 나는 토크 페이지에 그렇게 말했다.그러나 그것은 기사에 어떠한 영향도 주지 않았다.)

또한, 내 편집은 강간 혐의에 대한 논쟁의 운동가 측을 지지한다는 점에 주목하라.

12. 이것은 나의 초기 진술에서 논의된 호주 연구를 가리킨다.소니머스86은 두 가지 이유로 나의 편집을 비판한다.첫째, 나의 편집본은 "수축과 철수에 관한 정보"를 추가하기 때문이다; 그러나 그 정보는 나의 초기 진술에서 설명했듯이 관련성이 있고 중요하다. 그것은 소니머스86의 답변에서 무시되는 설명이다.둘째, 나의 편집은 "허위적 주장과 철회되지 않은 허위 고발과 고발이 구별되지 않는다는 것을 암시하는" 수축과 철회를 혼란스럽게 하기 때문이다; 이것은 나의 편집 전과 후의 비교가 보여주듯이 거짓이며, 두 가지 버전이 모두 나의 초기 상태에 있다.…을 수반하다

13. 나는 여기서 정책 위반을 보지 않는다.하지만 만약 누군가가 그런 것을 원한다면 나는 더 자세히 설명할 수 있다.

엘리타 (대화) 21:52, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

ArbCom

두 관리자는 내가 준 설명이 ANI에 비해 너무 길다고 설명했다.게다가, 소니머스86은 꽤 긴 답변을 해왔고, 이에 대한 나의 답장은 또한 길어질 것이다.따라서 나는 이 문제가 ArbCom에 제출되어야 한다고 생각한다.만약 그것이 괜찮지 않다면, 나에게 알려줘.
엘리타(토크) 14:54, 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

지역사회 내에서 해결하려는 사전 노력 없이 ArbCom이 이 사건을 받아들일지는 의문이다.이 (AN/I)는 한 가지 방법이고, 분쟁 해결은 또 다른 방법이다.BMK (토크) 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC) 16:42 [응답]

위에서 언급한 바와 같이, 이 사건은 위키백과에서도 논의되고 있다.중재/요청/강제#로셀레스.리즈^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 ANI 토론을 시작하거나 엘리타 편집과 관련하여 AE를 요청하고자 했다.오늘 로그인해서 로셀리스에 대한 이 실과 파덴톤의 AE 요청을 보았다.나는 엘리테아가 남성 인권 기사 보호관찰 조항과 게이머게이트 ArbCom 결정의 "성별 관련 분쟁 또는 논란" 조항을 위반했다고 100% 확신한다.여기서나 로셀리스에 대한 AE 요청에서 그들의 행동이 검토되지 않는 한, 엘리테아의 편집과 관련한 중재 집행을 요청할 것이다. --소닉Y (대화) 17:52, 2015년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

@BMK, 친절하게 설명해줘서 고마워.나는 여기서 더 많은 것을 다룰 것이다.엘리타(토크) 21:31, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 설명:아누팜스르

실제로 사용자별:Cubancigar11 --NeilN 19:18, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[답글]

안녕! 나는 2003년에 영어 위키백과를 편집하기 시작한 아주 오래된 편집자야.요즘 나는 대부분 휴면 상태여서 다른 계정을 사용해 잠복하고 있다.

로셀리스와 소니머스86은 WP:3RRR을 피하는 데 있어 서로 도움을 받아 편집 전쟁에 참여했던 전력이 있을 뿐만 아니라, 위키피디아를 지지하기 위해 사용하고 있는 개인적인 의제를 가지고 있다고 말하고자 여기에 왔다.로셀리스는 인신공격 외에는 아무 이유 없이 다른 편집자들의 잘 연구된 편집본을 끊임없이 삭제하며, 이 커뮤니티의 확실한 지지를 계속 받고 있는 것은 '9년 동안 이곳에 있었다'는 이유 때문인 것으로 보인다.만약 그렇다면, 그 지원은 그것의 남용과 함께 지금 끝나야 한다.로셀리스와 소니머스86은 둘 다 새로운 사용자를 겁주고 그들을 쫓아내서 비소급적인 의견에 대한 통제력을 유지하기 위해서 말이다.

최근 내가 왜 변화가 되돌아가는지에 대한 토론을 시작했을 때, 나는 로셀리스의 6번째 감각에서 이런 반응을 얻었다.그녀는 자신의 실제 문제가 무엇인지, 그리고 비협조적인 진술을 복사하는 것이 내 개인적인 의견인지를 묻는 질문에 또 다른 인신공격으로 다시 돌아왔다[31].Btw, 당신은 그 출처를 읽고 그것이 그렇게 강제로 재제시되었던 것과 아무 상관이 없다는 것을 스스로 확인할 수 있다.

무엇이 문제인지, 그리고 제안된 변화가 어떻게 '파괴'인지에 대해 추가적으로 질문하자, 여전히 관련이 없는 또 다른 인신 공격이 찾아왔다[32].그리고 갑자기 소니머스86이 토크 페이지를 완전히 무시한 채 역전전쟁을 선동하는 데 참여하기 시작했다.나는 프리마 페이시 WP를 무시했다.CABAL의 행동과 인용구들을 더 추가하고 더 나아가 기사를 개선하려고 노력하자, 다른 사용자들은 저널 자체로부터 받은 정확한 인용구를 WP라고 부름으로써 그것을 되돌렸다.족제비.[34]

여기서 보여주고 싶은 것은 새로운 사용자들이 어떻게 로셀리스와 소니머스86으로부터 장기 사용자의 포브에 맞지 않는다는 이유로 기사를 편집하는 것에 대한 위협과 괴롭힘을 당하고 있는가 하는 것이다.어떤 것도 중요하지 않다. - 소스 자료의 추가, 편집 의지의 추가, 개인적인 학대를 용인하는 것뿐만 아니라 위키피디아 규칙을 준수하기 위해 최선의 노력을 기울이는 것. 왜냐하면 이 두 사용자는 토론에 참여하려고도 하지 않기 때문이다.그것은 나의 방식, 또는 친근한 행정관의 금지다.

내가 말했듯이, 나는 대부분 무시무시한 사람이고, 그러한 사이코패스적 행동이 미미한 위키피디아를 계속 개선해 나갈 것이다.하지만 위키피디아는 이런 종류의 괴롭힘을 막기 위해 엄격한 조치를 취해야 한다. 여기서 그들은 단일 목적 계정이라고 불리며, 이것은 당신의 개인적인 웹페이지와 그들이 생각해낼 수 있는 어떤 무언극 점보가 아니다.이러한 종류의 사용자들이 자신들에게서 벗어날 수 있다고 생각한다면 이러한 행동은 멈추지 않을 것이다.— Cubancigar11이 추가한 사전 서명되지 않은 의견(대화 • 기여)

당신은 '여성주의자들은 남녀를 불문하고 법 앞에 평등을 외친다'를 '여성주의자들은 남녀를 불문하고 법 앞에 평등을 지지한다고 주장한다'로 바꾸려 했다.다음과 같은 매력적인 편집 요약:

• "출처 추가와 확장 구간.연쇄살인범에 대한 개인적인 의견 제거.토크 페이지로 이동하십시오. 이 블로그는 친구의 개인 블로그가 아니며 다른 모든 사람은 당신의 의견을 홍보하기 위해 홍보하도록 강요된 노예가 아니다.)"
• "오 백과사전의 일기를 인용하는 것은 매우 재미있다.어린 사람들은 권위적인 것의 의미를 이해하지 못할 것이다.교수나 저술가들도 개인적인 의견만 갖고 있는 것 같아.)"

--닐N^{talk to me} 19:27, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 단지 출처를 열고 그 안에 '페미니스트들이 평등을 외친다'고 쓰여 있는 것을 발견하면 된다. 내가 전에도 심지어 위에서도 여러 번 언급했듯이 말이다.여전히 어떤 종류의 공공 기물 파손 행위가 있다고 주장함으로써, 당신은 단지 편집되고 있는 실제 주제에 대한 당신의 게으름과 관심 부족을 드러내고 있을 뿐이다.실제로 출처를 읽어보면 불평등과 남성성의 종말을 위한 페미니스트의 수업을 격렬하게 이야기한다.그러나 나는 페미니즘에 대한 토론을 만들고 싶지 않았기 때문에 나는 완전히 잘못된 진술을 좀더 중립적인 것으로 수정했다, 그래서 혹시라도 당신 자신처럼 그 생각을 도입하는 데 특별한 관심이 있는 사람이 있다면, 그 사람은 출처를 찾아 그것을 추가할 수 있을 것이다.대신에 당신은 와서 맹목적으로 잘못된 버전으로 되돌아가고, 그것을 바로잡거나 심지어 토론하는데 노력을 전혀 하지 않았다.그런데, 누군가가 '위키피디아는 당신의 개인 블로그가 아니다'라고 반복해서 말할 때, '친구 블로그도 아니다'라고 말하는 것은 적절한 대답이다.--20:06, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

---

로셀리스의 최근 익살스러운 말은 다음과 같다. [35] 내가 토크를 완전히 무시한 채, 소크푸펫 :D라고 주장하면서, 그녀가 어렸을 때 한 말에 찬성하는 진정한 인용구를 삭제하라.Can we let a deranged person have such autonomy?--talk 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Yet another proof, a check for sockpuppetry :D [37]--talk 20:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC) NeilN threatens to block me for showing the abusive behavior: [38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs) [reply]

1. 주제당 하나의 계정을 사용하십시오.
2. 다른 편집자를 "정신 나간"이라고 부르는 것은 용납될 수 없다.
3. 나는 네가 편집한 반달리즘을 부르지 않았다.나는 그들이 횡설수설과 합성에 가깝다고 말했다.나는 그것을 지지한다.

--닐N^{talk to me} 20:35, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

아누팜스르는 국내에서 인신공격과 복수의 계정 남용으로 1주일을 차단한 뒤 이를 인정한 것이다.Sockpuppet 계정 Cubancigar11 (토크 · 기여) 변명은 불법 Sockpuppet 계정으로 차단되었다.아크로테리온 (대화) 20:37, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

BLP 정보에 대한 개인 웹 페이지 사용에 대해 안내하십시오.

Nassim Nicholas Talb 기사는 역사적으로 Taleb 교수의 개인 웹페이지에 수많은 인용구를 포함시켰다.

나는 최근에 대담한 편집을 하고, 여러 사람을 위한 출처를 찾아내고, 중복된 것을 제거하고, 필요할 때 다른 경우를 위해 배치하는 기사를 접하게 되었는데, 왜냐하면 나는 다음과 같은 독서를 바탕으로 믿었기 때문이다.

• WP:BLPS
• WP:셀프 퍼블리시
• WP:검증
• WP:NPOV

백과사전적 장소로서의 위키피디아의 목적이 아니라, 개인의 자화자찬 웹페이지에서 나온 개인적인 전기적 주장을 자신에 관한 기사로 재현하는 것이다.

구체적으로, Talk에서 편집된 내용과 일치하여 다음과 같이 기술했다.

정책을 어떻게 해석할 것인가에 대한 의견이 분분하고, 여러 편집자들이 저울질해 왔기 때문에 나는 이 토론을 여기로 옮긴다.더욱이, 어떤 경우에는, 되돌리는 것이 Talb 개인 웹 페이지 인용문을 다시 소개할 뿐만 아니라, 중요한 복사 및 인용문 보완/정리도 취소한다.

@LoveMonkey:, @SICTIONO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuky:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechzkelZilber:, @LoveMonkey: 어떤 상황에서 제목 주제의 자간 출판 자료의 출현을 허용해야 하는지를 명확히 해 줄 것을 관리자들에게 당부한다.

나는 이 편집자들 중 어떤 특정한 편집에도 문제가 없다.당면한 의문은 Talb의 개인 웹페이지 [39]를 그의 WP 기사에서 되풀이되는 출처로 사용해야 하는 것인가 하는 것이다. 그 문제에 관심을 가져줘서 고마워.

마지막으로 (1) 편집 이력의 "소리지름"을 용서하십시오.나는 (여기서 제기되는 바와 같이) 논쟁적인 이슈와 논쟁적이지 않아야 할 다른 수정 사항들을 구별하기 위해 빨리 도착하는 편집자들을 구하려고 노력했다.

그리고, (2) 이것을 좀 더 적절한 공지 보드로 옮겨주십시오. 만약 내가, 나의 순진함 속에, 이것을 차선적인 토론으로 올렸더라면.

건배, 르프로프 7272 (대화) 21:41, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아 편집자로서 내 일은 정보를 추가하여 페이지를 개선하는 것이다.작가 자신의 아이디어에 의한 출처는 출처지만 부족할 수도 있다.(자료의 전시에 관한 한) 무관하게 취급되는 것이 아니라 덧씌워지는 것이다.따라서 허용 가능한 정책은 추가 인용과 가능한 대체물을 찾는 것인데, 여기에는 약간의 노력이 필요하다.자신의 종교에 대한 진술과 같은 내용을 삭제하는 것은 책임 있는 편집이 아니다.문제는 르프로프7272의 편집이 최소한으로 말하면 그의 호통을 세지 않고 올캡으로 외치는 등 변칙적으로 보인다는 점이다.예를 들어, (다른 사람이 인용문을 추가하기 위해 "데드 링크"를 추가하는 것보다) 데드 링크가 있는 것을 제거하는 것이 더 책임질 것이다.한계테임 (대화) 22:02, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

르 프롭이 내 페이지에서 나를 다른 편집자로 착각하고 노발대발한 것 같아.

사과는 네가 몇 가지 해냈다는 것을 내가 이해했을 때 내려졌다. 하지만 대부분의 복사음식의 무릎을 꿇는 역전은 아니었다.그 문제에 문제가 있다면 언제든지 나에게 직접 얘기해 줘.ANI는 자신의 기사에서 BLP 전기 정보를 지원하기 위한 출처로서 자간된 CV를 포함한 개인의 개인 웹 페이지 사용에 정책이 어떻게 적용되는지에 대해 i를 발행한다.이것은 ANI가 우리를 위해 다루어야 할 것이다.너는 그것을 잘 믿는구나, @특정적: 그리고 나는 믿지 않는다.르프로프 7272 (대화) 22:42, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

게다가, Talb의 페이지를 보면, 많은 것들이 그 자체로 그에 의해 언급되고 연결되며 그의 FB 계정은 검증되어 다른 자료들에 대해 더 권위적이긴 하지만 그의 아이디어에 대한 인용문은 무효가 되지 않는다.그리고 이력서와 같은 생물학적 소재는 공인들에게 엄중한 감시를 받고 있으며, 가장 작은 거짓말이 탐지되어 그들에게 불리하게 사용되기 때문에 CV에서 가져와도 괜찮다.상식.한계테임 (대화) 22:12, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

이것이 그 문제의 핵심이다.BLP 기사 컨텍스트에 자체 발행된 CV 및 관련 자료, 지원 자료 없음 등을 사용할 수 있는가?나는 [40] (개인용 Taleb) 웹 페이지에 대해 지원되지 않는 모든 참조를 삭제하자고 제안했다.LT 등은 fooledbyrandomness.com을 로 교체했다.어떻게 진행하면 좋을까?Lepf 7272 (대화) 22:42, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

마지막으로 르 프로프 7272는 전쟁을 편집하는 것처럼 보이며 3RR(내가 잘못 알고 있는 것이 아니라면 4RR)을 넘어섰다.한계테임 (대화) 22:25, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 잘못된 표현에 반대한다.그 기사는 여러 가지 일이 진행되고 있다.나는 이것들을 분리해 달라고 부탁했고, 모든 것이 그들의 역행 능력을 자유롭게 사용하는 것 같아, 그래서 목욕물과 함께 아기를 밖으로 내버리도록 했다.ANI는 자체 발행된 인용 문제에 대해 언급되고 있다.이 문제는 ANI 물질과 아무런 관련이 없는 다른 편집과 혼동되고 있다.내가 편집한 초기 편집은 레드의 불완전한 인용문을 본체로 옮겼고, 그 인용문을 완성했다.이것들을 리미트-테오렘이 했던 것처럼, 이것들을 되돌리는 것은, ANI가 말하길 기다리는 동안 데드링크 소스를 다시 레드에 넣게 된다. 그리고 나는 기사를 나쁜 상태로 방치하고 ANI 이슈와 관련 없는 이슈들을 혼동하는 것에 반대한다.더 이상 편집은 안 하겠지만, 리미트-테오렘이 ANI 이슈를 처음부터 잘못된 인용문 수정과 분리시켜 이슈를 적절히 분석했으면 좋겠다.그가 ANI 문제로서 led 및 PhD 섹션 편집의 번복을 주장하는 것은 둘 다 부정확하며("fooledbyrandomness.com" 인용은 포함하지 않는다), 불완전하고 중복된 인용문을 led에 넣는다(몸 속의 인용문은 완전하고 필요한 모든 인용문).레드와 본체 사이의 인용구를 주의 깊게 비교해 보십시오, LT!

그리고 다시 한 번 말하지만, 이 모든 것은 ANI의 문제, 자체 발행된 소스 사용과는 중요하지 않다. 그리고 나는 이 어떤 것도 다시는 만지지 않을 것이다.여기서는 어떤 선행도 처벌받지 않는 것으로 보인다.르프로프 7272 (대화) 22:32, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

참고, 문제를 난독화하기 위해 리미트-테오렘은 다시 비 ANI 편집 내용을 되돌렸고 데드링크를 제거하기 위해 추가 편집을 하고 있으므로, 내가 케이스가 없는 것처럼 보이게 한다.토론이 벌어지고 있고, 상대방의 주장이 기사 내용을 수정하여 자신의 이슈가 사라지게 할 때, 모호하지 않은 토론, 즉 공정한 결과가 나올 가망은 없다.이것은 완전히 기초적인 것이어서, 나는 그 일에 관여하지 않는다.리미트-테오렘은 그의 글을 가질 수 있고, 그가 원하는 어떤 자기 출판 자료와 함께 그것을 참조할 수 있다.나는 이 일에서 손을 뗀다.Leprof 7272 (대화) 22:53, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여러분.작가/학원은 웹 사이트 게이트 자료, 기사 및 논문에 게시할 수 있다는 점에 유의하십시오(나는 학자로서 그렇게 할 수 있다).따라서, 과학적인 기사에 대한 언급은 필자의 웹사이트를 통해 제공될 수 있지만, 필요 이상의 자기 참조를 피할 수 있도록 주의할 필요가 있다.모든 데드링크된 (실제로 게이트된) 참조를 없애는 것은 무책임한 일일 것이다.2015년 5월 10일(UTC) 23:00(토크)

"gateed material" 논평은 단순히 이 기사의 많은 이슈와 밀접한 관련이 없다.(이 설명에 포함될 수 있는 편집은 단 한 가지뿐임을 알고 있다.)문제의 대부분은 그의 WP 기사에 게재되고 있는 Talb의 개인 웹페이지(CV 및 미발표 에세이 자료)에 게재되지 않은 전기 자료와 관련이 있다.다른 사건들은 초안이나 실제 출판된 자료와의 연관성이 "게이팅"만큼 간단하지 않은 다른 버전의 Talb 글들을 포함한다.

