Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LjL (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 17 December 2015 (→Violation of general sanctions: archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

    Please take a look at the behavior of User:Jack DeMattos. He is a professional writer who's been on WP since June 1, 2015. I've tried to make him feel welcome and given him lots of room to match his flowery, editorial, magazine style writing to WP encyclopedic style, but he's not making much progress. Now he's begun to arbitrarily delete from articles all images another user has uploaded added and leave personal attacks in his edit summaries, like this: "Removed obviously bogus photo supposed to be Charles E. Bassett. This is yet another unfortunate example submitted by a serial purveyor of photo photos of Wild West figures. This person is single handedly turning Wipipedia into 'Wackypedia." His comment is really ironic, because his contributions are pretty much in the same category. Instances of comments like this in his edit summaries include this one, another, one more, and another.

    He's leaving his flowery footprints and non-sourced content all over the Old West articles. In the past week this has included Pat Garrett; Bill Tilghman; Bat Masterson; and Billy the Kid.

    Oon Friday 4 December he made big changes to Bill Tilghman and removed hatnotes about the article quality that he had not fixed, but added to; over the weekend he was hitting Billy the Kid; the latter article is quite a mess now. His references can't be authenticated by anyone because he doesn't leave proper citations. In some instances his refs aren't refs, but footnotes full of ancillary info not pertinent to the article, like references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31 in Bill Tilghman. Everyplace he goes, another editor needs to follow behind and clean up his contributions, if only someone had the time. You can see all his contributions here.

    Other editors have taken his behavior to the Admin noticeboard twice before (here and here), and he's promised to do better, but he really doesn't appear to be listening. The help he's been offered, his actions in return, and the warnings given, etc, are summarized in several posts on his Talk page. I don't feel like he's giving any heed to the praise, direction, encouragement OR warnings I've left on his talk page.

    I'm running out of patience and his contributions are becoming more of detriment than a help. I think it may be time for a short block to get his attention. Your input is most warmly welcomed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. Billy the Kid is nearly unreadable, and the Tilghman article is almost as bad. Thinking about reverting his changes completely. Not a big fan of MOS blocks, but if he's not getting the message, maybe it's time. This is damaging the encyclopedia. Katietalk 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack DeMattos has deleted photos that I and others have contributed to wiki without even asking if there is provenance or substantial evidence. He seems to believe that he is the only one that can contribute to the pages about the people he writes about. Some of the comments he made regarding photos from an important Old West collection: "Deleted bogus photo. Once again this has been submitted by a person with a track record with offering phony photos to Wikipedia articles.this is not, nor ever will be, one of them." Being a published historian does not automatically make one experienced at identifying historical people. True West, Jack Demattos and several other top published writers recently made a fool of themselves [at least that is what the majority believes] when they gave their negative opinions on the latest possible Billy the Kid photograph before the program about it aired on National Geographic. The show revealed fantastic evidence that gave the photo a very high percentage of being Billy and his friends. Since then, the owners and the filmmaker have established provenance for the photo and will be airing their findings soon in another program. The producer/owner of the film company has shown excited interest in the photos from this same collection that Jack has declared as bogus. Jack DeMattos should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't correct for the public's number one information resource. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the third time this same issue has been brought here. This user does not seem to be getting it. They have gotten a lot of advice but don't seem to be taking it. That sort of text is more suited to a cheap western paperback story than an encyclopedia. HighInBC 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editor are you referring to, the OP or the subject of the complaint? BMK (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He means the subject of the complaint. DeMattos has been here several times for the same issues. Anyway, I did some emergency copy edits to Bill Tilghman and added two sources. I guess it's a little better now, though one of the sources I added should probably be replaced by a better one, as it's a primary source written by Tilghman's widow. It'll do for now, though. I don't want to follow this guy around and perform copy edits on all the articles he edits, but it seems like there should be some way to retain his expertise. I don't know. If he won't change, I guess maybe something does need to be done. I'd prefer some kind of mentorship or something, but I hear those often end disastrously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DeMattos is still turning the Billy the Kid page into an expanded outline instead of an encyclopedia article, and he's obviously ignoring this discussion. Katietalk 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He replied to me about the ANI notice on his talk page. I asked him to bring his comments here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's try one more time to get Jack DeMattos to comment here. He really, really should. Katietalk 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, since Jack Demattos is back editing and still didn't respond here, I'm going to take a crack at getting some prose back into one of these articles. They read like lists without bullets and numbering. Let's see how he reacts. Katietalk 20:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, he won't mind the cleanup, that's what I and others have been doing piece-meal for the past six months. I don't believe that will encourage Jack Demattos to try harder to adapt his writing to WP style. Part of the problem is that after I clean up an article he's edited, he returns to it and adds more content of the same style. I don't have time to endlessly police his writing. NinjaRobotPirate suggested a mentorship. That's effectively what I've been trying to do for the past six months, as you can see on Jack's talk page.
    If Jack doesn't improve his writing, I fear he's going to leave his boot prints all over WP, and the effect will be long-lasting. There are precious few editors still active at the American Old West wikiproject. I would like to see some stronger enforcement of MOS. Pinging others who have posted on his talk page: WikiDan61, Dennis Brown, Intothatdarkness — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that you'd been trying that. Everyone familiar with DeMattos knows he's received copious amounts of advice and help. It's frustrating to see that he's still writing stuff like "Tilghman was never shy about blowing his own horn. Not content to write his memoirs, Tilghman filmed them in a movie that he directed,and starred in playing himself." I don't understand why he's ignoring all the advice given to him. If this were a living person, it'd be a BLP violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also voice-over prose such as "At the age of seventy, Bill Tilghman was called on to perform his last service as a peace officer. In 1924, the man who had ridden in posses with Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and Heck Thomas, now drove into the oil-rich boom town of Cromwell, Oklahoma in a Model T Ford."[1] which would be quite amusing if this wasn't an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at his most recent edits to Bat Masterson and my eyes glazed over at the state of the article. Unless Jack comes and explains himself, I'd say a temporary block would be necessary. Writing the way he does with expectation that others clean up after him is disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seem to recall SBHarris has an old-west interest. Perhaps he can help rein in this lawless scalawag. EEng (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised that DeMattos is still stirring up problems months after my initial report at this board. He seems unwilling to conform his writing to Wikipedia's guidelines. The problem isn't the veracity of his edits: he is meticulous in his referencing. The problems are that he insists that every factoid that he can verify be included in the article, no matter how trivial or irrelevant; and that he insists on writing in the florid style that the readers of his populist wild-west books and articles seem to like. It might work for the paperback history market, but it's not encyclopedic. And apparently no amount of cajoling on the part of many other editors will convince him to change his style, leaving the job of cleanup to others. And has been pointed out here, there are not many editors involved in the subject area that he has chosen, so his problematic edits may go unnoticed for quite some time. I support the idea of a block (even if only temporary) to protect the project from his ongoing disruption. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the damage done to Billy the Kid, which had been nominated as a GA, and noting that this is an ongoing issue, that Jack DeMattos has not responded here, despite continuing to edit, and being asked to, and his response on his talkpage which indicates that he clearly doesn't get it, I feel he has to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Someone who is willing to listen and learn, we can always help. Someone who is damaging articles, and refuses to listen, being adamant that he is right, is going to continue being a problem, destabilising articles, creating work for other editors, and wasting everyone's time when we discuss the matter over and over again. We either block him now, or we block him in three, six, twelve months time. Better we do it now, and save ourselves a lot of wasted effort. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest an indefinite block with the option to make an initial appeal after a month. Making the default situation that he has to commit to accepting he is in the wrong before being allowed to edit again. If we use a temporary block with an automatic return to editing, we are simply kicking the problem down the road. From what has been said above, and looking through his history, people have been telling him he is doing more harm than good for some months, but he doesn't accept it. Let us be sure he gets it, before we allow him to edit again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would reluctantly support this. My changes stuck, perhaps because I didn't remove too much of his flowery, overly-detailed prose, but he called KrakatoaKatie's edits malicious vandalism on the talk page, then reverted Billy the Kid back to last version he edited. He further requested that Materialscientist block KrakatoaKatie as a vandal. He's obviously uninterested in collaboration, and I don't think he sees anything at all wrong with his behavior. In fact, he seems to see himself as an innocent victim of malicious trolls and vandals. I hope that we can get through to him eventually. Right now, he's blocked for 48 hours, but I think SilkTork is probably right that the drama will resume once his block ends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a comment on his TP urging him to engage with the community here once the block ends. Despite the fact that his editing has been brought here twice before, this is his first block and it would be worth one more wave of the AGF flag before more drastic action is taken. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (I have reposted Blackmane's original message, as someone removed it.) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Following Jack's 48 hour block, he resumed his WP:OWN behavior on Billy the Kid (see here and here), with the result that Acroterion has now blocked him for a week. His edit summary on the second diff (claiming that the removal of his revisions to the article "borders on the criminal") is walking a fine line close to WP:NLT. Given that Jack has absolutely refused to engage in this discussion (or the two previous ANI discussions about him), it seems clear that he simply refuses to accept the fact that Wikipedia is not his own personal website where he gets to write whatever and however he pleases. I don't expect any better behavior after his one week block has expired. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

    For two weeks I have been harassed daily by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed. I've had enough: the allegations are all false but they come tumbling out: 1) Nov 24: "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion". Nov 24: Snowded alleged WP:OR and WP:OWN. Nov 24: Snowded wrote: "The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire." Nov 25: Wiki-Ed writes: "Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources." etc etc, they never stop. I have repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false. They seem to believe I have a secret POV agenda, Which I deny. I've written a lot of books and articles and scholarly venues, but I've not published anything about the British Empire and have no secret agenda. I repeatedly demand proof or evidence, or even which section is at fault. They repeatedly refuse to answer--Dec 8: Rjensen: "Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV?" Snowded: "Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs." This is sustained harassment by two editors who have never edited Historiography of the British Empire, which has been active since Oct 2008, and which overlaps very little with the article they try to protect British Empire. Other editors on the page have largely supported me, not these two. I request User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed by kept away from Talk:Historiography of the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Several editors have expressed concern that Riensen is building an alternative article to the British Empire one under the guise of historiography. Hence the issue of the need to deal first with the whole structure not paragraph by paragraph within his structure. The comments he has made about the inadequacies of the British Empire article support the view that this may be a coatrack. When this started I asked Riensen for his authority for the structure and he quoted two sources, one of which is suitable. However he would not share the detailed contents so I have bought the book and said clearly on the talk page that I will check that against the structure and come back with a proposal for change later this week. That has resulted in a torrent of personal abuse and a refusal to simply wait and see. No one is harassing Rjensen, no changes have yet been made to the article. He daily (well hourly and more stridently as the day does on) launches at attacks on the talk page to which I have tried to respond politely. I for one am trying to engage him on the talk page but that is very difficult given his clearly expressed contempt for editors who do not share his academic qualifications. In respect of the quote where he says that he has " repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false" I invite third party review. He states that the claims areas false and asserts that he has included multiple views but he has yet to address the main objection namely that an article on historiography should be about that, not a collection of statements from historians organised into (his words) an eclectic structure. When there are concrete proposals for change on the talk page then he can respond and I expect we will have an RFC and possibly dispute resolution before this is over. For the moment the only possible community action is to ask Rjensen to stop his multiple personal attacks. This is not even a content dispute yet and the fact he has brought it here illustrates the problem :-) ----Snowded TALK 08:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded has never made a substantive edit on this article (and very few on British Empire article). I believe he has not been familiar with the historiography of the British Empire or even the word itself. Instead he tags the article and says that as soon as he reads a book he will propose sweeping changes. In my opinion he is primarily motivated to protect the other article British Empire. It is not under threat, for there is little overlap and it reaches a very different audience. The historiography article was created in October 2008 & has caused no serious controversy until 2 weeks ago, when Snowded tagged it as POV WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. He says the problem is "structure" but has been unable to explain what he means. He says he will explain himself later but keeps the tags to delegitimize the article. On 12:53, 5 December 2015‎ Qexigator tried to remove them with the edit summary: "the tags have been sufficiently discussed to show that they are not correct, please do not needlessly or casually encourage disruption." Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oexigator's removal of the tags was reverted twice by another experienced user namely User:Wee Curry Monster with the comment "discussions are ongoing and valid concerns remain - edit warring over tags you should know better)" The reason for the tags has been clearly explained, what will come later this week is a assessment of Rjensen's source and a proposal for a way forward. Not sure why he can't wait ----Snowded TALK 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear case of harassment. In view of the discussion complained of by Rjensen, I repeat here: "Let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the discussion, or who has forgotten, an earlier comment (of mine) there that the discussion has been more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen (in the discusion) an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment (by the harassing party): You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how anything you said above shows that this is a case of WP:HARASSMENT. LjL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjensen has made personal attacks, but it's more about the tone. However, since you asked, here are some examples: Snowded is 'ignorant' [2]; Snowded has 'pretty slim' writing experience [3]; Snowded's view is 'nonsense' [4]; Snowded is making 'false and incoherent statements' (plus some disparaging comments on expertise and motive) [5]. Snowded has received the majority of the attacks over the last week, but I've also been branded 'ignorant' [6] (different article but same topic) and lack a 'deep knowledge' [7]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Thank you for the link to the article on US historiography - that's a nice example of the approach we should be aiming for with the article in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. It needs to be strictly on the historiography or it's likely to be deleted as POV fork. Rjensen should probably be warned over the comments - calling people "ignorant" etc is neither helpful nor allowed. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is yet a case of harassment, but User:Snowded could focus more on the specific issues with the page and less on User:Rjensen's motivations - Snowded starting the talk page debate with claims that this is a coatrack, asserting that the whole page should be deleted, and quoting OR and OWN were not the most constructive approach. The page is, from a quick skim, about what it says it is (historians' takes on the British Empire), and changes to the content will require consulting sources and discussing how to best use them (do ask WikiProject History for help). Rjensen should avoid using words like "ignorant", but he has also faced personal comments. Fences&Windows 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is too much about history and historical criticism of the British Empire; neither of that is historiography. See other historiography articles like Historiography of the United States, Historiography of the French Revolution and Historiography of the Cold War. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to agree that the discussion may not have started off in the best way and to take my share of responsibility for that. But I have been trying since to move it forward - you will see a section talking about the need for some changes to the main article. But overall yes I think it is a coatrack article in the main I spent about three hours yesterday (as promised last week) going through Winks' Historiography of the British Empire to work through a possible structure and will post on that later in the week (although the other articles referenced may short circuit that a bit). Remember I didn't bring the matter here, Rjensen has done his best in the last week to tell me that I am "ignorant" etc. and I have made it clear that if that continues then it might be necessary to bring an ANI case. That seems to have been the trigger to a pre-emptive strike in trying to remove myself and Wiki-Ed from the article. ----Snowded TALK 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have Historiography of the British Empire on my watchlist and have become increasingly concerned that is being turned into a WP:COATRACK article reflecting the views of its principle author. The article is sourced but its an example of WP:SYN where the principle author selects principle sources that reflect their own POV, rather than trying to give a balanced view of the range of opinion in published literature. If I may observe that the principle authors seems to be approaching this as an academic paper rather than an article for an online encyclopedia. As such its becoming a candidate for deletion as a POV fork. In addition, RJensen is alternating between arguing from authority and personal abuse (diffs above). The intervention from Qexigator has also been unhelpful, first of all [8] accusing editors of picking a quarrel, removing tags when there was clearly an ongoing discussion [9],[10] and backing up a false claim here of harassment. I fear that unless the uncivil behaviours are nipped in the bud this will likely end at arbcom. WCMemail 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too, having it on my watchlist, have read the course of the discussion differently, and see the above comment, and others like it, as one-sided veering to travesty. The incivility, as I see it, is largely aimed against the complaining party. Let us see some balance in responses. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjensen responds: On the structure of the article I have said this repeatedly: the topics selected are those chosen by the RS, especially the three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell. As for the comparison with the article on the historiography of the United States. I wrote most of that article. There are multiple schools of thought on American history, and that article is structured by those schools. We do not have multiple schools of thought on the British Empire so it is impossible to use a schools structure and no RS has attempted to do so. Instead historians tackle separate topics, arranged by chronology, by regions, and by such themes as religion, gender, slavery, etc. The Historiography of the British Empire is therefore organized by chronology, geography, and themes. To quote from the preface to Winks Historiography vol 5 P xiv: "The organization of this volume is chronological, thematic, and regional. The opening chapters survey the historiography of the Empire from its origins through the period of the American revolution.... Thematic chapters in this part of the volume include those dealing with exploration and empire, science and medicine, gender, slavery and the slave trade, and missions and empire....The regional chapters include separate accounts of the historiography of the West Indies, (etc)." For context please see Winks at Winks (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V: Historiography. p. 14. The "Historiography of the British Empire" article therefore is based on a standard structure used by the RS. As for my rhetoric, I never called anyone "ignorant". I stated: "Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography." As for "false": I made that allegation in rejecting his specific claims about my intentions. As for the coat rack allegation: this article is entirely about the historians of the British Empire and their ideas and debates. That is what historiography is all about. The events and dates and historic developments of the British Empire are "history": and are in the article on the British Empire. That history material is not duplicated here. There's very little overlap in text or in the footnotes. In my opinion, Snowded has repeatedly challenged my good faith by asserting that I have a secret POV. When challenged he is unable to identify that POV or find any POV statements anywhere in the article. Snowded has announced that his intention is to radically reduce or eliminate this article. see Nov 30 He has announced his strong POV ahead of time and has locked himself into a position where he cannot edit in good faith. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell" - Really? An article built mostly on the opinions of a mere two authors is going to be a candidate for deletion on Synthesis grounds even if it is not a coatrack. There are hundreds of thousands of books that in some way deal with the history of the British Empire - are there really only three sources that deal with how those hundreds of thousands have addressed the subject? The placing of the Phillip Buckner opinion in the lede (and seeing it expressed as if it were a fact rather than an opinion) hints to me that this article has been written with a pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winks edited two books of chapters that were were written by 61 different scholars; Stockwell added another 12 different scholars. The article is based on about 200 footnotes from these and other established scholars. Bruckner is explicitly not talking about his own opinions but the consensus of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Buckner's OPINION that this is the consensus of scholars. We have three sentences in the lede containing extreme opinions derived from a single source, and with those opinions presented as if they were facts. This is not good. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia always goes with the RS--Bruckner's statement is based on extensive research not on his private opinion. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were his PRIVATE opinion, there would be no source for it! It is his PUBLIC opinion: it is published in a publically available source. But it is still an OPINION, and it is a blatant case of undue weight to place one person's opinion, derived from a single source, and containing that sort of blanket claim, in a lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    when a well-established scholar reports his conclusions in a scholarly journal based on decades of research, we have a RS of the sort Wikipedia emphasizes. The Wiki rule about handling suspected POV is to provide an alternative RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very happy to admit I had not read Winks before this encounter (although I am enjoying it so thanks). I do however know the difference between historiography and history. I asked Rjensen for his primary source for the structure of the article and having been told, went out and bought it. Per multiple comments on the talk page and here I then promised to come back this week having done that with specific proposals. I did think that would be well received but it wasn't. Otherwise I'm also happy to confirm that everything I have read says that a lot of this material does not belong in an article on historiography; but if you check the talk page I have suggested (and will be more concrete in that suggestion later) that a lot of the material may belong in other articles that can be referenced. All of that seems to have been misinterpreted and I do think there is a ownership problem here. ----Snowded TALK 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

    STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.
    The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

    I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

    STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([11][12][13][14][15]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No action, seriously? sst✈(discuss) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be inclined to see a statement from STSC. Also, pinging is not considered appropriate notification as pings can sometimes fail.

    I was caught out once. A ping is only successful if you type in the username correctly and sign the post. If you go back and edit it to complete the ping, it won't work. However, I do see that you posted an ANI notification on their TP in any case. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I don't know this user SSTflyer, I have never had any interaction with him. If there's any issue with me, he should have discussed with me in my Talk page. This is just a case of childish hate campaign to discredit another user on personal or political reasons, and it's a pack of lies, e.g. "STSC has a history of blocks and topic bans", etc. I have had opponents in content disputes when I tried to maintain a balanced view in articles, and it's not surprising some of them would want to join in this. There's nothing I need to defend the way I edit in my near 10 years on Wiki; that's why I just could not be bothered to reply to these ridiculous false accusations. STSC (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is typical. When faced with grievances over content, STSC throws around accusations of a "hate campaign" for "personal reasons" and otherwise avoids at all costs addressing valid concerns over his/her POV editing. I and others have attempted to reason with you on talk pages countless times and it goes nowhere – your enforce your POV and censorship in an uncompromising, bullying manner. Deleting photographs and well-sourced material from pages does not constitute "maintaining a balanced point of view" – it is politically-driven censorship. Citobun (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lie, we had the 3rd opinion on the image deletion issue and the neutral user agreed to the deletion. On other issues you alone just could not accept other users who have different views from yours and you continue to hold grudges. STSC (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of that particular instance doesn't change the fact that you frequently censor images for political reasons. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Accusing others of not accepting different political views is really pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one blanking and censoring sourced material for political reasons. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all censoring and there're good reasons for these edits. Why just brought them on here now if you disputed these edits? Up to now you still could not accept the 3rd opinion on the images in the Hong Kong articles, and it's rather sad you still harbour a long-term grudge against me based on the content disputes in 2014. STSC (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a question of a "long-term grudge", but rather your own long-term WP:ADVOCACY. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have jumped on every opportunity to use false accusations to discredit other editors. I've seen this all before. STSC (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The nice thing about Wikipedia is that our respective contributions are there for all to see and scrutinize. So call me a liar if you like but your editing history speaks for itself. Citobun (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad thing is you abusing the system to harass other user. Other content disputants like user Ohconfucius have moved on since the 2014 Hong Kong protests but you're still Wikihounding your opponent out of revenge. STSC (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not "Wikihounding"...stop throwing around false accusations. We have interacted perhaps one time since the protests a year ago. I contribute now because I was asked to. Citobun (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're the one who has been throwing false accusations around on here. STSC (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    {Non admin view} The problem, in my eyes, is STSC's edits do look to be more aligned towards the mainland Chinese POV, but on the flip side of it the editors that are raising the complaint have an obvious pro-HK POV. No one comes here with entirely clean hands in this dispute as it's a clash of ideologies. My heritage hails from both sides of the border that once separated China from HK but I was born and raised overseas. I nonetheless have held a strong interest in the politics of the region and in my view this dispute is a manifestation of those differences. For example, prior to STSC's pruning, the 2014 protests in HK article was heavily laden with images. Far more than I would have expected to see for what was essentially a singular event. Some of the other image removals, with the rationale that STSC used do seem reasonable, but as STSC has a pro-mainland POV their image removal makes it look politically motivated. I don't really see the need for action, at this time, against either party except a requirement that WP:DRN be used more frequently. Falun Gong is a very touchy article and is subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Anything that is viewed as violating the sanctions should be referred to WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I must thank user Blackmane for your fair comment on this. STSC (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an HK/mainland issue. My analysis of STSC's editing is skewed toward Hong Kong because that subject is a focus of my own editing and hence the context in which I have encountered him. The problem is that STSC is exclusively a pro-CCP activist editor. Meanwhile I have created articles such as 2015 Hong Kong heavy metal in drinking water incidents which reflects very badly on Hong Kong. Certainly everyone has a POV but I don't think mine is necessarily "pro HK", and more importantly I am not here for Wikipedia:Advocacy or to censor others.
    Nobody, STSC included, has really addressed the problematic issues above – misleading edit summaries, censorship of reliably referenced content, refusal to discuss, refusal to cooperate, bullying use of talk page warning templates, almost exclusively agenda editing – that together amount to disruptive editing. If anyone is inclined to characterise this dispute as merely a simple clash of ideologies I would suggest you compare our edit histories side by side and note the differences in editing behavior. Additionally please note that STSC is active in all other controversial China-related subjects, not just Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your POV is not necessarily "pro-HK" but certainly pro-British colonialism. Editors are free to choose any topic to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in Hong Kong history. I am not pro-British colonialism. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I should have said... You're very much 'pro-British colonialism in Hong Kong', of course. STSC (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No administrative issue here; there's a difference of opinion on emphasis which is quite subtle to outsiders. For example, a link to the article 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform without mentioning it as being "about universal suffrage" does not "censor" anything, since the linked article talks about suffrage in detail. Such a change to a summary on a different article falls within the realm of a copyedit and is not misleading.

    What I do think needs to change, though, is when STSC is complaining about a personal attack, he should reference where he is being personally attacked, by using a diff like this (which took 2 seconds to find, so there's probably tons more), where Citobun calls him a "agenda editor". Anyway, these diffs are stale. Stop stoking the fire of old bad feelings. Shrigley (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs I've listed are stale. But the agenda editing has continued, hence why the issue was brought here. Anyway, I am tired of bickering about this and don't really want to contribute further – but this has been a very prolonged issue and if it is not properly addressed I think it will keep reemerging. Citobun (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Citobun has the cheek to complain about "agenda editing" while he would invite Falun Gong editors to join him. That shows his hypocrisy, and basically he and SSTflyer are just trying to silence other editors who don't share their POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about Falun Gong nor do I know who you would consider a "Falun Gong editor". Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must congratulate you on that. STSC (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that everyone here forgets the use of misleading edit summaries by STSC. No matter the POV, the edit summary "ce" should not be used when any meaning of the text has been changed. sst✈(discuss) 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to subvert the AfD process

    Legacypac (talk · contribs) has been, in my opinion, gaming the system by subverting the AfD process by adding redirects to articles after his AfD's were unsuccessful.

    I tried to discuss this on his talk page, but I did not feel his responses were adequate. I also asked if--in good faith--he would revert all the redirects he had added, and he will not.

    It started when Legacypac attempted to bulk-delete the articles of a number of beauty pageant contestants here. The result, closed by User:DGG, was "keep all for the time being; renominate separately".

    Following that, Legacypac followed a similar pattern to have several of the articles removed.

    For example, he nominated Ashleigh Lollie for deletion here. The result was "no consensus". So, he instead redirected the article here.

    He nominated Claira Hollingsworth for speedy deletion here. It was declined, so he instead added a redirect here.

    At Courtney Byrd, Legacypac added a speedy delete here, and it was declined. He then nominated this article for deletion here, but then, according to his edit summary, "no nomination page created for more than two hours", so he removed his AfD, and instead added a redirect here.

