Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Smallbones continues to make claims, that I am a banned editor, and to delete my talk comments, despite warnings, a claim based solely in my interest in, and admitted slight bias in favor of, the subject of

I have tried several other methods of dealing with this, but today there was another deletion of my comments on Historian's talk page by Smallbones on the same rationale [already linked], without asking Historian if the comments should be deleted (Historian has not told me to stay off his talk; Smallbones claimed to do so for himself or herself, but the claim itself was the only place I saw where I could possibly have been notified of Smallbones's desire.) I welcomed both editors, and thanked Smallbones for asking [see Jimbo's talk archive] whether I was a paid editor, to which I responded at length; seeing that, I have received information from the article subject that could be used to improve the article, I decided in the hostile environment to let myself be treated as a COI, "just to make it fair", and, thereby, decided not to disclose or reveal personal details further than that statement. (The logic could be inferred that, to Smallbones, because I know who Morning277 is, my denial of being him or connected with him, proves I am him.) I told Smallbones that such desire to revert project and talkpages should compel Smallbones to start a community ban proposal on me, and, if I am approved to do so by this thread, I will start such a proposal myself, if it would not be dramatic. I think, the community would recognize that, without evidence, to ban a person solely for interest and favor toward one topic, is complete chilling of speech, rather than good additional Wiki-PR bounty hunting. (Did I mention, I despise Wiki-PR, if that is not a biased statement?) Please give advice to this situation, unique to English Wikipedia, as to how I should interact with these editors to improve the full-protected article. I have asked admins for advice but have met silence.

I have an appointment today, because I am trying to make my vacation time, which is ending soon, only 90% Wikidrama instead of 100%. I have a moment to respond right now, and I will be adding links to the above. Okteriel (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC) In reply, Smallbones just repeated himself not recognizing that my putting ANI notice on his talkpage is required. Also please note significant canvassing issues by Historian. GTG, please handle in my absence. Okteriel (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at your editing history, I can see why others might be concerned. As someone who has blocked over 300 sockpuppets/meatpuppets for User:Morning277 in just one sitting, I can see several familiar patterns. That alone isn't a guarantee you are him but I can see why they are suspicious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dennis Brown! Sure. How can I distinguish myself from those familiar patterns and do the task I set out to do, improve the article? You would probably have good advice. All I can guess is that improving other parts of the cyclopaedia would give me a little credit to fix this God-forsaken (?) mess of an article. Anything else? Okteriel (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your editing history indicates that your account was dormant for three years and then was reactivated. You have a COI disclosure that beats around the bush. Yes, you do seem to be a sockpuppet and yes, it was justified to delete your comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm a user accepting being treated as a managed COI. If you're saying my account is indistinguishable from a sleeper, how should I distinguish it? Should new editors be prohibited from improving important topics? How should my disclosure read in general terms? Isn't socking judged on edit quality and not interests alone? Okteriel (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your account is indistinguishable from a sleeper (your term, and accurate). No, you can only distinguish it from a sleeper by going back in time and not acting like one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm back now. OK, good, so I really am a

WP:SLEEPER, good, because I thought it was a negative term. But, then, why can any random user or two delete my comments completely, and charge me as an agent of a company, that, it is widely known, had the means, motive, and opportunity to break undisclosed advertising law, solely because of my topic interests? Is it because I asked the company for information to complete their article with? I know some topics are more sensitive, but none are regulated beyond autoconfirmation and protection, unless, subject to, e.g., ArbCom proceedings. And, I know the Community may make judgments about all people involved in the thread, and, I only ask that they make judgments about all people involved. It's mystifying to me that Historian's behavior has not been objected to, before, not with more than templates. Okteriel (talk

) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You had only three edits in 2011 and then reactivated the account for the purposes of COI editing. You are knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and are obviously abusing multiple accounts. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that's it? What abuse of multiple accounts means is, if I'm abusing this account, or another one that ties to it, or the combination thereof. Why is it so obvious, what is your evidence? The only evidence I can see is interests. Should I back off from the page for a little while maybe? I have other ideas for Wikipedia, it's just that this keeps coming up on my watchlist and notifications.