그리고 동료 학자로서 필자는 위에서 언급한 WP 정책이 한 WP 기사에 자체 발행된 자료를 인용함으로써 위반된다는 나의 주장을 지지한다.그러한 일은 WP의 다른 장소에서 행해지거나 학계에 의해 인용된 정책과 일관되지 않는다.그렇지 않으면 기사를 계속 편집해 문제를 난독하게 만드는 LT의 전술, 특히 내가 주의를 환기시킨 이슈들을 제거하기 위해 나는 그와 더 이상 교류할 수 없고(더 이상 AGF를 할 수 없다), 나 자신을 재회하게 된다.나는 이 토론을 BLPN으로 옮기자는 @특정O:[41]의 제안을 지지하지만, 이 토론을 BLPN으로 옮기려는 경험이 부족하다.건배, 주목해줘서 고맙고, 단호하고 이슈화 된 LT교수와 함께 좋은 기회.Lepf 7272 (대화) 23:24, 2015년 5월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 여러 가지 다른 문제들이 논의되고 있는 것처럼 들린다.동료 검토 저널 기사는 적절하게 사용될 수 있으며, 자체 발행되지 않는다.인용문은 저널에 게재되어야 한다.

만약 저자가 그것을 그들의 웹사이트에 다시 등록한다면, 일반적으로 이 복사본에 대한 링크는 예의 링크로 포함될 수 있다.복사본이 출판된 복사본과 동일하지 않은 경우는 예외일 것이다.또는 다음과 같은 저작권 문제가 우려된다.일반적으로 저자는 그러한 복사본을 가질 수 있기 때문에 우리는 일반적으로 대학 웹사이트에서 그러한 복사본을 받아들인다.그러나 충분한 의심이 있을 경우 WP:copyvio에 따라 2차 변칙으로 제거해야 할 수 있다.

그러한 예의 링크의 포함, 거부 또는 존재 또는 부재는 결국 예의 링크가 아닌 원래 발행된 기사에 해당하는 인용의 타당성에 영향을 미치지 않는다.만약 사람들이 그러한 예의상 연계를 거절하고 있다면, 예를 들어야만 한다.그러나 Leprof가 옳고 이러한 예의에 대한 연계가 논의 중인 문제가 아니라면, 그들을 꺼내는 것은 불필요한 방해물이다.

닐 아인(토크) 06:10, 2015년 5월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 닐 아인, 사려 깊은 답변 고마워.답변: [a] 동료 검토 저널에 대한 문제 없음, 인용은 저널에 포함되어야 한다는 데 동의함, [b] 예의 링크의 외관에 대해 동의하지 않지만, 여기서 해당되는 경우 언급하는 예외를 실행하십시오(일부 경우 개인용 Talb 웹 페이지에 나타나는 것은 pdf가 아니라 초안 버전임), [c]를 명확히 하십시오.테시 링크는 문제가 아니라, 그의 개인 웹페이지에 등장하는 그의 자작 CV를 기사 전반에 걸쳐 전기적 정보의 출처로 이용하는 것과 같은 것이다.여기 이 글에 여전히 있는 esample이 있다.

• [42] (표준 공식 기록/기록 대신 가족력 지원)
• [43] (표준 공식 기록/기록 대신 가족력 지원)
• [44] (내 편집에서 기본 사항과 함께 블룸버그 시장 저널에 대한 커티시 링크, 즉)
• [45] (내 편집에서 Primary와 함께 비즈니스 위크 매거진, per se)에 대한 특별 링크에 남겨두었다.
• [46] (재정상의 모든 고용 포지션을 정당화하기 위해, 다른 출처는 제공되지 않음)

[위의 두 가지 방법으로 충분히 포인트를 만들었으므로, 개인 웹 페이지 참조가 예의 링크로서 무시되고 있는 경우]

• [47] (그의 긴 일련의 학문적 고용 직책을 모두 정당화하기 위해, 다른 출처는 제공되지 않음)
• [48] (런던에서 폴 윌모트와 공동으로 정규 과정을 가르친다는 것)

더 있을 수 있지만, 이 문제는 내가 지지하여 편집한 예의상 문제가 아니라는 것을 분명히 하기 위한 표본 추출에 충분하다.문제는 그의 개인 웹페이지에만 소싱되는 전기적 정보로, 신뢰할 수 있고 (독립적으로) 검증 가능한 정보를 가진 백과사전적 기사가 아닌, 기사를 그 웹페이지의 연장선으로 만들려고 한다.현재 상태로는 기사의 상당 부분을 사용자:내가 이 사건들을 다시 로 바꾼 한계-이러한 생각이 다시 "정의로운 나를 믿어"라는 상태에 놓였다.-우리는 그의 개인적인 웹페이지, 그의 고용, 그의 개인적인 가족력 등을 통해, 자기 국가의 주체를 단순히 신뢰하라는 요청을 받고 있다.즉, 우리는 이러한 중요한 측면에서 이것이 자전적인 것이 되도록 허용해 왔다.나는 내가 편집한 살아있는 사람의 다른 어떤 기사에서도, 사람들이 그들의 자서전적 열망을 백과사전적인 기사 내용으로 제시하지 않도록 하기 위해 노력하면서, 이 논쟁적인 이슈를 가져본 적이 없다는 점에 주목하겠다.르프로프 7272 (토크) 07:45, 2015년 5월 16일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자들은 비윤리적으로 서로를 돌본다.

About my edits and User: Joseph2302 on the issue of tagging my articles for deletion severally.

Really? This is a bad block. Hilumeoka2000 did disclose, on their talk page that they are indeed a paid editor, so they met terms of service, yes their message on AFD was inappropriate, but not rising to the level of a block, the AFD's on the basis that they're an undeclared paid editor , are nonsense, she declared it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His user page does not include the crucial word "paid". He says only that he is "a wikipedia writer and editor. He specializing on writing wiki articles that are neutral and also follow the wiki rules", but most users would say that. That is not a sufficient declaration to comply with the Terms of Use, which require disclosure of "your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." He only disclosed that he was paid yesterday on his talk page, in response to a direct question. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a good block. Even if one regards that as disclosure, and I agree with JohnCD that it was inadequate as such, he was not blocked for being an undisclosed paid editor. This block, as I understand it, was for disruptive editing at AfDs. We should await the conclusion of the AfDs, but if the articles are deleted and he attempts to write similar ones, there would be a possible indefinite block for persistently inserting promotionalism after adequate warnings. We can and do block promotional editors regardless of motivation. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Sneaky paid editing going on

User:Anglicanus

Unacceptable tone of addressing, by LightandDark2000

User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system

User:Phill24th has been engaged in page ownership issues in regards to the 2015 Kumanovo shootings. He has attacked editors who have made good faith edits on the page by giving them warnings in an attempt to scare them away, most notably here User talk:120.62.25.25 in regards to [[51]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XavierGreen When you open a section on this page, you must notify the other editor that you have done so on their talk page. You will also need to provide diffs of the problems you are discussing. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret I did place a notification on his talk page here [52]. And i did post the diffs above. The warning user:Phill24th gave to the editor was here [53], the good faith edit he gave the warning for was here [54].XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo's edit warring, WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN-behavior

Peter Isotalo has completely appropriated the article Sweden in a clear WP:OWN violation. For years, the stable version of the article said Sweden was consolidated in the Middle ages. In February this year Peter Isotalo unilaterally imposed the year 1523 instead [55], and has kept reverting back to his own version ever since [56], [57], [58], [59]. Even though Peter Isotalo is alone in pushing his version and several other users (at least four) have expressed their opposition, Peter Isotalo insists Wikipedia does not operate by consensus [60] which may be true insofar that a consensus cannot overturn sources, but Peter Isotalo has never offered a single source in all his edit warring. Furthering displaying how obvious a case of WP:OWN this is, Peter Isotalo insists that what goes into the infobox "needs to be stringently monitored" [61]. As Peter Isotalo changed the established version and has since kept reverting to his own version, apparently he has appointed himself as the guardian who should do the stringent monitoring. Last but not least, in a rather obvious case of WP:HOUND, Peter Isotalo responded to my edits at Sweden by heading to List of languages by number of native speakers, an article he had never edited once before but where I'm active and had edited earlier today, to oppose my work there [62], [63].WP:HOUND does not come any clearer than this, and it is a typical example of the battlefield mentality of this user. All of this, the edit warring, the strong WP:OWN and the obvious WP:HOUNDING shows that Peter Isotalo is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ANI was brought here a full 2.5 hours after the dispute over Sweden arose. Not the most constructive use of this forum, I'd say.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely untrue, and you know it. The dispute at Sweden goes back to February, as the diffs above show. I haven't been involved in the dispute before, but you certainly have. And as I already explained on your talk, it is the combination of your WP:OWN with your aggressive WP:HOUNDING that led me to bring this to ANI, as it's one of the clearest cases of battleground mentality I've seen in years.Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have consistently removed claims at Sweden in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and no sources have been forthcoming. You've simply referred to other users to reinstate those unreferenced claims.

And I have been involved in articles relating to both languages and Sweden for years, so it's not particularly odd that I commented on problems raised by others at talk:list of languages by number of native speakers. I noticed this by checking your recent contributions. Last I checked, this didn't qualify as WP:HOUNDING.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly suggesting that it's pure coincidence that in all your years at Wikipedia, you never once went to List of languages by number of native speakers but after I challenged your edit on Sweden, you headed straight to the latest article I had edited to oppose me? Yes, that's most definitely WP:HOUNDING and your denying of it is profoundly dishonest. My apologies, it was late and I misread the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Peter suggest that? Here he seems to suggest it isn't a coincidence, rather that he's been active in the general subject area for a few years, and noticed one particular issue by checking out your contributions (I presume due to concerns over your editing brought up by the dispute). Checking out a persons contribution in response to concerns you see over their editing or just because you're interested after encountering that person and are wondering more about them, is perfectly normal and accepted. Commenting solely on the issue at hand, when you happen to see something in those contributions that you feel you can help in, or where you have concerns over the direction of discussion is also perfectly normal and accepted. The question of when it becomes hounding is a very complicated one, but I think it's rare that a single instance will cross in to the hounding threshold. More importantly, as I said at the beginning, your response is fairly confusing as it doesn't seem to relate to what Peter actually said here. If there is somewhere else where Peter suggested it was "pure coincidence", can you link to that? If you were solely responding to Peter's comment here I'll be blunt I'm tempted to check out your contributions myself as it sounds like you have a problem understanding peoples comments, and to make spurious accusations due to that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear, and I was. Not that it's an excuse, but it was late and I read Peter's comment to quickly. He says he noticed it by checking out my contribution, so my comment about him claiming it was a coincidence was inaccurate and I have struck it. My apologies for that mistake. As for the policy, perhaps I've misunderstood WP:HOUNDING. The way I understood it is that we should avoid following users with whom we have a conflict to articles they are editing to spread the conflict. Of course I could go to several articles Peter has edited to start opposing him there and he could go to even more articles I've edited to oppose me, but I really don't think that that would be helpful for the community. As for the rest of my original post, the strong WP:OWN remains. Since I posted those diffs, I added sources to several claims Peter had tagged [64], and his response was the usual as it has been to anyone editing the infobox on Sweden since Febrary, reverting me [65] to remove all the sources to insert his {cn} even though every source was WP:RS and in each showed that the dates are correct. Once again, every user except Peter Isotalo is in favor of the consensus version and this reverting of anyone disagreeing has been going on for three months against any user who does not agree with Peter's (unsourced) decision that Sweden did not exist prior to 1523.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I should add that the edit warring against consensus and strong WP:OWN is not limited to Sweden. At Melee, Peter Isotalo is doing exactly the same thing, endless edit warring to impose templates despite being alone in his view [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. All of that edit warring is just in the last week, showing that the problematic behavior at Sweden is part of a general pattern.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed of this conversation by Jeppiz presumably because Jeppiz wishes me to explain the context of the disagreement over Melee. Melee is an article I recently visited for the first time in years because articles I am composing on the Waterloo campaign use the term, and I wanted to see if the content supports the link. So now for some recent editing history of the article involving User:Peter Isotalo:

• There was a proposed move Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 to move "Melee" → "Melee (warfare)" and "Melee" (disambiguation)" → "Melee". The decision was "No consensus that other uses challenge this one". User:Peter Isotalo was in favour of the move stating I see no indication whatsoever that the modern meaning of "melee" has a specific military meaning. This article is devoid of sources and a merger to close quarters battle has been suggested. In my view, it smacks of original research. ...". there was an exchange in which it was pointed out anonymously that "The term has certainly been used in military scholarship" eg "The Battle of Hastings: Math, Myth and Melee". to which User:Peter Isotalo replied "It's also an attestation that 'math' and 'myth' have been used. That doesn't make them relevant encyclopedic topics."
• User:Peter Isotalo put the article Melee up for deletion on 6 April 2015 which starts with "As pointed out in the recently closed move request, this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic." This was closed with 'The result was no consensus. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes.' User:Peter Isotalo wrote in that AfD "Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK".
• Having made similar arguments in two different forum (the RM and the AfD) and not gained a consensus User:Peter Isotalo has set about the article with a vengeance. User:Peter Isotalo has been removing any information that is not source because AFAICT User:Peter Isotalo still has the opinion that Melee is not a valid military term so nothing in the article can be verified against it (I admire the logic, but disagree as I think it is a perfectly valid military term). This means that for example a paragraph on cavalry tactics has been removed with the comment "removed unsourced statement" not "removed as unverifiable". That in itself is not an indication of sort of problems that Jeppiz refers, but I think that the removal of of this sentence on a well sourced paragraph (with a link to the source), and the simultaneous addition of two templates, is an indication the having gained no consensus for views expressed in to other forum User:Peter Isotalo intends to try to overturn those view by reducing melee to just a dictionary definition, (presumably to then request another delete) Ignoring the consensus expressed in those two recent forum against such a change. This I think is behaviour, coupled to the insistences on adding and readding different templates to the to of the melee article without a consensus to do so, has moved from reasonable (as it was in the two forums) into tendentious editing. As I have not been involved in editing any other article that User:Peter Isotalo edits in recent years, I will leave it to others if this to decide if this indicates an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PBS, I had noticed as well that Peter Isotalo first was very active in reducing the article and then started adding templates, but knowing nothing of Melee, I preferred another user to expand on it, and I'm glad you did. For the record, this behavior is also emerging at Sweden now. After a number of users have expressed their opposition to the version Peter Isotalo has kept reverting to for months, he has started adding a large number of template [71], [72], even removing sources to keep the tags [73]. Just like at Melee, to echo PBS's words, this look more like vengeance, and the same goes for following me to List of languages by number of native speakers to start adding templates there as well, at an article he had never once edited until I "crossed" him. Taken together with what PBS says about Peter's behavior at Melee, this seems very much to be a battleground behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Thomas.W concludes, Peter Isotalo's tactic seems to be quite simply exhaust people by refusing to WP:HEAR until they tire and he "wins" [74]. And in absence of any action, Peter just continues to revert everybody, against the clear consensus [75]. Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have anything to say about this issue? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoeMCMXLVII and DRN

reverted edits

The talk pages of User:RJR3333's sockpuppets

IJBall, will you clarify why you stated, "The various socks of RJR3333 appear to have been dealt with (see: this SPI case archive)."? I'm fine with this thread having been closed, but it is about RJR3333's disruption on his WP:Sockpuppet talk pages. I wasn't reporting more of his WP:Socks. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, when I checked it looked like none of the socks had recent activity on their Talk pages (but it's possible I missed one...); and I think one or more might have had Talk page access revoked. I closed on that basis. But, like I said – it's possible I missed one... --IJBall (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, thanks for explaining. The FDR account still has talk page access, as is clear from my "03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post above; it's just that Tiptoety essentially told him not to use that talk page to rant anymore. Either way, as noted above, I will eventually seek that RJR3333 is banned from Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His repeated claims that he can edit Wikipedia productively should not be taken seriously by anyone. Tiptoety being willing to give him another chance is something that I chalk up to Tiptoety not having been through even half of what I have been through with him. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources

Trigger happy Admin

User:Nick2crosby

User:RayvnEQ

Jytdog needs administrator intervention, please?

abusive email from subject of article

Editor with a long disruptive pattern

Additional eyes and voices requested

Conduct of User:Mariolyrics4evr

User:Eaglestorm refuses to discuss anything

Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be entirely unwilling to discuss any changes to any articles, or to even glance at their Talk pages, preferring instead to repeatedly revert against clear consensus. This is evident, for instance, in both the Talk page and the edit history of Ace Combat, where he has repeatedly completely disregarded both. Multiple good-faith requests for collaboration on his own Talk page have been answered by removing the comments with edit summaries like, “my talk page my rules, get lost.” He’s already been blocked more than once for edit warring, which seems completely ineffective at altering his conduct, so I humbly request a conditional block. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a full protection at WP:RPP because of the edit warring. As for the user's actions, a little unnecessary if you ask me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the pattern of behavior should be addressed rather than a single instance… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there needs to be an assessment of a pattern of behaviour. I'm just wondering if it is not the anon IP here that should be investigated however. Looking over the recent edit history for this IP, they seem to be doing nothing but attempting to be the wiki policy police and seem to have flawed understanding of the policies they are suggesting should be enforced. If I wasn't the kind of person that exclusively follows WP:AGF as if it was some sort of suicide WP:PACT, then I might be led to believe this IP is a WP:SOCK that attempting to prove some WP:POINT by editing as an IP to WP:EVADE a block or something. I'm sure that the IP would love a little more WP:ROPE and I'm sure we should probably give it to them. I've responded on the talk page for the article that needed request from Callmemirela for protection, that redlinking to a page that doesn't exist whose topic fails GNG so it can never be an article per REDNOT. I've also declined the request for an article by the IP on the WP:WPVG/R page for the same reason, after an intense search the topic fails to meet the GNG (and honestly fails to show any indication of importance at all).