    This pattern continued for most of the other articles which were included in original bulk-delete AfD. Again, I have tried to discuss what appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the AfD process, but Legacypac felt his actions were in compliance with policy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no insight into the issue raised by Magnolia677 specifically, however, in a related matter - after Legacypac nominated Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition for deletion, and the AfD failed, he immediately executed a BOLD merge of the entire article to a different article, sans discussion [16]. As the topic was under Discretionary Sanctions few people wanted to unmerge it, appeals to Legacypac to unmerge it himself were rebuffed [17], an attempt to unmerge it by Mhhossein was immediately reverted by Legacypac [18], and an admin ultimately had to be brought in to execute the unmerge [19]. As the article was in the DYK queue at the time, this created a tremendous amount of hassle. LavaBaron (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a strong argument that these college co-eds fail WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:15MOF and there is lots of precedent for deletion. There is a strong argument that the User:DGG close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie covering 42 titles was against consensus. I count 16 editors seeking Delete or Redirect for all (or nearly all) the articles on the list vs 2 or maybe 3 who wanted to keep (generally without a policy based reason). Subsequently some of the 42 were sent individually to AfD as test cases. So far 6 were completely deleted Natasha_Martinez, Lizzy_Olsen, Brooke_Fletcher, Brittany_McGowan Elizabeth_Cardillo, Haley_Denise_Laundrie. Others like Ylianna Guerra have be turned into redirects to the appropriate contest page. We still have quite a few like Taylor Even which reads in its entirety "Taylor Even was crowned Miss Iowa USA 2015. She represented Iowa at Miss USA 2015 but Unplaced." that have not been sent to AfD or redirected. Obviously stuff like this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE addresses.

    To bad the editor who started this thread as not addressed the issue of WP:NOPAGE, raised in the redirections and on my talk page, but I suppose they have no answer. Instead that editor reversed my redirects without a policy based rational, so I've sent the articles to AfD where I expect they will be deleted like their sister articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for LavaBaron's completely off topic complaint about something that happened months ago, Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition is an awful misleading POV title covering a hard to understand segment of a larger topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for the reminder to work on cleaning up that mess. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I closed the first AfD because the nomination was against the meaning of WP:Deletion policy. Had I not done so, any close at all would probably have been overturned at Deletion Review, with the instruction to list separately. I advised renominating individually a few at a time; Instead, the individual nominations were nonetheless placed all together in one batch at a single time. I commented at that time "renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources."
    (2)I commented at the separate nominations that "personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career" . I personally do not like these articles., which I thing generally contrary to the spirit of an encycopedia. I think we should have a guideline not to have them. But we don't, and the way to decide is therefore to decide individual cases by AfD. As LegacyPak correctly notes, there were various results from these discussions.
    (3)A non-consensus close could reasonably be followed by a discussion about redirection or merging. Doing it without consensus is trying to substitute a different close. We can have a different close--but it requires some sort of discussion, either DRV or another AfD or a discussion on merging or redirecting. Doing so without discussion in a case like this seems to be effectually replacing the community opinion by one's own. (that I happen to share that opinion is irrelevant here.). I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be to revert,the redirection, and then discuss it. This does not require coming here, or any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TThanks DGG. It turns out we do have a policy WP:NOPAGE that was never considered before and avoids the question of notability. It's being used successfully to redirect super old people articles now. If someone disagrees with redirect they (as the OP has done) revert and discuss how NOPAGE does not apply. Coming here is not the answer. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who originally introduced the NOPAGE concept to the cleanup of the longevity walled garden, let me say this. I considered that, in principle, merges based on NOPAGE can be done boldly. But where there's a reasonable chance of controversy, such a merge should only follow a talk-page discussion. (And in the case of longevity, I felt, with the concurrence of others, that the additional transparency of AfD would be even better -- healthier for the community -- given the high emotions associated for so long with that topic.) Either way, a bold merge soon after an AfD that ended Keep is like a "bold" merge soon after a merge discussion that ended No merge -- it's not bold, it contrary to recent consensus. A new discussion -- wherever -- is needed. EEng (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You expressed your opinion that it was an "awful POV misleading title" in the AfD you made and the community decided that was not the case. Your singular opinion does not override the community consensus, particularly for an article under Discretionary Sanctions. And immediately slapping a third and fourth Merge proposal on that article in response to this observation in ANI, as you have just done, along with the intervention "thanks for the reminder," comes across as a little bit of a middle-finger in response to this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If an AfD is closed as keep (or even no consensus), it must not be redirected or merged. Either of those actions would be in violation of the close. If those actions have been done, the actions should be immediately reverted now. And Legacypac needs to agree he understands he cannot do that in the future. The only cause post-AfD to redirect an article is if the close was redirect. The only cause post-AfD to merge an article is if the close was merge. Alternatively, after a failed AfD the article in question can undergo the specific detailed process (all of the very precise steps) of WP:MERGEPROP. If Legacypac does not understand and agree to these policies, he needs to undergo a topic ban on creating AfDs (and possibly also on redirecting or merging). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I don't think that that's entirely true. Just because there is a decision to keep the content of an article doesn't mean that the content has to be kept in that article. Also, if something is closed as no consensus, that usually doesn't preclude further discussion about the article's merits. pbp 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely correct. And if a discussion took place after the No Consensus result at AFD, and the consensus there was to redirect or merge? No one would blink. The concern here, I think, is that Legacypac didn't start such a discussion, but relied on BOLD in a situation where it was inappropriate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Purplebackpack89, to repeat, for an article to be merged after a keep or no consensus AfD close, one would have to follow all of the very precise steps at WP:MERGEPROP. There couldn't be merely a very informal quick ad-hoc discussion and agreement to merge; any such informally discussed (or undiscussed) merge would have to be immediately reverted as violating the AfD close. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I just want to say Legacypac is a valuable contributor at AfD and has done a tremendous job cleaning up the Neverending Neelix Nightmare® – He's probably spent 100 hours on this in the last month going through all the ridiculous redirects and walled garden articles. I cannot rain enough barnstars on his wall. I hope this is taken into account and a topic ban is not pursued. I'm sure he just needs more clarity on what to do with no-consensus outcomes since there seems to be some gray area per DGG. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting a title citing NOPAGE that has never been to AfD is fine (I've done that a few times). Since this complaint started on my talk page I've been sending similar articles to AfD instead and I fully expect an ANi thread complaining that I'm clogging up AfDs with articles that should have been BOLDly redirected citing NOPAGE. Now, if anyone has an issue with a SPECIFIC page I've redirected, please reverse the redirect so I can AfD it next. That already happened on the two listed above that were part of a group AfD. The third article mentioned was just a technical decline Prod, which should not shelter the article from being turned into a redirect months later. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dealing with material where there is a possibly unreasonable concentration of interest is difficult--WP is very susceptible to people doing this, and I doubt we will ever find a good balance between disposing of problems quickly & definitively and doing so with full fair consideration of each possibility/ When I deal with such analogous groups of material, I usually do not get everything right--it can be very hard to predict what consensus is going to be. Legacypac is doing at least as well as I do in similar situations. All that can be asked of someone is that they reconsider what they are doing if it is questioned, and I try to be objective enough to do so, and I think he is also. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Legacypac: I'm not weighing in on the substance of this thread at this time. However, flagging for future reference that the term "co-eds" referring to female college students is outmoded and may be perceived as demeaning and therefore should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick look at all of these articles is concerning to me. There is excessive personal detail including educational information, dates of birth, parents names etc. These are not well known people, and even if the information can be found, we shouldn't be further disseminating it as per WP:NPF. Without a lot of this filler information the articles would be very bare indeed (which to me indicates the lack of notability). All of these articles need reviewing, both for notability and content. Polequant (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypac's behavior of late is indeed questionable. He started this MFD[20] where two of his reasons were blatantly wrong. One- that there was no member in the WikiProject when in the same nomination he acknowledged a member. Second- That there were no edits to the page since its last nomination (Less than a year ago also by Legacypac. I'll let others judge whether this second nomination by the same editor was proper or not.) when there obviously was. Lastly he BLP Prod WP:Lexy Schenk when her article did have reference from a WP:RS in it. As seen here[21]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Subverting AfD by using AfD

    LOL I added an appropriate subsection heading for Ejgreen77 who has NEVER voted against deleting or redirecting a pageant winner page, including voting keep on many pages that were deleted, which strongly suggests bias. I, on the other hand can tell the difference between a BIO about someone that has done something other then win one contest and a bio about a school teacher, future stay at home mom, or univ. student that got in a looks contest to win some scholarships. See Caroline McGowan for example where they just voted to keep an article that links http://dorkychickinlipstick.com/ and calls the subject an actress that has no acting credits to speak of. And to keep Allison Cook (Miss Oregon) "Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education."Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education.[2] She sought alternatives after concussion injuries forced her to leave the Oregon Tech basketball and volleyball teams. On April 28, 2012, Cook won the Miss City of Sunshine 2012 title and more than $6,500 in scholarship prizes" and she studies radiology. And to keep Ali Wallace which is a formula cut and paste of the others replacing name, school, major, parent, hair and eye color. Pretty girl who enjoyed 15 minutes of fame and went back to obscurity. Heck recently people were seriously trying to delete a bio I started Candy Carson and she has actually done some notable things and was portrayed next to Cuba Gooding, Jr. in a movie, plus married to Ben Carson. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness there are a few editors who mass nominate beauty pageant/pageant winners for deletion. It's not just Legacypac. There needs to be a notability guideline established by experts in this area. Personally I feel anyone who wins the mainstream national title of any country, whether it's Miss USA, Miss Canada or Miss Armenia, should be notable. State winners aka Miss Oregon are not so clear and we need some kind of guideline. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, check out this link that Legacypac included in his AfD nomination. Let me put it this way, If I were to include such a link in an AfD nomination, I would fully expect to get a topic ban, if not an out-and-out block. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: The problem is that it's very difficult to establish any kind of notability guideline, simply because third-party media coverage of pageants varies wildly from country-to-country (with the US having, by far, the most). Miss South Carolina undoubtedly gets 100 times as much media coverage as Miss Swaziland does, yet there will be some that will say keep one and not the other, because one is a national pageant and one is a sub-national pageant. Other people will argue the other way, saying that one meets WP:GNG and the other doesn't. In general, I think that GNG probably needs to be the objective standard that everything on Wikipedia is held up to. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's wrong with that link. John Oliver has a hugely popular show and there's nothing inappropriate in the video - there is valid criticism of pageants and their objectification of women's appearances. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But, it's the kind of editorial content that is totally inappropriate and off-topic in an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't use AfD - get dragged to ANi. Use AfD get dragged to ANi. Can't beat the fans of a dying, widely criticized industry.

    My criteria is if they win beyond winning a state title or go on to any sort of notable career the article can stay. If the only info beyond trival stuff is that they won a contest, redirect to the contest page. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose: Heaven forbid, somebody who actually wants to get rid of poorly-sourced, non-notable articles. pbp 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban on "beauty pageant-related material" would completely miss the point: the problem is not specifically to do with "beauty pageant-related material": it is to do with trying to undermine the outcomes of discussions and consultations whenever those outcomes are contrary to what Legacypac would like. Legacypac needs to realise that if he or she starts a deletion discussion, he or she must then accept the outcome of that discussion: it is not OK to say, in effect, "Let's have a discussion on whether this should be deleted, so that if the answer is 'yes' then I will accept that decision, and it will be deleted, while if the answer is 'no' then I can ignore that decision, and find another way of effectively deleting it."
    • Legacypac, if you continue to do what you have been doing, you are likely to be blocked. I also suggest you may find it helpful to read WP:FORUMSHOP, which is not exactly about what you have been doing, but it is essentially the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - ridiculous. AfD is a group process and it can be worked out. Further clarification is needed in some gray areas. Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed. IMO AfD is probably the least rewarding yet one of the most vital areas on Wikipedia, and the editors who nevertheless spend time there trying to weed out non-notable articles need support, not constant criticism. A topic ban for Legacypac would harm the project - and I say that as someone who recommended keep on the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition article. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: "Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed." I'm curious what exactly you see that lead you to state this. Personally, I see nothing to suggest this (in fact, very much the opposite). FYI, this is not Legacypac's first go-round at this, there was a similar mass-AfD dust-up in February 2015, so Legacypac knows perfectly well that at least 50% of these AfD's he's opened are going to close as "keep." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as far as his motivations go, please see his comment immediately above about a "dying, widely criticized industry." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why there is so little RS coverage today. As a child I remember most Queens getting local and regional press. Now they have do/say something extraordinary [22] to get even a name check. It is usually a big struggle to find sources outside official pageant sites (and that is kept up only for a year), local person wins award, Facebook and blogs. It is different if they get on a big TV show or something, then we treat them like any other actor. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's true in Canada, but in the US, state-level pageants are a big deal, and get plenty of RS coverage in third-party news sources here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a Google search like this for the state closest to me right now [23] should find more then 253 results (all news results for all time for both the annual event and all girls that ever went to the "Miss Washington USA" pageant, not just winners). It is barely noise level. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these state winners, IMHO, don't meet GNG. I've fought to keep articles on pageants and national pageant winners from around the world (which is why I know Legacypac is not the only who noms them for AfD). But I really don't think most state winners make the cut. Just being Miss New Hampshire is not really enough IMO unless there is significant coverage in some other area. Nominating state winners is good cleanup IMHO. And again, there needs to be a guideline. Pageants are competitions after all and equivalent sport guidelines exist on notability, so why not make one for pageants? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: Please see my comment immediately above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and Expand On review of the individual cases, and not just the method of editing but the tone used by Legacypac in interacting with other editors who come to him expressing concern or question, there seems to be a dangerous sense of ownership and unwillingness to work in a collaborative spirit. Really, had I chosen to make it an issue at the time, he could have been blocked under discretionary sanctions for the stunt he pulled above vis a vis the Syria article; I only didn't because I try to avoid the mess that is those topics and only came across it via DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After I proposed AfD [24] (which closed with advise to discuss merge at talk and good support for a merge in the AfD) I propose merge to talk on Oct 28. Only LavaBaron responded Oppose with no clear policy reason. I completed a merge on Nov 1 (based on insufficient opposition at talk and recent support in AfD, but was reverted. Then on Nov 5 another editor proposed Delete at AfD [25] but that closed no consensus with people suggesting merge again. Now I started a more formal merge discussion and you take offense? That is not forum shopping its following process. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban but suggest the editor avoid making personal comments about others - such comments are uniformly disregarded by closers at AfD, and tend to make some feel that the poster is more invested in deleting stuff he/she does not like than in finding out what the consensus of the general community evinced on the AfD page is. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No topic ban. He does need to watch how he interacts with others and remember to discuss content, not users. If he demonstrates incivility or personal attacks, he can definitely be blocked on those grounds. However, he is following the proper process and using AFD for what it's designed to discuss. The lack of understanding of a subject matter is a learning opportunity, and certainly not a reason in itself to propose a ban. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: But, over the past year he has sent literally dozens of pageant-related bio articles to AfD, and only a small handful of them have either ended up as "delete" or "merge/redirect" closes, with the vast majority of them closing as either "keep" or "no consensus." And yet, he continues to send more. At what point is the process simply being abused? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Ejgreen77 - I completely acknowledge your response; I agree that the AFD process can be prone to abuse by anyone who wants to push an agenda or disrupt the process with excessive nominations of articles (especially if the articles clearly do not meet the criterion for nominating it for deletion). I'm trying to find some edits, any edits, that demonstrate that this person has an unambiguous viewpoint or agenda against this topic subject. So far, I'm not finding any. I want to assume good faith here - I think that the user should be warned about his nominations of articles, and that continued nomination of articles that clearly should not be deleted can result in blocking, as doing so is disruptive. After blocks have proven ineffective, I'd be much more open to a conversation about banning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for bringing this to ANI was not because this editor was nominating these articles for deletion. It was because--after being unsuccessful at getting these articles deleted through AfD--he then added a redirect. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i recall there is a way to check the % of deletes on nominations and %of time that an editor's vote meets consensus. I think I saw it in RFA. It would be bad to have a 100% delete on noms - that would suggest you are only sending snow deletes to AfD/RfD and not using the appropriate alternitives. I work hard at cleanup and I've sent literally Thousands of articles and redirects into successful deletion or redirection. I'm sure that stats will bear that out. I went through all the Oregon pagent template and only nomed the ones with no claim to fame outside one event, You can see even in the last 36 hours I made changes, maintenance tagged, proposed merges etc to many pageant articles I did not AfD. On the flip side I bet Ejgreen77 has Never voted to delete or redirect Any pageant article, and I've seen them comment on plenty. Therefore the editor pushing for a topic ban on me should be Boomeranged for they are the one with the demonstratable bias. This editor should serious show a single past delete vote in this topic or face a topic ban themselves for making false statements against me here.
    Given that I have a long-standing personal policy against voting "delete" in any AfD debates, pageant related or otherwise, it's not terribly surprising. Not that I haven't seen plenty of articles that I thought should have been deleted, but in those cases, I simply abstain from voting. But, if you're looking for examples, I already gave one further down the page of a pageant article that I think is questionable. And, right off the top of my head, here's a pageant-related article that's right up your alley. It was sent to AfD and somehow closed as "keep," I thought it probably should have been deleted. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! I think you're referring to a tool that calculates the number of Support votes vs Oppose votes in RFA - I remember that tool as well :-). I think that tool only works for RFA votes. However, you can find the number of votes by the user vs each closing decision by using the AFD Stats tool. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the XFD classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem. If a bunch of similar items have similar problems and you nominate just one, the community yells about why are you targeting that one; you nominate them all and the community demands each be nominated and judged individually. So here, an editor does the latter and the discussion basically invites individual nominations, which the editor does, and now someone wants to ban the editor. Really??? Moreover, we have editors who seem to want a litmus test as suggested above on how close ones RFA !votes match consensus, as if whether an editor's view matching consensus in one place has bearing on the value of that editor's view anywhere. That sort of marginalization is particularly distasteful given the current political discourse in the US and ought to be rejected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Oshwah: and any other users who think that Legacypac is acting in good faith here, check out some of the whoppers that were told (multiple times!) in this nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your response and your input, but I am standing behind my vote and the reasoning behind it. I think a ban goes too far in this case. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. To my regret, I have occasionally dipped a toe into the AFDs re: these archaic swimsuit contests, once I attempted to assess claims of notability for Miss Dairy Association - or something of the sort; I even once chased down a notability quesiton for contestants in a language of which I have only passable reading knowledge. I am persuaded of several truths, among them is the fact that there is less notability than appears to most pageant titles; that the notability outside the USA is even less; and that the devotees of these pageants are devoted to them and to putting pages up and keeping pages up for every pageant and every winner. It may not be quite as bad as WP:PLAGUE, but the tone at AFD can be remarkably similar. I now avoid pageant AFDs like the plague, and think we owe a vote of thanks to Legacypac for attempting to bring some standards to this difficult arena.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: After reviewing this situation, I have come up with what I feel are the only solutions that have a chance to work:
    • 1. Do not allow Legacypac (talk · contribs) to move articles or redirect articles
    • 2. Give him some rope and see if he continues the behavior
    • 3. Block him

    Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are pageant winners notable?

    Moved content discussion to here. No comment on previous sections. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Thinking of what other annual contests exist, I searched the biggest Rodeo in Canada List_of_Calgary_Stampede_Rodeo_Champions. There is just one article on one winner - a two sentence stub J.B. Mauney. No dozens of articles on each event with succession boxes and who their parents are, what they studied, where they went to school blah blah blah. I can't think of any contests, outside politics) that we give SO much coverage too, and we avoid most of the trivia in the politician articles. The trivia goes into the pageant articles because, without it, you have nothing that does not fit on a list. If we applied the same standards to pageant winners as we apply to other topic areas, this debate would not even be happening. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1.) WP:OTHERSTUFF 2.) Lack of editor interest in one particular area should not preclude other editors from developing articles in a completely unrelated field. 3.) At the end of the day, it's all about WP:GNG; if you think that individual rodeo cowboys have sufficient third-party coverage to warrant articles, by all means, go ahead and create them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely not, no. In most cases there is no coverage of them outside the context of the pageant. Pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All pageant winners? No, of course not, but the state-level winners for the two major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA)? Based on the extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources, clearly yes. (Other contests that receive as much or more attention on Wikipedia include reality television competitions, sports at all levels, literary prizes, academic prizes, literary prizes, the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, and so on.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the 111 Google News hits for "Miss Oregon USA" or the 58 hits in books (covering all winners over the years and the contest itself and not all RS of course)? Is that "extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources"? All that coverage barely justifies the Miss Oregon USA article. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to try to trivialize this too much, but from what I've seen of pageant winners, WP:BLP1E readily applies, in that the only event they are connected to is winning the pageant, meaning that most winners are not notable (although we can certainly use lists and tables to document then) Obviously, if they have done more before and/or after that is of note, then normal notability rules apply (as such with Caitlin Upton. And this is not to suggest that anyone winning an aware is not notable per BLP1E, but it is due to the nature of what pageants are: the participants are not being ranked on past merit but the there-and-now, as opposed to other awards like Nobels, Oscars, etc. where it is based on past merit that usually can be documented to a great degree, so BLP1E would not apply. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. the majority of them have no actual claim to notability and are never heard of again. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NTEMP covers the fact that once notability is achieved, it does not need to be sustained. And, as far as the whole BLP1E thing goes, please see this excellent comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Ironically, one of the articles currently sitting at AfD, Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) concerns a contestant who won a state-level title, then was forced to resign it less than three weeks later. On that particular article I do believe there are legitimate BLP1E concerns, due to the extremely short nature of her time as a titleholder. Thus there are no news stories of her making public appearances as Miss Oregon, no "preparing for Miss America" articles, and no subsequent appearance at the national pageant. So, on that particular article there are some legitimate BLP1E concerns, IMHO. But, your average state titleholder who won her state title, made numerous public appearances throughout the year, and represented her state on the nationally televised national pageant? No, no BLP1E concerns, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is begged if notability was met to begin with in terms of NTEMP. And BLP1E still applies to a pageant winner that would have media appearances after the fact but otherwise nothing notable. Classic example: JetBlue flight attendant incident is not about the person involved as that is basically how BLP1E is applied. Similarly for pageants, it is rarely the winner but the event itself as a whole. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think ANI is the best place to debate notability. But as I said before, national winners are notable IMO as they receive significant coverage for the year and go on to compete in Miss World or whatever. Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything." I agree completely, but like I said earlier, most of these US state-level winners will get 100 times as much third-party media coverage as, say, most of the people who competed in Miss Earth 2015. Heck, in some of these cases (Miss Congo (RDC), Miss Moldova, Miss Swaziland, Miss Kyrgyzstan, etc.) I'm not really all that certain that the national pageant itself is particularly notable - never mind the individual winners. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd actually be surprised - in some of these smaller countries, a larger percentage of the population knows about "Miss (Country)." It's a lot bigger deal for anyone to be competing and representing their country abroad, and they get a lot of attention not only when they win their pageant but when they go to Miss Universe and other pageants. I on the other hand have no idea who Miss America is this year, but that's because American culture is overloaded with celebrities who are world famous. Angola naturally is different. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course BLP1E applies. And as I commented above, the level of personal detail on these pages is grossly excessive. (And in the one AfD I commented on, the highest profile source doesn't even mention the person in question, and went on about the person's educational history and other trivia that is completely unencyclopedic. And the article was written by an admin. They should really know better.) Polequant (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we have that same admin reinserting dates of birth, parents occupations etc. Seriously? Polequant (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Sir Joseph

    NO ACTION
    Close per requests. NE Ent 03:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I ask the admin to review the recent edit warring and misbehavior of Sir Joseph. He has displayed an extreme bias and major POV in recent edits. He has also engaged in edit warring on Hanukkah page and Menachem M. Schneerson, constantly removing properly sourced information with claims of original research. Further Sir Joseph has removed any record of my warning to him from his talk page. From taking a look at Sir Joseph's talk page, I noticed this is not the first time. TM (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask you to close this ASAP. As you can see from the MMM page, I commented in the RFC that the claim that the Rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education needs evidence. No such evidence was provided. On the Hanuka page, this user is pushing a Chabad POV. If you query ARBCOM, this was done in the past, CHABAD is known for being POV warriors, whether intentionally or not, but saying a holiday celebrated for thousands of years is due to one Rabbi is certainly POV and should certainly not be in the lead, and should certainly not be pushed with a POV book.Finally, I can revert my talk page, after all, it's my talk page. I would ask the admins to ask this user to read up on Wikipolicy and to read up on what constitutes bias and POV. This is a waste of everyone's time. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you guys don't mind, would you please warn him for vandalizing my talk page? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph did not just comment as he says here, but rather, deleted properly sourced information both on Menachem M. Schneerson and Hanukkah. There were two sources on Menachem M. Schneerson supporting the information that Sir Joseph deleted. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I have not yet put that information back since, unlike Sir Joseph, I do not want to engage in edit warring. Instead, I encourage the admin to review the talk page discussion there carefully. On Hanukkah as well, Sir Joseph has engaged in edit warring and deleted properly sourced information. In addition, the admin may want to have a look at User talk:Prepstarr25 who has inserted himself into Sir Joseph's edit warring and who it now seems Sir Joseph - after his subsequent comment on his talk page - is teaming up with. Fact are facts, even when we don't like them. TM (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you yesterday, tell me which page in the book does it say that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. You can't come in with the preposterous claim and then when I ask for evidence just say it's in the book. It's not. You are a POV pusher. I suggest you view the Chabad Arbcom case. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you, book title, authors and pages numbers are all sourced. Have a look. Don't just delete. Also, your recent Hanukkah edit warring has proved once again that you will delete any information, even when properly sourced, that you don't like. TM (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not once did you mention a page number in the MMM article. I am still waiting. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, facts brought here are backed up by specific diffs. Care to show them? From what I can see, for example, there is either no clear-cut edit warring on Hanukkah, or if two reverts count, then you reverted three times. LjL (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He also warned me for reverting my own talk page, accused me of being a sockpuppet or being involved with a sockpuppet, this is the general behavior of someone not realizing that you can't push your way to your POV. If the Rebbe helped found the US DOE, there should be evidence of that. Show it and I'll gladly accept it.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets not confuse the facts. There was properly sourced information on Menachem M. Schneerson. Sir Joseph removed it and stated its false backing up his claims with original research and totally disregarding two published sources. He continuously claims, falsely, that no page numbers are provided. As I have said before, take a look at the sources on the page and see for yourself. Now with regard to Hanukkah. There was information in the lede supported by several published sources, including books, news-articles and academic papers. Sir Joseph has just deleted it for no reason. If Sir Joseph has an issue, it should be raised on the talk pages, and credible counter sources should be provided. According to Wikipedia guidelines, one cannot just delete credibly sourced information, just because one does not like it. Initially after Sir Joseph deleted it, I added additional sources to strengthen the claim. But Sir Joseph deleted these as well. In this case Sir Joseph has exposed himself as not liking chabad and therefore deleting relevant information even though it has been properly sources in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I can not replace the information at this point since I do not want to engage in edit wars, but I do ask the Admin to please look carefully at the history, the talk pages and all the sources provided (both re the role of MMS in DOE and the publicity of Hanukkah) and make the fair and balanced derision. TM (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Which page number? You keep saying it's in the book, so which page number says the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US Department of Education? A claim like that would not be hard to find. If it were my book, it would be on the jacket, the TOC, the header, it would be on the ad copy. Please let me know what page number. Don't just say that you saw it and put it, you need to bring proof for this ludicrous claim.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Chanukka article, you added sources after I reverted. In addition, even those new sources, are not sources that belong in a lead of an article. If you want to include something like that, it belongs in the body not in the lead, otherwise it is extreme POV pushing. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Sir Joseph, to me the claim you removed ("honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department") seems to be backed by the given source, i.e.:
    Sue Fishkoff (22 April 2009). The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-307-56614-0. by the late 1970s he was pushinig the Rebbe's first Washington campaign-the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
    Firstly, that source just says he campaigned for that, not that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, as is claimed. Secondly, the book is not a RS. It is biased to the Chabad POV. He is claiming, not that the Rebbe was campaigning or wanting a DOE but that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would result in lots more than a mention in a Chabad biography. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continue reading the book and you will see that it speaks of Congress honor to him for his role in it's establishment. But seriously, now that you have been proven that it is published your claiming that the book is bias?? TM (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias does not mean bad, but a book like that can't be used to push a pro-Chabad POV since it's a pro-Chabad bias book. Like I said a million times, if you are asserting that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would be in a dozen newspapers and Congressional Records. You said the book says the book says Congress honors him, so that would be in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record would be a WP:RS. And again, you keep mentioning, keep reading, but you don't mention pages, you need to specify where your proof is. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can not engage in original research to disprove what is written in two separate books. Fishkoff page 191-2. Telushkin page 161. Yo are now also making a sweeping claim Fishkoff is a pro-Chabad bias book. What next? TM (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, The Rebbe's Army is a pro-Chabad book, and I did a keyword search and found no mention of the rebbe helping to found the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the book is not a valid source. Between this and your edits on the Hanukkah page, you have exposed yourself as having an agenda. I ask the admin to review this carefully. TM (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this board doesn't really care about the content dispute, and you have WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of the sources. However, you claimed that the page number relevant to the claim was not given, but I think I showed it was given. So let's stay focused. I haven't even seen a single diff in this discussion being given as evidence for anything yet (except below, where a different dispute was apparently merged together with this one). LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So can we 1) close this and 2) comment on the below users conduct? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not yet look at Sir Joseph's (SJ's) edits on Hanukkah and Menachem M. Schneerson or any other articles (except Israel), thus I cannot comment on his behavior there.