Also, I really did mean it, what should I disclose? I started to edit my disclosure, but would it help me any? Does my knowledge of another language's Wikipedia rules get me in trouble? I guess I do have a second account, in another language, I wasn't even thinking of that as a second account, but wouldn't that just be a legitimate alternate account? I don't mind being in the hotseat, but just don't make me guess what you want, and make sure all the editors are in the hotseat in turn. I came here to voice my suspicions about unannounced COI SPA behavior, and I sure don't want to project same myself. Okteriel (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Other language versions guidelines and policies are irrelevant here. Socking is not judged on quality of edits. I'm as concerned about Historian as I am about you. One word of advice - don't even hint at a real person's name, see

As a bit more context,

WP:COIN a few months ago as promotional, and I did some work on it. The article has one self-identified COI editor, BDBJack (talk · contribs), and a long history of SPAs and anons making edits to remove negative information (typical example [1]). The negative information comes from the the US SEC and CFTC (Banc de Binary operating illegally in the US), Canadian securities regulators (same thing in Canada), the Better Business Bureau, Forbes, the Financial Times, the London Daily Mail... The COI editors generally remove that negative information and prefer sources from BdB itself or generated by BdB's extensive PR and affiliate operation. Banc de Binary is actually one of 200 brands connected to a company called Softoption, in Cyprus. Those brands in turn recruit affiliates by paying them for new account signups. So there are a large number of web sites devoted to making BdB/Softoption/related binary option companies look good. Because the COI push has a lot of effort behind it, we're now at full protection. We now have extensive wikilawyering in response to that. The last time full protection was released, the article was rapidly changed to something much more favorable to BdB. This is starting to look like an effort to wear down editors trying to stop promotional editing. Full protection is a good temporary measure, but a long term solution will be tougher. Anyway, that's why we're in this mess. Thanks. John Nagle (talk

) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you were to differentiate between the behavior of COI-declared editors, lest it seem like an accusation of Sock-puppeting / Meat-puppeting. BDBJack (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@DougWeller, thanks. Reading the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okteriel (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a very different summary of the situation. The article relies heavily on extremely low-quality sources like court documents, press releases from the SEC, and Investopedia, but efforts to focus on reliable secondary sources have largely been thwarted. We have two COIs that are both disclosed and both mostly sticking to the Talk page, but exaggerated claims of poor COI conduct have been effective as a POV railroading tactic to protect an attack page on a marginally notable organization. You have an involved admin that seems to have negative personal opinions about the company adding article-protection to preserve an article written by an SPA who engages in personal attacks against the company and its reps and who is canvassing editors with a non neutral notification.

However, given that there is emerging consensus to keep the version of the article that is filled with junk sources, I don't think there is anything anyone can do... CorporateM (Talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, didn't see that consensus yet, just a protection on the "wrong" copy after 3RR and nearly 4RR by Historian. Others, note, both CorporateM and BDBJack favor shorter versions, but I understand if you discount my or their views. Black Kite has been very involved, and I don't think he's trying to protect any particular version, but again this thread is partly about the various behaviors. Uh-oh, who do I need to notify of this discussion now? Anyway, Black Kite said, focus on resolving both behaviors and content. I think if the community has input here on behaviors and at article talk on content, we will make progress. Okteriel (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain why the obvious paid-editor sock is being allowed to drive this process, please? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The answer appears to be "because nobody has stopped him." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite and Figureofnine, if you have any evidence of socking beyond what's hinted at in this thread please let me know. I'm actively investigating but not coming up with anything convincing yet. I also don't have the experience with this farm that Dennis Brown has, but I've been going by what I see here for now. If you want to email me rather than posting something here or on my talk page feel free. The same goes for anyone else who has concerns. -- Atama頭 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I, unlike the editors in question, am not being paid for my time, so I'll decline your gracious offer to waste time picking through account histories to prove that an account that registered in 2011 to edit basically nothing, than disappeared for three fucking years, till they showed up to fake-edit their way to autoconfirmed and then jump headlong into an article plagued by paid editors to advance the cause of said paid editors, with massively advanced understanding of the structural and cultural nuances of wikipedia is obviously a sock of a paid editor. SHIT! I just spent the time I promised not to spend! Ahh well! Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I concur at least that Okteriel isn't a newbie, though that doesn't preclude some previous editing as an IP, or that they had a previous clean account that was abandoned. I can't block someone because I have inconclusive suspicions. -- Atama頭 21:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a more tangible problem. BDBJack (talk · contribs) proposed some changes to the article on the talk page, and invited discussion. Various people put up "support" or "oppose" notes. When the results were not favoring BDBJack's position, he refactored the talk page so as to close the old discussion, effectively throwing out all the old votes, and started a new vote, with his vote first.[2] This is an attempt to manipulate the process and wear down other editors for whom this isn't their day job. John Nagle (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nagle: I'm sorry if my "reorganization for clarity" is not viewed as appropriate. However with all of the concurrent separate discussion threads, even I (as someone who is active in the discussion) am having a hard time understanding the difference between positions and unrelated chatter. This was not meant as an attempt to manipulate the process, and in fact I have been doing my best to clarify the user's positions by placing them in easily read tables, segregated between "neutral" and "biased" users. BDBJack (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As an involved editor with a declared COI, it looks really bad.