I'm also disappointed that this IP editor that is so keen on requesting others be blocked was not blocked themselves for being disruptive for the following chain of events: made a BOLD edit to the page, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, re-reverted byDrmies (who simply reverted on the grounds that Eaglestorm wasn't discussing, not because they are incorrect that REDNOT says these kinds of redlinks are not appropriate), reverted, then some more stuff happens until the IP admits in Special:Diff/659620279 that the thing they wanted to be a redlink in the first place has no sources and as such fails GNG and redlinks are not allowed per REDNOT. At this point, I believe this IP should have been blocked for their disruptive behavior for initiating an editwar with another user without researching why it was inappropriate for that redlink to exist. I also think that between being forced into an edit war and being harassed by an IP who insisted on continuing to post on their talk page despite being asked not to multiple times (per WP:DENY through calling it a "desperate anon post"), Eaglestorm appeared to be extremely frustrated and of the mindset that this IP is a WP:VANDAL who's WP:NOTHERE and I can't say that I blame him, nor can I blame them for not wanting to come and discuss it because they are likely struggling to stay WP:CALM, and I've honestly been wondering the same thing about this IP. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barely veiled assumptions of bad faith aside, I made every attempt to calmly and reasonably discuss the matter in good faith, both on the article Talk page and the user’s own, and my edits were in line with the clear consensus among the editors who did discuss. If this user had offered an explanation, whether on the Talk page or in an edit summary, you would have a point. But he didn’t. And unless I have a flawed misunderstanding of blocking policy (namely that blocks should be preventative and not punitive), a block against me is unwarranted at this time. If there’s a problem with my own conduct on Ace Combat, no one has bothered to inform me until now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I don't know, desperation play, my talk page my rules. get lost, and my talk page my rules get lost. desperate anon make it pretty clear to me that this editor did not want you posting on their talk page (yet you continued to do so). I'd say that goes against WP:HARASS (I'd almost go so far as to say that it appears to me that you were WP:HOUNDING this registered editor) and is indicative of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior which is damaging to the encyclopedia in which case a block to prevent you from continuing that behavior might be warranted if an admin felt so inclined. Anyways, it appears to me that the administrators aren't particularly interested in this complaint, and I've not interest in continuing this discussion any further at this point either. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, yes, that's an interesting set of diffs that clearly allow for two very different interpretations. I wouldn't go as far as to see possible harassment in here, though, and some of the stuff that was removed included notifications and stuff. If Eaglestorm would clearly and unequivocally say "editor X, do not post here anymore" it'd be a different matter. Thanks Technical, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already indicated that to them, hopefully I can break the barrier and get some kind of discussion (I'm tempted to go to email if needed). — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: As best I can tell, this user never discusses anything. That’s the issue that brought me here—not that he won’t talk to me, but to anyone. This encyclopedia is a collaborative project, but it’s arguably impossible to effectively collaborate with someone who never communicates, especially when going against consensus. I never wanted him blocked out of malice or spite; it’s a stretch to say I want him blocked at all, but I only want him blocked until he shows a willingness to communicate with other editors (especially when making reversions). If I’m wrong in any of this, then, again, please let me know. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, they don't communicate on talk pages (perhaps they're not English speaking or have some other reason they avoid discussion). I realize discussion is important, but who are you to demand that this user communicate and who are you to initiate an edit war with an editor who has been around over a decade and has 12,536 local edits to back up their experience. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Technical 13: I haven’t gone through his edit history enough to know how many of those edits were reverted as being against consensus or otherwise improper, but if I ever have the time and inclination to do so, I’ll be able to better answer your question. But for the time being: I’m a more communicative user who has been frustrated by silent reverts seemingly made per WP:ABF, and I’m clearly not the only one. Now, if you wouldn’t mind explaining, why are you being so defensive of him and aggressive toward me? If that answer doesn’t require administrative attention, please post it to my Talk page rather than here. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, editors who refuse to discuss tirritate the hell out of me, and Eaglestorm is one of those. There's nice, healthy talk page discussion in which they are not participating. I don't see how the IP is so disruptive: their edit summaries are much better than Eaglestorm's and they're participating in talk page discussion (as is Technical). It's hard for me to judge the content of the edits since it's all just fan stuff on a completely trivial topic that a real encyclopedia ought to be embarrassed about, but hey. (I mean, what on earth is this about, what is its content, what are its sources--we're citing this as a reference?) Anyway, as far as I'm concerned Eaglestorm looks the worst of them, and we have blocked editors for being incommunicado; it might well be that this one is next. They could, of course, start talking here in this thread, and sound like an adult. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand Drmies, and I don't disagree that Eaglestorm should respond to someone, someplace. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see what the IP might've done to deserve Technical 13's unabated and bitter criticism. Some of the comments he's made are especially worrying: where he appears to look down on the IP for no other reason than their being an IP, and where he - seemingly - questions the importance of communication. With respect, Technical 13, you're not making the situation here any better. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unabated and bitter criticism"? Interesting take on it, I simply don't see it that way. I don't begrudge constructive editors for not wanting to create an account (and actually I've campaigned for their rights to edit as IPs in the past and continue to do so). However, when an IP editor who has no verifiable background takes it upon themselves to be disruptive to discussions and pages by edit warring without justification and insists that the changes they made must be applied quoting a policy that they apparently hadn't read. If they had actually read the policy, they'd know they need to check that what they want to redlink actually could be an article. Then that IP refuses to WP:DROP the stick when an editor tells them that such redlinks aren't allowed and ignores repeatedly being asked to stop posting on said editor's talk page about such silliness as a redlink to a topic that would be quickly deleted if it was created as an article about a topic that isn't encyclopedic in the first place... Then that IP editor has the nerve to drag a well established editor to ANI because they wouldn't state the obvious (for whatever reason, such as maybe it being obvious), then I suspect that some investigation as to why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses, insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can. I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question, although I suspect that I'll have to spend a day digging through archives and whatnot and try to duck duck goose this IP for anything to be done about it if they don't hang themselves in the meantime. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they have been doing something wrong, calmly explain what it is. You don't need to go off on a prolix, character-smearing investigation of their hypothetical motives and motivations. Your style of argument is simply counterproductive and does nothing to ease tensions or to resolve any of the issues. Alakzi (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I gave justification. And the other editor pretty much refused to. As for the rest, I’m not going to defend myself here for unrelated events unless you wish to start a thread about me, but feel free to request a WP:CheckUser if you wish. I’ve explained my other actions elsewhere already. Now please stop assuming bad faith of me; I got quite enough of that from Eaglestorm, and that was mostly unspoken. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Replied to the rest on Tech’s Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The very beginning of my post here says that I exclusively WP:AGF, and now you're accusing me of ABF. Yet, I am going to choose to not get upset about that WP:PA, and instead am going to encourage you to read WP:AOBF. I've also responded to your second post to my talk page, but I (edit conflict)ed with it and don't have the energy to respond to the "additions" you made since it is almost 1AM. Good night. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Accusing me of being here to cause disruption, for one. AOBF: “The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part” should explain my ABF accusation. But hopefully we’re both done with that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm simply commenting my observations. I view your actions as disruptive. This simply falls under WP:Call a spade a spade. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reviewed the recent contributions of Eaglestorm and find that there are valid grounds for this complaint. For the number of reverts he/she performs, they hardly ever takes part in talk page discussions. (The last contribution to the article talk namespace was 2 December 2014.) This behaviour is not compatible with collaborative editing. I have watchlisted the user talk page and will likely block for a fortnight if this recurs, on consideration of the number of previous blocks for similar behaviour. I find Technical 13's steadfast defence of this behaviour strange and unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not defended and am not defending Eaglestorm's lack of participation in discussion. I've personally attempted to reach out and get this editor to participate in discussions. To me it was just a matter of pointing out that this user was right that the redlink trying to be forced into the article was inappropriate. I appreciate your criticism of my behaviour, as evidently the reason I first commented here was missed. My point was that this IP needs to be watched as well because I've found their insistance on pushing changes against consensus and against policy and refusing to drop the stick after being told "no, that's not how it works here" and given an explicit reason as to why with links to whatever may be appropriate they still push forward with their insistence. I equate this IP to my child in the backseat asking "but whhhyyyyyy can't I have it" after I've told them they can't have an ice cream sundae at 9pm just before bed and explained how it will keep them awake and cause them discomfort when they wake up in the middle of the night after finally getting to sleep because they are a little lactose intolerant and it doesn't get processed quickly enough when they are asleep. Anyways, I've stated my case (and responded to too many "but whyy" from the IP here in this discussion as it is). Need to get back to school work. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've had the timeline explained to you: nobody at the time considered the possibility that an article on the topic would not be notable; Eaglestorm was not "right". The IP got a little impatient, but we all do sometimes. Your characterisation of the IP as a child is unwarranted. If you continue down this path, the thread concerning your behaviour should be unarchived. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you are claiming that because no-one else had thought to check if the topic was even notable, that Eaglestorm was wrong and the redlink should have been allowed against long-standing policy and consensus because an IP and a couple of editors said it seemed reasonable without doing any checking? Really? Then, you are going to back up your claim that despite being backed with WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG, it didn't matter that Eaglestorm was right that such redlinks are not permitted. Finally, you're going to suggest that a new thread about my behaviour for defending WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG should occur (because unarchiving the last thread to talk about this entirely different topic wouldn't be appropriate)? Do what you will, if you want to start a new thread on me for that, go for it, I won't be particularly offended. Anyways, this thread has gotten completely off-topic and should probably be left to fade away and die... If you think a new thread is appropriate, by all means feel free to create it. — {{U Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eaglestorm did not cite WP:REDNOT or WP:GNG. The first time, he said "makes sense NOT to link to nonexistent article", which does not address the possibility of it being notable, or not; the second time, he accused the IP of a COI. You're conflating their being right with the outcome being right; the two are quite distinct. I'm not sure if you appreciate the offence you've caused - why would you jauntily invite me to start a new thread on your behaviour? It would be better for everybody if you were to simply apologise for comparing the IP with a baby, or for insinuating that they might be evading a block, or for any of the rest, really. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Alakzi: Thank you for that. @Technical 13: I don’t know whether you’re trying to bait me in a public setting (you’ve been much more civil toward me on your own Talk page), or you’re just failing to filter yourself, but please just stop it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemonics COI

208.70.228.138 appears to be a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest engaged in blatant self-promotion. The IP is registered to Chemonics and just about all of the edits are promoting Chemonics. Examples: [105], [106], [107], [108] Jon335 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of the IP's edits altogether: [109]. WP:COI allows (though often discourages) edits by an editor who is connected to the subject. I'm not seeing too much blatant self-promotion by the IP. Some, perhaps, wouldn't go to blatant though. The article has been around 2 years, so there does not seem to be any evidence the IP made the article themselves to promote the company. Most business articles do discuss that business's sectors of work, though perhaps a paragraph would have been better. The global presence list was kinda pointless and redundant in my opinion. In the criticism section, 'frequent' is a violation of WP:NPOV, especially with such a small list of incidents and few references. (I've gone and removed that one myself). I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the other removals, so I'll agree the rest do appear to be a COI violation. ― Padenton ✉ 01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ordinarily I'd warn you about the dangers of investigating undisclosed COI, but for an IP it's a little different. Several of the IP's edits are things that someone with a COI probably should refrain from doing; e.g., deleting a maintenance tag, adding PR-speak. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does allow for non-controversial edits, including the removal of maintenance tags that are no longer needed. At the time of removal the article was no longer an advertisement, though I suppose one might argue that the IP made it one after with adding the locations list and the business sector list. Whether that has merit, I don't know. The one source maintenance tag was rightfully removed, it was no longer accurate (the article was significantly expanded by Jon335 the day after it was tagged for one source by someone else [110]), and it doesn't have any explanation for the tag on the talk page. The primary sources tag is appropriate now though, so I added that. I think you're right on the PR-speak though. ― Padenton ✉ 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be Wikipedia Staff

Hcobb & BLP's

Fraudulent misrepresentation.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao and AWB abuse

United States Merit Systems Protection Board

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#Editorous_is_on_a_crusade
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Editorous_at_it_again

Now editing while logged out: 74.92.159.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've opened an SPI but given stuff like this, can we indef the master and temp block the IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Si se puede. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the derogatory nicknames. [116] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, if that article is targeted again (I saw three different IPs and blocked one of them), ping me and I'll semi-protect it. This is stupid. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Drmies. Will do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat at Gerald Fredrick Töben, possible BLP issues

See[117]. "Corrected date: not 1998 but 1999 - I shall be submitting a detailed new version of this flawed and truncated biographical sketch - and seek legal advice if the paid trolls tamper with ityou tamper with it" The IP is apparently Toben himself. As I've been involved in editing the article I'll leave it for others to deal with this. Ah, just realised that isn't the only legal threat, see[118]. As he's not using a stable IP, perhaps protection should be applied. To be fair, it probably needs more eyes, it is a BLP after all. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK -- if he sues we'll just deny there's an English Wikipedia or that he's one of its six million articles. EEng (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to my watchlist - hopefully others will as well. Given the possibility of a dynamic IP, page protection may be necessary should the behavior persist. The date had a source pointing to the 1998 date, so I reverted. If they dispute the date another source will be necessary. I've also done some minor formatting cleanup and removed an unsourced claim. --- Barek(talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the subject's views abhorrent but that's neither here nor there. If the subject of a BLP thinks a correction is necessary then we should take that request seriously no matter who it is. Right now the 1998 date is sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not an appropriate source for anything remotely important or controversial.

It's easy to give BLP protection to "good" people. The test of our commitment to BLP is when we apply the same standards to everyone, whether the Dalai Lama or someone considerably less noble. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour

The user PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since March 2015 constantly does disruptive edits, or starting loose discussions, currently on the Dulo clan article, previously on the Bulgars article, and recently copy-pasting the same wall of loose (fringe) theories to the Huns article talk page. The user was in this three months several times warned, or his activity and intentions, as well the specific info, sufficiently discussed. I explained him that, for this report most importantly, the info he's bringing to the Dulo clan article is totally unrelated to the topic what ever, or removing sourced considerations by relevant academic scholars (calling their considerations junk), and what's worse, he knows that and admits that his edits are violating the Wikipedia principles. I was tolerating his behaviour for some time, trying to discuss as much as possible, hoping for the best, but he's constantly pushing the same judgmental attitude and unconstructive activity. In the last 24 hours we both broke the 3RR rule on the Dulo clan article.--Crovata (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy sockpuppetry to sway AfD and repeted personal attacks

Yesterday I came across Margaret Varnell Clark as DMRRT, the WP:SPA behind the article added promotion for her self-published book to articles on my watch-list [119], [120], [121], [122]. I found no hint of notability beyond that enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people who have publish something and launched an WP:AFD. Since then, DMRRT has tried a number of efforts to stop the AfD. First by trying to delete it [123]. Next by engaging heavily in the discussion in a very emotional way with a large number of claims, not one of which stood up to scrutiny (this alleged "world leading researcher" has virtually no cites on Google Scholar, and no verifiable notability has been established.) The only other long-term user who commented on the Afd (at the demand of the SPA [124] also recommended delete [125]. Having tried to delete the AfD, appeal to emotions, launch personal attacks against me [126], the next step is now some very obvious sockpuppetry (either through direct socks or meatsocks) as the AfD has been joined by two "new" users. One is another WP:SPA-account that had not been active for one year [127], and then a new account whose only activity is to comment on the AfD [128]. The duckiest of ducks in a long time. I've tried to explain and show to DMRRT how to show that an academic really is notable [129] but the DMRRT just continues in the same way, which raises both WP:HEAR and WP:COMPETENCE issues. This is starting to turn a bit ugly and has implications beyond the AfD, so some admin input would be helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: Apart from your accusations of puppetry this seems like a pretty run of the mill WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT AfD. May I suggest you file a Sockpuppetry report so that this can be investigated? Twinkle makes this simple to do.

I am not an admin, but I can't quite see what you wish admins to achieve here. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, @Timtrent:. It was the additional WP:NPA (though pretty mild) but mostly the rather strong WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE that made me come to ANI. Had it been just the socking, I would have filed a report.Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did file a sockpuppetry report, but not holding my breath. Reports from April are still not even discussed [130]. Wikipedia is really starting to have a massive problem with these backlogs building up everywhere.Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there are two reports open at the same time: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ DMRRT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DMRRT. The first report has an extra space in the title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't know there was already one and that I had made a mess of the title. Have asked for my one to be redirected to Jezzip's. Cowlibob (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another new user has somehow stumbled upon this AFD [131]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The situation is getting unpleasant. The actual AfD looks simple enough, all 10 established users who have commented have said delete. At the same time, the situation that brought me to AN/I yesterday is escalating Even though I no longer take part, there is now an orchestrated WP:SPA (and likely WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT) campaign that largely consists of discussions about me. I already signalled in the diffs above how DMRRT had been joined by two new SPA-accounts (RCP110 and Literarydiva). Since then both those SPA accounts have returned, and been joined by a third, M0302. whose very first sentence on Wiki is to insist they aren't a sock. All three have a go at me and my "ego" [132], [133], [134]. As the diffs show, all three also refer to DMRRT just as "DM", and all four of them (DMRRT and the three others) consistently call me she. I've never revealed my gender on Wikipedia. Quite apart from the effort to sway the AfD, this orchestrated attack on me is not pleasant. I make no claim to being perfect, and I probably should just have nominated the AfD and not discussed it (I've since left it and no longer interact with the users to avoid escalations), but all these rants about my "ego" are disproportionate.Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that the closure of the AfD as deletion has removed any need to continue this discussion, one I think was probably better suited to other venues anyway. There is already an SPI which will run its course. The behaviour of the claque of new editors is the behaviour of a claque. May I suggest that those with hurt feelings simply treat it as 'one of those annoying things that happen from time to time' and that a passing friendly person closes this as, requiring, probably, no further action? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks needed?

Today seems to have been a day where an editor has been blocked, and has gone beserk, persistently IP hopping and posting various pieces of rubbish on User:Smalljim's talkpage (as well as other places). Although the ranges are generally all over the place, a large proportion of them seem to come from either the 81.135 series of IPs, or 86.165 range. Are these going to be too big to consider a rangeblock? All of the IPs are BT ones, although there has been another vandal (possibly, doesn't fit the pattern of the main one) who has hopped across three countries (let alone ISPs). Evidently Smalljim doesn't want to semi-protect their talkpage, but the vandalism is spread across other places as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has made clear an intent to edit war, a complete disregard for any Wikipedia content policies, stated having no interest in discussion or mediation (per this edit).

The IP added some external links and is upset about their removal from Pharmacy automation (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) by @Charlesdrakew:. Of the nine links they are adding, six are broken. Of the remaining three, one requires registration so should be omitted per WP:ELREG. The remaining two links are 1) Google abstract of a patent and 2) about page of a parent company which is no longer connected to the company mentioned in the article, which is now a separate legal entity.

The IP has posted rants on talk pages of anyone who reverts or blocks them, and vandalized additional pages while ranting against their dynamic IPs being temp-blocked by @Smalljim: and myself. Given the user's comments and actions, it would be useful to have additional admins monitoring the disruptions. --- Barek(talk • contribs) - 20:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By repeatedly forcing vandals like this to get new addresses we can gain a better idea of what range(s) we can block. Bishonen has put one limited rangeblock in place already. I'll see if there's enough info for more - someone who's better at calculating rangeblocks than me could try to beat me to it (not hard!). —SMALLJIM 20:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a quick calculation: edits from the whole of BT are running at about 60 per hour at the moment. In the hour to 21:00 (GMT) about 20 of them were reverted. So a block of the whole of BT for an hour would have affected about 40 (assumed) good edits. We can be much more accurate than blocking the whole ISP, so when a vandal is particularly lively, short blocks (under an hour) of part of this huge ISP doesn't cause as much collateral damage as I assumed it would. I'm not suggesting we actually do this now, but am putting it up as something to consider. —SMALLJIM 21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is really difficult to prevent abuse from ISPs such as BT, and rangeblocks cause quite a bit of collateral damage, so semiprotection is probably the way to go, unfortunately. —DoRD (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that short, targetted blocks won't cause as much CD as one might think. —SMALLJIM 22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with BT is that you can't target the rangeblocks. As you've seen above, a single vandal has hopped all over two separate /16 ranges which are also on two different /8s. When we had a problem a while back I experimented with it myself (I am on BT) and in ten resets, I ended up on three different /8s (81, 86 and 109 - and BT has three others) and only once did I hit the same /16 twice running. It does seem to matter where you are (certain parts of the UK do seem to hit the same ranges all the time), but in other cases it's incredibly difficult to stop a determined range-hopper. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting info thanks. I've collated the addresses that the vandal was good enough to provide us with yesterday and although as you say they jump about a fair bit, the evidence indicates we could have slowed him down a lot with just a few /22s, and/or a short term /16 or two. —SMALLJIM 10:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by Roe.ese

Articles New Romanization of Korean was made by User Roe.ese. But there are no appropriate sources (AFD), and User Roe.ese ignored a warning in the user own talk page. [135] Also User Roe.ese made a personal attack on my ability in English. [136] I think User Roe.ese should desist from those actions. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also at SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roe.ese --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent violation of policies

Reliable sources for a birthdate?