    SJ appears to have recently edit warred on Israel. SJ, together with user: WarKosign, appears to have edit-warred against four different editors. Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. SJ almost instantly reverted Nishidani, restoring content that violates V & RS. Zero000 reverted SJ's edit. WarKosign reverted back to the version violating V & RS. Johnmcintyre1959 reverted WarKosign, and WarKosign reverted back again. I reverted WarKosign's edit, and SJ reverted back again to the version violating V & RS.

    I explained all of the above to SJ on his user talk page. Furthermore, I also explained to SJ on his user talk page that 'stability' of content is a relatively weak requirement and is not a valid reason to retain content that violates the infinitely stronger requirement to adhere to core WP content policies. I also wrote that 'stability' is not a valid reason to edit war (nothing is) - and in fact SJ's (and WarKosign's) repeated reverts are exactly what caused the content of Israel to be unstable.

    SJ's best response would have been to take full responsibility for his behavior, acknowledge he has edit-warred, reassure the community he will not edit war again, and reassure fellow editors he understands 'stability' is not a valid reason to violate core policies. Instead, SJ appears to have wikilawyered, which is one of the worst ways he could have possibly responded, because it implies that SJ seems to be highly likely to repeat his disruptive behavior. IjonTichy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If, as you say you have no idea what you're doing here, why are you commenting? Can you stop stalking me? Reverting something is not edit warring. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SJ's last comment is further evidence he refuses to take the ample opportunities provided to him here, and on his talk page, to reassure the community he intends to play by WP's rules. Instead he used these opportunities to continue to display his BATTLEGROUND approach. -- IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the person who posted a comment on WP:AN that has nothing to do with the WP:AN. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @IjonTichyIjonTichy: One revert on 30 November, and one on 2 December... you call that edit warring? LjL (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, edit warring can take place even without violating the 1RR restriction. On WP it is very important to follow the letter of the PAG, but it is even more important to abide by their spirit. IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can comment only on one case, Israel. There Sir Joseph followed WP:BRD and reverted an edit that he disagreed with, restoring a long-standing stable version. Several editors including IjonTichyIjonTichy attempted forcing the new version. Eventually edit warring stopped and we began discussing on the talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy did not contribute to the discussion, while Sir Joseph did. It seems that a new consensus has been reached, and it agrees with edit in question, but it was still wrong for IjonTichyIjonTichy to push it against existing consensus instead of discussing. In this it's clear that IjonTichyIjonTichy's behavior was more disruptive than Sir Joseph's. “WarKosign” 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it can, but two reverts in the span of 3 days, with talk page discussion, is quite obviously not edit warring. LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously edit warring, because it is not only two reverts, it's SJ and WarKosign together reverting four editors on the same content (content that obviously violated V and RS). And by the way it's not 3 days, it's only two days (about 3 hours longer than 2 days). IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then under the same token, the other four editors are edit warring too (especially those who did not take part in any talk page discussion). Perhaps the page should be full-protected. LjL (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only a content dispute. Both Sir Joseph and WarKosign clearly edit warred with Nishidani,   Johnmcintyre1959,   Zero0000 and myself, to force a version of Israel that violated V and RS. Moreover, they refuse to take responsibility for their disruptive behavior, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge that 'stability,' which they used as their edit summaries, is a weak requirement that does not justify violating the massively more important core requirements of V and RS. (In fact WarKosign just used the lame 'stability' excuse again above.) Additionally, they seem to conveniently believe that their participating in a talk page discussion gives them permission to edit war with editors who also participate in the discussion as well as to edit war with editors who have not participated in the article talk page discussion. So both Sir Joseph and WarKosign also appear to be clueless.
    Instead of reassuring the community they will abide by the PAG in the future, Sir Joseph and WarKosign are engaging in ad-hominem attacks (both of them have now accused me of disruptive behavior after I made only a single edit to the article to revert their repeated violation of V & RS), they display battleground behavior and are Wikilawyering. Instead of sending a signal to the community that they will stop disrupting the project, it appears they are sending a strong signal that it is highly likely they will continue to behave disruptively. IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence or lack there of shows a content dispute. Two diffs that show Sir Joseph reverting don't really show anything and they don't hold up your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand your vendetta or stalking against me, it is seriously troubling. Please stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SJ and WarKosign appear to be playing the role of innocent victims who have done nothing wrong, despite the ample evidence presented above (including SJ's and WK's own endless wikilawyering). They carelessly, thoughtlessly throw around words like 'consensus,' and empty accusations like 'stalking' and 'vendetta' without appearing to really understand what these words mean on WP and when and where these are, or are not, appropriate to use on WP. (For example WarKosign appears to be saying above that if his views are clearly in the minority then obviously the consensus is in his favor and this gives him the right to edit war.) SJ and WK are either grossly underestimating the intelligence of the community, and/or SJ and WK truly believe they are entirely blameless.
    It increasingly seems like a bad idea for the community to allow SJ and WK to continue to edit in a highly complex, difficult, highly contentious area such as the Palestine-Israel-Arab (PIA) area, as the likelihood of their continuing to disrupt the project is very high. For example, editors may like to take a look at SJ's massive wasting of the community's time in his stubborn pursuit of his petty, ridiculous vendetta against Nableezy. -- IjonTichy (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you paranoid? I haven't edited the Israel article in over a week, which is when you put a notice on my talk page, so you're the one stalking me. I don't think I've seen WarKosign since that one time, that I used the TALK PAGE. You are seriously bordering on the criminally stalking and I am asking you to stop. And I am asking an admin to please look into this and take action against this user, this stalking is unacceptable. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Hanukkah protected 3 days. Issues related to Palestine-Israel arbitration should use arbitration enforcement instead. --slakr\ talk / 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AE deals with content about ARBCOM, not general content and stalking issues, as far as I'm concerned. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; reverted the {{resolved}}, in case more discussion is needed for the issue of harassment. --slakr\ talk / 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph continues to play the role of a victim. He continues to wikilawyer, including but not limited to his ridiculous, nonsensical, vacuous accusation of 'stalking.' He has called for the community to waste their time to look into his various fatuous, empty accusations against TzviMichelsohn, Nableezy, and myself, to distract the community from Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, wikilawyering, and ad-hominem attacks. Again and again, SJ seems to grossly underestimate the intelligence of the community. Or perhaps SJ truly believes he is being victimized by anyone who points out his crimes and misdemeanors on WP, a behavior which is probably even more worrisome than if SJ was only playing the victim. Either way, SJ has not yet given a single assurance to the community he intends to stop disrupting the project, so it is extremely likely that this noticeboard, as well as other noticeboards, will have to deal again with his disruptive behavior in the not-too-distant future. IjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've provided two diffs that show two reversions on their part. Before we try get assurances from someone that a problem is resolved it's best that we can verify a problem actually exists. Crimes and misdemeanors? That sounds like a little bit of wikilawyering to me. Alot of what I just read did. You've got a narrative and maybe we can get James Earl Jones to voice it in Wikipedia the movie. If this is however not creative fiction, (in the voice of Clara Peller) Where's the diffs?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided four diffs in total, that show SJ reverting two different editors, and WK reverting two different editors, i.e SJ and WK edit warring against four different editors. Each time SJ and WK reverted, they restored the article to the version containing a violation of V & RS. As I said above we don't only count reverts - following the letter of the PAG while violating the spirit of policies is a form of gaming the system and is disruptive. (SJ and WK also used the misleading edit summary of 'stability' while they were repeatedly violating the stability of the article - they were not concerned with stability but rather with removing content that they just did not like.) The article is 1RR restricted in order to discourage precisely the type of edit warring (and wikilawyering, ad-hominem attacks and other wasting of editors' time) undertaken by SJ & WK.
    IjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:1RR restrictions were not broken, not even close (two reverts in the span of "more than two days" is a far cry from two in 24 hours), so they don't play a role. This board doesn't look at content disputes, but if "stability" might not be a great term, preserving the status quo on the article while a discussion is (or should be) taking place on the talk page is the accepted method. I suggest you drop the stick on this editor, who doesn't appear to have broken any rules. LjL (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not playing a role, perhaps you are? I'm not looking at a content dispute either, but a behavior problem. 'Stability' is not "not a great term," it is an extremely weak reasoning to revert four different editors who are trying to improve adherence to the infinitely stronger reasoning of adhering to WP policies. SJ and WK clearly violated the spirit/intention of WP PAG.

    17:42, 30 November 2015‎ Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to V and RS.

    Six minutes later, on 17:48, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph reverts Nishidani, restoring the version violating V & RS.

    Seven hours later, on 00:46, 1 December 2015‎ Zero0000 reverts back to the version improving V & RS.

    Seven hours later, 07:27, 1 December 2015‎ WarKosign reverts to the version violating V & RS.

    One-and-a-half hours later, on 19:02, 1 December 2015‎ Johnmcintyre1959 reverts to the version improving V & RS.

    Thirteen hours later, on 07:59, 2 December 2015‎ WarKosign reverts to version violating V & RS.

    Twelve hours later, on 19:53, 2 December 2015‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy reverts to the version improving V & RS.

    Fourty minutes later, 20:34, 2 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph reverts back to the version violating V & RS.

    IjonTichy (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet you didn't report me to WP:AE at that point in time? Why is that? Two, it's your interpretation that those edits are adherence and restoring and violation of V & RS. You're really grasping at straws here considering it's 12/15 and you're WP:ATTACK and bound for a WP:BOOMERANG. By you not reporting me to AE, you were being complicit in my egregious and horrible violations. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Perhaps I am" playing a role? Please do explain your allegation. (I said that the 1RR restrictions don't play a role, myself, not that you don't play a role, obviously, in case that's what you somehow read.) LjL (talk)
    Apologies, I read your comment far too quickly, i mistakenly believed you were saying I'm playing some sort of role here (i.e that I'm pretending to say one thing when I mean to say another thing or something like that).
    SJ and WK clearly, un-ambiguously were gaming the system while edit warring in violation of the intention, if not the letter, of the PAG.IjonTichy (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have presented evidence that, as it's been said before, there is (or now, perhaps was) a content dispute. This does not show any conduct issues. Four reverts by two separate users with nothing to suggest any preplanned collusion that would amount to meatpuppetry. They have used the Bold, Revert, and discuss cycle. Two reverts in a three day cycle by SJ with talk page discussion do not amount to actionable edit warring. The horse died in biblical times at this point, it's bones are dust, so drop the stick. Can someone close this already?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Sjp that this thread should be closed. Sir Joseph and WarKosign behaved very disruptively, but discussion here appears stalled, so I recommend this discussion be closed. IjonTichy (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fringe Material, canvassing & admin abuse of process

    (non-admin closure) OP says issue is resolved and requested closure. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    On 20 October Insider introduced the claim that the ARA Libertad (Q-2) is featured on Russian Currency [26]. The source [27] (Translation: [28]) does not back up this claim.

    Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.

    — Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков. — На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?

    В желании найти тайный знак или как минимум ляп на “картинах” Крылкова народ доходил до смешного. Так, изображенной на 50-рублевой банкноте “даме” приписали портретное сходство с зампредом ЦБ Татьяной Парамоновой.
    By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.

    - No need to look for hidden meaning where there is none, - says Igor Krylkov. - The photograph, which I was drawing the port was a modern ship. But at the last moment in the Central Bank said that the general idea of ​​the steamer does not fit the bill. I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw. How could I know that in Arkhangelsk, he did not come?

    The desire to find a secret sign or at least gaffe on "pictures" Krylkova people reached ridiculous. For example, shown in 50-ruble banknote "lady" was credited with a portrait likeness with deputy chairman Tatiana Paramonova.

    The source doesn't state it is this ship merely that this claim is based on Internet rumours of secret signs and gaffes that the original author dismisses as ridiculous. Noting this to be unreliably sourced and WP:FRINGE material I removed it. Insider has insisted it is included, partially quoting the source out of context. I have attempted to engage on the talk page but the discussion seems to be going round in circles, with semantic arguments eg [29] that we must use exactly what the source says. I also took this to WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Ship on a banknote), the discussion there went nowhere instead he resorted to trying to analyse photographs to prove the point.

    After tagging the material for WP:FRINGE and waiting a week for better sourcing I removed it today. Insider has immediately reverted [30] and canvassed on the talk page for other users (apparently admins) to come to his aid [31]. In a breach of WP:TPG the comments are in Russian.

    Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, прошу вас как администраторов английской Википедии, и знающих русский язык, как родной, прокомментировать эту тему. Чьё понимание текста интервью корректное? А то 7 дней, никаких комментариев со стороны оппонента, только продолжение удаления текста.
    Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, I beg you as administrators of the English Wikipedia, and speak Russian as a mother, to comment on the subject. Whose understanding of the text of the interview correct? And then 7 days, no comments from the opponent, only to continue the removal of text.

    He hasn't even tried to engage properly in talk. In response to another user agreeing with me and removing the material Insider continues to claim the author confirmed the story and it isn't just Internet rumour [32].

    Ymblanter has responded to that call, reverting [33],[34] and threatening to block me on my talk page [35]. His allegation that I had reverted 3 times today is untrue, I reverted once and had given no indication that I intended to do so again. Point of fact, I didn't, I immediately went to the talk page. That intervention appears to me to be an abuse of admin privilege. He is now threatening users who disagree on the talk page [36]. Fringe material such as Internet rumour and conjecture is not suitable content for wikipedia, its sad that an admin would intervene to force its incorporation into this article. WCMemail 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, WCM was edit-warring in Arkhangelsk, had to shut up at the talk page since consensus was clearly against him, and now tokk their problems to another article. The editing history is just their, everybody can check whether they have any understanding of Wikipedia policies concerning edit warring. Note that Insider and I are native Russian speakers.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And obvioously I was not going to block WCM myself, just to take them to 3RRN, where they would blocked by another admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that they did not notify me about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that this discussion troubles me. In particular "I will first get you blocked, and then see whether I need to revert" goes deeply against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's neither cordial nor likely to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather high-handed, and arguably baiting ("come on, try me! I'll get you blocked! See if I don't"). The whole debate seems to deeply out of proportion to the obscure question to begin with - even if the ship is on the bank note (rather unlikely) and if this were reliably sourced (as far as I can tell, it's not), it would still be debatable if this is relevant for the article - it might or might not be useful, but it's a marginal improvement, if any. This should certainly not lead to threats and warnings. Let me also point out that neither of you seem to be able to count reverts. Curry, you have two reverts - per "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". The first removal counts. Ymblanter, Curry has two reverts (btw, exactly as many as you now have), but WP:3RR forbids "more than three reverts". "More than three" is four or more, although, of course, multiple reverts are rarely a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed, reverting and keeping it to exactly 3RR to avoid blocking is usually considered to be disruptive. Concerning the discussion on my talk page, this was certainly not the best of my edits today, I overreacted when the user instead of stopping reverting and discussing the issue beyond the "fringe theory" mantra decided to explain to me that they can revert as long as they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Totally agree with Stephan. Ymblanter's behavior has been highly inappropriate. I was borderline about the abusiveness until reading Ymblanter's comment here. Why? Because the baiting and aggressive behavior that Stephan points out is actually being continued in this AN/I report: aggressive ("had to shut up"), threatening ("where they would blocked by another admin"), and even outright childish ("they did not notify me about this thread"). This is unacceptable.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought what was unacceptable was not notifying people of discussions about them here. It says so right at the top of this page. LjL (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a nominator does not notify a person about an AN/I discussion, there is always another user who either points it out to the nominator or performs the notification themselves. It's childish to attempt to use the lack of notification as evidence of misbehavior. It's all the more childish that an administrator complains about not being notified of a discussion in the administrator's noticeboard. Moreover, instead of apologizing or (at least) disengaging, the admin makes a comment about "disappearing" from English WP ([37]), twice ([38]). Is there not a maturity check in the admin process?--MarshalN20 Talk 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think anything else is required of me in this thread, but I was expecting someone to react on the appropriateness of the maturity comment. Nobody did. Fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Ymblanter's claim I did not notify him of this thread, [39] I notified him well in advance of my intention to resort to ANI. Close on 10 hrs in advance and I had the courtesy to ping him to let him know I filed it. WCMemail 02:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved ANI drama watcherTo be frank Ymblanter may have been a teeny tiny bit high handed here, but then again I personally think you should give admins a wide, wide berth seeing all the hassle they have to go through on a daily basis, therefore, Ymblanter should not be blamed. However continuing with the same degree of frankness I can say that the edit war is so, so childish. If you are not a native speaker, just let the native speakers do their bit. If machine translation was as good as it seems we wont need a Russian wikipedia, just click russian on any article and the machine translates it for you. Seeing that such shenanigans are not going on we should just let the experts do their stuff, you don't see me barging into turkish wiki with a bunch of machine translated material in my hand demanding that they accept the "new facts" that I have "uncovered". Good drama anyway, proves that ANI is on par with any soap opera on the Tv. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the English wikipedia so your analogy is utterly irrelevant. I'm not trying to create content either. The fact is the source doesn't back up the claim made, Insider has canvassed to get his mates to strong arm his edit into the article. Ymblanter has abused his admin privileges to intimidate other editors. This is fringe material at best and it's ridiculous the lengths they ate going to force this into the article. And for your information another Russian speaker confirmed that the source doesn't support claim made. WCMemail 11:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I never abused my admin privileges, since I never take any admin action in relation to this article, nor ever promised to take any. It is unfortunate you are repeating all this bullshit all over again. Concerning the Russian text, I read it, and the claim is backed up there. Since I am a Russian speaker and you are not, I do not see how your opinion on the text you can not possibly understand can be of any value.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody around interested in warning WSM that personal attacks are unwelcome on Wikipedia [40]?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are being to thin-skinned in this conflict. Try to de-escalate, not escalate. I've left a corresponding message here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Well, I got more shit thrown on me in these two days than in the rest of the year together.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting ridiculous, arguing from authority that because I'm not a native Russian speaker I can't comment. Well [41], Ezhiki has already commented that the source doesn't back this claim and they are a native Russian speaker. You also claimed that at Talk:Arkhangelsk#500 Ruble Note I was forced to shut up at the talk page, bullshit, I had a perfectly amicable discussion and from the outset was prepared to compromise. I also did not edit war on that article, nor have I edit warred at this article or even come close to 3 reverts. I never gave you any indication that I had any intention to revert again and indicated I would use the talk page [42]. Yet you're still bandying around accustions of edit warring, which is of itself an unwarranted personal attack. This [43] is a direct threat to block me on the basis of a blatantly false accusation of 3 reverts. So here we have an admin abusing their admin priveliges to force dubious material into an article, asserting that no one else is permitted to comment, threatening to block on the basis of a false allegation and continuing to fling mud at an editor with gay abandon to cover up the fact they were acting in a completely inappropriate manner. Stop the personal attacks via false allegations and stop misrepresenting what the source says. WCMemail 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, stopping these false accusations would be a very good start to de-escalate the conflict. WCMemail 13:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff you mentioned Ezhiki said that the MK diff is insufficient to support the claim, not that the MK article says it is wrong. This is exactly the same thing I myself written on the Libertad talk page before the shitstorm started. This is a weak claim (since it is only one article, and it only sites the artist, and the artist himself kind of confirms but does not expand much), but nevertheless it is a valid claim, and the discussion on the talk page should be about whether this statement supported by this valid claim should be in the article and if it should then what wording should be used, not about that I am a liar, that I abuse my admin privileges or that the claim is made up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, I still fail to see how edit-warring in an article can be an entirely appropriate reaction. This is not, and indeed we have a policy on edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop making false accusations of edit warring, they're unwarranted and completely inappropriate. Again your threat to block [44] was an abuse of admin privelige. And we've gone from the "source validates the claim, respect my authority" to the source "kind of confirms"; "kind of" is not good enough. Removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced material is directed by WP:V "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I have repeatedly asked for a reliable source and waited patiently for one to be provided, ignoring a series of personal attacks from yourself and Insider. Yet all along your response has been to claim the source is adequate, demanding we respect your superior language skills, yet plainly by your own admission now the source isn't up to it as I've said all along. WCMemail 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid I need to stop at this point. You are obviously unable or unwilling to understand what I write.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be sure that we are all on the same page (especially the two of you ;-): I've seen two quite different claims. (a): The ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a statement about the banknote(s)). and (b): There are internet rumours according to which the ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a claim about the existence of these rumours). Can you make clear which source you think does or does not support which of the two different claims? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one source I know of, this is the MK article. It says that (a) there were interet rumours it is Libertad; (b) the artist confirmed that it is indeed Libertad, since he was just has taken a nice ship from a photo, not knowing the ship has never been to Arkhangelsk. To be precise, the artist does not say "Libertad" in the two sentences which are quoted, he says "this ship", but the context of the article makes it clear it is Libertad (or at least unless the quote is misplaced). Furthermore, this is a reliable source, however, (i) there is only one source saying it is Libertad, one other RS (the Central Bank of Russia) just calling it "ship", and a number of sources, none of which is reliable, saying this is Sedov; (ii) MK is a tabloid, and does not have the same credibility as academic sources; (iii) it is up to discussion whether this info, even though backed by a RS, needs to be in the article at all, and if it is, where and how it should be presented. I do not have strong opinions on (iii); in Arkhangelsk, the implemented solution (not calling the ship Sedov and not calling it Libertad) is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again this is misrepresenting the source, the artist doesn't confirm it is the Libertad. Based on the vague reply by the artist they are inferring he does but he does not explicitly. He then goes on to rubbish the idea of secret signs or gaffes. The source doesn't support the claim to an acceptable standard for wikipedia. Ymblanter admits as much above with his kind of remarks above. The only thing the source is good for is asserting there are Internet rumours and we don't as a rule include fringe material of this nature in articles. WCMemail 16:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to reply to this, but whatever I do now would cause another shitstorm. I would rather shut up and see what others have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wee Curry Monster, yes, the artist does basically confirm it is the Libertad. It was put on the 500 ruble note in the 1990s in artwork that featured the port of Arkhangelsk. MK says the ship has been identified as the Libertad and people wonder if its appearance on there stems from some economic goodwill between the two countries. The artist said there is no hidden meaning to be read, and what really happened was that he was originally using a steamer in his draft but the Central Bank disliked that idea, so he substituted a sailing ship instead. He says he drew the ship based on a photograph and says he had no idea it was a vessel that had never been to Arkhangelsk. Considering this must be the biggest gaffe of his career, he seems to be the most reliable source possible on how this all happened. If it had not been the Libertad, the artist would have responded much differently, for example, saying it was not the Libertad after all or was based on the Sedov or some other ship. He most certainly would not have referred to it as a "ship that had never been to Arkhangelsk" if there was any doubt that it could have been. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a ridiculously long discussion about something that is not clear and on which Wikipedia must not make a conclusion. I'm surprised that Ymblanter claiming to be a native speaker can't help us here. That said, while my Russian, once fairly fluent, these days is a little rusty , I read Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал the same as the Google translation: I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw, and therein lies the ambiguity: Крылкова does not state that 'the' photo is one of the Libertad. Our Wikpedia must report what might be according to sources, the 3r (if there was one) is stale already so let's now pour some oil on these waters and let the ship sail away in peace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The important detail is in the following line where he says, "How could I have known it (the ship in the photo) hadn't been to Arkhangelsk?" This is clear in context that he is discussing the Libertad, which has never been to Arkhangelsk. Any other ship could potentially have been to Arkhangelsk. The Libertad on the other hand has been ruled out as having ever been there. This is WP:IAR common sense here. At best it's "citation needed" but this certainly does NOT fall under WP:FRINGE. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I added additional sources. This info has been published by currency museums in Moscow and the Crimea, and by a Saint Petersburg collectibles journal that has been around 20 years[45]. This is just not WP:FRINGE. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Wikimandia for adding additional sources, I first looked for additional sources myself unsuccessfully before I tagged the material. I'm afraid that I agree with Kudpung that the MK source is neither reliable enough or explicit to make the conclusion originally made. WCMemail 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am cool if someone wants to close this, once the sources requested were provided the drama went away. WCMemail 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wee Curry Monster: done. Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive, edit warring editor

    Damianmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Has little more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, virtually sole purpose (apart from a few edits) being to edit war,[46]-[47]-[48]-[49]-[50]-[51]-[52], ignoring the voice of the majority,[53] removing content wherever he can,[54]-[55]- and making further disruptive edits conform his agenda. Just as of some seconds ago, additionally, I reverted a blatantly disruptive edit by an IP, after which User Damianmx instantly hopped in and reverted my edit loaded with a WP:BATTLEGROUND summary, accusing me of "pov-pushing" even though the article clearly states its part of the definition, and the IP his edit was clearly disruptive.