Ravensfire (talk

) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@

Ravensfire: Noted. I will refrain from making such edits in the future. I would like to note though that the section in question is at least 2800px high (on my 1920 x 1080px screen). This action was meant (on my part) to help focus the discussion, not to make any unintended changes. If someone thinks that the edit that I made does not accomplish this, I will be more than happy to assist in reverting back to a previous state. BDBJack (talk

) 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for you and the other COI/SPA editors to bow out of the discussion on that talk page. You've made your point. You've done your work. You can report to your bosses that you gave it the old college try. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: I will gladly "step out" for the time being, however I request that you hold other SPA/COI editors of the opposing bias to the same standards that you are holding me to. BDBJack (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I said all SPA editors regardless of inclination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we've found something we can all agree on: the 3 SPAs all stay off the article and talk page forever. That's 1) Okteriel, who's getting off damn easy, but blocking or banning him in general doesn't make that big of a difference, because he's already been banned and blocked many times. 2) BDBJack, who is an admitted employee who has been blocked before for the same stuff he's doing now - major disruptions and putting in promotional material, and 3) Historyofrecenttimes, who is an SPA, but as far as I can tell has only made a few newbie mistakes. Yes, this is unfair to History, but I'll just encourage him to accept this because without the 2 others we'll be able to get a fair article. If BDBJack and History accept this (indicate below) we're on. If Okteriel doesn't accept it, I don't care, I'm sure the community will stop the disruption. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the last few minutes we have BDBJack trying again to introduce three sources, two of which are explicitly BdB press releases, and the third, while in a nominally unaffiliated publication, reads like one.[3] (This is from someone who previously insisted that the financial section of the London Daily Mail isn't a reliable source.) If there is not to be a block, could we have something comparable to 1RR, limiting the usual suspects to one edit a day? Watching an article being edited by a full-time COI editor is a full time job. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel and BDBJack are gaming the system blatantly and need to be off that article pronto. BDBJack claims that there is another SPA that is a thorn in his shoe, but only these two are creating difficulties at present. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is enough to tell who is arguing for discipline based on behavior, and who is arguing for discipline based on content. Figureofnine's adoption of a position is also rather sudden. The content discussion block is not due to content disagreement but to behavioral challenges with setting up harmonious discussion. In most articles the various views on a segment can be easily separated and resolved (as BDBJack is attempting). In this one it took several days even to obtain agreement as to the correct name of the subject company and of its CEO due to (government-sponsored) misconceptions, and now people can't even come out and have a friendly discussion about whether we should build from a short article or trim from a long article. Aside from BDBJack's work, there's no agreement about how to even decide the question. Please help us out, thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The two editors I wanted input about have both been quiet now, which might mean no result arises from here, but I'd really appreciate advice as to what to do if the problem recurs. But maybe I should AGF. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary proposal

The

Blocked, along with a couple of others. No need to protect, I wouldn't think -- it's real obvious when this person is repeating their annoyance, and easy enough to RBI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit [12] and it violates several policies and guidelines. The content added to the article is fine but I would revert it as it translates to "Crystal Myers Japan", but it's the user "outing" and legal statement made in the edit summary that are the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• RevDel'ed, warned, reported to OS, and oversighted. Normally, it is much better to report direct to oversight
  WP:OS, as too many eyes are here at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor has subsequently requested that [13] be RevDel'ed as well, and the subsequent revert of that content. While we've got the big eraser out, [14] is probably a good candidate as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@

this page. It ensures that it's handled as privately as possible. Thanks! Mike V • Talk

00:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: I see he has had three more edits oversighted after he was given a clear final warning. I don't have access to oversight, and no warning was given afterwards. Can an oversighter review this for a possible block? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a block. [15] and plenty of other edits by the same editor at the time has some serious but wacky (wacky enough that I'm not going to bother to request suppression but anyone else is welcome to) accusations. The editor seems to self identify as the person making the accusations via this upload File:Krystal+Meyers+Norman.jpg (incidentally the details in the accusations strongly suggest the editor isn't the copyright holder so I'll be nominating it for deletion if someone doesn't get to it first). I don't know what precisely was in the new edits but the target's suggest to me it's more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Image listed at PUF Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#June 12. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the history of Carla Connor, for instance, or Gail Platt--and the associated articles. I can't really figure out what's going on or who is doing what wrong, but it seems to me that the boldness is getting out of hand. So, without incriminating anyone, I'll just state that Bitbopbo is moving stuff around, ThisIsDanny follows on their heels, and Fortdj33 is involved as well (and should be banned, ahem, according to Danny). I don't know if these moves broke the GDFL, or who did what appropriately or inappropriately--I'd like someone smarter than me to look into it. Will notify. There may be more editors involved, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's perfectly possible that Bitbopdo doesn't know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In hidden messages on List of Coronation Street characters it says the link must match the article, and he keeps changing the link so I keep reverting it. He has now changed the name of the article to prove that what he is doing is right, but now the whole thing is wrong as the page names don't show the character's most common name. And when I revert them back to what they originally were other people keep reverting my edits as if I'm the one who's doing the disruptive editing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Side note: I have no opinion or knowledge of or on anything. What I'm saying is let the moving and the copying and pasting stop, and let this be figured out before some poor admin has to unfuck things up. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried to fix the various mad moves and double/triple redirects, please someone let me know if there's anything more that needs my "fixing". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that