User:Sirswindon, Rinaldo Paluzzi and Abstract expressionism

• Sirswindon (talk · contribs)
• Rinaldo Paluzzi (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Abstract expressionism (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

This has been going on for over a month, and can be embroidered with dozens of diffs, of which a few would suffice. Mostly a perusal of edits at Abstract expressionism and its talk page will tell the story: Sirswindon edit warred to include Paluzzi in the article on Abstract expressionism. Once consensus went against him, he took to its talk page to argue over the inclusion of numerous artists, most of whose affiliations with Ae are easily documented, if not always included in Wiki articles. There are, as far as I can tell, no published sources supporting Paluzzi's connection, formally or stylistically, to Ae, but the WP:POINTY continues. See [137], [138], [139], [140], then removal of argument [141] before starting anew [142] and targeting other bios [143], [144], and returning to Ae [145], lobbying other editors [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], (restoring this awful tripe along the way) [151], removing the cite template without providing the source [152], and reacting now by returning to Ae and moving to other bios, misappropriating my edits as rationale [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]. I've tried to be selective in offering diffs here (!); in the end, this is all about being challenged on the Paluzzi attribution, and declaring to do a spring cleaning as retribution. JNW (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JNW I accept your caution and will attempt to find a reference to his his work being stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. Sirswindon (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To administrators: I've only included diffs to some of Sirswindon's edits. Up to two weeks ago I was still attempting to respond in good faith [159], [160], [161], [162]; please see the last two sections here, which I eventually removed after concluding that the user's motives had not changed [163]. JNW (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is common for editors who are fans of notable but "mid-tier" artists to try to promote them by including them in articles about genres and art movements. These articles should only include the most famous and iconic representatives of those genres. So please desist, Sirswindon. That being said, this seems to be a garden variety content dispute, and I see no need for use of the administrator's toolkit at this time. Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 03:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, Cullen--I think this is a bit more. These diffs indicate a fairly large number of potentially disruptive edits, and this is really quite pointy. This goes back at least to April on Talk:Abstract expressionism, and it seems that little headway is made (in terms of a proven understanding of RS, etc.--though in April already Sirswindon said, "Modernist, I do apologize, if the future I will do as you have suggested", which sounds a lot like the comment above. (And they should be glad they didn't run into Postmodernist, who has no mercy since they don't believe in values anymore.)

  Anyways, if we take Sirswindon at their word, that they will find a reliable reference, and if they were to add "and in the meantime I will not make the kind of edits that proved quite disruptive in article space and on the various talk pages", then no admin action is necessary. But, Sirswindon, barring that, an admin may take action since, as far as I can tell, you are just taking up too much valuable time with rather interminable discussions and forum posts. Really, don't cite the dean of any department. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute that is being complicated by commenting on contributors rather than on content, but is basically a content dispute. It appears that it might benefit from moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Are the parties willing to close this thread and take it to DRN? If the discussion there gets into too much commenting on contributors, it will be closed and may have to come back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies gets that this is something other than a standard content dispute, enriched by some gentle aspersions--I've included diffs to that end. The user in question periodically backs off, then continues disruptive behavior for not getting what they want. As might be guessed, I've come here rather than dispute resolution for a reason--I've many times in the last decade removed inappropriate or unsubstantiated names from lists, and this represents an unusual persistence, with a side of retribution. Perhaps nothing here is deemed actionable, but Drmies is correct in noting the great amount of time and energy this has already wasted on several arts pages. My thanks for that. JNW (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sirswindon has left this page to discuss this with the above administrators. Here's the relevant section at Drmie's page [164]. JNW (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like having content disputes, and this is a content dispute, decided at ANI. However, if two editors both won't agree to moderated dispute resolution, I have to advocate blocking someone. Should the administrators here block User:JNW or User:Sirswindron or both of them, or just decide it later? (I really think that DRN would work, but not if the editors dislike each other that much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)) I suggest some sort of closure now, but I am not involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly dumbstruck; by all means flip a coin and block me. JNW (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, well anyway, sometimes things just work out the way they should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thank you for your note here. I didn't realize that the blocking comment was made by someone who is not an administrator; the less I say about it, the better. All the same, that there's any ambiguity as to the circumstances confirms my conclusion of years past, that this isn't the place for me. JNW (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to be blocked, this thread should be closed. Artists are included in that section of the article if their work is widely known, if reliable sources can be found, if they influenced and/or affected American Abstract expressionism. That section of the article contains artists from all over the world whose works were seen in NY or California during the 40s, 50s and 60s and whose works affected and/or influenced that movement. Which is why Wols and Zao Wou-Ki are included. The artist Rinaldo Paluzzi that the above editor wants included in the article simply was not known in the USA during that historical period, nor was the other Romanian artist Romul Nuțiu that this editor also wants to include known in the USA during that historical period. It's time for this editor to drop the stick and let it go - or find reliable sources for those 2 artists inclusion...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW many European and Asian artists working in similar styles to American abstract expressionism are included in the Tachisme article, which is the European equivalent to Abstract expressionism during the 40s, 50s and 60s. Some artists appear in both articles because their work was widely viewed on both continents or they lived and worked on both continents during that era...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos B.C. disruptive edits by 141.237.149.158

Edit warring by User:DanJazzy on Kenny G article

Sockpuppet, but an IP?

Question from CuteOrangeKittyCat

JoesphBarbaro‎ on my talk page

Personal attacks

Vandalism account

Maintenance tag removals

Issue with large-scale changing of terminology...

Dan Koehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently Dan began a widespread replacement of the term "Viking" with the "Norsemen" across many articles. This follows various debates over the last year or so (if memory serves) about when, where and how it is most appropriate to use these terms in articles, which carry subtly different meanings among scholars and non-scholars, and which translate differently (I believe) between English and Scandinavian languages.

There have been various interventions about these changes, including: Talk:Vikings#Former_viking; Talk:Battle of the Conwy#Norsemen; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture#Campaign to replace "viking" by "Norsemen". Among the points raised by @Mutt Lunker:, @Johnbod:, @CambridgeBayWeather: and @PatHadley: and myself on Dan's talk page have been the perceived lack of consensus for these changes, and the apparent technical errors made in the process (e.g. renaming the titles of cited works, changing the content of direct quotes etc.). During the course of today, Johnbod, @Dudley Miles: and @Ealdgyth: have raised the issue on my talk page, User talk:Hchc2009#Vikings, variously proposing and expressing support that an administrator be asked to intervene.

I am convinced that Dan is acting in good faith but there is a lack of community consensus for his changes, which appear to be causing some irritation to many editors. Administrator assistance in calming and bringing this episode to a productive conclusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the dispute resolution policy for ways to deal with a content dispute. Moderated discussion at the dispute

resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments would be two possibilities. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super-unhelpful! It's well gone beyond that. He has had the usage of "Viking" in English carefully explained to him by several editors over weeks if not months but takes nothing in, perhaps partly because of his iffy English, but mainly because he won't accept that the meaning of terms in English will often differ from their meaning in other languages. Of course he is acting in "good faith" but these edits to several hundred articles, many producing grossly incorrect English, impose a huge burden on other editors who need to revert them. An immediate block is required. A few examples I've reverted, from hundreds that I haven't: "The town has Norsemen roots in common with..." at Crosby, Merseyside; "Ormen Stutte (Short Serpent) was a Norsemenlongship...", at Ormen Stutte (longship); "Later it saw the influence of the Norsemens as seen in the name of Carlingford Lough." at County Louth. All these basic errors are repeated many, many times. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I agree. This is something that an admin needs to address. GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains that change of "Viking" to "Norsemen" on Brooklyn Historical Society. I guarantee that when George B. Post desihned the building in the late 19th century, it was a statue of a Viking he called for, not a Norseman, which is why I reverted the edit. This sounds like another political correctness argument, which, or course, is essentially a POV argument, which eventually leads to the euphemism treadmill: "Viking" is all of a sudden considered to be insulting, so it is replaced by "Norseman", until that becomes insulting and is replaced by something else: "Scandians", maybe.

I'd say definitely needs a consensus arrived at in a centralized discussion. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clearify, I have changed from viking (activity pirate related) to Norse, in such instances when its clear that the text related to Nnorse people of Scandinavian ancestry. While the term viking is a controversial term, (will not go into details with that) Norse, and Norsemen is certainly not. Therefore I see no harm or dramatic in this, a visitor to Wwikipedia will through the link come to the article about Nnorse people with background to Sscandinavian as an ethnic Nnorse speaking group, rather than to a page with emphasis in pirate activities. My hope is to reduce confusion with this. There is a reason why the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture is not called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viking history and culture, and since the Nnorse culture were not sleeping or sent away throughout the viking age (800-1066) its perfectly normal to relate to the Nnorse as ethnic group before, during and after the viking age. In cases of raiding s, plunder etc, I have not changed the word viking, only when it replaced the correct for the people, Nnorse. Please don't forget, that even if Eenglish speaking books relates to Scandinavianscnadinavin as pirates and vikings during this period, there was a vital and fruitful Sscandinavian culture, before during an dafter the viking age, and its called Nnorse, and the people Norsemennorsement, they spoke Nnorse. There was no people called viking and no language called vikingish.... Comments regarding large scale; well, some users obviously made large scale links to viking, instead of Norse, when they related to ethnic group, and culture, it was here the error was made, not by me. I hope this clearances. Theres nothing controversial with the term Norsemen, like with viking, not until toady, anyhow. The term Viking is popular among laymen and people moved by the 1800 century romantic stories, but Norse is the term historians and archaeologists use for the ethnic groups in Scandinavia during iron age. clearifies. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring link above) Dan, I'd be grateful if you didn't delete the links that I posted above. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the instance I cited above, the source said "Viking", so that's what the article should say. You should not presume to think you know the intent of the source, whether it meant "pirate", "raider", "perfectly nice people from the Northlands" or whatever. Here in the U.S, there is generally no negative connotation to "Viking". All of this is why your mass change is in need of a consensus. BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "clarify", the word is "clarify", not "clearify". BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use trying to explain English language usages to him, he knows better, which is the whole problem. Regardless of terminology issues, most of his edits are straight ungrammatical - he cannot grasp that, unlike "Viking", "Norsemen" is only a plural noun in English. There is already a very clear and wide consensus against these mass changes, far larger than the average RFC picks up. He needs to be told very firmly to stop making them, or ideally blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's bizarrely mistyped and unfocused post above is perhaps an extreme example of his talk postings, to the extent that it may possibly be due to a temporary factor, but it demonstrates that at the very least he does not have sufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to be editing on the English Wikipedia, and particularly not regarding the usage of a term which in English has significant differences to its usage in his language. Is such demonstrable incompetence not clear cut grounds to put a temporary block on him as he is resolutely intransigent in acceptance of efforts to explain his misunderstandings regarding both definition of the term and grammar? He's causing mayhem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's already a consensus about this, then is is allowable for some one with one of the automated program to just undo his edits? I could do it, but my finger would get chafed from all the button pushing. (I don't use automated tools except HotCat). BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless something has changed, I thought AWB was only supposed to be used for non-controversial edits? These seem controversial to me, which would suggest that perhaps his right to use AWB should be revoked. BMK (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked that question at WP:AWB. BMK (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say, that I find it not polite to try to make this discussion a personal issue, rather than focus on the subject.
• When YOU accuse me of making large-scale changing of terminology, I wish to remind you, that someone did this before, but the other way around, linked everything Norse to the article viking, which is such an amateur porridge of non-science that it will never be a real article, until someone gets the bright idea and start to write about vikings on the article vikings, and let the article Norsemen be an article about the Norse people in general
• The term Norsemen is over 1 000 years old, and I find it amusing that you ask for a consensus for its existence.
• Norsemen were so much more than the trapped comic strip archetype you have made them to in the article viking.
• I ask you please stop this crusade and accept that when speaking about language, culture, ethnicity, the word viking is hopelessly wrong to use, while the old word Norse is natural and correct.
• I believe we all want a better Wikipedia. My suggestion is that we put some faith to the members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. Just repeat prestigious claims of "traditions" isn't enough to develop this, you need to to think outside your box.
• Like the Norse did.
• I guess and hope that no one wants to remove our history, culture and ethnical ancestry, and remove the pages Norsemen and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture? And if you don't want to remove those pages, I hope you don't want to remove links to the pages either.
• And I hope you will not remove all the written sources on Wikipedia, that makes it clear for a 7 year old child, that Norse and Viking was not the same thing:

1. The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into:ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticamwas directly translated to vicingus.

- You complain about my english, I hope you can read your own (old-english) language above, and what it says? (I can...)

-No, Macedonia is not in Scandinavia... And in the Icelandic sagas even arabs are described with the word Viking, when they are attacking the Norse ships...

2. King Harald the Hairfair heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavian Norsemen were, fighting vikings.

3. Egil Skallagrimsson about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)

Only with those three examples (and theres hundreds) you will have extremely difficult to explain what a viking is, and what difference there is between vikings and normal people from Scandinavia, if you stubbornly use the same word for two different meanings.

For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated.

This is probably the reason why the article viking is still on start level after 13 years on Wikipedia. Because in order to get the stories there OK; a lot of facts and sources must be excluded. With this concept you will never reach a good article, it will remain pubertal comic strip "information", and people have to translate the German article about vikings to get some scientific substance.

But Im not telling you what to do, Im just saying that there is no need for a consensus that I am from Sweden, and have blue eyes, there is no need for a consensus that the sky is blue, and there is no need for a consensus, that the correct term in English for my people, their culture, and medieval language is Norse. You can't change this by voting.

So why, did you revert my links to the the page Norsemen, when I only did the links in text where it was clear that there was reference to people and a culture, and not to raiding pirates?

And please remember, its not me who use my language to call you things which is not true, so could you please give a little respect to my ancestors, and stop calling them pirates? You have stopped calling other people with different skin colors for names you used for hundreds of years, it must be possible to quit this game of "all Scandinavians ARE vikings" game?

Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful Norse farmers, and their wife's, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900!

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, User:Dan Koehl should be blocked for disruptive editing unless he will agree to stop making these changes. And his access to WP:AWB should be immediately withdrawn. See his contributions for all the usage of AWB to change Vikings to Norsemen. AWB must not be used to make controversial edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I stopped over 24 hours ago. 2. Can you please explain to me, what is controversial by making a link to Norsemen from a chapter that tells about Norsemen? If Im from Sweden, would you also forbid me to make a link to Swedish, and block me, if I don't make a link from my person to Viking? Whay shall everything Norse be linked to Viking, and not to Norse?

Or, put it the other way around, what can, according to your opinion, be linked to Norsemen?

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see why this is controversial I wonder if we should take seriously any promises from you to behave better. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple other editors object to your mass edits, they are, by definition "controversial", especially when you do not have a consensus to back them up. Therefore, I second EdJohnston's suggestions. Dan Koehl should be blocked until he agrees not to change "Vikings" or "Viking" to "Norsemen" (in whatever form), and his AWB rights should be removed immediately, unless and until he can show that he will not use the program to make non-consensus edits. BMK (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of a block, or a topic ban, or not, the AWB rights do need to be revoked immediately – only editors that demonstrate competence with special tools should be allowed to maintain them, and that has definitely not been the case in this instance. --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to summarize: you claim that Norsemen and Vikings are the same? But when I make a link to Norsemen from an article where its easy, from the text to define that the text is about Norsemen, this is controversial? Is it only controversial if I link to Norsemen, but not to viking, is this the logic? And, making links from text about Norsemen, to the article Norsemen is such a crime, that you speak about blocking me, remove rights to AWB etc, this almost sounds like what happened some hundreds years ago with the guy who claimed that earth is not flat...

Where is the will of cooperation, where is the will of making both articles better, where is the will of making this all understandable for the website visitor, where is the will to improve Wikipedia? I only see politics here?

I must ask again, why don't you delete everything written with the word Nors, or Norsemen, if its not OK to make links to the article?

I think I need to remind you what is written in Norsemen:

Norsemen refers to the group of people who spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between the 8th and 11th centuries. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, and is the earlier form of modern Scandinavian languages.

Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in England, Scotland, Iceland, Wales, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Ireland, Russia, Greenland, France, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, and Poland, as well as outposts in Sicily and North America.

All the links I did to the article where from text where it was relevant to link to Norsemen, why do you speak like if I have made a crime? If I would have made links from 100% of the text I could understand, but like I said, I didn't make links from text where it was about raiding and piracy, I made links where the norse people where discussed. If Norsemen are not banned on Wikipedia, what is wrong with making a link to them?

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR, if anyone here claims that Viking and Norse are synonymous, can you please point me to a consensus about hat? And if they are the same, what is wrong with links between them? Why must 100% of the links be to viking?? But if they are not synonymous, can anyone here explain you position, what is according to you the difference between Norsemen and vikings, making it a crime to link text about Norsemen to Norsemen, and good if text about Norsemen is linked to article viking? Where are the discussions, the decisions, the consensus for all this?

You are speaking to me as if I have made a crime, and I want to tell you, I'm a user on Wikipedia since 2002, Im admin on 2 Wikimedia projects, I fight vandalism almost every day (see my log) and I'm not a criminal, and I can't see that anyone can logically even explain what I have done wrong, except for coming up with opinions, that a certain text should be linked to article viking, and not to Norsemen, but without a valid reason or explanation? All I want is to improve Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have "made a crime" - in your twisted English idiom - and that is that you have made major changes to the encyclopedia without having the approval of the community to do so. This is not the place to get approval for doing so; here, admins can only sanction you; for not getting approval, because this board only deals with aberrant behavior. Approval has to come (and I believe this is the fourth time I'm saying this) from a centralized discussion of the entire Wikipedia community and not just from the approval of a mere Wiki{Project. I believe that the senze of this discussion is that you must stop making those edits until that consensus is determined. If you do not stop, it appears to me that there are a number of Admins who are willing to make you stop by blocking you. If that is what you want, to be blocked from editing, keep on doing what you're doing -- knowing that there are a number of editors who will revert your edits as being non-consenual, and you will end up being blocked. If, instead, you wish to deal with this in the Wikipedian way, you need to begin the centralized discussion I mentioned above, and produce straightforward and understandable' evidence to support your position. Really, the choice is yours. BMK (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated yesterday above, I havnt made any edits since two days now. You most probably know that, but try politically to make it look like Im breaking rules etc. Sad. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again. I'm not sure how it's still possible that there are still misunderstandings in this thread but, since Dan Koehl is using lots of bulleted lists: here's my attempt to reframe the terms of the issue:

1. The issue is not whether Norsemen is either:
   1. A useful or accurate historical term
   2. Referred to a real people (ethnically or linguistically) from Scandinavia in the 8th-13th centuries
   3. More politically neutral than Viking
   4. What such people might have used as a term to refer to themselves
   5. A more frequently used term before the C20th

All these issues are real, interesting and deserve well-referenced coverage on the (already pretty good) etymology section of the Vikings article and possibly elsewhere. Dan, you have continued to make points (many of which have been conceded by others) on these issues but have failed to address the points of others:

1. The issue is when Norsemen is a more appropriate and idiomatic term than Vikings on English Wikipedia. This depends on:
   1. The terms used in the scholarly literature - Viking is used extensively and CANNOT be changed when being referred to or quoted
   2. Whether Norsemen makes grammatical sense on articles. In many of Dan's replacements it does not
   3. The terms that are most frequently used by the wider public (in the 21st century!). Vikings is far more popular and relevant. Compare: Google search for Vikings with Google search for Norsemen. Also see the explanation Who were the Vikings? on the web page of the UK's most popular Viking museum.

There may be a few articles where, despite the above points, Norsemen is more appropriate. These should be sought out and changed individually, not with AWB.