    The user is clearly not here to built this encyclopedia conform the expected standards. Though me and User:Jaqeli have warned him on numerous occassions to cease his activities, and left him a warning on his page as well,[56] he simply does not listen and continues to edit war and make disruptive edits.

    I also don't believe he's a new user either, for someone with little more than 100 edits having such a stance and behavioural editorial pattern, which includes the copy-pasting of material from peoples' user pages/contributions list (content from prior to his registration here, which is a mere 5 days ago), in order to fuel his arguments. The only useful action appropriate here, as he ignores litteraly everything and continues to be a disruptive nuisance to the community and Wikipedia's content, is moderator intervention.

    Edit; Literally, as of some seconds ago he reverted another user again who reverted his disruptive edits, conform his WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:WAR standards. [57] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I just noticed, he violated WP:3RR as well. [58]-[59]-[60]-[61]. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment:I have notified the editor whom you are reporting about. Please note that it is necessary to notify the editor whom you are reporting. Thanks Ayub407talk 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is evident from Louis's edit history and multiple talk-page entries that his work on wikipedia is narrowly focused on promoting Iran/Persia by arbitrarily inserting items related to this topic into various articles. Recent examples of this manic behavior: [62] [63] [64] Louis' Iran/Persia promotion is often done at the expense of article readability and creation of multiple run-on sentences that are bloated with WP:UNDUE Persia information. Here's a prime example of a Persia-bloated run-on sentence favored by Louis:

    To ensure its survival as a Christian kingdom being threatened for centuries by their Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Iranian suzerains, the eastern-Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, being the most dominant Georgian power at that time, led by Heraclius II found itself able to abjure any dependence on Persia or any other power by signing the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783...

    None of the Persia-focused narrative was discussed either by Louis or user Jaqeli prior to when they were originally inserted. These items are promotional in nature and unwarranted in articles of limited scope, particularly as there are separate history pages specifically dedicated to these topics. When I provided my reasoning regarding above edits with Louis and user Jaqeli, they failed to furnish reasonable explanations for the current text and limited their responses to condescending remarks about me being an unestablished user. This is not surprising considering that Louis has a history of personal attacks, about which he has been warned. Having two like-minded users (Louis and Jaqeli) bullying one editor (Me) does not establish a consensus, particularly as they are unwilling to provide clear reasoning beyond "I just don't like it", "You're a POV-pusher", "You're an inexperienced user and you should just stop"--Damianmx (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its interesting why a user who's blatantly and visibly edit warring, ignoring the voice of the majority/the discussion on a talk page, as well as disruptively editing (as well as violating 3RR; see above) is distorting visible facts here once again. Its not in your profit, believe me. Me and Jaqeli extensively and appropriately explained on the talk page of the Georgians article for why that content should remain. Everyone can read it back. You however ignored all that, and simply continued your habit of edit-warring, which resulted even in a blatant 3RR violation as of today. For a "new user" who registed not more than 5 days ago to have that much violating/unjustified editorial experience and habits on his/her curriculum, as well as a very intriguing knowledge about numerous WP's, it only justifies our doubts (supported by the extensive evidence) that you're clearly not here with an honest and legit reason to edit. For that much being a disruption to Wikipedia's integrity, community, and content. This user claims to be "new here", but already copy-pastes content from other people's talk page from events that took place prior to his registration on Wiki, in a futile attempt to boost his dishonest arguments. Very, very intriguing. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the diffs Damianmx gave in order to distort reality (even though I'm absolutely not obliged giving responses to that, as its from a happening prior to his registration on Wiki and already dealt with), and an attempt to switch the channel from his eminemt violations (incl. 3RR, etc etc.);
    - I dropped 8 top sources written by numerous historians right after this edit. (Of course he wont link that diff here.)
    - This edit was a reversion of pretty clear disruption which had included the blanketing of content that was not included in his/her edit summary, the removal of core categories, nor did it include any counter-sourcing.
    - And regarding the last attempt; All of Eastern Armenia (which includes Yerevan) was under the Persian sway until 1722,(Armenian historian George Bournoutian, Eastern Armenia in the last decades of Persian rule, 1807-1828, Undena Publications, 1982, ISBN 978-0890031230, page 8]). The guy in question in the article, was born in 1710, in Yerevan,(The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the eighteenth century to modern times. Vol. 3, Wayne State University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0814332214 page 49) which is thus during the Persian rule, and thus, the category, (Category:Persian Armenians) was completely justified. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the report! This user has been variously informed and warned on his damaging performances, but there have been no betterments. He has also violated the three-revert rule today.
    –Rye-96 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rye-96, it is very sweet of you to vouch for Louis but, unfortunately, as a fellow Iran/Persia promoter, who has been subject to multiple controversies and edit wars, you are not in a position to pass judgement on the quality my performance or to provide unbiased opinion in this matter. Did Louis call on you to write this comment? If so, it would not be surprising, considering that he was encouraging other users to come to this board, all the while he did not even bother to inform me, as he is required. That says something doesn't it? --Damianmx (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That "other user" (Jaqeli) whom you erraneously label, is unfortunately involved in your mess as well. I simply left him a note to comment here as he surely has something to say too, given that he's also strongly dissatisfied with your disruptive/edit warring editorial pattern on the Georgian-related pages, and given that he is simply directly involved in this. Furthermore, he's mentioned here in the discussion, so it was a must. User Ayub was simply ahead of me and dropped the notification on your page just a few minutes ahead, and I thanked him for that. It was minutes prior to me leaving a notification on involved user Jaqeli's page furthermore.[65]-[66]. Baseless and failed allegation of canvassing and personal attacks here, now against User:Rye-96 as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damianmx: What do you mean "Iran/Persia promoter"? That's a strange phraseology, dear. What is it about Iran that you believe I've been trying to promote? All my efforts have been about improvement for the articles relevant to my knowledge and study, and removal of the nationalism and religionism which has been unfortunately not rare in West Asian and Caucasian topics.
    I think you are exaggerating by using the word multiple, but I do agree that I've had my own wrong experiences where I have always faced the outcomes and I've been guided.
    Although I didn't come here to side with anyone, I don't see any problem with cooperating with the Wikipedia community to solve a problem. We're all here to improve the contents provided in the encyclopedia; that's what it is all about.
    –Rye-96 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I was involved in the beginning of the dispute and therefore I am not going to take any action, but some resolution is needed--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu

    Spshu has engaged in edit wars several times over a few years, and has been blocked five times for the same offense, just on different pages:

    Not too long after the current block took effect, Spshu left an unblock request on his talk page that seems little more than a thinly-veiled personal attack directed at me. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. He has also shown retaliatory, even uncivil, behavior in the links presented above and on his talk page - some good examples are as follows:

    I then took up, with KrakatoaKatie, why she didn't indef him if he had been edit warring for a long time, and she told me to bring it here, so I did. We cannot have such a toxic editor on Wikipedia.

    Thus, I am proposing a block/ban on Spshu for long-term edit warring and incivility, based on all the above evidence. If any of you support such a block/ban, or oppose it, please reply. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like some community input about this block. Electricburst1996 urged me to indef Spshu and I declined. His behavior on his talk page, however, has me reconsidering. Katietalk 20:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't give input on the bock itself but, as far as this conversation goes, Electricburst1996 starting a conversation about someone during a time when he or she knows Spshu is unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish. My recommendation would be to table/shelve this whole talk until he is able to come defend himself. I'm surprised the admins involved here (Liz, Katie), never stopped to consider that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what Liz said just below this, you will find that she did in fact stop to consider it. LjL
    You mean where she responded by saying she wouldn't respond and then continued to respond after saying she wouldn't? Ya, I read that. Not much of a consideration.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, I don't like giving an indefinite block to an editor while they are on a temporary block and can't respond to this complaint. It's due to expire soon so I will look for his response to these statements.
    Electricburst1996, please provide some diffs/links in your complaint so we don't have to search for the comments Spshu made. It's usually important to see the context of the remarks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Links provided. Click on the comments for the source of them. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was looking at what seems to at least be the latest incidents between these two users, that on Laff (TV network). The page history shows that they had both been edit warring, but that it started with Spshu removing unsourced material, and Electricburst1996 reinstating it based on the fact that "no one" (else!) had expressed any concern. The edit war later continued, with further reinstatement of content on the ground that "other TV articles are as unsourced". Spshu correctly brought up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, i was always my understanding of policy that challenged unsourced material should not be reinstated without a source once it is removed. So, even though perhaps one use and not the other technically went over WP:3RR during this incident, I do not see Spshu acting any more inappropriately than Electricburst1996 at all; quite the contrary. LjL (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @LjL: Thanks for bringing up the other side of the issue, but this is not about the most recent incident; rather, it's about a string of similar incidents over a long period of time. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electricburst1996: Per policy, anyone can bring up anything in an ANI thread and you are not allowed to say that the thread is only about something else. I would like to know your response to what LjL has brought up. Why did you put the unsourced material back and why did you then edit war regarding it? Please explain.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it removed an entire section. I was trying to find a firsthand source that supported the entire section, but I had no luck. I guess it was my own hubris... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya... I'm gonna go remove the unsourced section (the entire unsourced section) and, if you ever find a source, you can put it back at that time.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good! I see you found one... and from October! So it would have been there when you were edit warring saying you were looking for one when clearly you really weren't or you would have found it at that time. This whole thing just keeps getting more and more phoney.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to this getting "more and more phoney..." Good God, Electricburst1996! Like... WOW!!!!!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In looking at it, this entire thing was handled incorrectly by not only Electricburst1996 but, also by Katie. Electricburst never should have reverted in the first place (he or she had no right to... ever). User:Spshu attempted a talk page discussion which Electricburst then deleted. Katie then blocked the guy before he ever had a chance to defend himself over at the 3RR board, even though everything I just said was right there waiting for her to see... y'know... if she'd taken the time to look, which she clearly didn't. I'm not saying "two wrongs make a right" (and Spshu was definitely in the wrong with the edit warring) but, at least he tried to do things properly (and was right to delete the unsourced info in the first place). Electricburst has done nothing but cause problems since this issue started (and is still doing it by starting a conversation here about an editor he or she knows can't defend themselves in)! Katie, I recommend you re-think this block you were too quick to instate. It's not making me trust your qualifications/ability to be an administrator.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) :Spshu will be able to step in sometime tomorrow. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's kind of the point, the discussion was timed so that he would not be able to defend himself, that he will be unblocked at a later time is a very weak cop out. This report is nothing more than the latest in a plethora of examples that your behavior has been unacceptable, and looks like WP:GAMING, pure and simple. I can't see any reason why you should not be blocked for disruptive behavior and edit-warring per the evidence that you yourself have provided. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow..., indeed, @Electricburst1996: you must certainly have a very good explanation for deleting the discussion that was started on the article's talk page without even an edit summary?! Because that sort of thing is outright unacceptable. At this point I don't really care about the rather long and confusing list of not-clearly-abusive diffs that you posted, but your behavior during this latest incident with Spshu raises very deep concerns. LjL (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted it because I interpreted it as a personal attack against me, rather than an attempt to discuss the content of the page. And as for the list of diffs, I was trying to demonstrate any warnings and discussions levied against the user in question. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Electricburst1996: Hmm, please help me understand this better... Exactly what part(s) of this post by Spshu did you consider a "personal attack against [yourself]"?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was copied verbatim from a warning he left me on my talk page, and the message is specifically directed at me. It's more about that than anything else. Nowhere in that message does it indicate that the user wants to improve the page in any way, shape or form, and all in all, the article talk page is just the wrong forum for the kind of message he left. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's the right forum, as it's an article-related issue and complaint, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a very legitimate concern with your edit that restored unsourced material. In any case, you removed the message from both the article talk page and your own user talk page (at least, this latter you are allowed to do). This is not a tenable defense. LjL (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya! And then Katie chose to block Spshu (and is now considering an indef block for him as well) but, chose to do nothing with Electricburst1996?! I'm hoping Katie has "a very good explanation" for that!!!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, what I can see from Spshu's talk page and follows-up to his unblock requests is that there is probably some language barrier. But the editor has been around for a decade, with the first several years seeing no blocks. From that to an indef... something must have happened, and I'm not altogether sure it's all the editor's fault. LjL (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he has been blocked five times for the same offense so far... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electricburst1996: You also have a history of being blocked in the past for edit warring.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is all you have you say after being asked for a good explanation to your removal of talk page comments (thus hiding the fact that the other party had tried to discuss the matter)? At this point, I definitely think you should have a good WP:BOOMERANG coming towards you. LjL (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking the same.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, both editors should have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. clpo13(talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. I agree now that an indef is inappropriate, and the original block has now expired. Spshu had been blocked twice before for 72 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations. What about an IBAN for Spshu and Electricburst1996? Would that help fix this behavioral problem or possibly make the situation worse? Katietalk 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I think at this point Electricburst1996's behavior should be investigated in further detail before an action is decided (and, hey, I did my part), because there are signs of maliciousness, such as the mentioned deleting of article talk page comments. You engage in an edit war and you remove the comments that the other party makes on the article talk page to try to discuss the issue? That's as unacceptable as any behavior on Wikipedia can get, and not possibly done in good faith. Aoidh above also mentions the possible existence of other serious past issues with Electricburst1996 so maybe they want to provide some evidence of that. LjL (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that borders on libel. Most of my edits have been in good faith and are relatively constructive. If you want to investigate, just do yourself a favor and go through my contributions history. All of my contribs from before 2014 are from when I was relatively new to the site, then I forgot about the account for a while. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't "border on libel" to state the obvious, i.e. that removing article talk page comments like that is utterly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. If you think I'm libeling you, make a report against me. LjL (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was, the part suggesting there are serious past issues with me borders on libel. I should have clarified that. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Well, that's not something I've claimed, though, it just seems like Aoidh's claim above. I don't presently know whether it's true or not, but given the current circumstances, their claim should be investigated. LjL (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There really isn'y any such thing as "libel" here at the ANI board, Electricburst1996. This is the second time now (1) that I'm showing you the policies regarding this page. I suggest you read that thoroughly (and quickly).Cebr1979 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Spshu's block has expired, then he's done his time and his debt is repaid, as far as I'm concerned. Any further action would just be continuing the childishness of it all. If (Hopefully: When) Electricburst1996 gets a boomerang out of all this, that can be dealt with at that time. In the name of fairness, however, Spshu should be issued an apology by you, Katie. You were wrong to block him without giving him a chance to defend himself first (he should have at least been able to say something) and, above all else, you should have looked into the matter before acting.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an IBAN would help greatly. But how do IBANs work on a technical level? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the two of you wouldn't be allowed to talk to or about each other. Have you two ever encountered each other prior to this incident, though? If not, an IBAN is premature and unwarranted.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a flare-up at The Disney Afternoon over the Disney-Kellogg Alliance name, which I felt shouldn't be included. I think between that and this, there is sufficient grounds for an IBAN. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not sufficient grounds for an IBAN, those are examples of two people with opposing views sharing similar interests. In my experience, Electricburst1996, when an editor is quick to jump on the IBAN bandwagon it's because they're thinking something along the lines of, "Yippee! That sounds great! Then if I get there first, he can't revert me no matter what!" which is not the purpose of an IBAN. Once Spshu does join this thread (and hopefully he does), there will most likely be a boomerang for you, which will be supported by many. My advice to you is throw in the towel now and back away.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If he does join, the argument will probably heat up to the extent where I just can't do it anymore. Might as well give up while I still can... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that's best for you to attempt (I say "attempt" because it's probably already too late but, for you, I do believe that it's in your best interest to at least give backing away a try).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BOOMERANG for User:Electricburst1996

    I was prepared to let this go and let Spshu do it himself (if he ever decides to return after his bogus block) but, today Electricburst1996 has just picked up right where he or she left off yesterday (albeit, on a different page). I think the indef block Electricburst1996 tried to get for Spshu is warranted for Electricburst1996 (complete with the revoked talk page access he or she requested). Electricburst1996 just doesn't wanna seem to leave this guy alone!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. edit warred [67] [68] [69] [70] over 3RR, at least as much as the user who got blocked, Spshu
    2. removed the discussion that Spshu had tried to start about the issue from the article's talk page (as well as from his own talk page, which he is allowed to do, but which dismisses any argument about removing it from the former because it was "too personal")
    3. asked an admin to change Spshu's block for edit warring into indefinite, and insisted about it on being requested to take it to ANI
    4. also asked the admin to revoke Spshu's talk page access (potentially silencing him completely), while the ANI report had already been filed
    5. meanwhile, claimed in this ANI report that Spshu could defend himself after his block was over, despite the two attempts to prevent that described above
    6. confessed to the admin involved that he didn't "think everything through" at this report
    I am having a lot of difficulty attributing good faith to this series of events. Given the editor claims to be autistic and some commentators below seem more familiar with those issues than me, I'm open to some kind of mentorship or "soft" boomerang, but I really do not think it should simply be brushed off. LjL (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, the reason I removed the discussion from the article's talk page was because I felt that it was too personal for that namespace. In no way, shape, or form did the editor bring up any problems with the page, nor did he bring up any solutions to those problems. All he did was post the exact same message he left on my talk page (which was where he posted it first) verbatim. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The original post is right here and it did do everything you're saying it didn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It brought up very valid concerns with your edits on that article, so it was appropriate to post on the article's talk page, and quite possibly on your own, but you deleted it from both. And then you brought him to ANI while he was blocked, to get him more blocked, even though there was recent glaring misbehavior from your side. LjL (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, LjL, but, even after you explained all of that to Electricburst1996 yesterday, he or she still went back to the Talk:Laff (TV network) page today and acted like your explanation had never happened. For me, that was the "seal of the deal" regarding this boomerang (and that's not even getting into this attempt to pass off the blame EB'96 made after that)... *Although, in fairness, I will state that EB'96 removing it from his or her own talk page is perfectly fine and Spshu should NOT have put it back.*Cebr1979 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I guess I'll just do a WP:VANISH... I guess this incident outweighs all my constructive contributions up to this point... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I should come forward and say this now... I am holding myself 100% responsible for this whole ordeal. I shouldn't have done what I had done, and at the time, I simply had no idea any of this would happen. I learned the consequences of my actions the hard way. I'm sorry for dragging all of you into a bloated mess that developed from what could have been easily resolved in a matter of minutes had I not acted out the way I did, and I will also leave Spshu alone from here on in. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 04:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Maybe not an indefinite block, but the editor's actions do not contribute to a collaborative editing environment and is a net negative for Wikipedia. Their comment, "I guess this incident outweighs all my constructive contributions up to this point" sums up the need for the block perfectly. Any editor that feels they are permitted this type of behavior simply because they have made useful contributions previously is not one that needs to be an editor. While I don't see a need for an indefinite block, the need to reduce likely future problems from this editor suggests a block is needed here, given that the behavior continued after it was pointed out that the behavior was inappropriate. I'm not buying the whole "oh now that there's a block discussion about me I'm suddenly sorry I'll stop" comment they made above, given that they said something similar here and instead of ceasing, just continued elsewhere. - Aoidh (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaming the administrator that blocked Spshu for their actions only reinforce the need for a block, because they clearly don't get it. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my apology based on what was left on my talk page here. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I will say this, as someone familiar with autism and asperger's syndrome, this is classic behavior. It's the theatrics. It's as if they are in a play, and they can't let go of the character they have created for themselves. Obviously, they made a mistake, and they should have the appropriate response for said action. What would help more, though, is for a more experienced editor to take them under their wing, and explain with no ambiguity what is and is not allowed for given situations. Ambiguity is an autistic person's mortal enemy. Give them an inch, and they will hang themselves with it. Being as blunt and clear as possible is the most beneficial way to deal with someone on the spectrum. I only hope Electric can see that their behavior, and clinging to this martyr mentality will only further hurt him, not help. As I said on their talk page, accept that you screwed up, drop the sword, and learn from it. Anything else won't fly. --Tarage (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but blaming this editor's behavior on autism is a disservice to the many other Wikipedia editors who are on the autism spectrum and somehow manage to not use it as an excuse. I also note that Electricburst has not himself attempted to hide behind these and perhaps @Tarage was trying to prevent them from being used as an excuse? Dkendr (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarage: Comment on content, not the contributor. We are not interested in what your "familiarity" with autism/Asperger's Syndrome has led you to conclude. Your comments are generalizations; regardless of what you supposedly "know" about autism/Asperger's, you don't know Electricburst1996 personally, and as such, I would highly recommend that you strike-thru your offensive comments. GJC 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor lists on their userpage that they are on the spectrum. If you don't want my explanations, don't take them. I will not strike through anything. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can see my behavior now. That's why I apologized in the first place. But to see that someone here didn't view it as a sincere apology... that's a bit disheartening. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a sincere apology. You only made it because of a deal between us (a deal you've since broken because you just. can't. stop!).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly (or fortunately, think about thoughtcrime) it's hard to see people's motives in their minds. The thing is, from my point of view at least, that you seem to have machinated something against the other user by doing things like removing their comments to make it seem like they didn't try discussing, and attempting to get administrators to silence them so they couldn't denounce what was going on here. Now you're apologizing, but it's difficult to tell whether that's another step in your "thinking everything through" (your words) or a genuine apology. I understand it's disheartening. LjL (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me explain my motives for removing the other user's comments... I removed it from the article's talk page because I felt that it was too personally charged, and I removed the exact same message from my talk page because I felt it was too harshly worded. I tried to get KrakatoaKatie to silence him because of his unblock request, which I viewed not as a legitimate request, but a personal attack against me, despite some legitimate complaints - why don't you read his request and decide for yourself? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it, and I see it not as a personal attack but as analyzing your actions and trying to explain why they weren't appropriate - something quite understandable, as we're now here doing the same, as it's not often something that works in unblock requests (as it didn't). I have of course also read the things you removed from both talk pages, and they were a neutral request to cease inappropriate editing while citing the relevant policies; nothing wrong with that. If that's "too harshly worded" I'm afraid that's your issue, because it, quite plainly, isn't. LjL (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Edit warring and silencing other people is the polar opposite of what we are doing here. There are people tasked with oversight who can delete, from the history, anything libelous or harmful. None of these comments fall under that umbrella. This user has posted an "apology", yet still does not understand that it isn't their duty to silence other people, even if it is "personally charged". I endorse a time out. Please also reference LjL's fine post above for more information--Adam in MO Talk 12:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Alec Smithson

    I believe it's time to ask for review of my interactions with Alec Smithson, who has repeatedly accused me of vandalism, personal attacks, and stalking (diff diff diff diff diff diff, plenty more on request). If there's merit in his accusations, this stops here, read no further, I accept … well, whatever it is that I need to accept.

    But if not: I started looking at some this editor's contributions after this note was left on my talk page (on the same day that Alec Smithson was indeffed on it.wp – his previous blocks on that wikipedia were for socking and copyright violation).

    I found, as time went on:

    In general, cleaning up and verifying his contributions has been a massive timesink for numerous editors; I'm not sure that the project has gained anything from his presence here. Stalk toy shows that the French, Italian, German, Latin, Dutch and Swedish Wikipedias have all decided they're better off without him. Is it time for us to follow suit? This may also be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The apparent unwillingness to acknowledge copyright and attribution problems (which I see extends to other language Wikipedias) alone is enough to show this user is a problem. Given the amount of time and good faith spent attempting to assist this user with policies and contributing in grammatically correct English, I'm beginning to think that it's time to apply WP:CIR. clpo13(talk) 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at his talk page, I'm not sure his language skills are up to par for the English Wikipedia. There was a lot of comments I could not make sense of. But he hasn't edited since you posted the ANI notice on his talk page and I'd like to hear his response to your complaint, to see if he acknowledges making mistakes. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers, it is true I have some grammatical improprieties at times, but the lyrics are then always in the correct time in the form. I always reported the facts of historical and documented with sources wherever possible. I have not deleted traces but correct situations once reported. I have always acted in good faith in the interest of history, truth and knowledge. Often I found myself in front of some people who knew nothing of the known facts, as they did not know who he was as a designer Castiglioni ... and yet not even write the reasons obliterated my speech without any real reason and without considering that this was done with sources.