Carla Barlow to the proper titles, because that's where the edit history for those articles is. I only used the "Coronation Street" disambiguation, because I couldn't move the articles back to the original names, but ThisIsDanny only made things worse, by trying to redirect everything back to the cut and paste versions. I don't claim to know anything about those characters either, but in order to sort things out now, a history merge will need to be made for all of them. Fortdj33 (talk

) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I only cut and pasted everything and changed the redirects to get the original page back. I didn't know how to merge articles or delete the ones that Bitbopdo created. The names of the articles should be Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor. Which is what they've always been and don't need changing. I agree it's gone out of hand, I was just trying to get things back to normal. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Please now don't "copy and paste" any article from one to another. There's going to be some issues to be resolved around the licensing arrangements we have when we submit stuff to Wikipedia (even this post I'm writing now) so someone clever is going to need to find out exactly what's happened to what articles and fix it. Can you help with that, can you describe exactly what's happened? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at all the articles/moves/redirects in question and it looks like this is sorted out from an attribution/history perspective. The only thing I would suggest is moving disambiguated names to non-disambiguated names where they are the only topic (I see at least two), but that isn't a discussion for AN/I --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They look right to me too.

histmerge}}. Fortdj33 and Drmies reverted the other two. I added {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk

) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User is continuing with lots of page moves Special:Contributions/Bitbopbo. No response to comments on their talk page or here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seconding that this is still a concern. I don't know enough about the topic to revert the most recent moves; is

Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street) under discussion somewhere? but have added a further note to Bitbopbo's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk

) 05:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User is still moving pages and refusing to discuss changes. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bitbopbo has been indeffed for sockpuppetry - this can be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

IPs involved: 207.118.90.156, 174.125.115.111.

I originally came across the

• I reverted
• The editor reverted me with edit summary "I am well aware that some editors don't want her name mentioned in this article. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page, and will take this to arbitration if necessary."
  • This was followed by a talk page message which addressed the addition by saying "I have re-added the note, as the participation of an extremely notable and controversial figure in national politics is definitely worthy of inclusion." (effectively,
    talk page
    discussions).
• I again reverted.
• IP a third time restored the content with edit summary "Reverted until you address my concerns on the talk page. Please do not arbitrarily revert edits without discussion. I'm on freenode #wikipedia-en, nick EGNT if you'd like to chat."

As there aren't any new concerns on the talk page and this editor seems intent to edit war, I'd rather not take this any further. There's not been any

Looking a little closer, this is nearly identical material, wording, sourcing, and similar edit summaries to those used by Jimjilin, the user who had edit warred over this last time around. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not doing the editing though someone ought to change that article it is VERY biased.Jimjilin (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

user 174.125.115.111 here (finally made a new account after years away from editing). Came across this article the other day, and was disturbed to notice that it lacked many important facts that were included in discussions of the panic in college, where I fist learned about it. Checked the history, and saw that three or four users had been on a major purge to remove references to non-fundamentalist participants in the accusations, as well as the therapists whose "repressed memory syndrome" theories enabled them. This article compares unfavorably to the

Salem Witch Trials

article, which includes historical and cultural context, and explicitly notes the involvement of historically significant figures such as Increase Mather, while also explaining the use of pseudo-'scientific' evidence in the trials.

I currently lack access to a decent library, so won't be able to improve the page significantly for another few weeks. But I would eventually like to expand and clarify a number of sections in this article.

Unfortunately, I suspect the three editors who have the page on lock-down will not appreciate me playing on their turf. Eggonought (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you did not know, this is not the place to discuss content disputes (only

conduct disputes), so if you have something new to discuss content wise (such as the "references to non-fundamentalist participants" issue above), please take it to the article talk page. Ignoring consensus is your reason for being here. HelenOnline

08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:BOLD, you can discuss with the user about the move. Have you tried? First reach to the agreement that why user has moved the page, once you would know the reason, you should evaluate that whether his decision was correct or incorrect. If the user disagrees, you can open a page-move request. If Nado158 reverts against the consensus, then you may inform. But at least for now, there's long way to go. OccultZone (Talk

) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a one-off; there's this move too, where Nado158 disagreed with the closure of a

requested move, and simply moved the page back to their preferred title. To go back to disruptive moves so soon after coming off a block for editwarring is not a good omen. bobrayner (talk

) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@

check here, consensus is going against his change already. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log

) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a good rule. "Another chance" is all very well for some new editor making changes which we think are misguided, but when somebody makes disruptive changes again, the next step is to undo it, not to let them have their way in article-space have another ineffectual talkpage conversation which they have already said they will ignore. Sairp (talk

) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a pattern of disruption from Nado158 where he is going against the more common Albanian language names of football articles in Kosovo across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A few months ago

Last Friday I removed[21] the claim before being quickly reverted.[22] I encouraged[23] Catflap08 to discuss on the talk page, but he outright refused, making only short, irrelevant comments.[24][25][26] Still refusing to use the talk page, he immediately took the dispute to AN and insisted that I was the one who was edit-warring. He was promptly told to go back to the talk page and discuss with me. He then, still refusing to read my comments or interact with me directly, posted[27] an RFC with somewhat biased wording. I presented more evidence[28] that his view of the subject was incorrect, and one other user weighed in[29] on my side.

Despite utterly failing to gain consensus for his view, he proceeded to re-emphasize[30] in the article that the subject was a member of a "nationalistic" group. Since the group's founder was already referred to as a nationalist in the same sentence, and since Catflap08 has already been given ample evidence that the subject was not a nationalist, this edit seems highly inappropriate. He also marked the edit as minor, even though he had every reason to believe it would be controversial. I reverted[31] earlier today, only to be re-reverted[32] with an almost incoherent edit summary.

Catflap08 has never contributed anything to the article except to add the

126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please do yourself a favor and drop all the personal observations when filing a report, and just stick to the facts. What I see here is an old fashioned content dispute. You've already had a 3rd opinion filed by Catflap (which he ignored, but it isn't binding) so the next step is
  WP:BRD and general consensus on how to be a good Wikipedian, the "nationalist" claim should be left OUT until DRN or another consensus of peers decides otherwise. Continuing to add contentious and undersourced facts when there is a dispute might be seen as disruptive, so don't do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that interpretation of the dispute, and I appreciate your advice, but I'm always reluctant to go to DRN, especially when (as here) the problem is that one of the parties is completely unwilling to discuss the dispute. The fact is that DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and that's when all parties are actually willing to come to the table. Catflap08's talk page activity (or lack thereof) implies he is not. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, you don't have to. As I've explained to him, the

WP:BURDEN is on him, not you. If he does, I would recommend you participate. As with any dispute, sticking to the facts gives you a higher success rate, keep personal opinions to the side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER

14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! :D 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh I see now that that guy can not be called nationalistic the nationalistic organization he was a member of is not nationalistic anymore … interesting to say the least that is. That is why references on that organisation are given--Catflap08 (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, please understand that it's not about what "can" be said, but about what usually is said. If a significant number of reliable sources referred to Kenji the way you do, your claim would not be controversial. My life would not be any better or worse if Miyazawa Kenji was found to have been a nationalist, and I don't see why you should be any different. I have read an awful lot about Miyazawa Kenji -- it's part of my job -- and never heard him called a nationalist except on Wikipedia. You can speculate all you want as to the reason for this, but as long as this is true you can't add the claim in question to the article. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• No permanent damage, lessons learned, best to just move forward... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previously, I've posted about Macaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before (see archive).

I asked to have an admin clarify to Macaldo that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary sources and an admin has respondes (see here).

However, Macaldo still removed two of my edits, here and here.

He states that (spam, we have the link to the patent with the same infos, so this has no value) even though it was pointed to him that secondary and tertiary sources are valid. The link to the USPO filing is very hard to understand and both articles break it down into digestable means.

In addition to this, he commented that Searchengineland and Searchenginewatch are two content farms which are used to put lot of useless links on Wikipedia in the SEO articles. SEW is used to add useless and irrelevant sentences in the article just to add a link to their site, as a reference. SEL has a different technique, they publish a short article to echo each announcement of Google and put a link on Wikipedia to these short articles. These statments are false since

He goes on to say have read and studied the ~30 pages of the Panda patent. Not a a single reference to machine learning. I studied each formula, each algo (there are just some lines of code). Zero machine learning here. So your "SEO authority" looks as a joke. Remember these sites are filled by contributors with various levels and backgrounds. For the others arguments above, they have the same quality. He speculates I am new to SEO because I removed links to SEL that is a sort of God in his mind. I know this site for years and I saw how a quality site turned into a content farm over time. But, a simple Google search shows that "machine learning" and "panda update" are highly correlated and is the predominante view in the industry. Macaldo has no references or proof validating his opinion. Until he shows proof that his opinion on how Google Panda works is cited, it is just his private opinion and not the view of the SEO industry.

Because of Macaldo's lack of sources backing his opinions and his defiance of an admin, I'm asking for: this edit to stay and Macaldo to stop editing Google_Panda. Can an admin please enforce this, I'm tired of having to explain everything while Macaldo just removes stuff without proper explanation. The burden of proof should be on his end, not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I have answered on my talk page and advised this user to propose links in the talk page of the article at first. His "contribs" have been deleted by other users too. Macaldo (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Gregbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm just stopping in to report that I have indefinitely blocked User:Gregbard pending any kind of credible assertion that he understands and will comply with our copyright policies or other community recommended handling. When Greg seemed to be unhappy that his CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330) was not complete after more than a year on the lists, I took a look and found some open issues. I thought to help knock it down more quickly, but as I often do did a check of more recent edits, only to find more blatant copy-pasting in just the last few months. Greg has been receiving warnings from both bots and humans since 2006 - two human warnings: 2006, 2010 - and should certainly understand that our copyright policies prohibit copying from external, copyrighted sources since the launch of his CCI. Two examples of copying are given here and here. I bring this here in case others would like to review. He indicates that he is being cooperative (and he certainly isn't being hostile), but in my opinion persisting in violating the same policy repeatedly after warning is not cooperation we can rely upon. I can certainly see that he's dedicated, and I'm sure that he's done a lot of good work, but I myself do not believe that we can trust his contributions until we understand why he continues to violate this policy and have some confidence that he will stop. So far, his response has not shown any awareness that his behavior is a problem; he simply indicates that we should come to him when there are issues, so he can fix them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My last comment on his talkpage sums up my opinion the panda ₯’ 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

His recent comments do seem to be of a "tell we what specific content I've erred at so I can fix it" nature, rather than of a more useful "tell me how I am violating policy and guidelines so I can not do so in the future" kind. Statements of the latter kind would definitely be more useful and a better indicator of Greg perhaps avoiding such problems in the future, and I regret to say that not seeing them until, perhaps, after this comment is made here is troubling. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even worse, in my mind, is his most recent comment essentially saying "Yes, I thought about the copyright policy and found it wanting". You can obviously have a different opinion on how copyright should be enforced.. but what you can't do, after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia, is refuse to follow it. James of UR (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor problem, done repeatedly becomes a major problem. Being advised about copyright infringement as far back as 2006 and 8 years later there are still the same issues. His responses don't really suggest that he is contrite, only saying whatever is necessary to be unblocked. The accusation of bullying by the blocking admin is absurd. Based on the discussions at the talk page, I feel the indef block is warranted.

talk

) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've been poking around, as it is an established editor with 90k edits and no prior block for copyright, but after looking at the whole picture, I have to endorse the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very troubled by the attitude which comes across as "I may actually know more about copyright than you". What he seems to be missing is that Wikipedia Copyright policy is different—deliberately different than copyright law. For example, I just reviewed Jachin Gregory, which had a number of issues.

My guess is that a legal claim of copyright infringement would fail in the courts, for more than one reason. However, what he missed is that we tell our readers that editors create the content, using reliable sources. We tell them it will be written in the editor's own words, except when quoted exactly, in which case it will be in quotes, or when identified as coming from a suitably licensed source. Copy-pasting, and changing one or two words is not consistent with our mission. It is irrelevant that this editor may know enough about copyright law to know this close paraphrasing won't cause a legal problem, it is relevant that we have clear instructions not to do this type of thing, and it is being done, even after warnings.

(As more than a trivial aside, the article claims Jachin Gregory was a deputy to the General Assembly, but the cited reference is about James Olmsted. It appears that Gregory was a deputy to the Court, not the General Assembly.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Findagrave.com is a good source for locations of graves and pictures of tombstones. Even forgetting copyright issues, it is not a valid source for text, because it's based on user input and could come from anywhere (even from Wikipedia, for example). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, BB. I was focusing on the close paraphrasing, without even considering that the source is not valid for its use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Greg claims here that it is Findagrave.com which have copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. Would this be a valid defence? --John (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Findagrave page was created in 2008, and the Wikipedia page was created in 2014. Mogism (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Good enough. Endorse the block. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anyplace in John's diff where Gregbard claims that Findagrave copied from Wikipedia. It just says "the original text is quite ancient", i.e. that Findagrave copied from some even older source. My guess is that it's adapted from a geneaology book or site. Of course someone could always ask Gregbard if they think it matters. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Assuming good faith, this user does not understand Wikipedia copyright policies. Until they demonstrate that they do understand them and will refrain from problematic editing, a block on "competence" grounds is needed. Sadly, the violation of free content principles and cleanup time cost outweigh the benefit to the project of the user's contributions. WJBscribe (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP user that I had dealt with in May, is obviously at it again, making arbitrary edits to start edit wars with people. He has been caught using other IP addresses, including 86.174.241.37 and now 86.174.240.214. How do I know? His edits are exactly the same as the other mentioned IPs, reverts without providing any edit summaries and likely will go at it and leave personal attacks once more as he did with the two previous other IP addresses. He has already been blocked on those two others, and has likely using a third different IP address. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Blocked 86.174.240.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of 86.174.240.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to semi-protect the article as a result of this, but it gets barely any attention from anonymous vandals so it seems like overkill. Not that it hasn't gotten any (and it wasn't just the "Envoy of the King of Spain" causing problems either) but the volume has been pretty light so it doesn't seem worth it. The Filipino peoples article is still on my watchlist in any case. -- Atama頭 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Involved in a conflict on LG G2 and LG G3, where he argued that we could not use CC-licensed images sourced from LG's Flickr account because there is a separate copyright for the contents of the screen contents depicted that are not part of the CC license grant. In turn, he replaced the images with self-made versions. Although a deletion request was closed as a Keep because "it is entirely safe to assume that the release covers both the copyright for the photograph of the device and the copyright for the image on the device", he still reverted the image on LG G2 back to his own version (and also restored an edit that changed a reference to link to a spam website) because of comments I made that only applied to the G3 image, and a continued assertion that there are two seperately copyrighted works in such images.

User has a history of misunderstanding and using strict interpretations of licensing policy, and when asked to provide references to the discussions where his alleged claims are sourced from, he did not. Presumed to be a disruptive editing practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and this is blockable? the panda ₯’ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing against consensus is disruptive and disruption is blockable.--v/r - TP 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one. Im not going against the consensus, and there is no consensus either that the old image is the one to be used for the article. The only consensus was for the item to be kept no more, no less. So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced? Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened? The item was closed without giving the slightest chance to hear the other side again. Plus about the spam link, that was an oversight and not intentional so dont make a big deal about it. Plus I think that a talk is not disruptive right? I presented an evidence but it seems that he does not simply like it.

So like what I did for the LG G3, I opened another talk page for the LG G2 to ask for a true consensus on what image is better to be used for the article and not merely use a "consensus" for keeping or deleting the image passed of as consensus to be the one used in the article. GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then I support a block.

WP:POINT. Now you have the guts to defend it. Does your explanation not look dumb now that you put it it writing? I would have thought a light would have turned on over your head once you typed that the panda ₯’

09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it that doing a talk page is the right thing to do? I merely voiced out what I think also and I think that does not do a merit to block like what you say. Prove to me that asking a consensus for what image is to be used is blockable then. Also with such foul mouthing of another user, who do you think deserves to be blocked now? Im sorry but im doing such in a diplomatic manner so I guess you could also do it in the same light? Plus I did not say I did not like it and he was the one who did not like the initial source that I gave to him in which I clearly stated in our talks before it fell down so

WP:POINT is not applicable to me. Respect a user please? Being a administrator does not merit you to foulmouth another user Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct so please tone down your arguments. GadgetsGuy (talk

) 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one."

• Then try to convince others that it's better. Don't replace it because you think it's better.

I'm not advocating a block here. There's a discussion here, why can't people just come to a consensus there and then settle it? It seems that if GadgetsGuy was once arguing that there was a licensing problem but isn't any longer, and is now only arguing that it's a more appropriate image. There's no current edit war, so I don't see what is actionable at this point. -- Atama頭 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the deletion discussion he mentioned here was on Commons, not here. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Then in that case his complaint about notification is not relevant. If someone is upset that they weren't informed of a deletion discussion on Commons, take it up with admins over there. This board only covers misbehavior on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither Theopolisme or Wolfgang42 have responded to my concerns with WP 1.0 bot. Please either block WP 1.0 bot or protect User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a nobots template to the page. Let's see if that works. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That did not work, so I have deleted this as a useless redirect. Let me know if this causes any unexpected problems. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot recreates the page. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying protection; the bot is not an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the bot refuses to obey {{

nobots}} then we have a bigger issue on hand because we have a non-compliant bot. OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, this IP constantly added "satirical" content to the

After the message on your user page, the disruption from Juddieeee appears to have stopped. New accounts (Kappser, Kreepsa and Fubritainfirst) have vandalised the article by changing the external links, and there has been vandalism from other IPs, but there's insufficient evidence to say any of these are the same user as Juddieeee - more likely there's a reason for this being targeted for vandalism by several users. There's a request at

Requests for page protection but no admins are active there. Peter James (talk

) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We have an edit war of vandalism between a fake user and an I.P. at Gluten Trackinfo (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blockhammer to the face applied in both cases. However, the correct noticeboard for this sort of tomfoolery is

thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水

11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, this is "thataway". Did you move this? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He means

thataway. Looks like somewhere in the world there is a classroom of bored kids. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed mean

thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水

12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because this was a problem with TWO editors reverting each other in a problematic way, I kind thought ANI was the right place, but maybe there is more or less to it than I thought. (and here is your mini-trout ;) <((()))>< ) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is suitable for such a discussion (or you could go to

WP:BURO in action: you don't require that you alert us at exactly the right spot. Nyttend (talk

) 21:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on similar types of edits (tedious grammatical changes), to same articles, and timing of account creations and activity (how they often parallel or follow after Jazzerino's block resulting from this ANI discussion a week ago where his attempt to evade a block with another account was detected... I suspect other socks of his to be:

• Harmelodix (talk, contributions)
• Jazzman49 (talk, contributions)

...the latter of whom might have been the original sock master of

The editing quacks a great deal, but respective geolocation of the two accounts (and Jazzerino's) make them  Unrelated on a technical basis. — Coren ^(talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Same obsession with pronouns ([34], [35], [36], [37])

talk

) 04:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of anyone, but I did contribute as an IP for a couple of years when I lived out East, so why does Dan56 keep on reverting all my edits? What's wrong with this edit, which reduces the repetition of using the word "confirmed" twice in the same sentence? What's wrong with this edit? You can't have an "it" that refers to nothing! It must refer to a noun, which hadn't yet been established in the paragraph, so your preferred version is ungrammatical. Can someone please explain to me why Dan56 keeps reverting my edits? Is this proper procedure? Jazzman49 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is bizarro bra, Dan57 is paranoid about socks? Hey Jazzman, its good to be socking with you man! What a joke! Dan, please stop making reversions of all my contributions (that are improvements)! Why are you a cop or something man because you seem all hostile and shit. Harmelodix (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone block 76.94.140.31 please to put a lid on their abuse and disruption. The IP appears to be static. The block should probably be indefinite. For evidence, pick pretty much any of their edit summaries or talk page soapboxing from Special:Contributions/76.94.140.31. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a (wo)man with a worldhistorical mission to save us from ourselves, and see 'Islamic' 'antisemitic' cockroaches everywhere on wikipedia and just needlessly coerces editors to waste time reverting the nonsense, or replying to vile innuendoes. Worst of all, (s)he has zero knowledge of wikipedia policies and the subject matter, and there is no sign (to the contrary) that tolerance will eventually lead to some change in attitude.

• 'Sorry I forgot that only Musoims ar e allowed to improve aricles'
• 'Sean hoyland anisemite who thinks he rules wiki'
  WP:AGF
• 'far-left nutjob'
  WP:BLP
• 'Police confirmed it was a jihadi cockroach'
• The most distressing thing is that the editor's fingers have an aleatory relationship to the characters on the keyboard, and those of us who suffer from apoplexy at orthographical lapses are sorely tried while most editors have to google desperately to figure out who 'anisemites' and 'Musoims' might be. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you two be banned for your anti-Jewish propaganda. You have no knowledge of Jewish history. Talkpage soap boxing, I asssume you mean responding to and countering anti-Jewish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The above message suggests an imminent change in behaviour is unlikely; blocked for one week. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – This comment on 76.94.140.31's talk page seems to have been missed: Let it be known that legal action will be taken soon.--Auric talk 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's an unequivocal legal threat.(see below) A longer block would be warranted, though likely not indefinite: according to the geolocation tool the IP is at least part of a dynamic pool. I also think we're close to where revocation of talk page use would also be warranted (diff, diff, and maybe this diff which refers to an editor's religion, evidently as a factor in declaring his edit to be vandalism). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the block log. That legal threat already netted the IP a week-long NLT block. Anyway, I think revocation of talk page access (which also happened with the last block) is still warranted. Possibly consider extending it to a month in light of the other diffs I presented above? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access due to the continued racist attacks and extended the block (hope that's ok Yunshui) to one month as the IP appears static and there is zero collateral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections here; good call. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone was wondering, this IP is User:JarlaxleArtemis. I've extended the block. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:, are you able to have a look at Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:1968:5CD3:258F:1558 and Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:819A:D74A:3062:DBE6 who appeared just after 76.94.140.31's block to see whether they are also JarlaxleArtemis ? I'm not sure whether the use of html encoding (e.g. [38]) is a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• They are, and it is. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:. He's back, Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:14EE:70C7:8203:47DC Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming in from multiple IPs.... Zero^talk 13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He's back again, check my contributes for a list of IPs to block. Sepsis II (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Would a range-block work? Sairp (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, 190.74.2.191 , Sepsis II (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NPA. G S Palmer (talk • contribs
  ) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)