Dan, are there any of these points you're prepared to address? If not, might I suggest that a discussion is begun on Swedish Wikipedia's village pump (there's no embassy). Perhaps another fluent, bilingual editor could help explain that the use of Vikings on English Wikipedia is neither inaccurate or an linguistic slur. There must be terms in Swedish that have similarly changed meaning in the last few hundred years. Let's hope we can get through this! PatHadley (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an intellectual problem here. You are discussing the term Viking, Im discussing the term Norsemen. I made links to Norsemen. There is no available consensus, that I can find, that making links to Norsemen, should be a poor choice. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm supporting a block on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --IJBall (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dan Koehl, we are not here at ANI to have a content discussion about Vikings. Since almost everyone agrees that your edits pose a problem, we want to know if you are willing to stop these changes. If you continue with the vague statements (all of which assume the correctness of your own position) a block would appear to be the simplest solution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone to far now. I did a normal Wikipedia action, making links about Norsemen to the article Norsemen. Since there were so many, I used AWB. Now theres allegations against me that I have abused AWB, and should be blocked, with the motivation that, linking to the article Norsemen is some sort of crime, however not specified why. Although I stopped making the links the same day, (several days ago) there's repeated "threats" written above, that if I don't stop (which I already did) I will be blocked from Wikipedia etc. I can see no other reason for this, apart from that for a reader it should look as if Im daily, repeatedly, vandalizing Wikipedia, which is for sure not the case, contrary, Im active daily as patroller. The use of "everyone" (against my links) made me suspicious, and after reading through this thread, as all as making a second analyze of the entire issue, as well noticing how personal the critics against my person are, instead of focusing on the subject, and the efforts to try make it look like I have vandalized Wikipedia, (when all I dd was making links to article Norsemen I now see:

• The article Viking is for some reason preferred by a group of users
• There is less than 100 links to article Norsemen.
• There is less than 100 links to article Norse, and most of them from talk pages.
• But there is thousands of links to article Viking.

Someone, or group of people, have a POV campaign going on, changing all links Norsemen, into links to Viking. Its like they want to kill and remove the article Norsemen?and they are now upset, when I interrupted this. Im not particularly focusing on the controversial term Viking, but on the absence of use of the terms Norse and Norsemen, and the reasons behind this. Those two articles are the natural names pace to tell about Scandinavian culture and history, but for some reason the article is more or less getting censored by a limited, but strong group of people, against logical arguments.

This issue is much more serious than I though, and for sure needs attention from admins and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. This is against how Wikipedia should work, and against the NPOV rule.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, we get WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, now with a side of not assuming good faith. There is nothing to suggest this editor even realizes their editing is a problem, let along acknowledging it as such. Again, support loss of AWB privileges at a minimum, and support a block if they start up on their previous course of action of changing "Viking" to "Norsemen" against Consensus. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the editor's continued focus here on content, despite being told that the matter being discussed here is behaviour, shows that they either refuse to take heed or have an inability to comprehend the issue. Either way they are not suitable to hold AWB privileges. The editor did finally stop their editing campaign but only after repeated notifications that the edits were both ungrammatical and controversial, points they have still not conceded apparently. A topic ban is also required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but note that having started his campaign at "A", he only stopped when he had reached "Y", ie probably when he had run out of articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, no extenuating circumstances then. I wondered what had prompted the abrupt stop as it clearly wasn't acceptance of the points being made. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view if he understood the issues with grammar and context and promised to do any changes slowly and manually, with discussion on an article by article basis, that might be the best outcome in terms of improving the encyclopedia. But I definitely agree he needs to be prevented from making any kind of automated edits in this area. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much more can possibly done to help him understand? He's impervious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem here of both communication and willing to compromise. Eventually, you five users share the opinion that Norsemen is an article that should not be used, or at least not linked to, while you prefer to make links to the article viking. As a consequence, you want other users to do the same, and if they don't, you change the links from Norsemen to Vikings. Then after my edits, you want to force me to follow your opinion, by threats of blocking and removal og AWB, but all this without a valid motivation, except that your opinion. You don't accept the validity of the article Norsemen or that links to this article is perfectly accepted by Wikipedia community. Then you think that you can change the world, and the existence and use of article Norsemen, by calling five peoples opinion a consensus?

By all means, I never saw a more direct case of a limited group of people who want to push the majority to follow their POV opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and consensus (or your type of "consensus") can never replace verified sources. The term Norsemen exists, weather you like it or not. If I make links to that article, you can't just say that Im breaking Wikipedia rules, should be blocked and have my AWB removed. The rule of NPOV is always the most important, and should be followed. My suggestion is that you take active part in discussions about those two terms, and consider being more willing to compromise and see other users point of view. With a reasonable willing of tolerating other people views, we can together build up an even better Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QED Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it's unlikely at this point that Dan Koehl will be blocked unless he starts uo again making changes without a consensus to do so. If he does, a new AN/I should be open (assuming that this one will have scrolled off the board by them), with specific reference to this report, and the consensus among commenters here that a block is warranted. BMK (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, NONE of the opinions you attribute to me are at all correct, & I doubt the other (many more than) 5 hold them either. But why should I waste my time explaining in detail how and why this is so, when you take in nothing that is said to you? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The terminology changes don't all appear to be backed by sources or common usage, e.g. [181] and some similar edits changed "Viking longships" to "Norsemen longships" which sounds ridiculous. "Norsemen longships" gets 85 google hits, many of which seem to be in the possessive ("the Norsemen's longships") while "Viking longships" gets around 80k hits. So imho, those edits are outright errors. 2. Yes, changes on such a scale really have to be discussed ahead of time, per WP:MEATBOT and WP:BOTASSIST. It's not ok to make similar edits on 100's or 1000's of articles without first engaging the other editors. Separate from any regard to the Viking/Norsemen content question, there is a behavioural issue of inappropriate high-speed editing going on here. Dan, if you want to make changes on a large scale, please discuss first at WP:BRFA or maybe WP:VPR. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a AFD notice for a article I never created or even edited!

User:The Jolly Bard

The user is a single-purpose account, solely editing the article Liberland to add claims to the land by "Paraduin" and other fictitious micronations. Given that the user's interest in Paraduin (one of the user's first edits was to add its claim to the land to the article [183], and he repeatedly defended the "nation" at Talk:Liberland), I suspect that the user may in fact be the "founder" of Paraduin, Guido den Broeder [184]. Paraduin appears to only exist as publicity for a fantasy book that he is writing. User:Guido den Broeder, renamed to User:Roadcreature, has been blocked/banned from editing several years ago. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There seem to be some weird things going on at Talk:Liberland. I dunno what to make of it... I guess the IP(s) that pop up in that discussion are the blocked editor in question?... But that whole conversation went to some odd places. --IJBall (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's article moved to Draft Namespace

Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG

Edit war about personal attack

I removed a WP:NPA violation from Talk:Honor Harrington.[224] I admit that I was the victim of the attack, and therefore not the most uninvolved party, but I still though (and think) it was a real WP:NPA violation. The editor who posted it, User:Scjessey, then removed my previous edit, childishly and incorrectly claiming it was also a WP:NPA violation,[225] and when I undid that,[226] he undid my preceding edit.[227] Note that in between, I warned him on his talkpage to stop his childish behavior.[228] Please note that he has since removed that post from his talkpage, and has posted a derisive comment about it on mine. [229]

I'd appreciate your opinions either way. Meaning that if I am exaggerating, and Scjessey's comment is not such as can be removed as a WP:NPA violation, I will desist. Or if it is, then please tell Scjessey so, and he should desist. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was really rude, I can't fault you for removing it, Debresser. Also, Scjessey's retaliation here was pretty childish (note the edit summary). I haven't gone back in the history of your mutual irritation, but from the recent exchange, certainly Scjessey is more at fault. Nevertheless, on the principle Wikipedia:There is no justice, I suggest the best thing would be for both of you to stay away from Talk:Honor Harrington for at least the next 24 hours, and from each other's talkpages for the foreseeable future. Bishonentalk 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The really stupid thing about all this is that I had stepped away from that article, but Debresser kept on poking me with a stick, such as reverting or commenting after two days of silence. If he'd just left me alone, this would've petered out over a week ago. I admit the comment you flagged was rude, but this guy has been all up in my face for days and days and it needed to be said. Debresser, like me, is an experienced editor, but his attitude at that article was amateurish and smacked of ownership. For example, he rejected my idea of an RfC over a content dispute, despite the fact editors were evenly split and deadlocked. Where's the logic in that? Anyway, you can only get a sense of his behavior if you look at the editing history over a couple of weeks, but if I were you I wouldn't bother myself. It's a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attitude of Scjessey both here and on his talkpage[230] remains that I behaved badly and that he was just provoked into bad behavior by me. That attitude does not imbue me with much confidence as to his future editing. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of undiscussed changes, heaps of heavy personal abuse if questioned

user:87.8.46.73 is on a massive campaign to change indications of Italian pronunciation across the board [231]. The pronunciations all link to Help:IPA for Italian and the consensus has been to use these symbols. The IP insists on using other symbols, not found in the article to which we link and unlikely to be known outside the linguistic community. The IP also deletes content and sources [232], [233]. I've tried to first encourage them to explain their edits [234], then explaining why we use the normal IPA [235]. I thought my comments polite and instructive, but the first response was to vandalize my talk page with very explicit language [236], followed up by edit summaries like I hate Jeppiz [237], [238]. The personal abuse is way past WP:NPA and the mass changes of the established IPA (combined with the blankings) is problematic as it makes a large number of articles less accessible to readers. I thought I could explain this to the user, I did not expect this hate campaign. This user is WP:NOTHERE to work with others.Jeppiz (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links: 87.8.46.73(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IJBall , I forgot that. I did inform the user, though.Jeppiz (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly he is remarkably belligerent. He also seems to have some knowledge of IPA (not that this excuses the belligerence or unilateralism). Having this knowledge of IPA, we can expect that he'll be in a position to proffer a rational and persuasive argument for his (remarkably narrow) transcription, and get agreement for this before he continues. But if he instead keeps on his present course, block. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user seem to now be at the IP 79.31.254.235 (talk·contribs). Deor (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously the same user. This is problematic. We have well-established rules for how to use WP:IPA and this user just give damn. And his"Fuck you" is response to politely being informed about rules does not promise well.Jeppiz (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as somebody with a reasonably expert knowledge of how IPA works: if I look at edits like that at Venice, where the anon insisted on changing "veˈnɛttsia" to "veˈnɛt̪͡ːs̪jä", I can see why some linguists might prefer the second version over the first. However, I'm troubled by his subsequent comment to Jeppiz [239], not so much because of the "F" word, but because he was claiming the original version was "not the correct pronunciation". That shows that despite his apparent insistence on technical details he really doesn't know what he's doing at all – anybody with an adequate knowledge of IPA would realize that both transcriptions describe the same pronunciation; the one is somewhat more precise (a "narrow transcription" as opposed to a "broad" one), but claiming that the broad transcription represents a "wrong" pronunciation is just daft. So much for the AGF assumption that the anon might be some potentially valuable expert editor who merely has an anger management issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise gave what amounts to a final warning a few minutes after leaving this message, but the IP kept on going, so I've blocked it for 24 hours. If the person comes back with a different IP address, don't worry about warnings; s/he knows that we want discussion, so unless s/he starts discussing, just reblock for block-evasion. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Nyttend, it's having no effect, the same person is back again, again with a new IP [240].Jeppiz (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked. Given the broad scope of this person's editing, semiprotection won't work; could we try a filter? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History merge needed

Sockpuppet :: Andresbfarrera?

Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption

Threats

Can an admin delete this diff?

IP Address doling out threats

User:Informationdealer

Abuse of talk page

Block the user Verdy_p from editing a certain article

User:2.123.3.42

WP:NOTHERE user

Talk:General American

Now that General American can't be directly edited by almost anybody, its talk page is being vandalised, probably by G-Zay sockpuppets. Peter238 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for approximately 12 hours. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of potentially incorrect edits

The problem has been described at the Teahouse questions forum by Aloha27 as follows:

"There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources?"

This made me look at the contributions record of Moka Mo to confirm a large number of edits have been made, many of which add this link.

I checked their talk page to see a notice at User_talk:Moka_Mo#May_2015 by Cmr08 requesting that they enter into discussion.

The reason I am bringing this here is because admins have tools to perform any necessary mass roll backs of edits by an editor that are proven to be incorrect. I am making no judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the edits. This is to alert wiser heads than mine to a potential problem. I do not see this as a content dispute, more as something that will require some poor admin to pick up the baton and undo a large swathe of changes. I am about to notify the editor in question on their talk page. I will also notify the other editors I have mentioned in order that they may make a decision about participating in this discussion. For clarity, I am uninvolved in and have no interest in the articles concerned. I doubt I have ever edited in that arena. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the stub article above, and don't really care if it's used or not, or even if it's removed. The concern I had was that a large number of Nova Scotia articles were being changed to say they are regions and not communities but the editor making the changes was providing no reason for the change. After editor made these changes a second time, I left the talk page message hoping that the editor would prevent this from getting out of hand by explaining why the change was being made. By providing no explaination, I felt the editor was insisting on making the changes regardless of what other editors were saying. Had only the stub article been removed, I wouldn't have even bothered, it was labeling the communities as regions with no proof that bothered me. I didn't think asking an editor to explain changes would lead here, but I am more than willing to retract the statement if it would prevent this from going any further. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up some confusion above, Moka Mo doesn't appear to be the editor adding the link to the stub article as was stated in the notice above. A check of history shows that 19960401 is the editor who added the link to a large number of articles. Moka Mo had only made a couple of edits total to Nova Scotia articles until a few days ago. That being said, I still have no opinion on the stub article, but thought the info should be clarified. The only additions of the article by Moka Mo appear to be a couple of articles where he/she re-added it after removing it in an earlier edit. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Moka Mo whose opinion here is valuable in any case. I Must have picked up the sole edits where this was the case. I shall notify 19960401 on their talk page of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to make mistakes, especially with a lot of confusing edits going back and forth. I only picked up on it when I went back a second time to re-read this. At first I actually thought this was over the message I left him on talk page, I now see it has nothing really to do with it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty to adjust the title of this thread as it is obvious that it isn't Moka Mo who has made the edits in question. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although there is a 1-in-365.24 chance that it is a coincidence, I point out that 19960401 is a date code for April Fool's Day, 1996. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit by the editor in question, it looks like a coincidence. Seems it has something to do with Halifax Nova Scotia's boundaries changing on that date. However, i'll take your 1-in-365.24 odds that the similarity with User:20060706 is a coincidence. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthvm/Archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regardless of whether or not these edits are being performed by a sock of an indeffed editor, according to the stub article in question, the GSA is a very narrowly defined term relating to E911 services. The first ref is to a pilot project final report and its recommendation: "In place of the E-911 reference to "community" it is recommended, for at least the purpose of the NSCAF initiative, that the areas be renamed as General Service Areas (GSA)." I've only glanced at the refs, but was the recommendation of the pilot program even adopted? Anyway, based on the narrow definition of community in the sense of E911 services, unless someone can show otherwise, it seems that these mass replacements are improper and should be reverted. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:19960401 (along with several other accounts) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Matthvm. So, at least, the disruption should cease while this issue gets resolved here. Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be nice. As it stands there are a pile of edits that'd have to be undone. There is no doubt in my mind that this user (and assorted socks) is/were not here to build an encyclopedia. IMO Tendentious editing at its best. Regards Aloha27 talk 23:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Russian names from Ukrainian articles

Disruptive editing by User:173.3.222.239

DrChrissy's topic ban

User Worthingexile

Accounts changing hands for money?

User Worthingexile

Diana Santoke

Swift attention requested: Kosi Onochie

Suspicious photos/user

Suspicous activity (creating autoconfirmed socks?)

Abuse of revision delete by User:Ritchie333

Legal Threat

Mass bio creation without establishing notability by Philafrenzy

It all started innocently enough.

1. On 15 April, Philafrenzy linked Romie Tager to a BLP I created on a autism researcher, Helen Tager-Flusberg. [299]
2. The first version I viewed [300] looked like a political hit job (those are going around these days in UK bios) or WP:BLP1E issue based on sources that did not rise to the level required for a BLP. It used sources like:
   • Gordon Ramsay: I was a performing monkey while father-in-law had a cushy office job, that had a passing mention of Romie Tager.
3. Not being familiar with UK law, I asked Bencherlite to look in. [301]
4. On 24 April, Bencherlite submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romie Tager, and the article was deleted on 8 May.
5. On 8 May, Philafrenzy submitted it to Deletion review, where the discussion is now about four times as long as the article and twice as long as the AFD.

   Now, where my concern about WP:POINTy mass creation of bios begins:

6. On 9 May, in that Deletion review and in response to a statement that Romie Tager was as notable as Helen Tager-Flusberg, I pointed out PROF, the notability guideline for academics. [302] (It is a mystery to me why some editors can spend so much bandwidth arguing notability for a lawyer, when lawyers so frequently get passing mention in newspapers, rather than developing a guideline for notability for the legal profession. The equivalent for academics would be to claim a researcher is notable because they have ten articles published in PubMed. They aren't. We have a standard for academics.)
7. Today, 14 May, since I still have Philafrenzy's talk watched, I noticed another editor querying him about notability for academics, which led to me discovering that:
8. In the last few days, Philafrenzy has been mass creating bios on academics where no notability is apparent, nor is it established in the articles.[303]

   Just a few samples can be seen at:

   1. John H. Arnold (historian)
   2. Judith Colton ‎
   3. Catharine Edwards (historian)
   4. David Feldman (historian) ‎
   5. Vanessa Harding (historian)
   6. Julian Swann ‎
   7. Frank Trentmann ‎
   8. Sonya Rose ‎
   9. Dominic Rathbone ... and there are more.