    A user Justlettersandnumbers in particular I was always attacked and attacked you can see that it's always him, disputing and deleting my integrations although sources without even write comments of the reasons he did so without ever opening a discussion and this for me is his vandalism subsidiaries. He took advantage of the situation to its greater ability to use the vehicle wikipedia and I admit my weakness grammar, trying to speculate on any fact to create prejudices against me of the whole community. This person specializes in goats and other skills, and of course in his objections. It never opened a discussion, and with speeches tautological always tried to make me look bad unfairly without depth. You can see that my actions sometimes weak in English grammar are always well written and very hard with good compositions and sources of structure. NEVER EVER I REPEAT Justlettersand Numbers has opened discussions, I ask you to look at an example Lierna Castle opened against me a copyright violation but it was only a translation but not identical free, one-page wikipedia other language I tried to fix it in time completely changing but without success. Check LIERNA CASTLE. That made the page is not usable for a long time and now only partially. Also, the quote here the has made only out of spite to put me always in a bad light by creating prejudice against me by the whole community. I have always worked with form errors that I corrected in time in good faith and with good will but not concealing adoperandomi to correct errors if there were warnings. Pernso that personal attacks, creations of bias for personal reasons, never open discussions, delete entries with sources several times without even comment on the reason and create prejudices is not in the regulations of wikipedia. --Alec Smithson (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I also wonder who is open a signal officer on how to intervene with Justlettersandnumbers cancellations arbitrary and unjustified unkind to Justlettersand, against those who create texts. If you check the way he acted, not only with me, also often it intervenes with presumption of facts of which he knows nothing, as the Italian design when he specializes on goats, making him lose a lot of time with the obvious and he made clear and important research in his free will by losing all knowledge.

    not a nice way to enhance the energy, the commitment and knowledge of the editors that Justlettersandnumbers. 

    --Alec Smithson (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On copyright: despite the protestations above, the content posted without attribution at Lierna Castle by Alec Smithson with this edit on 21 October 2015 is (with minimal changes) a Google translation of it:Castello di Lierna. Alec Smithson has never edited that page, so is not the author of the content. He also posted a French translation of it here, equally without attribution. Copying Wikipedia content without attribution is a form of copyright violation (see, for example, this discussion). The editor had already been advised of this here, here and here, so I blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. The editor still did not provide attribution. Since another editor was trying in good faith to work on the page, I finally provided the attribution myself yesterday and removed the copyvio template. However, all other substantive edits of this editor should ideally be checked for similar problems; that I'm already aware of, Battle of the Three Mountains contains some copying from it:Battaglia dei Tre Monti, and Fernando Carcupino started out as a Google translation of it:Fernando Carcupino. Neither page on it.wp was written by Alec Smithson, neither page here carries attribution.
    On dubious or deceptive edits: (1) Smithson re-adds Carlo Bazzi to Art collection of Fondazione Cariplo even though he has already been told that it holds none of his work; (2) the two references in Fernando Carcupino are copied from Brera Academy, where I added them with this edit; neither of them has any mention of, or conceivable relevance to, Carcupino. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely second the concerns raised about the competence and conduct of Alec Smithson and of his proliferating contributions to English Wikipedia. Whether he writes everything in Italian and then uploads inadequate machine-translations to articles and discussion pages, such as this one, or his rambling reflects a chaotic thought process I can't discern: the point is that his editing in English, when not copyvio'd, is at best consistently and substantially below the minimum standard for valuable contribution to this encyclopedia and, at worst, simply incomprehensible. His work is not improving. He continues to assert that the problem is primarily his critic, not his contributions, so he is unlikely to improve: acknowledging imperfect English while contesting or ignoring objections to the repeated exaggeration, fabrication and/or manipulation of facts and misuse of sources to conceal lack of verification and original research reflects a commitment to behavior that flouts the principles and standards of Wikipedia. On other wikis and here he has made it clear: he won't stop unless stopped. I've challenged his edits as spuriously sourced repeatedly, and expressed my view that he should no longer be allowed to contribute to the project here. FactStraight (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I believe that Alec Smithson's reply above illustrates as well as anything could just what the nature of the problem is here: he does not have a sufficient grasp of English to interact and communicate with other editors; his apparent total indifference to any and all advice given may well be due to failure to understand it.

    Not without hesitation, I propose that Alec Smithson be indefinitely blocked from editing here until and unless he can demonstrate (1) competence in English and (2) understanding of our policies, particularly those relating to copyrights and to verifiability. We simply cannot tolerate an editor who repeatedly ignores copyright requirements and adds dubious or hoax content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake: Carlo Bazzi is in Art collection of Fondazione Cariplo, Carcupino is an artist inside and artist with the oggicial award of italian government: Knighthood of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic for artistic merit by the President of the Italian Republic.

    Fake: I had more then the minimum standard for valuable contribution to this encyclopedia and in the end my text is easy to understand. And you never try to Correct only to destroy with vandalism. Fake: I never ignoring objections, Justlettersandnumbers erase text and never oper a talk page and reason also when are present several references. Fake: I never build original fact. --Alec Smithson (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Defense

    Please don't block me.

    a. to. it's true I have a deficiency in English syntax, but all my texts in the end I have been corrected with the support of other publishers, always. b. I never violated copyright is a false accusation, sometimes after asking to directors if it was accepted (I track) I translated other languages ​​wikipedia, sometimes I have not shown it to be a translation because I did not know how to do and never me explained how to make Justlettersandnumbers also my request. I did not insist in understanding this because translations, often texts I realized, were free and as such were not the same and are often partial texts. I never violated copyright law even if false accusations magnified about were expressed by Justlettersandnumbers always for personal reasons and attacks against me. One example Lierna Castle where he created a false scaremongering and when I reported it to amminstratori has handled the unlocking page. But first it was a block and then ran to solve it? This behavior analysis shows that the will is not hit me and do good wikipedia. c. He has always influenced the community at me with accusations tendeziose. d. I always created accounts and references of my texts with great commitment and effort and time. e. is. Justlettersand Numbers has always deleted my texts even when reported multiple sources of references without ever opening discussions, writing the reasons for it. Not even at my request. I believe that this is not the policy of wikipedia believe they are vandalism. f. I understand that my bad English grammar improvement is more easy and obvious, but perhaps does not take into account the harm that a person may do so at wikipedia in silence, wiping more information with historical sources and constantly attacking me personally for personal reasons. Com is that he is always (also fomenting others) to criticize me and others never? g. not in charge no matter whose arrogates knowledge. I've had very often examples such design does not know who Castiglioni. It specializes only in goats and cows. What I ask is not to be judged by this person, with others I have always had an excellent working relationship also of differences. It 'always and only him that I contresta putting me in a bad light, and does so for personal reasons with persecution. Thanks for your attention. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I ask to be blocked Justlettersand Numbers:

    a. rudeness and discourtesy towards me always b. She was always attached to test its communication of apology in which he stated that he exagerated c. not competent editorial and content of arguments in which it operates, specializes in animal husbandry and goats and comes with saccezza without knowing anything about such design did not know who was Castiglioni. is. always cancels primary information made research with specific sources, without opening discussions and often without giving any justification, but only deleting a priori. to request discussions but nothing has opened a dialogue and discussions allowed.

    Think about what behaviors may have with others who do not respond and suffer, doing so hurt wikipedia. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC) --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re the preceding section, "Legal threat on my talk page"

    Copyright violation removed. No admin action needed at this time. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There's a little more to this than meets the eye. User:Sheik Way-El was clearly out of line with a legal threat, but he has a point. The article says they "face east when praying, regard Friday as their holy day, and call their god Allah and their leader Prophet. But the similarities to mainstream Islam end there. Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork. They don't pray five times a day or travel to Mecca, and their religious book deals more with Jesus than Muhammad.". Two points. (1) That quote in its entirety is a verbatim copyvio from a story from eight years ago. (2) Members of the Moorish Science Temple are Moslems, so the Quran forbids alcohol and pork (haram). Our article would need some serious sourcing to say they defy the Quran. I am removing the copyvio. Moriori (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you're going to remove the source and then say it's unsourced??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I said "I am removing the copyvio." Moriori (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And who is this "our" you refer to? John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been here on our wikipedia for more than 12 years and have rarely received such an insult. For the record, I am not moslem and don't contribute to islam/moslem articles. Moriori (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, whoa, let's all try to calm down. The action taken is legit – a copyright violation was removed and the source was challenged. If there are problems, we can discuss them rationally at the talk page or at a content noticeboard, like WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the article where the copyright violation occurred?? —МандичкаYO 😜 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. Moriori (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the source invalid? Is it just because "Muslims don't do that?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's two strikes Bugs. (1) I never mentioned I would remove "the source and then say it's unsourced" and (2) I never mentioned the word "invalid". You should try facts Bugs, or is our encyclopedia just a game for you? Moriori (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shut the hell up already Bugs, your drunk and bigoted again. Get off ANI, go do something productive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is about a "content dispute." This needs to be discussed on the talk page for the article. There are no admin actions that can be taken until discussion there is over. Since this has devolved into a slanging match would someone please close this thread MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Well, there is the accusation of copyvio still and the legal threat which is conditionally withdrawn. I'm kicking myself for not doing what I planned to do which was to attribute the quote. I may be being stupid though but how is a sourced quote copyvio? What was very wrong is the lack of attribution which I now see was suggesting Drew might have said it. The source is [71] and of course there is the question of whether that's a reliable source, which needs to be settled elsewhere.
    I'd like a fuller explanation of how that's copyvio. I thought I understood our policy.
    The legal threat is withdrawn but the reason given is that the quote's been removed. I'm not convinced that further editing won't result in another legal threat. As an aside, I've noted that some of the blocked editor's points need examining. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasnt a copyvio, it was just a poorly written quote. Instead of paraphrasing the Chicago Reader article it quoted it and made it ambiguous whether it was a quote by Drew rather than by Paghdiwala the author of the piece. Not every failure to do a quote right is a copyrights violation. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Maunus

    I demand an interaction ban from the user Maunus, so that he is never allowed to refer to me again -- until or unless he apologizes, recants and disavows his vicious and bogus personal attack: "your [sic] drunk and bigoted again." First, I do not drink. Never have. And the "bigoted" claim is absurd. The guy who claims to be an authority on what Muslims "don't do" reminded me of EgyptAir Flight 990, wherein the pilot crashed his passenger plane into the sea, and in which the Egyptian government said it couldn't be suicide because "Muslims don't do that." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lol. A bigot and a hypocrite then. I demand that Baseball Bugs gets a Ban from ever posting to ANI the rest of his life. I predict it will lower drama levels with 13,9% over a nine year period. I do apologize for calling him drunk, apparently his antics are not chemically induced so he cant claim that excuse.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were drunk I would have liked you more.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pathetic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But its true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying that your best friends are substance abusers, you need to look yourself in the mirror instead of issuing unprovoked attacks against others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @·maunus and Baseball Bugs are you two by any chance, like MARRIED? and can you continue this ........lover tiff...at my talk page? I do not want to miss the drama but you guys seem to be engaging in Personal attacks which may lead to you being banned, me missing the drama and my popcorn going cold. So help save my popcorn please. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure personal attacks are ok if theyre consensual.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to line through your comments, or do I have to do it for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously though Bugs, whenever you feel the urge to "call out a claimant" on ANI, then try to read what the person in question actually wrote, and then if you still feel the urge to call them out, don't. It will make life so much better for everyone, except perhaps the popcorn vendors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Line through your comments. Please. You can accuse me of getting facts wrong. You have no right to accuse me of being a drunkard and a bigot. That's about as low as it gets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can go a lot lower than that. Dont strike through my comments. People can read them and lol anyways, so there is no point. Just try to curb your ANI addiction, the first step is to admit you have a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you could invent additional lies about me or any other user you don't like for unknown reasons. Meanwhile, try to curb your addiction to making unprovoked personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Members of the Moorish Science Temple are Moslems [sic], so the Quran forbids alcohol and pork (haram). Our article would need some serious sourcing to say they defy the Quran." If that isn't original research, I don't know what is. And if the source is not invalid, then what's wrong with it, beyond the complainant not agreeing with it? Get your own facts straight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring a better source for a claim can never be original research. A news paper article is not a particularly reliable source for controversial claims about a religious community, whose members have already taken exception to the claim. And Moriori did not use the argument that muslims dont eat pork, to remove the source and the claim - he argued that it was a copyrights violation. You jumped directly into a discussion that you did not fully understand with a confrontational and agressive stance in exactly the same way that has landed you ANI topic bans and admonishments in the past.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Part 1 of his complaint was to argue it was a copyright violation. Part 2 was an original-research argument that "Moslems" [sic] don't do certain things - so, by implication, the source must be false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that a religious community systematically violate one of their own doctrines does require a strong source. Moslem is perfectly fine spelling in a good portion of the English speaking world and does not require a [sic].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you google the subject, you will discover that "Muslim" is preferred and that "Moslem" is practically obsolete - especially with the typical English pronunciation "MAHZ-lum", which relates to a different and highly offensive word in Arabic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Although they have their own religious text, they do seem to follow Muslim proscriptions for their diet, and there was a court case concerning prison diets that should be mentioned in the article.[72]

    And we seem to have a COI issue and a need to prove identity for this editor, who uses the word "we" and has the same name as the leader of one of the branches of this religion.[73] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's made it clear he won't make legal threats in the future so I've unblocked him and put a COI notice on his talk page. I'm not sure if we need to have him submit identification to OTRS. This seems to be no longer about Maunus, Baseball Bugs, do you want to add a new section heading? Doug Weller (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Huldra and Terrible towel7

    I just blocked Huldra (talk · contribs) and Terrible towel7 (talk · contribs) for flagrant edit warring on As'ad AbuKhalil. I see that the article is under arbitration remedies and sanctions, but I'm pretty lost about what steps need to be taken now that I've done that. Could another administrator more familiar with arbitration enforcement stuff please pick up from here or advise me on what I need to do? Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to unblock Huldra immediately and apologize. If you're not "familiar" with their various relevant rules, don't go off half-cocked. You need to read this, at minimum: WP:ARBPIA3 Dan Murphy (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock yes, apologize .. for what? Arbcom passed both this rule and this other rule without modifying the first rule to take into account the second. Someone should file a WP:ARCA to get it sorted. NE Ent 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_ARBPIA filed. NE Ent 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm what? The first rule clearly says that while reverting IPs is exempt from 1RR, IT IS STILL SUBJECT to the "regular" edit warring rules , and explicitly mentions 3RR in that context. SO even if the first rule was not amended to reflect that the same restriction now applies to edits with less than 500 edits, it obviously still requires compliance with 3RR (for IPs as well as editors with les sthan 500 edist) - Huldra reverted 10 times and violated 3RR - why did you unblock her? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing a search on Terrible towel7's edit history to verify no discretionary sanctions alert is present, I placed the {{ds/alert}} template on their talk page. NE Ent 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right there on the top of the page Huldra was editing (same one the sockpuppet was editing) and all the Arbpia tagged pages, smart guy. ks whatever clearly didn't read it and just likes his blockination fix.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, of course. It couldn't just be a mistake. No, "ks whatever" is clearly on a power trip. clpo13(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Ks0stm. But regardless, I unblocked them with a full explanation. My two pieces of advice: WP:AE is better than revert warring, and someone should update {{ARBPIA}}. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also expanded upon the source of this at the clarification request filed by NE Ent. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've expressed my thoughts at ANEW. Huldra's block was very bad, there was a WP:3RRBLP issue and it was declared as such in the first revert. 10-year clean block log: tainted for a single-purpose likely sock who was adding material that may look highly libelous. LjL (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ^^That is extremely unfortunate. Do admins have a way of purging block logs, I wonder?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the unblocking. I have edited in one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia for over 10 years, without ever getting blocked. That was until Ks0stm came along and ruined my clean block-log. And giving an obvious sock reason to triumph. I´m so furious right now that smoke is coming out my ears (so it feels). Is there any way to clean that block-log? And a dozen WP:TROUT to User:Ks0stm Huldra (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    why would you revdel it? You need to reblock her. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if a reblock is necessary, but an unblock was unwarranted. Regardless if she violated 1RR, which she admittedly did not, she did violate 3RR and should have been blocked for that, and she should have reported the user to editwar or 3rr, her reverting was a violation of 3RR. The ARBPIA ruling of allowing autorevert of those not allowed to comment do now overrule the 3RR rule. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't do both at once. I unblocked because the restriction against new users, which can be enforced "by reverts", was enacted after the 1RR restriction. I therefore think it a more reasonable assumption that the new user restriction supersedes the 1RR restriction. I'm not changing it again unless instructed to at the C&A request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She was reported for violating 3RR, which is what she violated. She is allowed to violated the 1RR ARBCOM in enforcing the ARBCOM new user restriction, UP TO 3RR, once she reverts three times, then regular Wikipedia policy kicks in and she correctly was blocked by you. It says as such at ARBPIA and ARBCOM. She should have reported the other user instead of continuing to revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REVDEL#Log redaction is the pertinent section. This can only be done with ARBCOM approval. So you asked in the right place. -- GB fan 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is hindsight but there should be an edit filter, like at Gamergate controversy, that prevents editors who don't meet the editing restrictions from editing the article. Relying on multiple reverts like this can make the situation confusing unless the admin is up-to-date on developments in the sanctions in this subject area. Is there a reason an edit filter can't be created on the most editing articles? Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. The article / admin ratio here is 8146.2573789847. Admins don't protect articles, editors protect articles -- admins are here to help/protect editors. As much as Huldra was trying to do the right thing -- and as much as the block was quite unfortunate -- they served up a series of seven reverts marked minor; if you're not reverting obvious vandalism you put something in the edit summary, and going mano a mano with another editor is pointless - you come here or WP:BLP/N or the talk page of you favorite admin and get help. NE Ent 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, NE Ent, you're wrong, or you misunderstand me. Huldra did make the claim in her first revert (well, BLP, bop, hardbop...), and when I say "reflects poorly on us" I am not making a comment about rules or notifications or whatever. Plus, she asked for protection, and reported at AIV which is not inappropriate: willful BLP violations are pretty much "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". One can quibble and say she should have done all kinds of other things, and that's what you're doing. BLPN is a noticeboard and not necessarily a cruising ground for administrators, and her favorite admin was probably napping on the job and had their phone on silent (sorry Huldra).

      What I mean, Ent, is that an admin should notice these things going by on Recent changes, for instance; surely I'm not the only one out of us 1700 or whatever admins who looks at that occasionally. And when an admin sees something like that, they should do something. That this wasn't done means that no one was watching and/or no one was paying attention. I think an admin's job is also to watch and to defend the project and its good-faith editors. That doesn't mean that Huldra's sevenfold revert was not pointless (though it sounds very biblical), but certainly we should have paid more attention. I'm not talking about paperwork or whatever; I'm talking about initiative and obligation. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, @Drmies: the only potential "mistake" I can see Huldra as having done is making many reverts when she could have contacted an admin or reported the matter and waited; but it's a mistake that was in no way a breach of rules, it was only a mistake in the sense that it could have caused an admin who wasn't looking at the matter very attentively to block her (which is what happened). So, do you think it would be possible, as suggested, to revdel the block of a very established editor's otherwise clear blocklog? It's obviously important to the editor to have a clean log. LjL (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's above my pay grade, Ljl. What I can do is make a suggestion: if one finds themselves in a situation like Huldra's, use ALL-CAPS in an edit summary to say "HEY ADMINS WAKE UP AND BLOCK PLEASE" or something like that. It's terrible manners, and it looks awful in the article history (so maybe use it in the edit summary on the user's talk page), but sometimes it helps. Drmies (talk)
    A simple "BLP" (on every revert) most likely will suffice, and is less typing. NE Ent 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL, apparently only Arbcom can authorise such a RevDel. The discussion is here: Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (1RR). Begoon talk 23:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for WP:NOTBURO. Well, I think it would be a nice gesture for the blocking admin, Ks0stm, to approach ArbCom and make that request. LjL (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL: I did yesterday. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool! LjL (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're wrong, Drmies. Per WP:Administrators. "Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process. They are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools." (emphasis mine). According to this page, there were 3,104,256 edits in November, or 103,475 per day; given the expectation of administrator activity is minimal, the concept that every edit is screened by an admin isn't feasible, nor is it expected there is 24/7 coverage of the forums WP:AIV et. al. you refer to. (Incidentally, {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 847). In order words, admins are only expected to a) not act like total jerks b) not repeatedly or blatantly screw things up. Putting real life ahead of trying to solve all the problems of wikipedia, or making a good faith error as occurred here, is not a cause for collective self-flagellation. NE Ent 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh Ent. I am sorry I didn't see this happening, and I am sorry that I wasn't there to help a bona fide editor out and prevent a double block, one half of which was unwarranted. You don't have to tell me that admins are volunteers--I happen to be an admin and a volunteer, and I'm not advocating self-flagellation; I'm rather advocating that we pay more attention. You can point at all the statistics you want, but I only have to point at the article history to see that no one noticed it in time. And this is not the first time that the right action is not performed soon enough. I don't know what or who you are trying to defend. Maybe you should run for admin and take on this volunteer job, and then we have admins+1 to help us help editors make edits. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reversion was of an editor who should not have been editing the page in the first place. WP:ARBPIA3 is totally clear on this point. The block of Huldra by Ks0stm was unwarranted. This wikilawyering about WP:3RR is totally disgusting, by the way. WP:ARBPIA3 General Prohibition remedy says: This prohibition may be enforced by reverts.... There is no ambiguity here about Huldra's actions falling within the remedy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the ambiguity was the intersections of their actions and the other remedy, which is why it's being discussed at WP:ARCA now. NE Ent 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no ambiguity. The General Prohibitions remedy obviously supersedes the older one. Ks0stm simply didn't know about the WP:ARBPIA3 remedy and the old template text wasn't updated. It is ok: WP:AGF. I was not referring to Ks0stm in the "wikilawyering" comment. I hope it gets cleared up at WP:ARCA to prevent similar snafus in the future. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also no ambiguity that the actions fall under WP:3RRBLP. You are allowed to make multiple reverts over a BLP violation (and certainly such as seemingly egregious one). There is no need to have a lengthy debate about this. Of course, the fact that the other editor was a sock etcetera just makes the case stronger. LjL (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify; I was in no doubt that this was a BLP-violation, in addition to an ARBPIA3 violation. After my second revert, I asked for semi page-protection here, 23.36. Unfortunately, that was not acted upon until 00.44. (It should be 110% uncontroversial to semi a BLP in the ARBPIA-area; last time I asked for that, I did it 21.22…and the article, Marwan Barghouti, was protected 11 minutes later.) I was named in the 3RR report at 00.02…then blocked at 00.05 (without ever being notified of the 3RR report ) Frankly, I cannot recall anyone being blocked so quickly after a 3RR report.

    If admins here had reacted as quickly to the page-protection, as they did to the 3RR, we would never have had this problem: that would have stopped Terrible towel7 ‎editing the article. (Yes: he is *that* “new” an editor.) And yeah; I should have been clearer that it was a BLP (I´m a horrble speler). And I was late in reporting it to WP:AIV (there were several edit-conflicts there). However, this could also have been avoided *if* all the “steps” in 3RR had been followed: the reported editor is supposed to be notified. I never was. If I had been, I would have explained the situation. There is a reason why the set-up on 3RR is as it is.

    If I should ask for anything, it would be more admin eyes on WP:RPP, and note that ARBPIA3 gives you the right to indefinite semi-protect any article under ARBPIA (not only BLPs). (Oh, and I wish for a clear block log for Christmas…but that is for arb.com to decide) Huldra (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I just reverted this edit by BlueSox to this section as it was a personal attack against Huldra -- samtar whisper 13:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre editing behavior

    Watch for falling NOTHERE blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hey folks, I wanted some other perspectives on the recent editing behavior of Palashvai (talk · contribs). The content is not very comprehensible; it may simply be poor translations, but I am a little concerned the content is not being generated by an actual person at all:

    It's not dramatically disruptive or anything, but I am looking to check with others to see if this kind of editing behavior has come up before. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP-hopping nationalistic editor making repeat nonsense edits, ignores warnings

    (non-admin closure) Based on her continued shenanigans the /64 range was hardblocked for one year by User:Berean Hunter FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An editor using Time Warner Cable from Kansas City with an IPv6 range spanning 2606:6000:CA80:1600:6C4F:5798:F69E:15D1 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:FDC7:2453:4039:9A46 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:C069:5243:8337:D7F6 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:18EE:158F:4ABB:AA2A (talk · contribs) and 2606:6000:CA80:1600:DDEC:EA13:C2D6:3D9C (talk · contribs) has been causing problems on a variety of China and Taiwan-related articles.

    • On Fujian Province, Republic of China, he keeps making partisan edits which replace standard terms with euphemisms and political slogans. For example, these edits turn "Chinese province" into "province of the Communist regime", "PRC" into "Communist bandits", and replaces well-recognised, standard romanisations with nonsense ones. He does the same thing here and here in spite of warnings suggesting that he refrain from edit warring, and that he start a discussion on the talk page if he had any specific disagreements with the article content. In an edit summary, he calls the article "Communist bullshit".
    • On Names of China, he writes that calling China the Bandit-occupied area is what "intelligent people" call China, that China is "illegally claimed" by communists, and that the name of China is "Jhonghwá Jénmín Gòngfeikwó" (which literally means "Chinese people's bandit country").
    • On articles such as Shanxi (Chinese province), Jincheng (Chinese prefecture), Weng Wenhao (Chinese politician), Chiang Kai-shek (former dictator of China), Chiang Kai Shek College (Filipino school), Shilin District (Taiwanese district), Taipei American School (Taiwanese school), Guningtou War Museum (Taiwanese museum), Nanjing Road (road in Shanghai), Jin-Zuan Night Market (Taiwanese night market), Cianjhen District (Taiwanese district), Port of Kaohsiung (Taiwanese harbour), Star Ferry (company operating in Hong Kong), Chenpi (Chinese cooking ingredient), Xinhui District (Chinese district), Schive Chi (Taiwanese politician), Chen Cheng (Chinese general), Chen Li-an (Taiwanese politician), Frederick Chien (Taiwanese politician), and Buxiban (Chinese cram schools), this editor replaces standard romanisations with non-standard ones without proper community consensus. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOSZH, Hanyu pinyin is the standardised form of Chinese romanisation used throughout Wikipedia articles since it is the official romanisation form used in China, Taiwan and Singapore; this editor either replaces the romanisations with Chinese postal romanization used in the 1900s, Tongyong Pinyin which was an experimental system that is now defunct and archaic, or complete nonsense romanisations that don't follow any kind of system.