9. WP:POINT-- Here is the conversation about the matter on Philafrenzy's talk: [304]

So, he appears to understand PROF and is creating mass numbers of bios of academics that don't seem to be notable anyway. Reviewing my past discussions with him, it is unlikely that any further attempt by me to converse with him will yield anything productive. If he is creating these bios to make a point, there are an awful lot of them that need to be dealt with-- I have tagged only some of them, and another editor has indicated they won't likely survive speedy deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a mad conspiracy theory to be honest. There is absolutely NO connection between the creation of bios for professors of history at the University of London and the Tager article. Tager is a lawyer, not an academic. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What point would I be trying to make exactly? Each of these historians would survive an AFD in my opinion. They are stubs that need to be expanded. What's wrong with that? Every article has to start somewhere. Sandy has never forgiven me for using the Daily Mail in the Tager BLP and I seem to have earned Sandy's eternal enmity for it. This has overtones of stalking. And what is a "political hit job"? Just to be absolutely clear, I have never had the slightest doubt that Helen Tager-Flusberg as a professor at Boston University is notable, nor have I ever suggested she isn't. The matter has never even been discussed as far as I can recall. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. of the linked articles one is a full professor at Yale, another the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism and another president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I see the Colton article has just been expanded by another editor (not at my prompting), she won a prize for a book apparently. It will be interesting to see what other expansions are made. Stubs are not spam, they are a gift to the editing community. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with most of the articles is not whether or not the subject is notable, but whether the article makes any claim of notability. Most did not. X is a professor of Y at the university of Z is not a claim of notability. WP:CSD#A7 is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least two noted that criteria 6 of WP:PROF was met. I could easily have revised them to make the claim stronger but they have been deleted overnight it seems when I was not around to comment further. Can they be restored to my user space and I will work on them a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These were:

Dominic Rathbone, president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Monticelli has also been deleted (who wasn't even mentioned above) and is a director of the European Investment Bank and one of the lead negotiators in the Greek debt crisis (stated to be such in the article with coverage in third party RSs). Could that one be restored too please? (see Sky News article "The Men Who Hold The Euro's Fate In Their Hands" Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Carlo Monticelli could have gone through an AFD process. It makes no sense to delete articles overnight--there needs to be a basic discussion, even with one-liners. We don't want to discourage article creators, just make them more discriminating.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the misunderstanding. Notability is not inherited. Holding an office ina notable institution does nto confer notability, and is not even a credible claim of notability. Perhaps if the articles were longer than a single sentence there might be less of an issue. Guy(Help!) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Rathbone, Feldman (WP:PROF 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society") and Monticelli? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED (and indeed WP:NOTDIR). You need an actual claim of individual notability. Guy(Help!) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WP:PROF clearly says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." See point 6. And you haven't commented on the random deletion of Monticelli. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject specific notability guidelines are indications of the kinds of people who are likely to be covered by reliable independent sources and thus be considered notable. They do not mandate a list of bodies whose officers are inherently notable. The onus is on you, as author, to write an article that actually makes a substantive claim to notability (not just one which is obvious to you in your own mind). I have limited time for people who insist on an article being allowed to exist, but who can't be arsed to put in the minimal amount of effort necessary for the casual reader to understand why we should care. Several people have accused you of WP:POINT. I am inclining towards their view. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see more evidence of WP:POINTy mass deletion of bios. WP:PROF is not always very helpful; we have thousands of academic bios we probably don't need, but in most fields lack say 50% of the actual leading figures - as usual fewer than 50% of the List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2015 had articles when announced, though again as usual the redlinks are going fast. At least those are specifically mentioned in the policy so safe from zapping. I can't see most of the list above, now red - I suspect zapping them was over-hasty. Use AFD, Guy, don't patronize very experienced editors by explaining basic notability policy to them. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Something is definitely wrong with an encyclopedias inclusion criteria when it is so much easier to be considerer notable as a porn star, a fictive character, or CEO of a minor company than as an academic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have always considered as assertion that someone is a professor at a University a sufficient claim to possible importance, sufficient to the extent that speedy is unjustified. It does not have to show notability. It does not even have to show that it probably will be notable (which is criterion for accepting an AfC). We deliberately don't use the word "notable" at A7. We can not tell whether they are an authority in their field without further checking, and we need to do that checking before deletion--and also before nominating for AfD. We use speedy when it is clear there is no reasonable basis for an article, and that the consensus of good faith editors would certainly agree with us. Such is not the case here. That does not mean that all professors at universities are notable, though I have observed that we have almost never deleted an article on grounds of notability for a full professor at a major research university unless there were some specific problem . In other cases we have certainly deleted articles, and I have !voted delete and closed as !delete when notability is not demonstrated.

Guy, you made these deletions without prior nominations. That is not a direct violation of policy, but in A7 situations it is not a good thing to do, because A7 is not black.white and all of us, including myself make errors. I have as much experience at deletion processes as anyone, and at least 1 or 2 % of my speedy nomination turn out to be errors. I know of nobody working there extensively who has a perfect record. (I would also support making this an absolute requirement for A7 and G11, both f which require sometimes disputable judgment)

I am reluctant to summarily reverting these deletions myself, especially if JzG continues to justify them, because my general views on notability are so different from his that I'm not sufficiently neutral. But if he or someone does not do so, they will be at DelRev tomorrow, with a copy of this as the rationale, where I expect speedy reversals.

It is however also true, that the rapid creation of stub articles on people in a single department of a university as in similar situation does invite scrutiny, & I always look very carefully if I see it at NPP. People who wish to do such article creations should make sure the articles are clearly sufficient before leaving them. But that does not apply here. All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. Every one of them had books by the most important academic publishers, sometimes multiple books. That makes these deletions totally unjustifiable.

And I regard as assertion that a person has published a book by an established publisher as generally sufficient to pass speedy A7 (tho in some cases not speedy G11) . The reason is basically the same--it is an indication of at least plausible importance, and the possible notability can not be judged without further checking. Now, the case of NAUTHOR and NBOOK are two of the fields where I think our standards are too low. I have frequently nominated articles on authors and books for deletion at afd when I don't think that a reasonable interpretation of the criteria would justify an article, and I would also definitely advocate raising the requirements in NBOOK at least. But none the less I go by the accepted standards, not those I would like to have accepted.

Since every one of these people have written such books, and the publishers (usually CUP) are not in any sense marginal, there is certainly an indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University presses (with the possible exception of OUP) have a pretty low bar when presented with an MS by someone within the institution. Of course there would be no problem if the article's creator could have brought himself to write more than a single sentence. Guy(Help!) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. Respectable University Presses (of which OUP, Cambridge, Duke, Harvard, Chicago, UCP, MIT, are some but there are many others) do not look at the authors affiliation at all when considering a manuscript. And they most certainly do not have a lower bar than comparable academic publishers - because that is what they are, they have to make profits on the books and cannot afford to publish bad books by local scholars (nor do they have any reason to).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. We have very different understandings of what WP:PROF says then, which is partly why I brought this here for other eyes (after seeing concern raised by one other editor on Philafrenzy's talk).

Separate from the notability issue, though, is the other issue of established editors who know (or should know, as opposed to newbies) how to write articles, but put up bios they expect others to fix (as in, working too fast and expecting others to do the cleanup). During all of this, Philafrenzy made this post which reinforces my concern about the quality of his work relative to editcountitis/speed.

It would be good if Philafrenzy understood-- considering his longevity here-- that this is not a good thing to do, specifically when the subject is a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TEXTBOOKS does give more weight to books from academic presses than from general ones; but in general, notability of books comes from published reviews, translations, awards, and other secondary sources about the books. When listing books to document notability for a biography, I think it's best to find some external notability evidence for the individual books and cite it in the list. See e.g. Rubén Gallo#Books for a book list with some citations like that. Philafarmer, please consider that approach. The one-line articles sound like WP:KITTENS and deserve more care before being turned loose in article space. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, now that my original concern requiring admin attention has passed (that the OP had gone on a pointy article creation spree after the rejection of Tager at AFD and Deletion review), I need to make sure I'm following the rest of the discussion and your reasoning on notability. As of now, your reasoning isn't clear to me (dumber than the average bear). I am at a disadvantage that I can't discuss specific examples, since I don't have the tools to see the deleted articles. Nonetheless, I think I understand so far that:

1. You are drawing a distinction between two separate issues: 1) establishing notability (which can be challenged at AFD); and 2) when there is sufficient cause for an admin to invoke speedy deletion criteria. I think you are saying that I correctly tagged the articles as needing to establish notability, but you are disagreeing with JzG's interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria.
2. And also separately disagreeing with my interpretation of WP:PROF ??
3. You are saying that in some cases if WP:PROF isn't met, WP:AUTHOR may be instead.
4. You are saying that (in your opinion) usually profs at major universities will meet either PROF or AUTHOR, and when those cases are debatable, that is challenged via AFD, but rarely with speedy deletion.
5. Even if the version of the article put up does not establish that notability, and even when (as in my case) separate google searches do not reveal notability ???
6. But you are not saying that so strongly as to suggest that JzG abused the tools-- just that the use of speedy deletion is open to different interpretation???
7. And then you're saying you disagree with the speedy deletion, which you will challenge, so the articles can be reinstated. At which point there may or may not be separate AFDs to establish notability.

Do I have those parts right so far? If I do, here is the part where you lose me: in this post, you encourage Philafrenzy to continue creating these bios, even before they are established as notable via AFD. So, then, I'm furthered confused by your reasoning on PROF and AUTHOR (again, at a disadvantage that I can no longer see the articles, but I know what I saw when I tagged them).

1. WP:PROF has 9 criteria that I didn't see met in any of those articles. Just being a prof at a university doesn't mean notability is met. Even a "major" university.
2. But I think you are basing notability then on AUTHOR, and I'm not seeing that either, because:
3. WP:AUTHOR lays out 4 criteria that I didn't see met on any of those articles, and establishing that one of those four is met would require additional investigation, possibly at AFD.

So, to help me understand your interpretation of either PROF or AUTHOR, not in terms of whether they meet speedy criteria or would pass AFD, but which would justify advising that anyone should continue creating these kinds of bios, please help me see where/how they meet AUTHOR. Or which part of the discussion I'm misunderstanding. We turn down bios like this that are at AFC and brought to WT:MED on academics all the time. If every academic who has written a book gets an article, that is a significant departure from business so far in the medical realm.

If this is better handled on user talk, no problem, but I didn't want to split the discussion unnecessarily. But what I'm getting is that :

1. JzG is saying if an article doesn't establish notability, and others can't find it, then it can be speedied, while
2. You are saying it's OK to continue writing bios that don't establish notability, and require others to do the work to try to discern or establish it (like uncovering book reviews), even if that means unnecessary process like AFDs.

Which I don't think can be what you are advocating, so ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was indeed dealing with the immediate question of whether these articles should have been speedy deleted-. Being a professor at any university or writing any reputably published book is a sufficient indication of plausible notability, and these articles each had considerably more than that minimum,. I din't explicitly raise the issue, but since you asked, I am indeed saying that in my view JzG's deletions were not just misjudgments, but unqualified errors (tho I do not pretend to understand why he made these errors). If a candidate for Admin had made speedy nominations for articles like those, I doubt they'd be promoted nowadays.

Second, I also think they are notable beyond reasonable doubt, though all the evidence is not yet there to prove it. (the books , for example, need the reviews to be added) I think there is essentially zero % chance that any except the one I mentioned will be deleted at AfD. For the one I mentioned, I think it's about 20% possible there might be a delete. We'll see if I'm right, if anyone nominates them. My accuracy at predicting these is by no means perfect. The discussion of whether they meet the requirements should be better done at another place, normally the afds. /certain we don't decide on notability at AN/I. To avoid confusing the issue, I'll respond to you objections there if necessary. (I will only here clarify a few misunderstandings. in point 4, . Not all profs, but only full prof, or profs in the traditional UK sense, at major research universities are always notable. You left out the qualifiers. I think that very few Assistant end only some Associate professors even at major research universities are notable; I think most professors of any rank at predominantly teaching institutions are not notable. The full p@mru are notable as a matter of actual practice here, because we have always held so in the last 5 years: No full professor at a major US or European research university has every been deleted at AfD in the past 5 years, except for cases where there is prejudice here against the person's field (e.g. education, agriculture, business for example) or where the person is also known for fringe views either in his subject or in something else. I may have missed a few, but I challenge anyone to find 5 in the 5 years. The place to discuss it further, besides the individual AfDs, is WT:PROF) You raised the question, but I do not know where you get the idea that university presses are unreliable, or of relatively high quality. I think in the academic world with respect to the humanities, it is just the other way round: the only respected publishers that count for tenure are the major university presses, plus the academic divisions of a few commercial publishers. But this would be question at RSN, and I don't want to argue it further here.

with respect to your tagging. If you had added speedy nomination tags, I would have said say you did as incorrectly as JzG, except that his was an administrative act and should be held to higher standards. But you merely placed notability tags, saying additional evidence is needed. Additional evidence and referencing is indeed advisable, as with almost all WP articles. I would not have placed the tags, because in a case like these it is so easily corrected, and I consider there is no real doubt. But it you thought there was a doubt, you are in the right to say so. It is perfectly correct to place a problem tag if you think there;'s a problem, whether or not it turns out that there actually is. A problem tag is only marking an article for a further look, and unless it is done abusively or utterly absurdly, it's almost never wrong. We disagree, but it's expected people disagree. I don't see this as needing further discussion anywhere. I don't think anyone is challenging your tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:34, May 15, 2015‎

Thanks, DGG, for the clarification on full prof in major universities, which helps. One other clarification: it was not me who said that university presses are unreliable. My concern is that I saw the bios created rapid-fire, saw that notability wasn't established on any of them, did a google search for more info on the subjects, found nothing, and tagged them (knowing that meant someone else would have to clean up Philafrenzy's work).

I understand your views on notability now, respect that JzG's may be different, but I'm still not quite sure why editors should be encouraged to create bios without establishing notability, and I'm wondering if your library access means that you are seeing articles which make these people notable that I am not able to see. If that is the case, we again have bios being created that someone else has to finish. I have no interest in taking any of these to AFD as long as the underlying concerns (the pointy concern) have been addressed ... but what I still am seeing is that an established editor is creating articles without establishing notability, leaving work behind for others to finish and setting up the possibility of extra time-consuming process (AFDs).

I also see some disagreement expressed throughout this discussion about notability, so I'm left with the conclusion that ... if every historian is going to get an article, I am going to stop holding the line on every researcher who comes up at WT:MED, because I apparently am missing something.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasoning, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just one point--the reason it is easier to determine this in science is the usability of citation indexes to show notability, and the fact that this is a measurement that essentially everyone working on here agrees with. And if you'd like to join me in my forthcoming proposal to restrict notability of routine academic books, I'd be glad of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest that, and say that any academic regardless of academic post and place of employment is notable if their work has been reviewed and referred to by their peers. If there are published reviews or other articles discussing their work, any academic should be considered notable per GNG. I do agree that making large amounts of contentless stubs is not helping anyone. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That amounts to an assertion of inherent notability. In science at least you will not get a job unless you have peer-reviewed publications, and I doubt if that's much different in other fields. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Could part of the problem be that WP:PROF is a wee bit too restrictive? ·maunus said it best, something might be wrong in our criteria for academics. I never understood the logic behind a football (soccer) player in a fourth tier English team being automatically notable while an associate professor at a prestigious English university and with ten peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals is disqualified by current WP:PROF criteria.Full disclosure of heavy bias: I'm an academic myself with a number of peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals. I claim no neutrality in this matter - but I think it merits discussion. FT Reader^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think one way to get around WP:PROF is to go by WP:GNG. We could do this if we were to consider book reviews and summaries of an academics' work published in peer reviewed journals as "non-trivial third party sources" that would to go towards satisfying the general notability. I don't see any reason that a review of an academic book should not give the same degree of notability as a press release turned into a news article for a CEO biography, or a press conference turned online news article for a minor celebrity. Academics are notable for their work, so any published source, including reviews and summaries in other people's research articles, should count toward academic notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That route, like citation indices, is certainly available (criterion 1) but not that often seen argued in detail at AFD, where most participants lack access and awareness of what they mean. Plus all these measures are subject to massaging that only those close to the field really appreciate. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does require expert level familiarity with the topic to use this approach. But I have used it with success myself, in specific cases where notability was contested in spite of an academic being a major figure in the field. (Not all important academics ever become distinguished or named professors for example).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manus, That approach using GNG is one reason we have WP:PROF. In my earlier years here, I showed a few times that by using WP:GNG, every academic who had published papers that had been cited could be technically shown to be notable--which amounts to including all postdoctoral fellow in most scientific fields , and everyone further along. The result was obviously contrary to common sense, and I never really advocated we use it. But it shows the need for some more realistic standard. The best approach to a standard in general is the same as we use for WP:RS--to accept what people in the relevant field accept as notability, on the basis that they are likely to know better than us. I think the clearest example of this is our use of specific charts for notability in music--I may think it leads to overcoverage, but it is a comprehensible & determinable standard, and that's what is really important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:47, May 16, 2015

Ping only works if you spell the username right. WP:PROF does not override GNG. If an academic or her work can be shown to have been subject to non-trivial third party coverage, then they are notable. And yes that will mean that some postdocs are notable, and most academic. As long as we are as inclusive as we are on other topics, there is no valid reason to enforce a more restrictive standard for academics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This batch of A7 deletions was really poorly thought through and JzG who made them deserves a trout. Essentially, "X is a professor at [good university]" is already a claim of notability that should be enough to prevent A7 speedy deletion. To become professor, you have to have done something significant in your research area — maybe not enough for WP:PROF, but definitely enough for A7. Arguably that's true even to finish your Ph.D. And in the case of e.g. John H. Arnold (historian), we had not only that but five published books; as noted above, some of the others included society presidents etc. We do not need (and do not want) wording of the form "X is notable for..." in an article in order for the article to have a claim of significance. And these articles did have loud and clear claims of significance. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in the business of deleting articles about academics. And if you're applying the same standards for A7 that you would in a full AfD, you're doing it wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with them being restored to Draft space and expanded to include some assertion of notability, but the articles themselves were a maximum of two sentences. More effort has already been expended by the creator in arguing the toss here, than on all of the content in all of the articles, put together. Think about that for a minute. All the reasons advance din this discussion as to why they are notable? Pity they weren't in the articles, because then we would not even be having the discussion. See my point? Guy(Help!) 08:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. The articles already included an assertion of notability, even in so short a state, that you were apparently not competent to read. It was not necessary to expand them to include an assertion of notability, because that assertion was already there. That is why your A7 deletions were wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So simply being an academic is now a claim of notability? You live and learn. One of the articles ran to two short sentences, one sentence was the norm. Creating articles where you can't be arsed to even describe why the person is supposed to be important is a bad idea, and as I noted above this discussion is by now many times longer (and has been given vastly more work by the article creator) than all of the deleted items put together. Remember WP:BLP? I don't think creating tiny articles with no substantive content is a great idea. Apparently I am alone in this, though, so I will walk away. And I do hope that Phila will actually take the trouble to write at least a properly formed stub in future. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have just not abused A7 in the first place and this would have been a lot shorter.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On creating stubs

• Guy, you are not being fair. It takes a long time to produce a decent stub if, as I did,

1. You check whether it already exists in some other form of name
2. Consider what the best article name would be (it's not always obvious)
3. Create redirects from variants of the name (I did)
4. Add the article to the disambig page for common names (they often have these)
5. Add incoming links
6. Do a Google search and read the sources
7. Create offshoot articles (the Pears Institute)
8. Write the actual article
9. Format the content, particularly the books and add wikilinks
10. Add relevant categories
11. Create the talk page with project(s)

I took a lot of care with these - they were not thoughtlessly spat out as one line stubs at all and to be honest I resent the belittling of my work. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of academics, particularly women is very poor on here. If philafrenzy could create them at a minimum length like Judith Colton, but with a few sentences also explaining what her work involves and why she is noteworthy of mentioning here, I'm sure Sandy wouldn't object. There does need to be a few facts given to make them worthwhile I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, I could have done more, but I had already done everything mentioned above. Colton was then expanded by others as a result of my creation of the stub. Nobody else had got round to creating it in the last decade had they? Who knows how large any of them will get if someone will just start them? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the exasperation with the extent of missing content. But to really make the stubs worthwhile I do think if you could at least say, for example: xxx is an American scholar and archaeologist, Professor in Linguistics at xxx university. A xxx graduate, she is particularly noted for her research into Mayan petroglyphs. In 1987 co-authored a book on the ancient practices of the Yucatan, after extensive of study of the xxx site in the mid 1980s. Since 2001 she has been a member of the American Linguistics Association, with whom she has published several textbooks for students. That sort of length with an understanding of why they are included in the encyclopedia is fine and productive IMO. They don't have to be meaty stubs, but really need some bare facts to work with for the readers I think. I made the mistake years back of "sub stub" creation, and in the long term it's not a good idea. There has to be a compromise. I find sub stubbing say 3-5, and then quickly going through them adding a bit of content and sources is the best way to be efficient on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good constructive advice. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can also quickly draw up book citations here which makes stub creation much for efficient. Sometimes you have to be careful with some of the google listings though, as occasionally errors are produced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I use that app constantly but you have to check the content against the scanned page very carefully. The problem is in the underlying Google database. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up, thank you Dr. Blofeld for making some headway here on what the serious, underlying problem is with this kind of (what I characterize as disruptive) editing.

As a content editor, I'm dismayed to see that what was once standard adminning (articles that don't establish notability were deleted, and editors who continue to put up articles that don't establish notability-- after being told of the problem-- are subject to being blocked for disruption) has changed to actually encouraging an editor to continue doing the same. This isn't the place for that discussion, but where this will lead in articles related to medicine will create boatloads of extra work for the rest of us, which brings me back around to the disruptive editing factor involved here.

Philafrenzy, you spent how much time laying out the amount of work it takes to create a bio stub above?? I'm sorry, but I do it all the time, I do it right (including cats, etc), and it takes me about 20 minutes to put up an article that establishes notability and won't require other editors to do MY work for me.

Here's the rub-- all the work that you are NOT doing is then work that others have to do when the new article pops on new article watch lists. How is it that your time is more important than the time of others? Is it just about quantity over quality? And if you were the subject of a BLP, would you be happy if someone put up a crap article on a highly trafficked website that became the first google hit and was riddled with maintenance tags? That is what you are doing to people.

You already knew the sources, you claim these people are notable, but you couldn't take the time to put that info in the articles so that I didn't have to expend time on searches, when I have no access to a university library?? Your argument that putting up a stub is time-consuming is bogus-- I do it, and I'm not even a good writer, so can you-- but your further argument that it takes too much time for you to do it right (followed by your query about editcountitis) is an insult to the rest of the editors who then have to take even MORE time to clean up after you.

Good on the old style admins like JzG-- who know what the standards once were in here-- and I say if you take the advice to continue doing more of same, you are engaging in disruptive editing. Establish notability on bios (not DGG's "presumed" notability) when you put them up. Your time is not more valuable than everyone else's here, and please ... take some pride in your work, at least when you are writing about living people. Please consider the quality of your work: if you can't do it for pride in your own work, then do it so you won't disrespect the rest of us (who have to clean up after you), and the subjects of the bios (who will find themselves with a first google hit to an article riddled with big ugly maintenance tags). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: I recreated Julian Swann. If you can aim to produce them at the very least about that sort of length and comprehension, not even a meaty stub but with the bare essentials which are informative to the reader it really makes a big difference. I presume he's English, I'm not certain though so if you check I'd be grateful. It could really use some more independent sources though, the university and book are acceptable, but needs more third-party sources to really demonstrate notability, I couldn't seen a abundance of material about him initially, mainly references, but he does meet WP:Academic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr., how long did that take you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About five-ten minutes I'd say to do a quick search and compile some basic facts and start it. Most of the later edits were tweaks/minor additions, checks/link corrections etc so maybe 20-30 minutes in total. When I'm editing though it really feels like five or 10 minutes at most. Well put it this way, if I quickly stubbed 3 or 4 or them, I reckon I could have them all up to a bare minimum acceptable stub, each with at least two sources in about 45 minutes, something like that. The problem with a lot of academics is that while they're undoubtedly notable authors of books/papers, a lot of them really lack biographical coverage and the "meat" you get with a lot of the really notable figures and lack an abundance of material written about them. In some cases I wonder if we'd be better off having articles on the Faculties of certain universities and bio summaries of the professors in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there is any need to change the way we do business (bad cases make bad law, and I'm not sure we gain anything by using these samples to suggest there is anything wrong with our notability pages-- there is I suggest a problem with the message we have sent that the kind of editing evidenced in this thread is acceptable. Establishing notability should be the minimum acceptable threshold, and it is just not that hard. THEN, avoiding attack bios and BLP issues is another threshold, but I hope that message has been received by now).

But what I'm getting at here is that the first version someone puts up is then scanned and viewed by multiple other editors who review new pages, and it just doesn't take that long nor is it that hard to put up something that doesn't need maintenance tags, establishes notability, and then can be expanded without leaving a real, live person with a crap bio as the first hit on google. Ten to twenty minutes is not too long to spend on a bio of a real person who is affected by sloppy editing; anyone who can't take that time shouldn't be writing bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a test Sandy and timed myself. It took between 10 and 11 minutes to create the initial stub for Sonya Rose, and about 3 minutes checking links and typos. Obviously I haven't looked further afield in google books or whatever yet but for that really bare minimum stub yes, little more than 10 minutes work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort here, Dr.! (But add a few minutes for WikiProject and BLP tagging on the talk pages :) Of course, those can be done after the bio is put up, because the absence of them does not require article tagging ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Sonya Rose, ideally that is the sort of new article would like to see, borderline start class, took 35-40 minutes in total, a lot of that time was reading/research too rather than actual writing. Something which makes it look like we understand who she is. But the 10 minute minimum stub is acceptable and quite manageable if you've got a few to create Phila, if the others are as notable as Sonya they would never have got deleted if you'd added some bare facts. If you want some assistance feel free to ask me, but I'm not going to recreate all of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Dr., you deserve a barnstar! (Except an editor I respect told me that barnstars are for barns, and collecting them is Not A Good Thing :)

Now maybe you are just the person to explain to Philafrenzy that if he digests the message, I will have forgotten our differences a few days from now :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Phila, Adding a "linkrot" tag to an article that you just created yourself and on which you are the only editor seems kind of weird to me... It was removed 7 minutes later by somebody who made the (small) effort to run Reflinks. Now why couldn't you do that yourself, that only takes 30 sec... --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romie Tager deletion review

A related admin question while we're here ... Romie Tager was closed at Deletion review about 12 hours ago, but it's still there. What's the next step, who does it, why hasn't it been done, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Re-deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, my bad. I closed the debate and didn't notice that it had been restored for the debate. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David Eppstein. Would it be appropriate for someone to close this thread now? It looks like we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; it looks like Philafrenzy would rather continue this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we await your apology Sandy for sending us all on a wild goose chase. You seem so far to have escaped criticism for your mad conspiracy theory. No wonder you want this thread closed as quickly as possible. Will you apologise? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your concern; I am so anxious to have the thread closed that it took me two days to come back here.

  Have you thanked all the editors who have cleaned up those articles after you? I just checked Dr. Blofeld's talk, and didn't find anything. In fact, all I find anywhere is a discussion between you and DGG indicating something would be better addressed in a phone conversation-- that's odd. [305]

  Did you learn anything about the quality of your contributions, Philafrenzy? I hope so. I learned a lot about speedy deletion criteria, which were never engaged by me, but by JzG. I suggest your wild goose chase wasn't mine, but someone else's. As a result of this, should you adjust your writing, you could gain my respect, and maybe even a recognition of the value of your contributions. As it stands, I suspect you are infected with the DYK-inspired "quantity over quality" issue. Based on that latest post, I don't hold out any hope that your contributions will improve, but please do surprise me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it's everyone fault but your own. Even JzG. You should apologise for wasting a huge amount of volunteer time based on nothing but a mad theory from your own feverish imagination, but it's clear you won't and, sadly, I am not surprised by that. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You make an excellent point. Perhaps next time, rather than raising a valid concern at the appropriate forum, I'll pick up the phone and call an arb. You may have the last word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reviews

I have just brought 6 deletion reviews for the articles that have still not been restored.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review#John H. Arnold (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#David Feldman (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Frank Trentmann
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Dominic Rathbone
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katherine Edwards (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Vanessa Harding (historian) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful is some other admin would restore the histories for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is dishearening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. —DoRD (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit is wrong about wp:blpn (there was no consensus), half-right about wp:ae (I was threatened but the canvassing against me went nowhere), wrong about wp:forumshopping (if it were true then everybody who goes to wp:ani would be guilty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. (see subsequent comment re strikeout) But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin closes an AN/I thread, s/he does not create some kind of binding principle. Cardamon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. S/he may, however, articulate a settled consensus interpretation of policy, as TParis did here. Guy(Help!) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As may any editor. Admins don't have any special role in terms of deciding what is the proper way to apply policy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but my own opinion is that we should have firm policy against that sort of descriptor in the infobox of lead sentence. Even if the person calls himself such, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. That we permit otherwise is in my opinion a perversion of the policy of WP:NPOV, and the two supporting guidelines on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We'll still have to argue about how to say it, but it won't have the same focus. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed use of "skeptic" is a case of quote mining, neglecting the context.

The first sentence of the lead of the Wikpedia article on climate change denial reads (underlining added)

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.^[1][2]

The second sentence of the Watts BLP reads

He operates Watts Up With That?, a weather and climate change^[a] blog that focuses on the global warming controversy and his opinion that the human role in global warming is insignificant.

This sentence has a citation with the quote, "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis".

The Wikipedia article on environmental skepticism clearly distinguishing it as not being scientific skepticism, and there are other sources for that. Non-specialist mass media cites that use "skeptic" are not as reliable as a notable climatologist published in book for by an academic press.

Mann's opinion represents the scientific consensus on Watt's blog, as he appears to be the only RS scientist bothering to publish a comment; there isn't any SYNTH or OR involved in citing his statement in the lead as representative of the mainstream view. The only point of contention is whether or not Mann's view is the mainstream view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases we should refrain from descriptive hotbutton terms unless virtually all sources use such a descriptor and then we must attribute it exhaustively. I would prefer that in the case of Watts, we not follow the lead of news sources and instead say that he (his blog) disagrees with or contests the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO 12:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse completely what MONGO said above, and I meant to include this point in my comment. Cherry-picky descriptors of this sort is very common, and illegitimate. For anyone sufficiently controversial, you can pretty much find a short quotation or phrase that says almost anything. It's another reason for graat caution and for avoiding such characterizing phrases. Complex positions on issues cannot be fairly reduced to one word, and anyone who tries -- however good their intentions -- is likely to be inaccurate. As for the question in the headline here, if the quote given is representative, then I (and MONGO) would definitely not endorse the 4th sentence of what TParis said as being proper NPOV policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MONGO is correct. "Denier" is a known pejorative with no other purpose than to link him to holocaust denial. We have an alternative term that is widely used in sources called "skeptic" which avoids the BLP violation of linking Watts to the Holocaust (any link, no matter how slight is unacceptable). --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Would wish to clarify that my amateur opinion of the blog whatsupwiththat is that it has presented inaccurate data to support the premise that the scientific consensus on climate change is not fully accurate. I do not think that that blog is always wrong as some information posted there is accurate, but not enough that it could be used ever as a source to discredit the scientific consensus. Even given that, the bottom line is that in a BIO and especially a BLP, hotbutton descriptors are not needed to convey the appropriate message that the blog is not a reliable source, regardless of what other sources say about that blog or the blogger himself.--MONGO 13:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward It is patently false that editors characterizing Watts' blog as a "climate change denialism" blog are trying to "link him to holocaust denial". WP:NPA

Making recourse to "holocaust denial" in this context is WP:OR, at best, as not a single RS that characterizes him as a "(climate change) denier" engaged in "(climate change) denialism", or running a "(climate change) denialst blog", etc., does so. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the use of the term is not needed to convey the knowledge needed to have an informed opinion on the blog.--MONGO 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, I am quite willing to AGF that you are unaware of the connection that is made between the two. Now that you are aware, however, it is with complete disregard to BLP to continue endorsing "denier." It is well established that there is intent to link the two whether or not that is your intent. "Skeptic" is just as valid a description as "denier." After being told that it is offensive to both climate change sceptics and Holocaust survivors to use that term, you should stop. It's like using the term "National Socialist" to describe a political position. No matter how strong your case is that the two words are accurate, it will never escape the stigma and will never pass the BLP test unless they self describe as that. Sorry, but that's reality. Please stop calling living people "deniers" now that you are aware of its pejorative context. And here's just one of many sources [306]. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name for this rhetorical maneuver? Not Godwin's Law, but the assertion that if your opponent uses a particular word, *they* will violate Godwin's Law, so they'd better stop? Whatever it's called, it's stupid. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is Godwin's law and the people that started using "denier" lost when they invoked holocaust language to describe their political opponents. That's how stupid it is. There is no doubt where "denier" began and what its purpose was. Why cling to the word if it didn't bring such visceral emotions? This tactic is common in politics, not so common in pure science and academia unless they are politicized. At least in the last Arbcom when editors used the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" we didn't have ideologues trying to feed us a shit sandwich as if it were chocolate cake. It's a shit sandwich. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nothing but rhetorical bluster, and it seems that you have some irrational bias against the common terms "climate change denier"170,000 hits and "climate denier"133,000 hits.

The scatological rhetoric in your post borders on a personal attack. It definitely is a personal attack to call editors ideologues that are using reliable sources or invoke "holocaust denial" against them; furthermore, consensus is clearly against you and others railing against Mann's and others' characterization of Watts and his blog.

If you have an irrational bias against the terms "denier", "denialism", etc., which are applied by WP:RS to Watts and his blog as cited in the article and available for the counting on the Talk page, perhaps you should read Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest.

As I said above, it seems that the only issue is whether Mann's (and the others') characterization is the mainstream view; i.e., an NPOV issue. That makes it a content dispute, and WP:CONSENSUS is against you, I repeat.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this is a case where consensus in support of "denier" cannot be reached, with a plausible argument identifying it as a BLP violation (due to the similiarity with "Holocaust denier"). "Denier" is unnecessarily inflammatory, the term "skeptic" is more neutral and, in the absence of exhaustive proof demonstrating that a clear majority of RS describes him as a "denier," Watts should be described as a "skeptic." Feel free to invest the next three days posting that exhaustive proof, or accept the word "skeptic." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, consider this quote from a 2010 article in Nature Medicine, by Megan Scudellari [307]: "in the public sphere, a different type of dissension is spreading through media outlets and online in an unprecedented way--one that challenges basic concepts held as undeniable truths by most researchers. 'Science denialism' is the rejection of the scientific consensus, often in favor of a radical and controversial point of view." I read this and think that the term "denialism" stems from the idea that "undeniable truths" are being challenged--some examples of denialism from this article are the idea that vaccines cause autism and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. According to DHeyward's argument above, though, Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial through the use of hotbutton language! How dare Nature Medicine and publishers such as Routledge, Oxford University Press, and Springer (see Ubikwit's list of sources above) spread such calumny? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial ... There's always that possibility. The term "skeptic" is less inflammatory, in widespread use, and entirely adequate for this purpose. I suspect that at least some of those editors pushing for it are also pushing a POV. We have no need to go there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Denial" is a normal, everyday word. It has a normal, everyday meaning which is not tied to the Holocaust. That it was also selected to refer to a group who rejects the academic consensus on a totally different issue does not mean it can't ever be used in the future for its normal, everyday meaning. If you want to claim "climate change denial" is a reference to the Holocaust, provide sources. In the meantime, it is an exceedingly common label for this movement. And no, "skeptic" is not some totally neutral term for the same thing: it is inaccurate, less widely used in academic literature, and heavily promoted by those in the movement as PR. Lastly, this doesn't belong on ANI. Admins don't supervote or singlehandedly define policy, and no sanctions are being requested. This section should be closed. — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TParis wasn't really correct on this. There is no principle at all on WP that we use the exact terminology preferred by a flat majority (i.e. even a hair over 50%) of sources. If usage is split, with some sources using one term and others using another (here some preferring "skeptic", others "denier"/"denialist"), the very fact of this labeling dispute among the authors of the sources is a clear indication that we cannot neutrally favor one over the other, but must report that views of the subject are mixed. I agree entirely with Mann_jess, that "denial" and its derivative words like "denialism" are normal, everyday words, and not magically tied somehow to the Holocaust. Denialism affects many topics and disciplines, and climate change is certainly among them, along with vaccine safety. We have an entire article, Denialism, about this, and it notably has a whole section (with sources) about climate change denialism. If we have reliable sources that identify this particular biographical subject as a denier/denialist, we have to allow for that terminology in the article, though the reasonable thing to do is note which or at least what sorts of sources use it, vs. those that use "skeptic". The idea that "denier" is some kind of loaded, scapegoating pejorative that triggers Godwin's law simply isn't supported by any evidence from dictionaries, usage guides, etc. Some people believe the same thing about the term "revisionist", but it's not true of that word, either. Idiosyncratic personal redefinitions of terminology are not something ANI should be using as any basis for making decisions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just catching up with this discussion, which I'm a little surprised to see is still ongoing. I've been convinced by subsequent commenters that in fact "skeptic" is more appropriate. The good arguments made for "skeptic" underline my initial concern about an administrator making an interpretation of content policy as happened in this instance. These sorts of things should go through DRN if they are not resolved, and administrators should not be resolving them. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editor threatens editors with mentioning them on external attack site

• No, it's not resolved, please see below. Bishonen talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

AnnalesSchool is a long-term tendentious editor who is chronically attacking his perceived opponents. In his latest outburst he mentions that an external website which is probably connected to him is going to mention us and is calling his opponents "nuts" and "off our rocker": You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The last thread on Talk:Greco-Italian War is littered with his attacks and crass sarcasm and I have given him level 4 NPA warnings on his talkpage in the past and in the latest thread at Talk:Greco-Italian War. His incivilities are too numerous to mention. The project is littered with the his widespread atacks. But I will provide another example of his vile attacks: He had told editor Cplakidas at Talk:Greco-Italian War: Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient. Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?. I ask that this editor be blocked for serially violating NPA, CIV, AGF and being tendentious as well as threatening other editors with mentioning them on external attack sites. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the external attack site