    Is it reasonable for me to ask for an IPv6 range ban? I considered requesting for Fujian Province, Republic of China to be protected at WP:RFPP, however I then realised that page protection would be ineffective at stemming the range of damage this user may have on other China and Taiwan-topic articles throughout Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting User:FreeatlastChitchat

    The user is of a nonconstructive background who has experienced being blocked. The note at the very beginning of of his talk page is also suggesting how he himself evaluates his own edits. His edits seems like edit warring for which he has been warned by other users (Human3015, Sakimonk, Code16) multiple times (refer to his talk page). He tends to remove well sourced materials without building up a consensus and has received warnings for this behavior by users Septate and Sakimonk. I would evaluate the user as a disruptive editor considering a series of his edits over time which forms a pattern that seriously disrupts the project. Mhhossein (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: He Violated civility by accusing me for "blatant lying" and calling other users "a bunch of POV pushers. Per WP:POVPUSH, "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously."

    • Comments by the Accused(FreeatLastchitchat)

    First of all pinging other editors who share your POV to your drama is highly unrecommended because then I cannot assume good faith about you. Secondly there has never been a single time when my edits were removed by consensus. Let me bold that up for you NOT A SINGLE TIME. you can see from multiple discussions ACROSS MULTIPLE TALK PAGES that after uninvolved editors have their say more than 90% of my edits go through and I always accept the opinion of uninvolved editors who, coincidentally, agree with me for the most part. It is quite true that some editors are mightily pissed off at my edits but I cannot help that, I am not your babysitter, and this is wikipedia not your personal diary. Other editors who join this discussion can take a look at my most recent foray into this field here at Hadith and criticism of hadith talk pages. I made some suggestions which pissed of Code16. He was unwilling to accept them until @Drmies: and @HyperGaruda: stepped in. Uninvolved editors will also be pleased to notice the blatant lying which Mhosseain has resorted to in this complaint as it is plain from viewing the edits that are called removals by Mohesein, that I merely moved the material from one section to another. The article had more bytes after I was done editing than it had before. I actually added to the article. True, I may have removed some duplicate sentences but that is always done to trim down.
    Uninvolved editors will also see from this discussion that once again, I have listed my concerns 9/10 out of which have been agreed upon by another editor. I then edited the article accordingly.
    The only "disruption" I am guilty of is that of deleting hagiography and blatant POV statements, which of course rub some people the wrong way. My page is full of warnings because that is the only thing these POV pushers are able to do, that ofc and start this kind of ANI drama. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to be a content dispute. I see not much evidence of disruption, though there has been some edit-warring on Mawlid. There has been plenty of discussion on the talk pages, some of it heated, as is normal in contentious areas. Removal of content is fine per WP:BOLD, but more WP:DR should be pursued if one's bold edits are reversed. I see FreeatlastChitchat's edits as mostly constructive. It is still good to tread carefully in contentious areas to not step on too many toes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian perhaps you can give your opinion on the Mawlid TP. I am kinda pulling out my hair that even when I haev thoroughly discussed my edits an anon IP is removing them. He also removed a simple merger which was through an AFD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, those editors whom I don't know don't share my POV, they are users who just figured out your disruptive editing. Secondly, please stop accusing users for pushing POV. As you know, this behavior is taken seriously and insisting on it may lead to penalties such as block. Finally, regradless of your edits, the problem stems from your disruptive behavior. Unfortunately, you accuse users for being POV pushers and for being just pissed off when they object your behavior. You have mistaken "deleting hagiography" for deleting well sourced materials. Mhhossein (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: Calling others "a bunch of POV pushers" is not deemed constructive, is it? Of course no one objects constructive discussions, but we should not forget that being bold requires being able to involve constructive discussions and being able to handle heated ones. Mhhossein (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: What about accusing me for "blatant lying"? Is it constructive enough? Mhhossein (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help more if you avoided throwing such an unrelated material here, which is welcomed in its right place. The fact is that you are missing the point that "Mahdi in Quran" is discussed by reliable sources in depth and your surprise is strange! Please, if you find it necessary, continue the discussion on the discussion page of the article or on the related AFD discussion. Btw, here you can find what a real "ad hominem comment" is.Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me point out something that's really damning about FreeatlastChitchat: in addition to getting into edit wars on the page, which he should know better than because he's been blocked for it in the past, he went against policy by creating a new AfD 5 days after the one closed for Rape Jihad. In addition, for whatever reason, he recreated an old AfD about the article to make it look like the most recent decision was to delete it. Propose a ban given that he's already had a topic ban for Islam related articles until he demonstrates that he can drop the WP:STICK. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

    And another user who is pissed off because I got his most favorite page not only deleted but also salted, actually he is so pissed off that he does not care for etiquette or morals he has decided to shamelessly LIE about me. I would like DawnDusk to show the public exactly when I was topic banned. UNInvolved editors will be happy to see that once again DAWNDUSK has actually proven my point. A bunch of POV pushers wanted to keep rape jihad on wiki. It was an atrocious imbecility masquerading as an article. I tried to get it deleted, and pruned it. The POV pushers ganged up on me and I was banned for one week, not topic banned as he says. During that time the uninvolved decision was that the material that I was trying to remove was so bad that it should not only be removed, it must be kept off Wikipedia for a long long time. Hence the Salt. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, I misspoke as I was copy/pasting a previous comment I made about you. You know why that is? This isn't exactly your first time here at ANI. I hardly log in anymore due to outside obligations, but I do find it funny that on the rare occasion I do and come to ANI, you are of course the newest addition at the bottom. However, the fact is that you did receive a ban for atrocious violation of policy (and no matter how many times I ask, you never explain why you falsified an AfD). You have never been able to drop the stick. I don't know why, but that is a certain constant about you. If you are allowed to go with a temporary punishment once more, it will be a matter of time (again) until you wind up back here for being excessively combative (e.g., calling me an imbecile) or edit warring (a personal favorite of yours). --DawnDusk (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty damning when you violate guidelines so consistently that you must include a warning on your talkpage (one that so beautifully captures the aggression and stick-carrying of yours that gets you into trouble, too!): "So if you are here cuz you are pissed off at me, relax, chill, have a glass of water and pour your heart out to me before going to ANI/SPI/Any other admin place where you can cry." --DawnDusk (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The behaviour and language of FreeatlastChitchat is abusive and offensive. I don't know how someone can tolerate a person whose reply begins with this line?:

    And another user who is pissed off

    Septate (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm he isss pissed off at me, why else would he comment like this. Just when did "pissed off" enter the realm of abusive and offensive? I hear it like a hundred times a day. the offensive and abusive slang would be 'piss off. Pissed off only means "very angry". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Septate. And Free, no. I'm not pissed off. I never have been at you (User:Dfrr is the only one who can do that to me) and have always approached you with sincerity. You entirely missed the point Septate was trying to make. If you have so many people lobbying for your ban because of your past transgressions that you must begin replies with "another user who is pissed off," it is a telling circumstance in favor of your removal from the encyclopedia. And for what it's worth, "pissed off" isn't very polite when you're trying to defend yourself either. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What past transgressions exactly are you talking about. I think you did not read my first comment. let me put it here for you there has never been a single time when my edits were removed by consensus. NOT A SINGLE TIME. You can see from multiple discussions ACROSS MULTIPLE TALK PAGES that after uninvolved editors have their say more than 90% of my edits go through and I always accept the opinion of uninvolved editors who, coincidentally, agree with me for the most part.. I hope that helps. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although FreeatlastChitchat is not always the gentlest of editors, most of the time he has a good eye for spotting weakly sourced POV content and acting accordingly. Considering that FC's edits are often related to contentious subjects, the cleanups (akin to a milder version of WP:Blow it up and start over) frequently lead to disputes with editors who feel that their beliefs are attacked. In the end, FC's edits are usually accepted -maybe slightly modified- because they are justified WikiPolicy, no matter how many feelings are hurt. I hope that FC will be allowed to continue editing, because frankly, he's one of the few who actually has the guts to tackle problems in contentious areas.
      I do would like to advise FC to adhere to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, instead of waiting for someone to cross the WP:3RR line; to actually reach concensus with everyone (read: wait for everybody to say OK/agreed) before (re-)applying the edits; and to use less... um... "vulgar" slang. This of course also applies to the offended editors, who often jump straight to accusations of attacking their beliefs, rather than first explaining why the status quo should be maintained. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this is fun. I looked at the first couple of diffs which supposedly evidence Freeatlast's removal of sources etc. and I don't see it. From run-ins on talk page we've had, they seem to be pretty well versed in Wikipedia policy and their edits improve articles. I will say this, and I agree with HyperGaruda, it would be good if they dropped the salty language. There's "pissed off" and "hissy fit" and "Go cry me a river" and whatnot all over the place (see Talk:Mawlid#Deletion_of_POV_and_other_unsourced_controversial.), and the effect of coming out so strong in one's first sentence is that a. the next sentences are easily overlooked and b. one's audience is automatically antagonized. No, really, HyperGaruda hits the nail on the head--well said. So, should we ban or topic-ban an editor for the occasional forceful term? No. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why HyperGaruda is talking about beliefs being attacked or feelings being hurt! How could you find a single mention of "belief" and such things here? you've missed the point, I think. Is HG trying to say that there's no problem with FC's behavioral pattern? At least his awkward AFD mass nominations signals his bad faith to me. Drmies would better take a look at ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] and etc). Although some parts of his edits are OK, he is damaging the project by deleting reliable and well sourced parts and by being disruptive and uncivil. Mhhossein (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhhossein, Drmies can't look at a list of diffs, some of which really fat diffs, and see what you want them to see unless you tell them what to see. On Ali, I see that part of the revert by Freeatlast involved undoing this edit, in which the references added are very poorly formatted and the reliability of the sources impossible, or at least very difficult, to ascertain. What I did see in that same revert is that some of the obviously reliable sources were not removed but simply moved. Nor do I see, in the edits I looked at, incivility or disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, So Drmies can't (maybe shouldn't) judge FreeatlastChitchat's behavior by considering just two or three diffs. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein, that's one way of putting it--unfortunately, while it's not a bad rhetorical move, it does not help your case since I'm the only admin, I think, who's weighed in. Your job here, as the plaintiff, is to convince me that this and that behavior warrants censure. Now, basically I said "you're not giving me the evidence for disruptive behavior"; if you then say "so you can't judge", you're taking out the one admin who took the time to read what up til now is a complaint without merit. It's not even a double-edged sword since you're only cutting your own finger.

    Still, it is more truthful to say "in the diffs presented without further explanation, no evidence was found of disruption warranting administrative intervention". If you want to convince an admin that action is warranted you'll need to do a much better job of making your case. In the meantime, all you're getting is two people (me and HyperGaruda) telling Freeatlast that they should be more careful, much more careful, with their choice of words. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Freeatlastchitchat nominated many articles for deletion that is notable, but doesn't suit his POV. Drmies believes most of the time he has a good eye for spotting weakly sourced POV content and acting accordingly. If this is true, then there are some AFDs which were speedy keep. And nominating should be considered as disruptive as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pratapgarh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kolhapur, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pavan Khind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sinhagad. You might claim these are months old. Not for these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Narendra Modi. The Avengers 18:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • So they didn't win their argument on two AfDs. What's your point? In none of them was the nominator chastised by a closing admin, and one of them was closed as "no consensus". Do you want me to block or ban an editor for nominating two articles and not winning their case? Drmies (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: This is not actually my case or anyone's, this is the project's case. So, there must be something beyond personal issues. I reckon you were running short of time when you said you could not check the list. Anyway, The Avengers is trying to say another point to which I mentioned. FreeatlastChitchat's mass AFD nomination is just a part of that behavioral pattern I said at the very beginning. As an admin, you must know that "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time" and "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." Mhhossein (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhhossein, it is your case. You brought it here, and you are not giving me the evidence to think anything specific. You can't say "the evidence is in these diffs" if the diffs are huge and complex and all you offer is "he's removing valid sources". How am I supposed to a. find where these sources are removed? b. judge whether the sources weren't poor to begin with? I know very well what you say about edit warring; I have blocked many an editor for longterm edit-warring. You simply haven't proven that this is the case here, and with that I conclude my contributions to this thread. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we close this one please. The complainant has not provided any specific evidence of disruptive behaviour. The first of his/her diffs[86], he/she claimed was evidence of FreeatlastChitchat deleting well-sourced material. But the diff shows that the complainant must have misunderstood. The cited information from Kitab ul Mola and The Economist was retained and moved to a section marked "Mut'ah as a form of prostitution"; FreeatlastChitchat added more well-sourced material to that section.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, I provided more diffs 16:41, 14 December 2015. I'm not talking about merely an edit warring, I'm talking about a disruptive behavioral pattern which includes edit warring, being uncivil, drive by tagging, mass AFD nominations and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein which new diff have you provided? Can you point me towards it. Did you edit your original or make a new comment, I cannot find it! I would really like to see how naughty I have been and I may even have an excuse for my naughtiness. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At your request, diffs are provided here. Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein Those have already been replied to by Drmies, I thought that was quite clear. Perhaps you should read the entire discussion again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reply here about those diffs. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply is given right after your comment with the diffs. If you do not understand English as Toddy1 pointed out to me earlier, and are using a translating service such as google translate. then copy paste the text, one sentence at a time. Instead of asking for a complete translate. the translation will be easier for you to understand. go from full stop to full stop. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeatlastChitchat:English is my second language (Toddy1 might have mistaken me for another user!) and you don't need to make fun of others even if they don't know English. Anyway, if you follow the thread you'll see that you've not provided the explanations (pay attention to 16:41, 14 December 2015 comment). Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: This SPI against the reporter by Freeatlastchitchat should be included in this ANI. Closing administrators are supposed to close AFDs. Why will they rebuke Freeatlast for nominating well sourced articles for deletion which doesn't suit his POV as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Narendra Modi. The Avengers 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    first the diffs, then the AFD's now an SPI? The avengers you are a complete lol person to be frank. 100% lol. Who in the name of all that is holy will ask for a topic ban for starting an SPI? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 100th time, your disruptive behavior is not limited to one or two areas. Your edits make a pattern which shows how disruptive you are. As I quoted before, "one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." Your awkward AFD nominations (you nominated some clearly notable subjects which ended with "speedy keep" or "keep" and this adds to your bad faith.) Moreover, you fail to respect the civility and tend to accuse others for "POV pushing" and "blatant lying". Your language retards reaching consensus when it comes to discussions (here's an example). You've been warned for committing edit warring (per your talk page). You failed to explain why you have removed those sourced materials (the diffs I provided). Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AND FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME Uninvolved admins and uninvolved editors have said that my editing is fine. the only thing it hurts is the feelings of some people who are overly connected to some Wikipedia pages. who think that some page is their page and it should not be nominated, or who think that a page belongs to their religion so they, by default, have its propriety rights. As for my statement that you lied, well it is true. you did lie. Right at the start of this ANI thread. You said I had removed a source, while it was the other way around, I had actually added more sources. so yes, I called you a liar, because you lied. What am I supposed to call you? Actually, what would you call ME if I lie like this?
    Furthermore it is clear here that you are beating a dead/decomposed horse. I edit in contentious areas, so I am used to disgruntled editors like yourself trying their best to get me off wikipedia so that they can put hagiography/pov back into their beloved articles. There is literally nothing new that you added to accusations which have been already made against me. I don't delete warning from my Talk page so people like you can see them, read them, and then realize that Wikipedia is not some primary school where you go to the principal with the excuse that someone has hurt your feelings and he should be punished. This is an encyclopedia edited by mature(mostly) editors. So try to be mature when you edit. there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to get angry just because the article you love is being trimmed. It takes me MORE time to delete things than it takes for you to write them. Read that again, it takes me MORE TIME to delete. Because I have to not only read the entire source, I have to look at the context, that perhaps an editor picked something from a few lines back or a few lines after. this takes more time. So what you are accusing me is highly laughable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a user as lol person is a personal attack. I won't take the bait by a pov pusher. Comment on the discussion, not on character. Maybe this ANI was necessary to take your mask off. The Avengers 06:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, no its not a Personal attack. it means "Laugh out loud" and is used to call a person "funny". another example is calling some one a riot. Dude! If you do not understand English there is a dictionary just a right click away. Select lol, right click, search with google. I thought lol was in common use these day? Almost everyone knows what it means to be frank, you cannot blame me for assuming that now. Well you did blame me, but any way. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kingsindian and Drmies: FreeatlastChitchat's rudeness is far from WP:Civility. He/she clearly blames the other editors who have different viewpoints. Even you can find it in the above discussion (for example "blatant lying" to Mhhossein). He/she mocks the others instead of using rational discussion ( [87]) and (Go cry me a river. Can you please stop behaving like a child for a minute here? [88]). How can you tolerate such a manner!--Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sa.vakilian: In your diff [here, FC is basically just disagreeing that wikishia.net is a WP:RS, in rather colourful language. The second diff is similar. They have already been advised to dial down their language; this is an international project and people often misunderstand. I do not appreciate FC calling editors liars on WP:ANI, but unfortunately, on WP:ANI personal attacks and nasty behaviour is the norm, especially when one has been accused. One needs a bit of a thick skin when working in contentious topics. I see their edits on articles as mostly constructive and I do not see enough disruption to support any sort of sanction other than the advice already given. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: He had been so disruptive that you did not recognize how he was awkwardly calling this book unreliable and I just provided wikishia as a link to introduce the author to him, not as a source! Please note that he has very little knowledge about Islamic sources and he acts based on his own speculations without knowing the authors and their expertise (take a look at this). Mhhossein (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian: Unfortunately, I think he/she has not understood what the wikipedia is. He/she judges about the issues based on his/her personal beliefs and condemn those who disagree with him/her. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. " (Wikipedia:NOT) Of course, he/she does not add something but attempt to delete whatever he/she dislikes even if it has reliable source. I can not understand why you justify his/her action like removing a reliable source in this edition[89][90]!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sa.vakilian: I have no idea what you mean by "justify his/her action" based on a diff I have never seen before. I limited my remarks to the diffs presented by Mhhossein and you earlier. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to comb through FC's entire contribution history. At a glance, the diff you mention above removed a lot of unreliable sources, like this one, which is a self-published source. The Cambridge University Press source should not have been removed, it seems to me. Perhaps you can ask FreeatlastChitchat as to why they removed it (perhaps it was a mistake?), on the article talk page. This kind of thing is a content dispute, and WP:ANI does not deal with content disputes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A note for the closing admin: A mistake (which Kingsindian guesses to be the cause) happens once! if a user tends to repeat the same behavior such as mass removing of contents including well sourced ones and tends to use improper language and has received numerous warnings, the only remaining option is ANI. As an example, besides the diff by seyyed pay attention to the following:
    1. Here he removed a whole section of "Baha'i view" which was supported by a baha'i source (the best possible source to describe the view of group A is to use sources related to group A). Of course it was better if the section was tagged asking for independent sources. Anyway, mass removing was not the solution.
    2. Here he removed sources such as Irannica and Britannica.
    3. Here he removed Peshawar Nights and he'd better asked for another source beside the current one, not removing the whole material. In this diff, he has also removed "Doctrines of Shiʻi Islam : a compendium of Imami beliefs and practices" by Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani.
    4. He has little information about guidelines for editing Islam-related articles. Here a group are trying to make FreeatlastChitchat understand that Nafasul Mahmoom is not self published. Same thing happened here.
    5. I'd like to add "drive by tagging" by Fc to the this list. [91], [92]. Can you find explanations about those tagging on related talk pages?
    6. Accusing other users of pushing POV here. Some more clues are found in this thread calling users a "bunch of POV pushers" and "blatant liars".
    7. His language is really annoying. For example, here he retarded reaching a consensus by his so called "colorful language". Although in the same discussion I enjoyed discussing with HyperGaruda.
    I would call the above a "pattern of disruptive" behavior which should be stopped. He does not have to edit the articles with which he is not familiar. Mhhossein (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kingsindian: seeing that my edit at Hadith of Fatima Tablet has been questioned in what appears to be a mistake on my part I would like to explain that edit as I carefully scrutinized the source before removing it. I will let you and other uninvolved editors decide what should have been done. So here goes. The article Hadith of Fatima tablet should give information about a Hadith i.e. something connected to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad SAW because its very title says that it is a hadith. The very word "Hadith" means that it is something that the Prophet SAW did, said or was connected to. Now if you look at the article you will find that it is a WP:COATRACK and full of unreliable sources and I was pruning /trimming it down. When I came to this source I took the time to read what it says. The source in question is reliable beyond a doubt, however there are some things which anyone can see

    1. It makes no mention of any "Hadith" or tradition. Sourcing such a claim to this book is WP:OR
    2. It mentions the Fatima Tablet as being given to Fatima, not to the Prophet SAW, thereby making it almost impossible that this incident can be called a hadith and calling it a hadith and sourcing it to this source is WP:OR
    3. It does not mention the Prophet Muhammad SAW at all, rather it says that a companion was discussing the tablet with Fatima RA, which is pure source misrepresentation.
    4. It does not contain the sentence which it is supposed to be the source of i.e. the sentence"This hadith nominated to the names of twelve Imams as successors of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.". Rather it says "was a tablet containing the names of the twelve imams of the ahl-al-bayt or house of the prophet". The difference is subtle verbally but it changes everything in the meaning. First of all the source does not say that the "hadith" or the tablet "nominates" anyone. It just says that "it contains". Which means that it is just a list and holds no importance as a nomination. Secondly it never states that the tablet "names the imams as successors to Prophet Muhammad SAW". This all can come under misrepresentation or WP:OR. I'll AGF and assume OR

    So seeing that the one single sentence taken from the book has almost nothing to do with the Hadith of Fatima tablet I removed it. To be frank I must have accidentally unwatched the article and my edit seems to have been reverted so I am heading over to talkpage to have fun, you can join me for some good old fashioned BRD if you wish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @FreeatlastChitchat: Regarding constructive style, it is clear that you should discuss about such cases on the talk page before removing them. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I say FreeatlastChitchat is acting based on his little (or wrong) information. "In Shiʿism, however, in addition to Hadith about the Prophet those about the Imams are authoritative as well"[93] So this case which is narrated from Ja'far al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam of shia, is certainly regarded as Hadith. So, why did you think it was WP:COATRACK when it was focusing on the very Hadith of Fatima tablet?
    1. The source is exactly mentioning that the Fatima's Tablet contains the name of the twelve Imams and is copied by Jabir ibn Abdullah (he was one of the narrators). (what part of it is WP:OR?)
    2. The incident was certainly a Hadith from the Shia view point! The only meaning you've found about Hadith is the definition by Sunni Muslims which is not the whole fact.
    3. The source does not have to mention Muhammad. The source is directly talking about the Tablet! What else do you want? You should not have removed it. You should have at most altered the text.
    4. That "It does not contain the sentence which it is supposed to be the source of i.e. the sentence"This hadith nominated to the names of twelve Imams as successors of Muhammad, prophet of Islam." is not a justification to remove such a reliable source! You should have at most altered the text and opened a discussion on the talk page!
    Even if the text contained WP:OR you should not have removed such a directly related and reliable source! This was just one of FreeatlastChitchat's disruptive behavior and I mentioned some other diffs which need more investigations. His contributions is full of such awkward mass deletions and it's not clear how many reliable sources he has removed besides the unreliable ones. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His "block log" is also noteworthy. Mhhossein (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic WP:STICK issues you have displayed. I will not be contributing any further to this discussion unless pinged here by an admin or an uninvolved editor. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    German admin deletes everything that doesnt correspond to his political opinion, his german sites are contrary to english ones and express extreme right arguments

    (non-admin closure) Common consensus seems to be that both WP:COI and WP:GNG have taken a hit. DGG should be annoyed on his talkpage with further requests of assistance FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have published 3 books about Room 40. I have put them into the bibliography of the englisch and german wiki years ago. Now a german admin User:Otberg deleted these and any other of my contributions systematically (see RMS Lusitania) from all german sites. His justification: everything is unscientific.

    I send him links, where my books were cited. I told him, that they were for years on the wiki and are still in the english one.

    He argued, that the german wiki is more scientific than the english wiki ....

    Now he started to delete systematically everything I have ever contributed from to the english wiki. Damnatio memoriae - for me this is vandalism.

    As I can see in the history of Otberg, he constantly has problems with other peoples opinion, specially if this relates to german history. I can only assume, that he disliked from a personal political standpoint (extrem-rightism) my latest thesis to the Lusitania case. His german Lusitania site points to arguments, which are contrary to the ones in the english page, i.e. that the sinking of Lusitania was justified because she was no passenger ship, but an axiliary cruiser. This was and still is the argument of the german extreme right.

    Has the german Lusitania wiki page fallen in the hands of extreme rightists censors and am I the helpless(?) victim of thought control?

    best regards, AchimKoerver

    @AchimKoerver: On English Wikipedia, you are required to post a notification to a user's talk page when you raise an issue about them at this noticeboard. I have done that for you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can see, on the Room 40 article, the two 'references' removed were not actually referencing anything - none of the prose in the article were sourced to them. They may have value in as part of a further reading section. Any Milhist types still lurking around who want to take a look at Otbergs recent edits? My eyebrows tend to raise when someone removes a reference to a published work with 'original research'. Granted the editor above is the author, but if its a published by a reputable (non vanity) publisher, then it hardly qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the same, but I can't find any info on the publisher. They appear to be quite obscure. As for accusations that the editor is trying to scrub articles to align with their extreme views, I personally don't see any evidence of this, just the usual editorial quibbling, but I didn't look very hard. AchimKoerver, can you link to any specific edits that expose this behaviour? I'll also post a note at WP:MILHIST, which is fairly active. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These are definitely R/S. They are cited by several books from even a brief google books search. I'm a MILHIST member, and it looks to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have reverted with an ed summ. Suggest engaging this editor on T/P as next step if he reverts Irondome (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AchimKoerver, if you are a published author, you should know that the words "German" and "English" are capitalized. In terms of your own writings and your own website, you need to read WP:COI. You should not be posting your own publications or websites on Wikipedia, although you can request on the article's talk page that they be used or mentioned. Perhaps you did not know that when you added the items (and in fact, you did not use the account you are posting from now to add them -- perhaps you added them as an IP?). But now you know. In terms of Otberg, he should not be deleting information as "unreliable" or "original research" when it clearly isn't. If he has a legitimate reason to remove items, he needs to state that clearly. My view is that since the items and sites in question were apparently not used to write the wiki articles, they can be removed at will as COI (not as unreliable), unless there is community or specialist agreement that they merit inclusion as Further Reading or External Links. In terms of German Wikipedia, we have no influence on other wikis here; only English Wikipedia. You will have to make your case there for that Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The Author again, Achim Koerver. I have published the following books:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433760

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433779

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433795

    and another one about Lusitania with new documents and facts in German, and next year in English: http://www.amazon.de/dp/3902433809 and http://www.amazon.de/dp/3902433817

    I have provided the wiki reader a link to my homepage with photos, documents and original sources from British and German military archives.

    http://www.germannavalwarfare.info/index.html

    All this had been done some years before, and nobody ever complained.