The external attack website AnnalesSchool maintains and uses to attack Wikipedia editors is called www.comandosupremo.com and his attack article is here: What is wrong with many Wikipedia articles dealing with war-time Italy? in which he mentions: This particular article is held hostage by a small clique of Grecophiles with Greek-sounding usernames who have simply confiscated the entire article and laid claim to all editorial rights to it (which is against Wiki policy) so that it is well nigh impossible to actually improve and cleanse it of its many defects. It would better to delete such articles entirely and start again. But what is really sad is that these so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way, are not even aware of the damage they are doing to Wikipedia’s reputation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've seen AnnalesSchool's editing in Military history of Italy during World War II (e.g. [308] , [309]). He is very set on focusing on the specific school in history that "rehabilitates" Italy's military reputation. He does use sources, and it is a historical school that deserves to be mentioned and discussed on Wikipedia, but it's also a school that self-admittedly portrays itself as the "underdog" against the "established history", which implies that Wikipedia should still focus on the mainstream historical assessment, which all sides can agree is less kind to evaluating the effectiveness of the Italian military. I think AnnalesSchool is still potentially a valuable editor so long as he or she is reminded that the "revisionist" claims are not necessarily right and shouldn't be included as a new revealed gospel truth, but merely as a notable alternate view. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But this report is not about AnnalesSchool's adherence to a particular school of historical thought. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This report also shouldn't be about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website. The only time I've seen off-Wikipedia posting considered is if the editor outs another editor on their blog or website but that is not the case here. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So an editor is allowed to threaten other Wikipedia editors with on-wiki comments like this: Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. which use an external attack site as the threat? And this report is not only about the external attack site but also about the serial incivility of AnnalesSchool. Δρ.Κ.^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before looking at the comandosupremo page, I questioned your conclusions — why would you allege a connection? Without a connection, this kind of statement is basically "look what an idiot they think you are, and what idiots they think the Wikipedia community is". But when the article's written by someone called "Annales" who, from his first sentence, is obviously involved as a Wikipedia editor, I see no reason to doubt the connection. It's not an attack page, or anything else prohibited by our policies, but I see this as playing into a general pattern of disruption. I see one clearly bad edit (the diff immediately after "AnnalesSchool's editing in") and lots of warnings on his talk page, but what about other problems? Given the warnings, if he's really being disruptive, there's no reason not to block if he keeps on going, but I don't want to block unless you can show me that this really is a pattern of behavior, either long-term or just recently. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted User:TomStar81 to this post: he's followed up on previous problems with AnnalesSchool's editing. As a comment, the problems with this editor's POV pushing, personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources have been long running. Liz is mistaken in saying that conduct such as what's being reported here isn't actionable: using off-Wikipedia websites to attack other editors, and threaten those editors personally, has a significant chilling effect and any number of previous instances have been treated as the harassment for which it is. This has included arbitration cases and bans. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome his input. I don't see this as harassment, per se, but simply as a significant example of disruptive, non-collegial behavior. If this statement had instead been posted here on Wikipedia, we wouldn't sanction him for that alone: we'd give him a stern WP:NOTFORUM warning (not applicable for anything off-wiki), but we wouldn't block him unless it was part of a pattern of problematic editing. Why should his careful and repeated use of his off-wiki webpage be treated any differently? It's not something that needs to be considered especially bad or considered irrelevant, since he's repeatedly referring to it as part of his arguments. If Tom (or someone else) can establish a pattern of Annales having been uncoöperative and causing general problems, the use of the external website will be an example of why a block for general disruption will be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the external site are disparaging for the Wikipedia editors describing them as ...so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way. He also mentioned on-wiki that ...there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon.. If that's not harassment and intimidation I don't know what is. He also called Cplakidas a "masochist" for not agreeing with his POV. His pattern of abuse, harassment and incivility is very loud and long. Also if an editor kept a similar page on wiki disparaging editors that way the page would have been deleted as an attack page and the editor warned or blocked. Δρ.Κ.^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block? WP:ANI doesn't police the internet and block editors based on critical comments they make about Wikipedia unless they "out" other editors. Such conduct might be considered in an ArbCom cases which examines a wider variety of evidence among involved parties in a case but it shouldn't be considered here. This blog entry that is linked to doesn't even identify editors by name! It should be considered free speech or else WP is going down a rabbit hole that would allow sanctioning many editors and admins here for comments made off-Wikipedia about Wikipedia matters. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors have you witnessed here where they threaten another editor on-wiki that they will go to Wikipediocracy to attack them? Plus he is describing editors' usernames in such detail (Greek-sounding etc.) and also the article involved which makes it easy to identify the users involved. Also don't forget he has directly threatened us that he will mention us by name. Again, I don't know of any Wikipediocracy member who has directly threatened someone on-wiki that he will be mentioned on their website externally and after calling them "nuts" and "off their rocker". Do you not see his use of that website in addition to his personal attacks as a means of intimidating his perceived opponents? Because for sure he does. I remind you of what he said: You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The bolded part is an unmistakable threat and he uses his website as part of that threat during a discussion on an article talkpage as a form of intimidation and, more ominously, to gain advantage in the discussion. He knows that and that's why he uses it. Can you not see it? The website and his connection to him are also relevant because he has used a sockpuppet to promote it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown. The above comment about "what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website" is totally invalid because a glance at the first link above shows that AnnalesSchool was making an on-wiki threat that certain editors would be attacked off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• <sigh> @AnnalesSchool:, we discussed this issue before, have we not? That there is, and there ever shall be, two sides to the coin that we call "truth": the truth as you see it (or I see it, or any of the above editors see it), and the facts as they are. Did I not caution that adherence to the truth as you saw it would cause more problems for you in the long run? We are here because you heard what was being said, but you did not listen to what has been said. Despite the fact that you are editing the encyclopedia and doing so on a cluster of articles concerning Italy in World War II you have not absorbed the message left by Benito Mussolini's fascist party: any group that attempts to impose an iron will without regard for the traditions of the people or the system they come from will eventually be ousted by the will of the people. Consequently, for the second time in recent history, we are left the issue of isolationist edits to the articles and declarations by you of a small group of editors who will not permit your edits in the article, but such a declaration, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that justice favors the strongest of the two parties in a conflict. Just as I had prophesied, your own edits are now causing the public opinion here to turn against you.

In you hands, my dissatisfied editor, and not our, is the momentous issue of an edit war. Wikipedia and Wikipedians will not support you. You have no warrant issued by any school of historical thought to rewrite our articles for the sake of correcting a perceived slight against your subject on our serves, while I as an administrator am called to meet the challenge of a most solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the material on this site that others may share in and learn from the knowledge gathered here over these last fourteen years. I am burdened by the weight of the summons to this forum. We are not enemies, but editors. We must no be enemies. Though our approaches to a common problem may differ, anger and resentment must not replace discussion and consensus. Maturity on Wikipedia is therefore reached at the moment when one can recognize this system and work with it to achieve the goals they set for themselves. End this immature behavior here, before others taken action to end it on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the website in question really an "attack site"? Well, this is how the editor in question criticizes a fellow academic at that website, who writes an article about the performance of the Italian military in a specific World War II battle: "Oh how I wish I could have tied this boy-wonder naked to a mule and promenaded him through the mountain passes for mine-clearing duties with the Italian troops laughing behind!" AnnalesSchool is an editor who openly yearns for the death of those he disagrees with, and threatens Wikipedia editors with comparable online attacks. Not cool for either the victim or the mule. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omg. Can we indef this creep now? There is no doubt in my mind that if I took this to WP:AE (as Greco-Italian War) falls under WP:ARBMAC, thisuser would be indef topic banned in short order. The problem with that is that it would only cover Greco-Italian War and he would continue his crusae to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in other topic areas, such as the North African campaign. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er... um... ouch! I'm compelled to !vote indef. There's something very wrong with the 'contributor' in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annales is, sadly, a missed opportunity. There is no question that the basis of his argument has merit: there is a bias against WWII-era Italy, and it should be corrected so that a fuller and more accurate picture can emerge. The problem is, he is not interested in simply adjusting the historical narrative, he is interested in overturning it altogether and make the Italians victors and victims at the same time, absolving them of any mistake or guilt. In his period of activity here, he has been engaged solely on this one topic, and has come into conflict with pretty much every other editor involved in these articles; he has used sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, baited other editors with offensive remarks, used self-published sources, distorted the basic chronology of events, etc ad nauseam. And now it is shown that he is an active member of a website that suspiciously tends to emphasize the Fascist element in WWII-era Italy (I happen to know the site before its redesign, and its pro-Fascist tendency is much clearer when one looks at older versions, e.g. March 2006), and where he engages in heaping pejorative adjectives on any scholar who disagrees with his POV. His comment at the diff given above by Dr.K really sums up his attitude: "better to be occupied by a more humane and honorable enemy like the Italian Army". Ergo Italians=good, all others either bad or stupid for not surrendering to them first rather than the Germans, who were worse. The myth of the "good Italian" driven to its extreme conclusion, mixed with not a little nostalgia for Mussolini and his regime... Whatever good might come out of his contributions is not worth the drama it generates. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"THere is a bias against World War II Italy" - You mean that we are determined to call Mussolini a fasscist dictator? .... or what? If Italy didn't want "negative" articles in Wikipedia perhaps it shouldn't have put the Fascists into power and then, just as things were going as badly as they could possibly go, conveniently switched sides to the Allies. Unfortunately for the consciences of the Italiian people, their decisions were at every instance a day late and a dollar short, and their motivations were about as base as they could be. BMK (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear pattern by AnnalesSchool to try to attack the "psychology" of his opponents cf. the quote above where he calls us "off our rocker" and "nuts" and also consider this attack from 23 January 2015:

What were his motives, and the motives of wiki editors like himself who feel it to be their moral duty to denigrate and belittle the Italian war effort at every turn?; who continue to cherry-pick quotes and information designed to put the Italians in a bad light, come what may? The psychology of such people is interesting, to say the least.

Please see also the link above where he asks Cplakidas "if he has a masochistic bent". It is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. In no collaborative project that I know of, editors engage in deliberate and longterm campaigns of psychological warfare against those they perceive as their opponents. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is modifying straight quotes from inside RS citations with edit-summary: toning down some of the gratuitous rhetoric. While here he is the exponent of WP:TRUTH: Please put aside your strident Greek nationalism and start to accept reality and historical truth for a change. and also here: What in heaven's name are you actually objecting to? The truth?. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: The bias is that a large chunk of literature portrays the Italians as blundering, incompetent fools, and that this portrayal often descends to stereotyping and even caricature. The problem with Annales is that instead of taking an opportunity to rectify such cases with reference to more nuanced sources, he uses the prevalence of this portrayal as an excuse to dismiss everyone who dares to suggest that Italy's war effort was more than somewhat mismanaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and that they had to be carried to victory by the Germans in France, Greece and North Africa. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Come on, Liz. Dr K wasn't talking about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website (other than to give background = showing the kind of off-wiki comments Dr K and Athenean are being threatened with), which is indeed not our business, he was talking about what the editor was threatening, on Wikipedia, to say on an off-Wikipedia website. To say about two specific editors, note. Now that people have pointed out the difference, is it so hard to back down? We all read too fast sometimes, and for you to double down with non-sequitur nonsense questions like "So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block?" is disappointing. I agree with Johnuniq that the editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown, and I have so proceeded. Blocked indefinitely for threats and intimidation, as here. They can be unblocked, just as John says, if they withdraw the threat and show understanding of the need for collaboration, also for avoiding personalisation of conflicts. I think User:Dr.K.'s description of "vile attacks" from the user recently is overly colourful, considering that all the users on Talk:Greco-Italian War speak rather angrily — the subject is clearly sensitive — but there's certainly inappropriate personalising: ""Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?" — "Fellas fellas, calm down. … What have you to fear? … Are you really that insecure?". And there's clumsy sarcasm too, as "the greatest of great Greek victories… I do not wish in any way to "tarnish" the great and magnificent victory of the Greeks … So, perhaps we can reach a consensus here and change the wording to include the above phrase by Stockings so that the reader is absolutely clear that it was and will forever be the "great victory" of the Greeks over the Italians, but perhaps explain to the reader that this greatest of great victories did come with a certain cost to the greatest army in the world, which as we all know, is the Greek Army." Note @ User:Dr.K., I haven't studied the matter of the purported sock, could you take it to WP:SPI please? Bishonen talk 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Bish, I clearly was a lone voice making an argument to a larger group of editors asking for a block. I was merely voicing an apparently unpopular opinion that you discounted. I think it is important for editors to be able to speak up against the tide of a conversation and dissent from the call for editors' heads on a pike. I thought a lot was being made of of an off-Wikipedia blog post when I seen so much worse things pointedly stated about editors, that is how I read the situation. I'm just one editor and I don't expect other people to agree with me! I don't know what to make of you saying you are disappointed in me. I have only heard that said to me by my family. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I think you're actually remembering a more heroic, more classic, narrative, where your lone voice stands up for the unpopular opinion, holds back the tide, than can actually be seen above.

Dr. K. posted a report actually asking for a block, yes, but then SnowFire said AnnalesSchool was a valuable editor, albeit they might need reminding of some things. And then you nailed your colours to the mast. There was no reason to think your position unpopular at that point, and I don't think there had been any calls for editor's heads on a pike either. (But thank you for not mentioning pitchforks, always appreciated). The larger group came later, and with them, possibly, a little neap tide.

If you're interested, take a look at AnnalesSchool's talkpage before I removed tpa — chiefly, look at the history— and see if you feel like defending them some more. My disappointment probably wasn't much like your family's: I was disappointed in your logic. I've never met a family who cares about that. Bishonen talk 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

For the record: I said potentially a valuable editor. As is I'd have been fine with all of AnnalesSchool's edits being immediately reverted, to be clear, but he didn't strike me as totally irredeemable. SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially yes. But, he spent a year here arguing with editors and screaming about bias, yet inserted his own bias into articles. For an editor who claimed to be a professor of history, he lacked critial thinking abilities, an understanding that you have to support your arguments with sources, or how how "trivial" incidents are linked together (his comments about Sica critizing the Italian army lacking decent uniforms, socks, and boots for fighting in the Alps are very illuminating about this point, since he decided to omit the several thousand dead troops who died due to the elements and the few thousand frostbite victims!). He had a problem with anyone who wasnt Italian, since they were corrupt or had been corrupted by "Anglo" writers (two exceptions: his hypocrtical use of Weinberg - good when he suppprts him, another terrible Anglo when he wasnt, and the other was a revisionist historian), but has his slander article on Commando Supremo show, even Italian historians were not safe.

The only potential this racist nationalist editor had was to help highlight areas to improve or provide access to underused Italian sources, but he didn't do either of these: he caused fights, attempted to take credit when articles were improved, and now he has been blocked is using an external site to attempt to get his own way.165.166.215.220 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of sockpuppet

• Here sockpuppet Csupremo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)promotes links to , you guessed it, AnnalesSchool's website "commando supremo.com". He does the same here with edit-summary: An extensive well researched article on the operation. Δρ.Κ.^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the last outstanding issue has been appropriately raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool, I've marked this thread resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Ncvm, it is resolved, I've just got a coda: I think I was too optimistic about AnnalesSchool being unblocked any time soon, as he has posted further insults and threats against fellow editors on his page in response to my block notice. Bishonen talk 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Issue for the foundation arising out of this

I really have to go to bed now, but the blocked AnnalesSchool, using an IP on my page, has made some further threats that perhaps the foundation should know about:

"I have decided to expose and name (with links) these miscreants on the ComandoSupremo site, and other wiki editors who have demonstrated a track record of heavy bias and non-neutrality, which will include their entries in the articles themselves and talk pages. I regret having to do this, but my colleagues and I see no other way forward. Until you admin people wake up and actually read the articles dealing with Italy more closely and critically, then this whole issue will not go away. The problems of sockpuppery, vandalism, having to protect pages, and a whole raft of other problems will continue."

"Expose and name". Maybe there's something WMF can do — contact the website's service provider, get it taken down? I've blocked the IP, but the text remains on my page (at least at this moment). It seems to me that the foundation should try to protect out editors against this kind of thing. I'm really asleep at this point. Bishonen talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Just FYI, the last time I tried to contact WMF Legal, I got a form e-mail (which didn't even fit the circumstances I described) in return. I don't count myself on their list of admirers -- but isn't Moonriddengirl an ombudsman or something like that? BMK (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonriddengirl: Anything we can do here that we are not already doing? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, well, yes. I've written to User:Philippe (WMF) just in case he can do something, but I don't expect much. He's on vacation, too, per his userpage. I've reverted the stuff on my page, where AnnalesSchool's IP tells me what admins are going to have to do to stop ComandoSupremo from toppling Wikipedia. Bishonentalk 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm, I'll check, but honestly - I'm not really hopeful. We don't have great luck in getting sites to remove things of this nature. Usually complaints from one of the named parties go a bit farther, but I'll see what I can scrounge up today. Also, just as a note: Moonriddengirl is her personal username. For work things, it's often best to ping Mdennis (WMF). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the site in question but see nothing there that goes beyond the limits of normal criticism and legitimate free speech, so I really think trying to take off-wiki action against that website would be useless and ill-advised. Nothing against the block for aggressive on-wiki behaviour, of course. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the former user has now started "naming and shaming": taking quotes out of context alongside usernames. He concludes "I believe it is important to keep a record of such “fair and balanced” editors like Dr K, BMK and Alexikoua. But there are others (also with Greek-sounding usernames) who should be exposed for the frauds they really are." and "But stay tuned, because there will be more to come. I have only exposed a few of this miscreants. Others will follow". Surely this is crossing a line in regards to free speech? Not to mention seems to be inviting harassment for wiki users, cyber bulling comes to mind.

If any of his readers actually read his edits to the wiki they would see that he is pretty full of it, but I digress.2600:1015:B108:1B8A:24F7:5F5D:6E26:65E8 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, if only he wasn't highlighting a comment of mine that, in its raw form, was described as deserving an "award for 'worst written post by an experienced editor'." (I agreed). Even with the grammar and spelling cleaned up, it's hardly my best work -- and now, here it is, in the spotlight, under the hot white scrutiny of disambiguated media. Such is life!

(BTW, I don't think I've ever edited any articles on Italy in WWII, so it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. I should hop to it and get to work making unfair and unbalanced POV edits to live up to my new reputation.) BMK (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, on the off chance you've overlooked the banner at the top of your page, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Kansas Bear on the talk page of the Tipu Sultan article

Following a revision of an edit I made by user Kansas Bear on the Tipu Sultan article and a subsequent discussion I made to try and justify my edit, Kansas Bear has unleashed a significant amount of Personal Attacks aimed at me that do not make for an effective discourse on the matter.

I was trying to explain to Kansas Bear that it is too general to say that the entire Mysorean Army of Tipu Sultan was French trained, as the source (on page 77) that he referenced [310] goes into detail about the role the French played in relation to the Mysorean army. The source mentions training of Mysore’s Infantry but no statement is given to suggest that the entire Mysorean army was French-trained. user:Kansas Bear, quoted a variety of sources that make note of Mysore’s “French-Trained Army” however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training. I believe that the infantry should not be representative of the army as a whole, as there are many sectors and divisions within an army and the infantry is one aspect of it. I tried to explain to him that the Mysorean rocket division of Tipu Sultan was largely trained by the Sultanate of Mysore and that the rocket technology and techniques were indigenous to the Sultanate of Mysore. According to this source [311] the Sultanate of Mysore maintained its own indigenous force and utilized new and innovative technologies that neither the British or French at the time had.

During this discussion, Kansas Bear has unleashed a barrage of personal attacks against me. He states:

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned." [312] <--Clearly a threat.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained." [313] <---Clear personal attack.

"Since you are having problems understanding English" [314] <---Clear personal attack.

I would like to discuss this matter in a professional manner, however, Kansas Bear’s personal attacks are a hindrance to effective discourse on the matter. Xtremedood (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned."

Xtremedood has a history of speaking to other editors in a derogatory fashion(calling edits vandalism, mentions of ethnicity("It is sad that many users who have a long history of Wikipedia but are of Indian origin will resort to such dirty tactics.")[315][316][317][318][319]

Telling Xtremedood that editors that are here with an agenda eventually get blocked or banned, is not a threat, since I can not block or ban anyone.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained."

Personal attack? LMAO! I have listed 6 sources that state the French trained Haidar Ali and/or Tipu's army. Xtremedood made the edit summary, "Did not find reference stating his army was French trained", I found a source, later 5 more, then Xtremedood started making statements, "whole army", "rockets", "elephants", none which appear in the sentence in question.(ie. moving the goal posts)

"Since you are having problems understanding English"

After a continuous dialogue with Xtremedood, I was not convinced he/she understood what the 5 6 sources stated. Xtremedood appears to either portraying willful ignorance or did not like what the sources stated. So I chose to walk him/her through one of the sources.

"however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training.."

I believe this shows Xtremedood's attitude about the entire "discussion", that his interpretation of an "army" should be used and not that of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not personal attacks. He described your behavior. I don't see any ad hominem and harassment. Just another typical discussion on talk pages. Instead of ANI, it's better to call third opinion. See WP:THIRDOPINION. --Zyma (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the red herrings and strawmen Xtremedood threw into the discussion, Kansas Bear was pretty much calling a spade, a spade. Blackmane (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of them are personal attacks, Kansas Bear is not even sarcastic but only trying to alert Xtremedood. Xtremedood is edit warring across many articles,[320][321][322] misrepresenting sources,[323] violating biographies of living people,[324] making personal attacks, often refers non-vandalism as vandalism,[325][326][327] since April 2015. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]