    Otberg deleted first systematically EVERYTHING from me last week in German wiki, now he does the same since 36 hours in the English wiki. Damnatio memoriae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.83.126 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The books of Achim Koerver, who is working as a IT-consulent, are publised not by a regular publishing company, but by the consulting company of his personal friend. No one of his books is listed in a scientific library in Austria, the country of the publisher. Most of all: the books are not used in scientific works. That's why they are no reliable sources and original research. Achim Koerver used wikipedia for advertising his books, his publisher is banned for that at german wikipedia. Otberg (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Irondome, these books need to be cited before they can be listed among the Works Cited. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's more, LIS Reinisch is a business consultancy firm (or something like that). They are not an academic publisher, and I note that you can buy a copy of Volume 1 on Lulu--had to replace "lulu" with "XXXX" to get it through the filter. Moreover, I do not find evidence of these books being cited (maybe I'm not searching very good); what I do find is that the books are also listed in articles such as SM U-20 (Germany)--added by Koerver. I do think that Otberg has a point here about bookspamming. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The books of Koerver are not listed at the LOC [94] or the BL: [95]. Guess why? --Otberg (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    mmmm. Blunder. An over-hasty search. All forum stuff and self -referencing on google books. I could have sworn I located 2 good ref uses in other works earlier today. Very odd. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I mistaken the LoC requires the publisher to submit a copy before it'll be listed? If it's not a U.S. book, there's no certainty that happens.
    As for bookspam, I'd agree. The reliability of something not from a reputable publisher calls this in question; it makes it little more than self-published, & that fails RS. (Not to say I haven't seen self-published sources being used as cites...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @AchimKoerver: in self-defense, again: Should I be amused or astonished, that my books, listed above and provided with an international ISBN-number and listed since years at amazon and with a link from here - don't seem to be a proof that they are really "existing"? What does this tell about the seriousness of anybody denying their existence?

    Only to proof, that me, my editor and my books are really existing objects in this world.

    My editor is an old friend of mine, who runs - like me - a properly registered company. He is - like me - engaged in a broad business spectre, mainly very well paid IT-business and under others book writing and publishing. Our common intention in this - by nature ridicously unprofible business - is not to get "millionaires", but to be able as book-lovers to publish facts, that would very presumably not find friends in "profit-oriented big industry" editors. The price for this is naturally to get under general suspicion to be some funky "Self-publishers" only being interested in advertising their latest conspiracy thesis to become "millionaires" ...

    What I cannot grasp any more in this discussion:

    Why have my contributions in wiki been listed for years, only to be "purged" from one day to another by the lonely decision of a single person as "unscientific"? How could I become victim of a single wiki admin, who seems not to react rationally any more, deleting systematically since the last 3 days any traces of me from German and English wiki?

    If I would use expressions like "damnatio memoriae" or "purge" or "extermination" - whould it be too far away from characterizing this single person's out-raged behaviour?

    An arbitrary proposal from my side : couldn't you get a natural German speaking admin to check out the conversations I have had with otberg in the last weeks, to get more facts for "fact-finding" ??? Me personally I am convicend to have tried to keep the discussions at a constructive level, while otberg justified his very high handed personal actions by the "more scientific demand" of the German wiki compared to the english one. Very strange, I found. Havent we already had that some time before? Germany over the rest of the world ?????

    Nobody here to check and defend scientific books against autocratic individual censorship? Do they or do they not present a gain for wiki readers? best regards, Hans Joachim Koerver

    • Dear Mr. Koerver, I would not treat a page like this as a Rolodex. No one is disputing the existence of you and your books. The damnatio memoriae comparison isn't very apt (I mean, literally, the references are still in the history...), and that it's just one single editor trying to blot you from these articles isn't true either; I counted three or four editors by now who have removed those references. Now, "scientific books"--that remains to be seen. You are welcome to present the matter at WP:RSN; this board here judges conduct, and the conduct of your opponent has not been found to be lacking. I strongly advise you, though, that when you make your case at the RSN board for the reliability and notability of those books, that you come armed with such things as book reviews from academic journals, to bolster your case. Mere existence is not enough. I also suggest you find a better answer for the Lulu availability of your book; contrary to your assertion, many academic publishers are not in it for the big bucks. Alles gute, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably time to close this thread. If anyone wants yet another opinion, DGG could be pinged, but I think we have a reasonable consensus of experienced editors who feel that mention of these books and websites on English Wikipedia is both COI and non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Socionics

    User:Sounderk deletes critics from the article about fringe theory of socionics: 1 (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is a famous pseudscientific society in Russia), 2, 3. If you check contributions, it is clear that he/she is an one-purpose-account, presumably from International institute of socionics (fringe organisation developing socionics in Ukraine)—as the references to «hundreds and thousands of scientific papers on socionics» (published mainly by this institution) and to «outdated critics» (connected to very rare discussions of the socionics in respectable scientific journals, especially by psychologists) are very typical for people from this organization. You can check it in the discussion about socionics in Russian WP (sorry, in Russian). --Melirius (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The first edit is deleting the words "highly controversial". That's not deleting any critics of anything. I'm not bothering with the rest here. I don't see anything at the talk page so I'm personally saying go to the talk page and discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll try there. --Melirius (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hope so. The article has many issues, not least of which the fact that 120 of its 140 sources are in Russian. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    new user Hassan Rebell mass nominating articles for deletion on Kurds

    I'm very suspicious when an account's very first edit is to nominate an article for deletion. Since creating his account <48 hours ago, Hassan Rebell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated 12 articles for deletion, all Kurds. It does not appear he is researching them, but is slapping the same description on them "non-notable, vanity article" or "non-notable academic" etc. I discovered this when seeing he nominated someone who is hugely notable. This seems very suspicious and possible SPI, but I don't know the names of banned editors with anti-Kurd bias who match this behavior or I would file SPI. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a notice on the user's page that a discussion referring to them was on-going here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to say I also left a message as required - we both left one within seconds as they have identical time stamps. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great minds think alikeRickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it appears they have been blocked per this diff [96]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Obviously not a new user, and obviously not here to help. Feel free to speedy close the AfDs. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the speedy action. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've certainly had a funny feeling about the mass nomination and have said as much -- netting me a civility warning from him. I'd noticed he seemed to be working in concert to remove restore PROD tags from articles that had been tagged by the Swiss IPs, that he had said he had no connection to. I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc, or at least implied he was, stating that he had started editing under the new username because the old one was too similar to that of another editor, which I assumed to be the identically named blocked editor User:Lrednuas Senoroc. Anyway, if I understand all this correctly, should User:Srednuas Lenoroc not be blocked, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: you may be looking for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#IP-jumping_editor_with_an_anti-Kurdish_bias. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm yes this is probably the same one. Since Hassan Rebell is already blocked, is it worth taking any other action? Would an IP block be appropriate? I don't know how those work. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've been confused by this whole thing from the outset. I've asked the blocking admin for his input, on his talk page. I'm not even sure why Hassan's been blocked because I don't think he sought to conceal the change of ID, though again, I always felt this mass nomination was disruptive and suspect, and always thought it would end in a block, sooner or later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked per WP:NOTHERE, which seems pretty clear based on his contributions. I don't buy his story in his unblock request that he was merely an IP editor before. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I strongly agree with you on the WP:NOTHERE part. Thing is, there's never really been a SPI opened and my attempt failed miserably. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Srsly? We don't need an SPI. This is a bog-standard nationalist POV-pusher. WP:RBI works well enough. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, my latest effort Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc seems to be quite beside the point. Given the range of ID and usernames, I thought it might be useful to at least make the association clear on the blocked users' pages. thx, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have absolutely nothing to do with this other person's activities with WP therefore why is it that my user name should be blocked? The only thing that can be associated with this other person is that they decided to create problems and disturb my peaceful editing of WP. Has any one bothered to track the locations of the IP's? I do not know the location of the other so cannot say any thing about that but to block my editing merely because of the trouble caused by the other person is absolutely ridiculous. Any one that should think that we are the same is just plain bonkers.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When did "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" admit to being me? I really have not been paying attention to this matter because as "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" was not me I had absolutely nothing to add to the discussion except to say that the other user is not me. As far as I can tell, the two have not even edited in the same manner. I would not know how to nominate an article, let alone a series of them, for deletion. In fact, the majority of my edits have concerned the grammar of "on" versus "in", spelling and somewhat more complex editing with articles concerning India as they are generally in English but the expressions/punctuation/capitalization can be creative although understandable with intent. Somehow that is suppose to make clear that I am the same person as "User:Lrednuas Senoroc"? This is getting way too confusing for my level of English/American so someone is just going to have to explain to me just how is it that we are thought to be the same person? We are not and have never been. I still have no objection to the other user name being used but certainly not if it is for disruptive activities.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could "User Shawn in Montreal" explain just "I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc, or at least implied he was, stating that he (User:Srednuas Lenoroc) had started editing under the NEW username because the old one was too similar to that of another editor". Is "User Shawn in Montreal" aware that "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" seems to have been registered after my own? In fact I was not even aware that there was a "similar" user name until I was told on the "Talk Page of Srednuas Lenoroc". At that time I never had a concern about this other user because as far as I knew there was no trouble happening. Now I am being associated with the actions of "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" therefor my account should be blocked? That seems a rather daft reaction.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not you, it's User:Lrednuas Senoroc who's named at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc and he admitted to being someone else entirely, User:Hassan Rebell. Not you. You're not involved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If this does not concern me then I should not be issued notifications. Your statement stills stands in the record that "I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc". And you are asking that my account be blocked. So you tell me how does that not concern me. You have yet to say otherwise. The two are not the same, have never been and as far as I am concerned never will be. I just assume that my user name never be associated with this other person. Yet, who is the one calling for my account to be blocked? If it had never been mentioned then I never would have had reason to come to this page. I am not out to pick a fight with any one; just be let be. That does not seem to be possible. Remember, it was your statement that once again brought my user name to the attention of this matter.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry, if it was me, it was a typing error. What can I say? The names are baffling alike. The guy who stole your username. User:Hassan Rebell, has been blocked again. That's hopefully some comfort. And you are clearly not cited in my [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior

    (non-admin closure) Le troll FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    166 troll
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Can someone delete User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/Thomas J. Walsh (Alberta lawyer). It needs to be over sighted as well to protect the wildly offensive conduct. Editors should really learn to leave other people's user space alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.47 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Carol (film)

    UNDER WATCH
    Ultraexactzz et. al. are watching article. NE Ent 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Carol (film) article needs to be monitored by one or more Admins. There is 'fast and furious' multiple editing taking place where content is being deleted, rewritten, moved around. The citation of an interview, for example, had the name of the journalist author deleted from it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not going to involve myself in a discussion with anyone engaging in frenetic editing. Not going to go back further than this: On December 14 that user made 20 successive edits to the article. I don't know who is behind IP address 50.30.160.70 but the one-word "Accolades" explanation for those particular edits kinda make me think it's the same person. Accidental deletions? Deliberate deletions? Ignorant deletions? No one can keep track of the big picture when you have a barrage of edits being made. This movie is earning significant awards and nominations and it's predicted that the film and its two leading actresses will be Academy Awards nominees. When a Wikipedia article becomes the focus of intense editing, someone at the top of the Wikipedia editing ladder needs to keep an eye on it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as may be - and you'll probably get a few admins to watchlist the article just by mentioning it here. But not being sure what they are doing isn't grounds for any sort of admin action - especially when you haven't asked them about it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Administator's Noticeboard is not your personal police force. I already said that several admins - myself included - would likely watch the article. Given what you're asking for, and the level of detail that you neglected to include in your complaint, well that's about what you're gonna get. When you respond to that with comments questioning our ability to comprehend your incomplete and poorly-framed complaint, it just makes me less inclined to help you out. Protip - asking nicely will get you a lot further on this project than, well, whatever the hell this was. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pyxis Solitary: "I am not going to involve myself in a discussion with anyone engaging in frenetic editing." Why not? There are only a relative handful of admins at Wikipedia. Much of the work of keeping the project in order falls to all of the conscientious editors. If you see an editor engaged in problematic activity, communicate with them about it. A simple question, or a suggestion that maybe they should be using the edit preview feature rather than saving multiple little edits, could go really far in turning a newbie into a journeyman editor. It probably took more effort for you to bring the matter here than it would have to raise the issue to the editor directly. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I don't have to and I don't want to. I keep a far distance from any User that has been obsessively editing a Wikipedia article and lords over contributions made by other editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is collaboration. That means that we all work together, not against each other. Another principle is good faith. In other words, you really need to assume good faith of others, meaning that you should first assume that any mistakes made by the other user is a mistake. All of us make mistakes. Let me repeat that: all of us make mistakes. This will happen regardless of how long we've been editing or how much we know about Wikipedia because mistakes will happen. Anyone who says otherwise is either perfect or (more likely) outright fibbing. As far as their flurry of edits goes, that's not really all that abnormal. When I'm creating or expanding an article I'll do that myself and I've seen plenty of others do the same thing. Everyone edits differently and many like to save edits as they go along so that they don't lose their progress. There's nothing wrong with that and a series of quick edits should not automatically be seen as someone "owning" an article or as an automatic sign of someone making bad faith edits. Now while you don't strictly have to contact the person if you're going to fix the edits, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend that you fix them in a more polite manner because to be quite honest, your edit summary statement of "Just in case: no one editor "owns" a Wikipedia article." and the post here can come across as very, very unfriendly, maybe even a bit rude to automatically assume bad faith. What we want to do on Wikipedia is help educate and retain editors who may have made errors while editing - not automatically peg them as a problematic editor and post about them in ways that could potentially scare them away. I should also point this out: ANI is meant to be the last resort, the step you take when you've already done everything else, which includes an attempt to communicate with the other editor(s). I've seen people actually get in trouble for posting multiple threads like this without going through the expected steps to solve the issue. You should also make sure to let the other editor know when you're posting about them. This was fairly obvious that you were talking about one person rather than a group of problematic editors, so you should have specified who you were talking about and let them know that you'd posted here. I just really don't think that this should have come to ANI. While I can understand not really wanting to get into it with another editor, if you find that someone is making problematic edits then you need to talk to them first before escalating it like this because you really do need to give the other editor a chance to explain themselves because in many cases it's usually unintentional, like this one seems to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was made aware of this because of Tokyogirl79 notification. I've left a message on Pyxis_Solitary's talk page (edit: added permalink as message was removed). I've nothing more to say on this absurd non-report beyond what I said there. Thanks to the other editors for informing Pyxis_Solitary of WP:ASG and WP:DISCUSSION. Pyxis_Solitary should pay attention to what has been said here and what other editors have said on their talk page. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Austrian Empire

    Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of topic ban

    Immortale warned. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Immortale has been topic banned from articles about the Aspartame controversy [97]. He/She just posted on the talk page of that article [98]. I don't see any lifting of the topic ban on their user talk page. Perhaps I am mistaken. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's unclear from the wording whether the topic ban includes talk pages, or just the article. Can this be clarified? Either way, the ban is over two years old, and I see nothing disruptive about that talk page comment. Reyk YO! 15:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the talk page issue. However if the ban was intended to apply to talk pages,; as people in the discussion said as did the ban summary, an indef ban means they are banned until the ban is lifted. Perhaps two years is enough time that the community is likely to lift a ban if asked (although for a topic ban rather than a sitewide community ban this is far more difficult if they've displayed no editing in other areas since the ban). But two years definitely doesn't mean they should resume editing without their ban being lifted. If people wanted a finite topic ban, they would have said so. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My immediate instinct is to remind Immortale of the fact that the ban is still in place, advise on how to appeal the ban, but clarify that topic bans do indeed also apply to Talk pages. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had seen the ban before responding to the talkpage comment, I would have removed the comment administratively rather than responding as an editor. Looking at the content of the talkpage comment, I think he has chosen not to take the cause of the ban to heart and change his ways, but instead engage in WP:OR contrary to cited WP:RS to continue his old crusade. So consider this a "ban is still needed to prevent disruption" !vote. DMacks (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly seems to be supported by the observed facts, but regardless, I think the correct response is a reminder, and a note that a ban continues unless it is either time-boxed or lifted, and that it applies to Talk pages as well. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Threat of violence on my talk page

    TonySpraks has made a threat of violence in the most recent post on my talk page Would someone else give the user a formal notice? I want no further contact. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor was blocked by HighInBC -- samtar whisper 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the account indef and removed e-mail and talk page access. I have personally received similar threats before and thankfully they were all hot air. The foundation at the time gave me contact information to pass onto the police, if you want to pursue this you may wish to contact them. I am not sure what the correct way to do this is, perhaps someone else can provide that info. HighInBC 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not knowing how "serious" the threats were, if Cullen328 would like to pursue a similar course of action, perhaps the emergency contact would be the most prompt and effective method? -- samtar whisper 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron seems to have given good advice below. HighInBC 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to get around to rev' del'n but @Jayron32: got to it before me. HighInBC 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rev deleted all posts as well, (you beat me to the block) and emailed the foundation as described at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Thanks for alerting us to this. This is usually hot air, but having myself in the past been contacted at my home phone number and had my wife and children threatened by name related to things which have happened on Wikipedia, we should ALWAYS take such threats seriously, and report up to the foundation. If this persists, please continue to pass this to the emergency@wikimedia.org email address. --Jayron32 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all. I request full protection of the page that caused the dispute, Steve Comisar, and please consider adding it to your watch lists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have watchlisted it, but will hold off on full protection yet. If this user returns under multiple guises, and makes the page uneditable because of their disruption, we can protect it then. Right now, I am comfortable leaving it open, but watching it. --Jayron32 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a 48 hour block to an IP address associated with this editor. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned that after removing mentions of Steve Comisar being an actor on the reasoning that IMDB is not considered a reliable source and the subject is not notable as an actor, now Cullen328 (previously subjected to threats seemingly about this subject) reinstated such information without much of an explanation. LjL (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was in error in saying the other day that there was no IMDb page for Comisar. The previous URL was dead, LjL. I reinstated the current URL as an external link, not a reference, which is common practice. I continue to object to language implying that Comisar is anywhere near as notable as an actor as he is as a career criminal. However, he has had some bit parts. I stand by my edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your edits (before seeing this, to be honest). I hope you understand I'm by no means trying to edit war with you, but am merely concerned that after these events, your edits might not genuinely reflect your actual thoughts. LjL (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no chance of an edit war because I never go there, LjL. My comment immediately above reflects my thinking precisely. I am not intimidated by goons such as Comisar's buddy. This article has been problematic for the 4-1/2 years I have been watching it. Please improve it as you see fit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tokyogirl79, looking into stories about this individual, he is represented by a lawyer, a publicist and an agent even though he is imprisoned until 2018. He also filed a petition for early release. So, I think extended protection is a good idea, especially because his representation prominently lists his Wikipedia article. I think there might be attempts to rehabilitate his image via Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked sock editing

    Sock blocked. GABHello! 02:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Will I go to hell if I report this here instead of at WP:SPI? In this edit, a new user admits to being a sockpuppet of a "globally locked" user. Also, glaring personal attack / incivility.

    LjL (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a sock of Starship9000, whose cross-wiki abuse led to a global block. I'd appreciate an indef as a sock and a global block on top of that. GABHello! 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was blocked by Jayron32 for "Trolling", though not explicitly for socking. LjL (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Lj you will be smitten by the almighty Jimbo! Just kidding, we have cookies in Wiki-hell --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revdel request

    (non-admin closure) job done. Chop chop FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Could somebody please revdel the initial version of J. Derek Halvorson. Its creator, probably a student unhappy with their fall semester grades, posted their college president's official bio as an article, with some lame and unfunny modifications attempting to ridicule him. So it's both a copyvio and an attack page. I've cleaned up and stubbed the article, since presidents of notable colleges are typically notable, but the original text shouldn't be accessible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I've revdeleted them. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Bestlovesolution

    (non-admin closure) Reported user has been blocked by Materialscientist -- samtar whisper 11:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block this user indefinitely for creating multiple nonsense pages. --The Avengers 10:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked by Materialscientist indef. -- samtar whisper 10:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spammer using multiple identities

    Taken to SPI over thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Buddhabusiness, Namasteahimsa, Religiousworks, and Buddhistbehaviour all make identical edits with identical edits summaries within minutes of each other. They are all adding the same YouTube video to various articles. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider making a WP:SPI report? -- samtar whisper 14:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Scrap that, I've done it - here -- samtar whisper 14:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already blocked all 4. The SPI may be able to find sleepers. --Jayron32 14:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Namasteahimsa. Is there some way one of us can delete theirs? Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now there are two identical SPI reports. They'll need to be merged. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor making pov page move, copyvio after warning, duplicate articles

    Channasandeepanaperera (talk · contribs) came to my attention with these edits[99] where they changed the name of Adams Peak to Sri Pada. I reverted, explaining that we used the normal English name.{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Channasandeepanaperera&diff=695329185&oldid=695328920} Now they've made a series of moves to rename the article without discussion. The article has been protected 3 times in the past, the latest by User:Favonian but that has expired.

    This editor also created Srilankawildlife today which I deleted as a dreadful copy of Wildlife of Sri Lanka. I also explained to them how to copy material between articles.

    Also today I warned them about copyvio at Colombo.[100]. 8 hours later User:Diannaa gave them a similar warning for more copyright at the same article.[101] She also deleted a talk page this editor created under the name "User talk:Channa The Expert" as there is no such account.

    The editor's only response to messages on their talk page has been to delete them. I'll go notify them now of this discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller Seems to have nationalistic agenda. Perhaps an early sign of WP:PLAGUE, although not 100% sure. Maybe give some more WP:ROPE then bring out the hammer. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, internet based sources name it Adam's Peak, however most include the local name. Sadly most internet based sources are tourism-related, so would use the English name anyway. Personally I am swayed that in Civilization 5 its named Sri Pada ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at the Web, not GBooks or GScholar. They show that Adams Peak or Adam's Peak are most common, although a lot of those sources obviously also mention the name Sri Pada. Irrelevant anyway since they did this after I explained why we call it Adams Peak on enwiki. The editor has simply ignored the warnings. Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page has been orphaned from the article, and needs to be moved from Talk:SriPada to Talk:Adam's Peak. --Carnildo (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - The Bushranger One ping only 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User MBUSHIstory

    User has been instructed on how to leave the building. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unrelenting bullying, harassment, attacks for no reason, deliberate false statements about me, and other disruptions by User:Checkingfax and User:Softlavender - Please close my account

    Editing at Wikipedia has been a terrible experience. I never had a single dispute with anyone for any edit I ever did. I never reverted or deleted content from anyone’s edit. No one ever deleted or altered any of my edits. Yet from out of nowhere, for no reason and with no evidence, I began repeatedly attacked, harassed, and lied about, such as here by User:Checkingfax and here by User:Softlavender. So I am asking an administrator to please close my account. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing the case made by User:Softlavender I will be endorsing this request. Btw by close you mean indef ban right? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the case made by Softlavender? She did not reply at the above link, and deleted my reply from her own talk page. I do not know what indef ban means. I am at someone else's IP, and they are upset that I continued to use it after I was threatened. I want to dissociate from Wikipedia. This is especially after I to dropped the fact that evidence-free accusations were made against me and move on, which was followed by an IP making a threat to "hit" me with a boomerang, and Checkingfax initiating a new set of evidence-free, and false accusations at the SPI he/she started. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ravensfire wrote on my talk page, "The best way to close the account is change your password to a really long, random string of characters. Type them out in a text file and paste them into the password and confirm password fields. If this is the best way to close an account, and not just more disruption and harrassment, why can I not find such a suggestion anywhere else? MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @MBUSHIstory: In your previous complaint, I recommended that you step away from the ledge; that you were overreacting to a simple Wikipedia procedure. The SPI case against you has been closed. You responded to my recommendation by closing the issue as resolved. But now you've returned to complain about it again, while no actual further problems have occurred. I don't understand why you're stirring this pot again. However, there is no need for anyone to close your account; if you are unhappy as a Wikipedia editor, simply stop doing it. If you would prefer that your username be expunged from the project for some reason, please visit WP:VANISH. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want the IP owned by the person I am visiting, who let me use their computer, to be affected by what appears to be a new threat to hit me with a "boomerang". Why would someone edit as an anonymous IP and write that threat, after I did what you said, put a "resolved" hat in the ANI section, deleted the false statements (and everything else) from my talk page, and began editing again. After I did that, the IP threatened that I would be hit by a "boomerang", and Checkingfax began a new onslaught of false and evidence-free accusations against me. I spent the entire day responding to each of the new false accusations. I do not want to edit at Wikipedia anymore. I do not want the IP I am using to be "hit" or affected in any way. MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you have had a bad experience here. Information regarding your IP is only visible to checkusers, highly trusted users with special permissions. To protect people's privacy, the data is only retained for a short period. So even they can no longer determine which accounts edited from which IPs when about three months have passed. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBUSHIstory: You have no way of knowing that the IP who warned about the BOOMERANG problem was either CHECKINGFAX or SOFTLAVENDER. The reasons behind CHECKINGFAX's SPI case against you are not really material here; the case was opened, insufficient evidence was produced, and the case is now closed. The "BOOMERANG" refers to the Wikipedia guideline page WP:BOOMERANG which relates to the fact that people who bring complaints to the various noticeboards are sometimes sanctioned themselves because their complaints are unfounded and their actions leading to the perceived wrongs against them are often problematic enough to lead to blocks or other sanctions. In this case, I don't think you're in danger of being sanctioned yourself -- you're being somewhat overreactive but I don't see that you've violated any policies that would result in a block or other sanction. So, if you wish to stop editing, do so. No sanctions will be imposed against you and you will be free to return to editing at any time in the future. If you really wish that your username be expunged from the project, once again I refer you to WP:VANISH, where you will find instructions on how to pursue that goal. Should you pursue a vanishing, no harm will come of that either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for more editor feedback

    This discussion should be occurring at WP:AE, not ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Today I filed a Arbcom request in regards to a 1RR violation. However, now involved editors discuss the topic banning of me, not even bothering to judge the actual 1RR violation. The issue evolves around one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia, and is at its heart about neutrality and verifiability of content. Therefore i invite all Wikipedians to participate and give some feedback, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JzG prokaryotes (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Prokaryotes, you appear to be forum shopping ([102], [103]). I think that WP:BOOMERANG has already been pointed out to you: you narrowly escaped sanction at the ArbCom case and have today unapologetically violated the very restriction for which you are trying to get me sanctioned, and then Wikilawyered about whether an article is included in the ban when the content you've been edit warring is about the very person whose inclusion is a necessary condition for the AE request you yourself initiated. I think you need to get yourself some advice and counsel fomr someone who does not share your heart-on-sleeve devotion to this subject area. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking about double standards. Guy (JzG) forum shopped here (a place which is visited by editors who side mostly with JzG), a couple of hours ago. prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be one of the few places it makes sense to mention it. More importantly note the neutrality of the wording versus yours above. Capeo (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And since JzG mentions Federation of German Scientists, no this is not suddenly an article about GMO's (See also talk page).Also notice that i did 1 revert on that page today, and that page has been heavily edited in the last couple of hours.prokaryotes (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You already have an AE request open. You shouldn't be arguing anything or presenting evidence here. Capeo (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as may be. For my part, I'm concerned about what I'm seeing in your edits. Having not followed the arbcom case at all, I don't know the background. But blatant canvassing and paper-thin AE motions don't exactly fill me with confidence that the situation will cool down. Please take the comments at AE on board and work to reduce drama. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. prokaryotes (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prokaryotes:, your closure request at WP:AE reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Arbitration Enforcement process. All Enforcement actions are carried out by uninvolved administrators, not the members of the Arbitration Committee. And since you raised the issue at both AE and ANI (and Seralini affair Help Desk and Glyphosate), you are going to see the same names in both fora. Most editors who watchlist WP:AE also keep an eye on WP:ANI. Horologium (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cebr1979

    BLOCKED
    User:Cebr1979 has been blocked one week by User:Berean Hunter for personal attacks and battleground behavior. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    By way of his edits, User:Cebr1979 appears to be indirectly requesting a long block for continued personal attacks and harassment of User:Flyer22. These edits are unacceptable.[104] I previously warned him on September 30.[105] I would encourage admins to look more closely at the overall entirety of edits by Cebr1979 to Flyer's talk page, however the tool that provides this information appears to be down. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Viriditas! Thank you for starting this thread (I had planned on doing so myself but... "life" happens and I got busy).
    Now... Viriditas: Let's start with your accusations, shall we? I (according to you) "appear to be indirectly requesting a long block for continued personal attacks and harassment of User:Flyer22..."
    Show your proof, Viriditas! Where have I ever (directly or indirectly) requested a block (of any length) in regards to anything regarding Flyer22 (no rebirth whatsoever, she's still the same old Flyer she's always been and whom I will *from this point onwards* be referring to as rpa?"Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. VIRIDITAS: You did NOT notify me on my talk page of this conversation you started at the ANI board about me... *sigh* (it's only at the top of this page in bold, red lettering and... I'm not sure about this but, can look it up if need be... I don't think this is your first time here and the rules regarding notifications on talk pages definitely haven't changed so...) tisk-tisk!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You also did not notify User:Flyer22 Reborn but, I've gone ahead and done that for you as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was here. Cebr1979 stop with the chiding. No one is impressed and quite frankly you are coming across as hounding. Stop it.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, how unfortunate that the bold, red lettering at the top of this page states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page..." NOT "user page (no talk)."Cebr1979 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter: Don't you tell me to "stop!" Don't you dare!!!!!! Answer me this question, Berean (Can I call you Berean?): If I said you were a murderer but, never offered proof... Would you be a murderer? Yes or no.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a mistake and notifying on an otherwise empty user page instead of the talk page is not unfortunate, it's just a small mistake. You insisting on this point would be childish. LjL (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of size, mistakes are mistakes and all mistakes are "unfortunate."Cebr1979 (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that instead of cutting you slack for 3RR next time that maybe I should just go ahead and block? Remember this? Watch for stones in glass houses.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember that, Berean (you haven't answered me as to whether or not I can call you that so I'm going on a good faith assumption that I can and)... I chose my words well... Blocks aren't punitive... Did you not know that? I apologised and promised it wouldn't happen again so... Unless you have proof that I have done it again... Ah, well! Done diddley un done! Now... Berean: When were you planning on no longer dodging the issue at hand and going back to answering my (extremely valid) murderer question? It's still there waiting for you.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed my point which is that we all make mistakes but you appear to not want to cut others slack in that department so why should anyone cut you slack? Were you called a murderer?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Berean! I didn't miss your point, actually, because... you didn't have one (and still don't). I have been called a stalker, a hounder, and much more by User:Flyer22 Reborn... with no proof ever being offered! You, BH (let's shorten it even further, mmmkay?), even stated above that I was "coming across as hounding!" Share your proof, BH! Puh-lease! Where's the "hounding" you claim (but, before you do that... answer my murderer question because... if you don't... in my opinion: you're not qualified to be in this discussion and I won't acknowledge you again.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you hold no respect for most people, Cebr1979, but I'd recommend dropping the flippant, sarcastic attitude. While it can seem witty on talk pages, it backfires, big time, on this noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Liz! So your comment stating you "know [I] hold no respect for most people..."
    You have proof to back that up, do you? 'Cause... I'm waiting.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not an accusation, it was an observation based on your previous behavior on ANI. I don't need to present diffs when I'm not making an accusation or claiming misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a block on Cebr1979 for engaging in the same personal attacks in his thread? Up above he once again calls Flyer22 a liar. I would like to see an end to this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. One week for the harassment and battleground behavior. I had a hard time finding where this person has had good interactions with folks. With previous entries in his block log for this, I'm going to suggest that either they have gotten the wrong idea about how things work around here or they are trying to troll on purpose. I won't need much convincing to ramp the time up on blocks to run this cat off. We don't need to have that type of editor driving others away.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe they expect to be unblocked even after this personal attack. Such behavior should be definitely addressed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking quick action. This behavior was very disturbing. Jacona (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note after the close: I know that this should not be edited after being closed, but Mark Arsten beat me to commenting. Except to note the following, I would not have commented in this thread while it was open (I've been ignoring Cebr1979 at my talk page as well), and I'm only commenting now to include this evidence of what Viriditas and others were talking about with regard to Cebr1979's commentary about me in this thread. I prefer that such evidence is not altered; this is so that people are aware of the original text, and so it can easily be used in future cases without editors having to hunt down diff-links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Good block, wrong reason. Editor was not engaging in personal attacks, they were trolling ("If I called you a murderer...") WP:RBI and WP:DNFT and all that. NE Ent 03:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block this IP

    (non-admin closure) hunted and killed(blocked) by User:Berean Hunter for a week just two minutes after this request was made, who says our admins are slow? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Good day,

    Please block this IP: 85.233.61.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for recent harassment on other users in response to warnings about vandalism.

    Thank you for your attention, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (just seeing this) I blocked them for a week two minutes after your request.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Litch

    (non-admin closure) User:Liz has given them a warning FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Could someone have word with Litch (talk · contribs) about personal attacks, such as this? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He was given a warning at User talk:Litch#December_2015. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor with battleground mentality, competence and collaboration issues

    (non-admin closure) Indeffed by User:Berean Hunter due to their being Not here, they are requested to prove that they can edit in a sane manner before the ban is lifted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Devonexpressbus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 259 edits since January this year, mostly about trains. This month the editor has veered wildly off the rails.

    1. Altering another editor's talk page to state "I am an idiot"
    2. Deliberately trying to "piss off" another editor by adding "SPAM" to his talk page [106][107][108]
    3. Moving that editor's user page to User:PRICKSRUS. [109]
    4. Edit warring at Great Western Railway (train operating company)
    5. Using sock puppetry to edit war and create the illusion of support (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devonexpressbus)
    6. Persists in making personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with his edits or behaviour: "Two idiots who have nothing to do with GWR go do some point scoring elsewhere morons; "Next time take a look at them before blaming me. MORON"; *"Yet another idiot on here who likes to fiddle around with peoples content and try to get some sort of points from it. Get a life you stupid fuck, and stop interfering."; "Don't worry sonny jim, im on your case and im keeping a close eye on you"; "Davey2010 is stupid prick who needs to grow up. hahahahahahaha"; "Well said, she is nothing but a fat cow with nothing better to do, I used to date someone called Kerri, she was an utter twat too!"

    This editor is clearly a net minus to the project and I think it is in our best interests as well as his own ('Please delete this account.' "'IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO COMMENT ABOUT ME OR WHAT I HAVE DONE. THEN YOU CAN FUCK OFF! HAVE A NICE DAY :)'" "Abuse effecting me emotionally, or some shit like that.") that he be dropped off indefinitely at the next station. Keri (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from this unfortunate edit all of your examples happened on December 9th or in a few days prior to that. I blocked Devonexpressbus on December 9th for 31 hours and I'd feel more comfortable taking action if you had diffs of his behavior after he came back from his block on December 10th. I'd like to see if his uncivil conduct continued. Otherwise, he might have become more productive except he should be censored for that personal attack on you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revdel?

    The rev, it hath been deld. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    [110]: Death threat to User:Dat GuyWiki. TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 13:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the IP was already blocked for that edit 3 weeks ago. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One action does not preclude the other ... someone revdel, please? (WP:CRD#3) NE Ent 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, absolutely. I just didn't want another admin to go and block the IP for, say, 3 months, before realizing that they had already been blocked. Not that I did that, of course. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Katietalk 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit-warring to keep promotional material on Yule

    As noted below, this was a bit more than promotion, and has resulted in a block. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A new user account (who, judging by their edit summaries and obvious knowledge about how the system here works isn't a new editor...), Julbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly ([111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]) added promotional material on Yule, material promoting a non-notable neo-pagan organisation, Odinia International, and sourced only to that organisation. The reason I report it here is that they're technically not breaking the 3RR rule, instead deliberately gaming the system by carefully timing their reverts, their obvious intention to keep adding the material until they've worn down all resistance does, however, violate the spirit of the 3RR-rule. So could someone please put a stop to it? Thomas.W talk 13:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The screed below by the reported editor clearly shows they are WP:NOTHERE.--Atlan (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is still edit warring even if the bright line 3rr rule isn't being broken. Anyway this is a duplicate of WP:AN/EW report filed by another editor so I suggest this thread be closed. NE Ent 14:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the wall of text below, posted by the editor I'm reporting in retaliation for this report, you'll find they deserve more than just a 24h 3RR-block. Thomas.W talk 14:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deletion of folkish European groups, opinions, and articles by anti-Europeans on Wkipedia. A new form of White genocide?

    Julbok has successfully completed his level 1 WP:FOOTGUN training and has been awarded his passing certificate by Fut. Perf. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    wall of text
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I have been involved in the Wikipedia community myself only a few days, but have been hearing reports of extreme and uncalled for deletions of scholarly edits by folkish persons for quite some time, and one of these reports was actually as far afield as Australia. That particular case involves a man who, since he was diagnosed with cancer, has published three excellent Heathen books. He tells me that every contribution he makes on Wikipedia is immediately removed and this sounds very familiar to me already. I have never observed this man to make any internet comment that was not well cited, interesting, and scholarly, and I cannot imagine any "good faith" reason why anyone would delete any of his purely academic, and always valuable comments.

    It has become abundantly clear in the Heathen community in general that anti-European racial bias is being processed by some members of the Wikipedia community, apparently with impunity, but I am going to assume the best for now, namely, that the administration is simply unaware of what is going on or what excessive lengths it has reached. I hope that this email will reach reasonable, honest people who can advise us as to what to do. I thank you in advance for you help, not just in my case, but for helping to preserve an honest scholarly atmosphere to which all sincere and knowledgeable people can contribute..

    I personally think logic should be used, and that when a person is clearly making a deletion of content for personal agendas rather than legitimate reasons, or when people are involved in a mass reporting agenda- based groups, such as the JIDF for example, or fake sock puppet consensus, that they should be removed. It would seem that there is a tendency of some agenda driven individuals to use sock puppets, which may by the case in regard to those who are deleting my one small academic edit repeatedly. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this. It seems to me that if traditional Heathens continue to be harassed on Wikipedia on the scale that has reported to me, that our point of view will be eclipsed, which, of course, is the intention. It is all part of an attempt by another ethnic group to genocide my particular ethnic group, by racially replacing us in our countries by mass immigration that they have led in every case, controlling the media, 97 percent of the media no less, and of course, by not allowing us to practice our own native religion or communicate our views.

    During my very short residence here, after having made only one edit Bold textwhich was scholarly in nature, a minor edit in which I added only two sentences, including a citation of a scholarly article about astronomical Yule reckoning in a folkish online journal, I have already have been blocked, although this has now been reversed. My minor edit was deleted numerous times first. Apparently this was done by the efforts of a person and sock puppets or group of persons who are knowingly engaging in vandalism on Wikipedia. Most (but not all) of the people engaged in such aims as group mass reporting Europeans for participating in our native religion are of Jewish ancestry and- or homosexual orientation and dislike or hate traditional Europeans being involved in our own native religion, especially if we are family orientated, blonde and blue eyed, etc. Now mind you, I think they are entitled to their views, feelings, etc, and to hate anyone they like, but I also am entitled to love my own people, culture, and religion, and I am not deleting their information, they are deleting ours. Odinism is our native European religion. I would not try to take over the Jewish religion or Shinto religion or Native American tribal religions and exclude any people that were actually of the ethnic group that created those religions as they are trying to do to us. As a European ancestry person I should have a right to practice my own native religion without being constantly abused. It is a basic human right.

    It is interesting to me that there is so much concern for the rights of homosexuals and about "anti Semitism" but none at all for the victims of militant homosexuals and Jewish social terrorists. The level of abuse that traditional Pagans of European ancestry are subjected to on social media and real life, especially Europeans of emblematically European appearance, by homosexual and Jewish groups, who often work together, is almost unbelievable. Death threats often are made against us, including detailed threats of cutting up European ancestry people, especially blonde women, in clean rooms, or beating in one's face with a baseball bat. Our telephone numbers and home addresses are published on the internet with suggestions that people of other races kill us, ads for our Yule events are removed from Jewish owned papers, and Christians (who worship a Jewish god) are allowed to advertise their services at military camps and national parks in clear defiance of the Constitution, but we are NOT allowed to advertise our events. Our places of employment are called so that, as they put it, our "Jewish boss" can fire us since they assume all of us "goyim" (non Jews) must have Jewish bosses. Sometimes there are threats to jail us, which has at times even been successful in the 17 countries in which there are anti free speech laws made by Zionists, and demands are made that various universities take away our academic credentials. What have we done to deserve all this? Nothing really, except being of European ancestry and not worshiping a Jewish god but following the religion of our own ancestors instead. Oh, and occasionally we state verifiable historical or scientific facts that they do not like.

    In my case, the two editors (or one sock puppet editor) who are apparently either members of a particular fake folkish Heathen group, or in accordance with its aims, have hit upon the deletion method of silencing any traditional perspective or any European- led Heathen groups while promoting the efforts of fake folkish Jewish controlled Heathen groups. If they delete and attack any genuine European Heathen group, they can exclude us from our own religion. If this were not the case, if they were genuinely interested in the relative scholarly worth of various citations as they claim, than certainly they would have deleted the contribution above mine, one made about the Yule practices by the AFA, an article which was published by the AFA's own journal by a person with no relevant academic credentials. This is a group they are promoting, so it has been left there by them despite the fact that its citation is not even on the AFA website any more. From what I can see of the guidelines, and the scholarly neutrality which is required by encyclopedias, it is clear that the editors in question think they are above the guidelines. Either that, or Wikipedia has a bias of its own and allows some people not to follow Wikipedia guidelines, which is an entirely different matter, one which enters into the realm of bias and accommodation discrimination law.

    Regardless, there is no reason whatsoever for me to be blocked in regard to Wikipedia's rules, nor is there any reason to block the work of an Oxford educated scholar with relevant degrees whose work I alluded to in order to make an academic contribution to Wikpedia. It would seem that these editors or one editor with sock puppets are either members of the AFA, which is a competing organization to the one whose work I alluded to, or they are in favor of the political approach of the organization they are promoting, and wish to silence other organizations and points of view by any mean possible..

    This editor or these editors are behaving in a knowingly inappropriate manner as per Wikipedia quidelines. I informed one of them that Mr. McNallen's work (the AFA entry) was published by his own organization, and asked why the scholarly response to it was being targeted, and yet my two sentence scholarly edit mentioning the far more significant work of a folkish organization they apparently hate, was reversed again, and again, quite possibly by a sock puppet account of his, or other associate, while the contribution by the AFA remains, and I was blocked, which wikipedia informs me was done illegally by an anonymous user.

    I would not have deleted the AFA's contribution myself, even if it was self promoting in nature, because there are few Heathen sources, and it added to the discussion, and they too deserve their point of view to be aired, but I do think that traditional historical Yule reckoning practices, by what can only rationally be considered more expert sources, should be included as well, and that inclusion of varied viewpoints is important as regards the maintenance of scholarly integrity on Wikipedia. The contribution about Yule reckoning above mine by the AFA takes no consideration of the scientific and religious significance of the solstice and the historical record, while the source I cited did. My source was written by a scholar with a graduate degree in archaeology from Oxford, work experience at NASA, and teaching experience at a university physics and astronomy department (which are relevant to astronomical reckoning and history) while their source was written by a man with a B.A in political science. Nevertheless, it is the work of the truly folkish group that is being targeted.

    I do hope that the Wikipedia editors will choose not to be a party to the promotion of the intellectual contribution of some groups but not others based upon personal bias or political views. It seems to me that a person should take great care before reversing a useful scholarly edit for no good reason and that those who do, with obviously false intentions due to personal preferences and bias, should be held to account for their behavior and made an example of.

    Here is the article that was removed. Fenner, Seana (December 29, 2012). "Twelfth Night: Astronomical Reckoning for the Yuletide" which is a scholarly article with footnotes. As you can see, I have informed the website editor about this situation and a screenshot of my edit and the bias the folkish community has experienced is now included in an update in this very article. I hope there can be an update stating that this issue has been resolved by Wikipedia. The article by Stephen McNallen of the AFA, referred to in the edit above my comment, has a citation but when one goes to the website link it has disappeared or is not operational at the moment. The real question is, was it ever even there to begin with? McNallen, Stephen The Twelve Days of Yule – 2005 the editors in question, who keep deleting my content while far less scholarly content is above it, unmolested by them, are Maunus and Thomas W. The article is one called "Yule". I shall try to contact them as instructed above. I am not sure how to do this or in what order to do this, but I shall do my best to figure it out. If I have made or make any errors here please excuse me. Although I am very familiar with the topic of anti-European harassment on the internet, I am new to the technical aspects of Wikpedia.

    Thank you. With best wishes, Julbok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julbok (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to take a look at this, but a lot of admins may see a very, very lengthy complaint and nope right past it. So, in one or two sentences, can you summarize what you're asking for? What administrator action are you requesting? It might be the case that this situation is more complex than anything admins can handle. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It requires a minimal amount of effort to surmise this is in response to the thread right above this one.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ultraexactzz: TLDR is a risk here. I did read it however. I created a request at edit warring noticeboard prior to coming across this in @Julbok:'s contributions but I can see nothing actionsbale here on anyone else.
    In short OP is edit warring. Amortias (T)(C) 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looking at the edits, that's my take as well. I tried to be subtle, as it's bad form to tl;dr genocide. But having read the complaint, there's no there there. If sources come forward that meet our requirements, of course they can be evaluated on the merits. These don't. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of there there, in the fact that anyone espousing It is all part of an attempt by another ethnic group to genocide my particular ethnic group, by racially replacing us in our countries by mass immigration that they have led in every case, controlling the media, 97 percent of the media no less, and of course, by not allowing us to practice our own native religion or communicate our views or this gem, It is interesting to me that there is so much concern for the rights of homosexuals and about "anti Semitism" but none at all for the victims of militant homosexuals and Jewish social terrorists. all the while slo-mo edit warring in promotional crap and claiming long established users are sockpuppets is never going to be able to function here. Do everyone a favor and just indef now before we're subject to more screeds about the homosexual/Jewish terrorist cabal that controls everything. Capeo (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑ what Capeo said. NE Ent 14:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would've thought the "white genocide" bit in the title was our clue right from the start. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Urgent block needed

    Read contributions of the IP, blocked as sock of Shulinjiang before.[117] SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang. Capitals00 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing at Firearms policy in the United Kingdom

    Twobells added some text to the lede of this article. The text was reverted on the grounds of WP:SYN. Twobells rejects that and asserts that his edits are (a) sourced and (b) uncontroversial. His idea of an impartial RfC statement could use some work. I think this user needs a warning and potentially may at some point need to be separated from this article. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you could do better explaining why this is more than a content dispute. HighInBC 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Twobells also objected to my closing of their improper RfC on my talk page. Subsequently, they basically just posted the exact same RfC again, so I've made an attempt to reword it neutrally since Twobells seems insistent on using the RfC process to canvass uninvolved editors to agree with their POV. Note also that Twobells has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, refusing to listen to consensus, and refusing to disengage. However, I do think this instance is a simple content dispute. For now, anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a case of WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and possibly even incipient WP:NCR. Please review the user's comments on the talk page. In my view they are tendentious, the user is ignoring dissenting voices and refusing to accept anybody's view that conflicts with his desired edits. So yes, it's a content dispute but one that I think requires a warning to the user such that if he carries on, he can be sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, everyone and thank you for your time. What these editors call 'Tendentious' is nothing more than the attempted addition of non-contentious referenced material. I would like for a moment to check the definition of 'Tendentious', if that's okay? expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. The material concerned is the considered opinion following extensive research of a number of well-known and respected authors and journalists, their source material speaks for itself, they have no agenda political or otherwise and that is the crux of the matter. More, that no attempt at balance and neutrality has been adhered to in the removal of said source material. With good faith in mind, I premise that editor Nick Cooper is attempting to employ these tactics to avoid the addition of non-contenticious straight forward transparent source material, regards. Twobells (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it is contentious is blindingly obvious from the fact that there is a long argument on the Talk page where you are failing to persuade others of the merits of inclusion. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edits made my Twobells, it seems they might have a slight battleground mentality, I suggest someone warn him. Weegeerunner chat it up 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After I cleaned up the language in the RfC and left my own comment on the material to be added, Twobells simply deleted the whole thing ([118]). So, I've made my own RfC. For the record, I was originally summoned to the discussion by the bot that advertises RfCs, I don't give a crap about guns in the United Kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Enrique Marquez (accomplice)

    (non-admin closure) This not an ANI matter. Proper discussions are for the article talk page and the AFD MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is one of your brand new articles. Just a wee bit prejudicial, don't you think?Dan Murphy (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an administrator issue. Please don't use this desk merely to attract attention to discussions, such as an ongoing AFD. That's an improper form of canvasing. --Jayron32 20:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my business, calling someone who has not been convicted let alone charged a criminal "accomplice" is termination stuff (as well as, rightfully, lawsuit generating). Here, pointing out that what claims to be an encyclopedia calling a man, in its title no-less, an "accomplice" to mass murder, notwithstanding he hasn't even been convicted of jaywalking, is something called "canvassing" which is a very bad thing. Beyond parody.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User making huge numbers of unilateral page moves with no explanation, no sources

    Hi, I tried to engage Chicbyaccident (talk) on his talk page, and asked him to stop moving pages unilaterally. The ones that initially caught my attention were WP:COMMONNAME violations that he's been moving at a fast rate - I can't even keep up with it at this point. After looking at his contributions, I also see massive changes to a bunch of templates; I don't even know what those templates are for, so I thought it best to call this to an admin's attention. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversation appears to be ongoing at his talk page. What do you need admins to do? Are you requesting a block or a page protection or something like that? If you aren't, there's no reason to involve admins as such. If you just need extra help in breaking a deadlock, admins have no role to play in that WP:DR explains how to do so. If you do need an admin, you only need them to use their admin tools, such as blocking someone. If you want this person blocked or banned, start a discussion to do so. General requests for help don't really belong on this noticeboard, however. --Jayron32 20:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of general sanctions

    (non-admin closure) This complaint has been taken to the proper board, which appears to be WP:ANEW rather than this one. LjL (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2015 San Bernardino attack‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    DHeyward violated the General Sanctions of WP:1RR at 2015 San Bernardino attack‎, per WP:GS/ISIL.

    - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only that, but editor continues reverting: [121] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't cherry pick from consecutive edits. This [122] is what you are calling a revert as it has all my consecutive edits. It clearly isn't a revert. Your third complaint is addition of information. Please show me where the end of consecutive edits and a previous version are the same. I have not seen a "no differences" comparison which would indicate a single revert, let alone two. Or three. Liz has reverted me on multiple article pages with the same subject but such is par for her course. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:1RR- you reverted three times. Also see the wording of the sanction [[WP:GS/ISIL#Remedies, and the explicitly wording on specifications imposed on 1RR - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two points, one major, one minor: (1) The sanctions require that the editor has been notified of their existence. I haven't done a scrupulous search, but on a quick look I did not see any indication that DHeyward had been notified of the existence of the sanctions and of the 1RR limit. Is there a diff which shows that he or she was aware of them before making the edits? (2) The sanctions call for 1RR violations to be reported at WP:EWN, not here. Reporting here is for "general matters". BMK (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He is aware. I made him aware on his talk page [123] and on article's talk page, and there is a GS notice on the article talk header.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But your post on his talk page was after the fact, was it not? And there's no guarantee that he read the talk page header before he made the edits. I think that's why, generally, editors are required to have been notified on their talk page before a violation takes place. I guess that means that everyone gets one for free, gets notified, and then the next one is reportable. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that. BMK (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken please advise on how to move this to the WP:EWN board. Just close this and report there? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think so. BMK (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for the record, the New York Times is 100% a reliable source. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No source is ever "100% reliable" - or there would be no need for them to publish clarifications, corrections or retractions - but you are correct that the Times is considered to be a very reliable source. BMK (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't close your own shopping when it fails to go your way. --DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you not reading the text? The OP was advised that this was the wrong place, so he closed this and took it there. That's not "foum shopping", and the close was a reasonable thing to do. Your re-opening it was not. BMK (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not aware of ISIL general sanctions, either. --DHeyward (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You are now. BMK (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this complaint was moved to the proper forum, and can be found here, would someone uninvolved please close this for good? BMK (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=695694178"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy