Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895

Disruptive edits by Citadel48 at Bougainville Civil War (COPYVIO links, YouTube refs, non-RS, unsourced controversial material, marking major edits as "minor", and edit warring)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday I expressed concerns on the Bougainville Civil War talk page about recent changes to the page by User:Citadel48, specifically that I felt it fell short of our policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V and potentially also WP:FRINGE. I also placed an NPOV and verifiability tag on the article. (Pls see my post here Talk:Bougainville_Civil_War#Problems_with_current_state_of_this_article).

• One of the main issues with the original version [1] of the article was that large parts were either unreferenced or were cited to YouTube videos, whilst the article also used a very old article from the Green Left Weekly (not RS according the RS Noticeboard as far as I could see) to advance a theory which is clearly controversial and presented without balance (with probably WP:BLP issues as well).
• Following that post a number of other editors agreed that there were issues and some of the material was either removed [2] by User:Nick-D (which I of cse agree with) or removed / rewritten by me, whilst in the process I also added a number of reliable sources for some of the material and corrected a number of errors of fact [3].
• I subsequently added an additional discussion to the talkpage about my concern about a likely inaccuracy IRT Australian helicopter pilots and explained why I removed the content, as the article made a claim about their presence citing a YouTube video but this was specifically contradicted by a fairly recent article in the The Australian newspaper and invited Citadel48 to discuss - pls see here Talk:Bougainville_Civil_War#Alleged_Australian_helicopter_pilots.
• Following this Citadel48 blindly reverted all changes with this edit [4], marking the edit as "minor", not including an edit summary, and without discussion on the talkpage. In so doing he removed the NPOV and Verifiability tags I had placed on the article and has done so repeatedly since. He then proceeded to continue to make additions to the article that suffered from the same issues, including the addition of videos from YouTube that are likely COPYVIOs.[5]
• I raised the issue on the talk page again [6] and posted a message on his user page here [7]; however, to date his interactions on the talkpage have failed to discuss the actually issues raised with his edits and only seem argumentative to me.
• As far as I can see there is no consensus for his edits (in particular the insertion of unsourced material and Youtube videos and the use of references to Portuguese wikipedia) and myself and at least 3 other editors have all expressed concerns in the last 24 hours about them on the talkpage (User:Nick-D, User:Peacemaker67 and User:AustralianRupert), whilst previously his addition of similar material to the same article has also been challenged and reverted by two other users (User:JoeSperrazza [8][9] and User:Arjayay [10] in June and July, however these concerns were simply ignored and reverted by Citadel48 [11] or dubious refs to YouTube inserted [12])
• This morning his recent changes were reverted by another editor due to the COPYVIOs they contained [13][14]; however, Citadel48 repeatedly edit warred, reverting them back [15][16] - on one occasion not providing an edit summary and on all occasions marking every edit as minor.
• Citadel48 has recently been indefinitely banned from everything concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina and from marking any edits as 'minor' on article pages covered by WP:ARBMAC - pls see here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Citadel48. This AE also included the significant issue of his long term abuse of the "minor edit" function and use of YouTube videos so he is well aware of the fact that this behavior is considered problematic by the community but has chosen to continue, albeit in an area that he is not subject to sanctions in.
• He is clearly not a new user so cannot claim ignorance of our core policies (especially as I have provided numerous links to them, as have many other editors on his talk page). My conclusion from all this is that he is not here to build an encyclopedia per WP:NOTHERE and I request an uninvolved administrator to review his (ongoing) conduct as it seems to be getting beyond the realms of disruptive and becoming intransigent, demonstrating a complete unwillingness to collaborate or to learn from previous mistakes. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Anotherclown (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Anotherclown's recounting of events, and point out that from the beginning Citadel48 has sought out drama in articles right across WP. His first edit was IRT Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, and a look at his talk page history shows that he has bounced from one drama article to the next, often taking fringe positions and not respecting consensus. I am pretty much convinced he is NOTHERE, and urge admins to impose a month block to see if he gets the message. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are attempting to create drama. These concerns have already been discussed on the article's talk page.

Within one day, you went from asking me to remove the links (which I did), to a month long ban.

Citadel48 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No there has been no discussion on your part, only half line argumentative responses on the talk page to a number of significant issues that have been highlighted with this article. You have coupled that with reverting all the references I actually added to the article and removing the NPOV and Verification tags repeatedly (which you have still not restored). Per the talk page there is clearly no consensus for the inclusion of most of the material that you have restored repeatedly yet you fail to acknowledge that. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not creating any drama. If you lack the insight to see that your contributions across WP are creating drama spot fires in all sorts of subject areas, and refuse to conform to WP norms, that isn't my fault, it's yours. You've just been topic banned at Arbitration Committee. If you don't care about what the community thinks about your editing, you won't be around for long. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At Bijeljina massacre, you repeatedly removed sourced information that I added, you claimed its' sources were COPYVIO and biased, even though the information came from sources that were there before I even began to edit the article.

Same at Bougainville Civil War, you claim the informations' sources are COPYVIO, I removed the sources' links, yet you still claimed the article was biased.

These actions on your behalf illustrate to me potential political motives. Removing information indicating the Australian Defence Force (which you served in) committed wrong doing? You removed it.

Information showing an event (Bijeljina massacre) was not as one sided as it was? You removed it. Citadel48 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just re-removed this material. As noted above, there's obviously no consensus to include it, and the sources are plainly not reliable. Nick-D (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your full report, Anotherclown. So let me understand this: the user was topic banned from Bosnia and Herzegovina for an "inability to edit neutrally" there and for marking everything minor, and immediately moved the very same battleground and disruption to another area? I'm afraid I don't see any reason to piddle around with month-long blocks. Indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 05:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrative assistance with edit filter needed

An edit filter is blocking my attempts to add relevant entries to Shit (disambiguation), citing "Addition of bad words". Perhaps the filter could be modified to add an exception for pages whose titles contain "bad words". I posted about this problem nearly 20 hours ago at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, but an administrator reviewing the reports skipped mine. Assistance with this problem would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. D638 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears you have succeeded in overriding the bot at Shit (disambiguation). I can't see myself how it would be wise to create exceptions to this filter, since articles that already contain words/titles with profane or obscene meanings are just as likely or more so to be vandalized by the insertion of more, with less scholarly motives in most cases. General Ization ^Talk 00:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I did override ClueBot NG, since it only reverts once. But the edit filter is still preventing me from adding the entries for shit kicker and Shit Brook to the disambiguation page, with no override available. D638 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by 173.21.188.179

User:173.21.188.179 is continuing to edit war with User:5 albert square after being warned not to. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no edit warring from me as I haven't edited the page since 2nd August. I reverted them previously because I didn't see how edits like these could be construed as anything other than vandalism. The IP hasn't given a reason for reducing the image so when I came across the edit, after a report to AIV, it looked like vandalism to the untrained eye. They've reverted it again still not giving a reason as to why the size of the image should be changed so they're continuing their disruptive editing.--5 albert square (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that you were not edit warring User:5 albert square. You did the right thing in my opinion. I was only referring to the user in the title. 2602:306:3357:BA0:6914:843B:E888:7228 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, it appears that the article the OP is referring to is Fornjot_(moon), but at any rate...Albert, the OP stated that only the IP is edit-warring, not you (but I do see how that can be misinterpreted). Anyway, I was about to note that the IP hasn't edited since receiving the most recent warning, but his/her talk page indicates that this is an ongoing issue (if all that represents the same person, that is). Maybe a longer block is warranted? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with having this user blocked for a longer period of time. Is everybody on board with that decision. 2602:306:3357:BA0:14B8:B3F4:8A0:185E (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

Here, an anonymous editor has threatened me by saying that they will take legal action against me if I revert their edits again. Please block that IP. Here, I reverted their edits because they are trying to erase/hide a name. Now they replaced the name with a nickname. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor is currently under a 31-hour block but the editor is in the right in regards to WP:BLP. Saying that people are or were members of a band could be considered controversial (although this IP address may just care about marketing more than that). Under that basis, I've removed all the band members until someone can provide sources for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of being a sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dondervogel 2 keeps on making false accusations of being a sock while reverting my changes. [17] S/he doesn't engage on the talk page. Please help because these constant accusations make it really hard to try to engage in good faith discussions.Glider87 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

S/hw was warned before that it's a personal attack[18] and I had hoped the person would engage in talk but they reverted back to their pattern of refusing to talk and just reverting with sock accusations.Glider87 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even after User:Arthur_Rubin tried to help [19] the person Dondervogel 2 still kept on using "sock" personal attacks to revert without talking.Glider87 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Glider87 is a disruptive single-purpose account that operates together with a second single-purpose account. They typically operate by one of them making a BRD edit. When that edit is challenged the other comes and backs it up, thereby claiming consensus for it. When their “consensus” is challenged they respond with “you are wrong – there is consensus for our change”, citing their mutual support for the change. Recent examples include mosnum [20] and Quantities of bytes [21]. Relevant talk page links include one in which the pair was requested to stop and another that refers back to the findings of earlier sock-puppet investigations. They used to operate in the same way at Thanksgiving [22]. That was a while back but is relevant to one of the sock investigations Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you believe these two accounts to be the same, why not just file a sock puppet investigation? Valenciano (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I put a lot of effort, years ago, to help Omegatron demonstrate that DavidPaulHamilton was a sock from the same stable. That effort resulted in a) DavidPaulHamilton being blocked, b) the sockmaster free to continue with endless new accounts, and c) a valuable editor (Omegatron) leaving Wikipedia in disgust. As a result I lost all faith in WP dispute resolution, and that is why I have not done what you suggest. I left too for a year or so, but decided to come back. Would it have been better to stay away? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's better that you've returned. I understand your frustration as I've been trying to keep a banned user and prolific sock creator off articles on my watchlist with the same result, they disappear but return a month or two later with new accounts. However, this is an inconvenience to them and so yes, it's best to keep plugging away by reporting obvious socks or contacting an administrator if accounts are disruptive and clearly WP:NOTHERE. Valenciano (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As the disruptive SPA has now reported itself, I'm hoping no further action is needed from me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats on Talk:Ketchapp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

77.207.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP claiming to be the CEO of Ketchapp has asked at Talk:Ketchapp that Wikipedia "remove Ketchapp page because all information are incorrect" and has added that "We will take legal actions if necessary against Wikipedia." --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP is User:77.207.173.119. Also note that he was warned after making that threat on his own talk page, which I deleted. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll check the sourcing to verify that there isn't a legitimate concern here. ~ Rob^Talk 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see why the company wants to suppress this, but it's been widely reported that they're stealing the ideas of developers, and all claims in the article have been sourced. I've done some tweaking to achieve more neutral language, and there's probably a little more work to be done to comply with WP:NPOV, but there are no unsourced negative statements in that article. ~ Rob^Talk 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; the article seems reliably sourced, and your efforts are much appreciated, Rob. If this IP (who probably is the CEO; why would someone pretend to be him?) keeps it up, he should be blocked per policy. North of Eden (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I did discover a somewhat significant inaccuracy in the article. A blockquote was previously placed in the article with a citation that was allegedly from a developer whose game was stolen. The citation supported that the developer did claim the game was stolen, but the specific quote, which was strongly worded, was nowhere in the citation. I've removed the quote and reworded that section. I'm not sure whether this matters when it comes to the legal threats, but there was somewhat of a legitimate issue here. ~ Rob^Talk 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• That sounds good. Perhaps it will allay the IP's concerns. North of Eden (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I think you're talking about the one I added. It was referenced by the source I included. This post is where I got the quote from. Anarchyte 00:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Without such a negative quote or claim being thoroughly covered by reliable secondary sources, including a statement as strong as "a ripoff" provides undue weight to that view, in my opinion. The actual source you cited in the article did not include the quote. This can be covered on the talk page, though, rather than ANI. ~ Rob^Talk 00:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has now been blocked by Doc James for making legal threats. This can probably be closed by an uninvolved editor, unless there are any remaining issues. ~ Rob^Talk 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:City Government/sandbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page appears to be a legal threat. Someone might want to check out Jerry Speziale too, it might have issues but I don't know anything about the subject matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. So why hasn't the user been blocked yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Page nominated for speedy deletion as a legal threat and blanked as a courtesy (since legal threat pages are G10 variants), user warned with {{uw-legal}} and reported to UAA as username that implies shared use. Nothing else to do here. --TL22 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is now a thread at WP:COIN about this (see here), and the sandbox was deleted -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:City Government/sandbox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page appears to be a legal threat. Someone might want to check out Jerry Speziale too, it might have issues but I don't know anything about the subject matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat. So why hasn't the user been blocked yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Page nominated for speedy deletion as a legal threat and blanked as a courtesy (since legal threat pages are G10 variants), user warned with {{uw-legal}} and reported to UAA as username that implies shared use. Nothing else to do here. --TL22 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is now a thread at WP:COIN about this (see here), and the sandbox was deleted -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sonam K Sonam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Sonam K Sonam (talk · contribs)

Repeated BLP violations, continuing after multiple warnings. It looks a lot like there's sock/meat-puppetry going on as well. I'm going to continue to go through the latest round of edits from this account, then follow up here. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I quickly looked through all the edits since the last warning 17:04, 7 August 2015. I'm not sure what to make of it. There's outright misrepresentation of sources [23], which uses http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Ive-been-like-a-gypsy-shares-Nargis-Fakhri/articleshow/21860544.cms with the title "I grew up...spiritual" to source Nargis Fakhri as being Muslim, which it simply does not do. I'm not seeing such blatant problems in every edit. I've notified the others who left Sonam the warnings know about this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper blocks by Floquenbeam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this edit Floquenbeam indicated that s/he had or was about to block Cityside189 and The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, as the block log shows was done.

There is no checkuser evidence. There is no behavioral evidence of either of these editors being associated or acting similarly to any specified banned or blocked user. The only evidence against was that editor's fairly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia, and his rather disruptive attitude. The only evidence against Cityside189 was that s/he was a new editor caught up in the disruption caused by TEoATW's efforts to "mediate" at WP:DRN and that s/he complained about this at the Teahouse and on the talk pages of admins and experienced editors who had posted about the matter. Oh and that Cityside189 showed some knowledge of Wikipedia, although not nearly as much as TEoATW. And Cityside189 had stated previous editing experience as an IP, and had indeed identified particular edits.

All of this evidence was presented in the #Help thread above. Blocks were suggested there, and there was no consensus for them. Sockpuppetry was suggested there, and there was no consensus that it was going on.

We make extensive efforts to document Wikipedia's policies and practices. Sometimes an intelligent verbally-oriented editor can actually pick up on this, and imitate notices and standard responses and actions, without long experience. We are not a secret club where outsiders need to petition humbly for admission. Competence and knowledge are not valid signs of suspicion, without more.

I stand ready to unblock Cityside189, who has not been disruptive in any way, and IMO shows every sign of being a potentially productive editor, provided we haven't driven him away already. If I don't see some better evidence in a few hours, i am going to unblock. I would also like to see an apology from Floquenbeam for this highly improper block.

While I think the block of The Editor of All Things Wikipedia was also improper, I can't argue that s/he was a productive editor. Still we had a consensus above to try a regime of restrictions in the case of this editor, and this block flies in the face of that consensus. if there had been new evidence, not known to the participants of the ANI thread (such as a checkuser confirmation) that would be a different matter. But this is purely a speculative judgement as to what a new user would or would not do. Floquenbeam does not get to make such judgements unilaterally, agaist the expressed consensus already and recently formed.

I ask Floquenbeam to reverse these blocks. Failing that, I ask consensus to overturn both blocks. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at this, I agree. @Floquenbeam: Innocent until proven guilty; while there may be a link, we need to let CU check this out. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am not going to unblock a troll so he can continue to waste the time of productive editors. If you want to do so, be my guest; I'm not claiming permanent infallibility yet. I saw the results of the ANI thread above, and was content to see if Beeb's proposal would work. At the time, I figured there was an 80%-90% chance we were being trolled, and was surprised it wasn't obvious to everyone, but whatever. However, after seeing their interaction with Cityside189, I'm 100% sure. If you want a few more specific reasons why I'm sure, I can provide them - on wiki if you insist, so they can adjust their behavior next time - but I'm pretty surprised that the additional info at the SPI isn't convincing. If you do unblock, be prepared to apologize to the people who are going to further waste their time with this person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you have additional reasons please provide them. I'd prefer on-wiki, but my email is enabled. However i reserve the right to post any such email on-wiki unless it contains personal identifying information, or other content covered by the privacy policy. DES ^(talk) 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? What good is e-mailing you if you "reserve the right" to nullify Floquenbeam's discretion by posting his information on wiki? Did you not take in the point about not teaching the trolls to adjust their behavior next time? Bishonen | talk 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

Yes i took the point. I don't think much of it. Evidence should be public to support public accusations, except in a very few circumstances. DES ^(talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no possible way that a good faith newbie, regardless of cluelessness, can:

• Think that he has blocked another editor. There is no block button for him to think he could push. Did he think he did it using mind control?
• Know how to look up where admins rank on "all time list" of editors by edit count.
• Constantly say they are acting "per wiki policy" or "per wiki guidelines" when they aren't even coming close. And then saying "oh, that's what I thought it said" when caught. This isn't misinterpreting, this is deliberate BS-ing.
• Ask for an advanced permission 11 times. No rational mature human thinks this is OK, newbie or not.
• Think, after 10 edits, that they can reasonably tell another editor to be "ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities". Particularly when, a few minutes before, they were expressing fear and asking for help about this "frightening user".

The odds of two such people (who, individually, should be blocked for lack of competence anyway) interacting is such a silly way is vanishingly small. This morning, I thought there was an 80% chance this was trolling, I'm up to 100%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

All of the above actions, except for your last point, were done by TEoATW. None by Cityside189. You say that both "individually, should be blocked for lack of competence anyway" what lack of competence did Cityside189 display that was blockworthy. I really think that Cityside189 was collateral damage here, and that the evidence that Cityside189 is in any way involved with TEoATW, as sock or meat or associate, is laughably thin. DES ^(talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You speak of what a 'rational person' would do, but not everyone is as rational as we might like. i have encountered at least one editor here, and indeed tried to mentor him, who was every bit as irrational as TEoATW seemed to be, if not more so. As for your contrast between 'fear" and "atempted domination", aren't you aware of the very human pattern of bluster and bravado in the face of fear? In any case, i ask just what Cityside189 did to disrupt the project. DES ^(talk) 19:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You really think the encyclopedia would benefit from someone who thinks, after editing for two days, that he can demand other editors be "ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities"? I'm amazed. Not rhetorically amazed, but actually amazed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I point out that he didn't demand that of "other editors", he demanded it of ONE editor who he perceived as harassing him, and only as a condition of continued interaction. He said that if TEoATW didn't like that, simply stay off his talk page, which he would have been fully entitled to demand without any conditions. DES ^(talk) 19:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: True, but we should keep in mind that (according to him, anyway), he's a teenager, and with rare exceptions what else is to be expected from teenagers? I would like to remind everyone about Thine Antique Pen, who started in a similar fashion and has since matured into what I believe to be a very productive editor. (He certainly has credit for more GAs than I could ever hope to have.) Hopefully this is a similar case and with some mentoring (as I and one other editor were selected to do) he'll become a better editor. This is assuming, of course, that this account is not a sockpuppet. If it is that's an entirely different story, but seeing that he has asked to be checkusered, I'm not sure that he really is a sockpuppet... --Biblioworm (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I miss something? It was The Editor of Everything Wikipedia who filed the SPI, and requested the CU on his user page aftre being blocked. Where did Cityside request a CU? BMK (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the likelihood of socking, we have more than ample evidence that TEoATW enjoyed having some degree of power over others. The desire to jump into DRN, pronouncing "I am the mediator" and such (even though experienced volunteers know that they are afforded no special autority, per policy) speaks for itself; so does the record of "banning" and blocking. User:Cityside189 has behaved almost identically in his "discussion" with TEoATW, saying "I am the Teacher and you are the Learner"[24] and generally acting like some kind of e-potentate. It's too similar to be unrelated. Plus, Cityside's talk about how TEoATW is always so "fast" is very similar to TEoATW's own defenses on the initial ANI thread. North of Eden (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam's instincts are very good in these situations, but since others are in disagreement, I recommend that CU look at this quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm certainly not uninvolved, but I think Floquenbeam's blocks were well-founded and correct; I would be surprised if checkuser turns up anything different. North of Eden (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I endorse the blocks. North of Eden (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks - I agree with Newyorkbrad that Flo's instincts are very good in these situations. Cityside189 did exactly what socks do when they know they're socking. The user is likely someone who has haunted Roscelese before. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia is an obvious troll, obviously. It amazes me how much time we're willing to waste on such users. - MrX 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Floquenbeam did what absolutely needed to be done. I'm sorry that DES disagrees with that, but those arethe facts as I see them, and there was plenty of support for an indef block -- if not a consesnsus -- before the latest "submit to me" nonsense began. There is really no other reasonable interpretation for what those two were doing: sockpuppets, meatpuppets, trolls, ventiloquist act, whatever, they were clearly WP:NOTHERE. BMK (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks All of the AGF to help the editors was for naught. I would note that CUs are not foolproof. Add to that the fact that these two could be meatpuppets rather than socks. In any event both accounts proved that they were WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What exactly did Cityside189 do to establish that he was WP:NOTHERE? diffs pleaase> DES ^(talk) 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • 13th edit, 14th edit, 17th edit. The pattern is one we see again and again from sockpuppets. I can't be more specific than that.- MrX 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • (ec) Please read this conversation . Cityside says to Editor of the Known Universe:

      If you want to really dialog, you should be ready to hear my interpretation of your behavior and submit to my supervision of your activities. You should be prepared to take action to do new things, and you should be prepared to stop doing things even if you think you shouldn't have to. You may have to stretch out of your comfort zone. If you want my dialog and support here on Wikipedia, you will have to agree up front to do whatever I say to do, and refrain from doing whatever I say to refrain from doing. If you don't like the ideas of this or think it's wrong, or simply disagree, then I will not dialog with you or support you, and I probably will share my views with important wikipedia administrators that you should be removed from Wikipedia. So it's up to you. (emphasis added)

      Tell me this is normal conversation from one newbie editor to another. "You [must] submit to my supervision of your activities ... You have to agree upfront to do whatever I say to you." Can't you tell when someone's performing for you, taking the piss, doing their schtick? BMK (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, and yes, Floquenbeam has good instincts in these sorts of situations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, respectfully disagreeing with DES. Strongly endorse block of TEOATW. Endorse block of Cityside189. The argument of TEOATW that we failed to assume good faith is judicial jujitsu, an attempt to use the strength of a judicial or quasi-judicial system against it, but the claim to have been acting in good faith is incredible, that is, undeserving of belief by a serious rational human being. Mediating a dispute without qualification is one thing; that could have been in good faith. Banning an editor from a topic, and issuing a block notice when there is no block button, cannot be believed to be good faith. The problem is not that we failed to assume good faith, but that we assumed good faith too long, before Floquenbeam put two plus two together and realized that two editors with equal experience were arguing with each other to create maximum drama, and in the process disrupting the real efforts to resolve content disputes. The audacity of Cityside189 in requesting Checkuser may indeed mean that they are two human beings in collusion, acting as good hand and bad hand, rather than one human being acting as good hand and bad hand. In any case, it is very clear that TEOATW was trying to disrupt, and was succeeding. Maybe Cityside189 should be unblocked under mentorship; maybe not, but the block was all right. Endorse blocks, and respectfully disagree with DES. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Additional data point, in case anyone is wavering: [25], last sentence. If that isn't trolling, I don't know what is. I suggest declining the unblock request and removal of talk page access as a timesink, but I won't do it myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks, temporarily. A checkuser should be done immediately, and if the user is not found to be a sockmaster, then I will no longer endorse them, although I will continue to support the restrictions previously imposed. --Biblioworm (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: Since the SPI case was closed, all of the people saying a checkuser is needed should summon one. I think the incantation is {{Checkuser needed}}. I don't need a Checkuser - my decision is independent of any pro or con CU results - so I won't do it myself. But others might want to use it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am more concerned about Cityside189 and not really concerned about that other user that could, in my opinion, stay blocked regardless of CU results. It isn't clear that Cityside189 is a sock. And because others seem to think the same:{{Checkuser needed}}.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block of TEOATW, oppose block of Cityside189- the evidence doesn't say it's a duck IMO, so a CU should be run. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: @Müdigkeit: I endorsed a ChecUser check at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, so I de-templated your request for CheckUser. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. BMK (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. AGF is not a suicide pact, Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust, and "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard applied in Western criminal justice, not in maintaining the smooth running of a private website. Obviously experienced, obviously disruptive—whether Cityside189 is a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, or just a wilfully disruptive troll there is no good reason to waste more time on him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec again) A point I tried to make but got EC'd. Even if the CU comes back with no connection, the blocks should stand. The Editor for trolling, disruption and tendentious editing and Cityscape for WP:NOTHERE. There's plenty of back-up for those blocks, and little indication of positive value to offset it. BMK (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Optional semi-related productive activity: This article, Cityside's first edit, seems to have problems; target of a lot of single edit vandals, and parts of it "sound" copied from somewhere, if you know what I mean. I know it upsets people when I attempt to use my instincts, but something seems off. Is this article mentioned in a blog/reddit/etc. somewhere? I'm too tired of this place to dig into it, and am going outside to sit in the sun and regenerate my faith in mankind, but someone fresh should take a look. Seems like a bunch of VOA blocks and a check for copyrighted text might be useful. Oddly enough, the bearded dragon named Harry Potter appears to be true... but it also appears to be copied from an Amazon "about the author" page. p.s. Go easy on the original author, there's no reason to think she's involved in the socking, and newbies can't be expected to know about copyright. See, I can assume good faith, when it's reasonable to do so... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks regardless of whether they are socks are not. I don't think it even matters at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – A Checkuser should be run on TEOATW to determine if they are Cityside189. We don’t need a Checkuser on Cityside189, because Cityside189 complained at the Teahouse about being tag-teamed and bullied on LGBT parenting as an IP editor, so we know their IP block. At first I thought that Cityside189 was an inexperienced editor assuming bad faith who needed to be reasoned with, and to be told not to yell "censorship" to "win" a content dispute, and who had a valid complaint about having a DRN thread hijacked by TEOATW. At this point, the timing of when TEOATW started editing and when the IP who became Cityside189 began editing is either an odd coincidence or no coincidence. I would further submit that if Cityside189 wants to edit, they should file their own block appeal. We don’t need proxy block appeal drama here. TEOATW has already done enough damage beyond sockpuppetry that the block should stand. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Checkuser comment: Results are inconclusive. No further information can reasonably be provided without violating the privacy of one or both accounts. Risker (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Given the inconclusive results, I think there's a consensus here that both of Floquenbeam's blocks should stand. As many have indicated, he perfomed the blocks on more than ample evidence. A read-through of both the first AN/I thread and the SPI indicate that both TEoATW and Cityside189 are not here to improve the encyclopedia and may well be socks or meats to boot. In any event, their interaction at User talk:Cityside189 evidences a highly suspicious connection. North of Eden (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am still totally unconvinced by the "evidence" presented here, especially against Cityside189. Franky I think the main fault of both editors was not socking but being excessively annoying. However I doubt that anyone here will admit that to themselves, let alone publicly. I could continue to try to refute the arguments presented, such as they are, but I rather doubt that anyone would be persuaded. I think an unblock would be within policy, but there is clearly now a consensus against it, and wrong as I feel he block of Cityside189 is, I won't take admin action against consensus. I draw your attention to the comments since the block on User talk:Cityside189. I have tasks here that I promised to complete, then we will see. I'll probably continue editing, but just now the whole thing feels dead. I really thought that this was a place where reason would generally prevail over emotion. I am sorry to be proved wrong. I ask people, if you were reviewing a BLP article, and it included the text "John Doe operated a sock puppet on Wikipedia", citing the same statements and evidence in the ANI threads and the SPI here against Cityside189, would you let the statement stand? Sleep well, if you can. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're certainly right. Nothing was their fault, it was our fault for being "annoyed." (Wait, isn't that sorta the definition of WP:Disruptive editing?)
    Yours is about the most facile "analysis" I've seen in a month of Sundays, and deeply disappointing coming from a ten-year admin.
    Both blocks should stand, per my argument above. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I respect DES's intentions, and his tenacity is admirable. But indeffing presumable socks ("No further information can be provided without potentially violating the privacy of one or both accounts" is not exactly vindication) isn't like we're giving someone the death penalty without a fair trial. And Wikipedia is not a democracy and it is not a criminal justice system. Ultimately, folks are supposed to be here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Both editors (or the editor) involved here showed less interest in these goals than in asserting themselves as authority figures and engaging in petty disputes. I, for one, will be sleeping just fine. North of Eden (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks There is no need to determine whether someone is a troll or is accidentally behaving like a troll—either way, such contributors suck up too much time and energy and the community should move on. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Alas, DES has gone down this road before. As someone said above, WP:PACT. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "sleep well, if you can" oh the humanity. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism, Sock Puppets?

User:Csalinka, User talk:Csalinka and User:188.36.195.10, User talk:188.36.195.10

These users continue to add destination maps and attempt to change the typo on Nuuk Airport, Zurich Airport, Addis Ababa Bole International Airport, Kangerlussuaq Airport and Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport. I have warned the IP and the user. But they don't listen and will not communicate with anyone. They claim that their edits to Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport are not vandalism, but they clearly are as they are adding 2000MB bytes of content without providing any sources at all. I also think that User:Csalinka is socking the IP, any further actions would be apprecciated, thanks, RMS52 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Bytes, not MB.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not relevant to this. RMS52 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously a factor 1000 error in your accusations against another user is extremely relevant. But it isn't central to it, hence the use of small text.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

1,000,000 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC). So true.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The user has engaged in discussion at WikiProject Airports over the use of maps. The vast majority of the destinations on Presidente Nicolau Lobato International Airport are unreferenced. Not sure we should be accusing someone of vandalism is their contribs are merely unreffed. If they are demonstrably and consistently wrong, that is another matter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry and COI Edits

There has been a lot of sockpuppetry and Conflict of Interest violations going on at the page La Salle College High School. Most of these edits seem to be the result of a "public relations" campaign by the school to clean up their image in the wake of a semi-recent scandal of a Priest at this Catholic School saying Mass by a swimming pool. Many Catholic newspapers and blogs covered the incident, so it is certainly notable and verifiable. The school is simply trying to clean up its image, a clear violation of Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policies. This is not the first time the school has withstood scrutiny for its editing and advertisement of its Wikipedia Page. As this talk page notes, all content put on the page in question is scrutinized by La Salle's director of communications, Mr. Christopher Caribello.

Additionally, there are two other subsets of problems that are notable, those being that
1.) The school is using sockpuppet accounts run by school, as well as directors of communication Christopher Caribello and Braden Bonner, and that
2.) These sockpuppet accounts are repeatedly violating the 3 Revert Rule.

Please investigate this and take any action that is appropriate, including possible protection, dispute mediation, and a sockpuppetry investigation, which has already been opened at the appropriate page. I also would like to propose a WP:Topic Ban against any sockpuppets from the school editing the school's page in light of the recent troubling public-relations and advertising that has been going on.

I believe these accounts are related:

Braden.bonner (Director of Communications Braden Bonner)
8605Cheltenham (Director of Communications Christopher Caribello) (8605 Cheltenham is the school's address)
206.169.237.5 (IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
167.220.104.218 (Another IP editor related to the school, possibly either Bonner or Caribello)
2601:44:8501:b3e0:30f5:792c:7be7:df64 (Another IP editor related to the school)
50.199.67.44 (Another IP editor possibly related to the school)

70.192.131.83 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on the "pool mass" had one ref which didn't mention the subject, and the remaining refs were all blogs or other unreliable sources, so it has been deleted again. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... and I see that the sockpuppetry aspects have been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Braden.bonner. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• David Biddulph, I encourage you to leave a note on that talk page in case this isn't over. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• • The reason for the removal of the content is simple. No official Catholic newspaper ever covered this story as claimed. The only coverage it received was in several (not many) ideologically biased blogs and privately produced news programs not associated with any diocese or religious institute and without any official church standing. Additionally, no one making this claim has demonstrated the credentials or authority to make canonical judgments. The post is based on a layman's interpretation of a canon, which has the same validity as a layman's interpretation of a civil statute.Thank you. Braden.bonner (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Without speaking specifically to the sock/COI claims, I can say that the content removed by the alleged socks was definitely problematic in terms of tone and sourcing, and therefore likely couldn't be considered 'disruptive', for what it's worth - though if the intent was to create the illusion of greater support for their position, while unnecessary IMO, it would certainly be inappropriate. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith editing at TV articles by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have noticed that on some "list of programs broadcast by network" articles that User:TheRedPenOfDoom has added tags to upcoming programming sections that claim there is undue weight and advertising.

For one, how on earth can listing upcoming programming lend undue weight to articles, if there are currently and formerly broadcast sections? Secondly, @Manoflogan: stated the content in question is not promotional material as long as it is cited with proper sources, in this case, most of it is. Yet TheRedPenOfDoom went on his delusional crusade anyway. (please read User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding Upcoming Series on Zee Zindagi for more info)

This user is obviously crazy to believe that upcoming programming lends undue weight and is advertising, source or no source. He is continuing to uphold this even after I had reverted his tagging. I personally feel that an indefinite block or ban is needed at this point. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD started discussions on the addition of the Undue tag on the article talk pages where you were edit-warring. It would preferable to try to come to a resolution by discussing this difference of opinion with other editors before turning to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Personally, I feel TRPoD's claims of undue weight and advertising are invalid, yet he's running with them anyway. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You might be correct about the content but it's best to get a consensus on the article talk pages. It looks like a discussion is occurring at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Zee Zindagi although it is heated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Extracted the following from the discussion:

Wikipedia admin Cyphoidbomb has given his opinion that he does not mind the presence of Future Programming as long as there is a valid source of reference. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Regarding_Upcoming_Series_on_Zee_Zindagi. I am therefore going to remove the two warnings that you inserted. He/She also mentioned that it is a standard template for television network programming. If you have any issues, you can take it up with him/her. But from now on, please refrain from adding warnings just because you object to the sections or their referenced content. In addition, please don't go about putting the warnings back again.

Like Manoflogan, I removed the templates from the articles. However, TRPoD re-added them almost immediately. Like I keep saying, the edits do not appear to have been made in good faith. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Delusional crusade"? "This user is obviously crazy"? Electricburst1996, you need to step back from the edge of the cliff pronto.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit too much... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really doesn't seem like something that warrants actions anywhere near an indefinite block or ban. Article talk pages are there for a reason. Sam Walton (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If the Guinness Book of Records has an entry for "dragged most times to ANI for manifestly invalid reasons" then TRPoD would own it. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, an AN/I complaint that says "this user is obviously crazy" had really better be confident that the user complained of is obviously crazy. Good faith does not invariably mean "agreeing with me". I'm disturbed about the way targeted editors are dragged into this sort of thing over and over again, and would not be surprised to find that this is yet more spillover from TRPoD’s previous persecutors. The community should give TRPoD a firm assurance that, barring actions that actually are "obviously crazy", these repeated complaints will be ignored or boomeranged; that sort of assurance would go a long way toward defusing the tension. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst not being a proof of sanity, or otherwise, can anyone list off some article where RedPen's efforts have been held up as an example of good editing? This is an editor with a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problem, across every article I've ever seen them at. They have formal restrictions against them because of this on the Gamergate issue. In particular, they have a messianic belief in their personal absolute correctness, no matter what.

Although I'm seeing some hyperbole from Electricburst1996 here, it's not hard to see how RedPen has inspired it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may chime in my two cents here, I think Andy Dingley has hit the nail on the head here. I agree that Electricburst1996 is over reacting, and using some rather hyperbolic language, but there is also something to be said for the fact that users across the board are constantly taking issue with the same user, over and over again. Even if one assumes some of these complaints are simply sock puppets, surely they aren't ALL. Seems to me that at a certain point TRPoD should take some responsibility for this as well.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD does a valuable job in pruning back the dross that tends to accumulate in articles. In a project where some people think that every passing mention of a thing, in every single medium, however trivial, deserves its own section in the top-level article, we do actually need cruft-pruners. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And that's a free ride to behave however he wants? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence supplied by long-term abusers who get special treatment because of their perceived good content work would suggest yes it is. I make no comment on if that is a good or a bad thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute at the heart of this. One party is engaging on the talk page, which is what you're supposed to do, while the other is running to this page which is intended for reporting serious conduct issues, crying "bad faith" rather than engage in discussion to resolve the content dispute. The latter behaviour tends to be frowned upon. --TS 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony Sidaway: I left a message on TRPoD's talk page in an attempt to resolve the issue. I'll report back tomorrow to see how it goes. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 02:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that this started with edit warring to remove tags that state " Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." and then violations of WP:TPG by blanking the discussion from the talk page and then [26] blatantly violate WP:NPA while simultaneously accusing me of acting in bad faith, I think it is pretty clear where the bad faith editing is emanating from in this instance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I frequently run into TRPOD at problematic articles related to Indian/Pakistani entertainment. Typically I agree with his staunch anti-fluff attitude, however in this case I disagree with him. The inclusion of upcoming programs in a List of programs broadcast by... article is standard operating procedure if the content can be sourced. Rather than templating individual articles with badges of shame, I think the better approach might be for him to approach WikiProject Television and start the discussion there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no comment on whether or not TRPoD is actually "crazy" or "delusional" or "mentally hilarious." I will say that deleting entire referenced, non-copyright sections of articles only because these sections are about to future commercial endeavors is batshit insane by Wikipedia standards. Should we also delete all Category:Upcoming films too??? How about delete Category:Upcoming products and all its categories? It's about time those publicity-hungry jerks at the Oxford Hebrew Bible stopped getting a free ride around here! —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, yes, per WP:CRYSTAL. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL JzG Are you serious? Please tell me how the article on the Oxford Hebrew Bible violates WP:CRYSTAL in any way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Currently, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Heated Disagreements about Future Programming about the issue at the heart of this report. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can we close this discussion already? We're getting momentum over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, and I fell I no longer need this discussion open. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recurring violations of IBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this thread Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has violated our IBAN yet again, and everyone else agrees. Previous violations include joining in a discussion in which I was a key participant, reverting my edits, joining in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be banned from editing a page he had no prior interest in, and insinuating that another user and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames.

My interacting with this user has produced no positive results whatsoever, and every time he comes back and starts engaging in this kind of (not-so-passive-)aggressive behaviour it drains my desire and ability to contribute to the project. I have spent the vast majority of my Wikipedia activity since the IBAN was imposed trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese poetry (almost all of these articles were created by me since the IBAN), whereas he appears to have gone back to fighting with other users over Soka Gakkai on talk pages with his only article edits being to violate WP:V and WP:NOR, something he has been criticized for constantly. I have been doing my very best to avoid directly joining in these discussions to point out that Catflap08 is continuing to engage in the same disruptive behaviour that led to our IBAN; Catflap08 on the other hand has not hesitated to attack me in whatever venue he can find.

I'm tired of having to put up with this harassment; and it's a blatant double-standard that he can violate the IBAN whenever he wants to and I can't/don't want to. I'd like to see any of the following results:

1. Catflap08 receives a block (at least a short one) for his repeated IBAN-violations, but the IBAN stays in place;
2. the IBAN stays in place, but Catflap08 receives a further TBAN (or PAGEBAN) from pages related to Kenji Miyazawa and the Kokuchūkai, broadly construed -- he has never contributed anything worthwhile to this area, but it represents 75% of his IBAN-violating edits and close to all of his historic interactions with me;
3. the IBAN is dissolved, Catflap08 is allowed continue to do what he is doing with no direct consequences, except that I am also allowed respond directly, and the community works to resolve the underlying content issues.

One or more of these solutions received near-unanimous support (Catflap08 himself was "neutral") in this thread, but the thread was archived before a close could be made. The impartial observers mostly (User:SPACKlick and User:Blackmane but not User:Shii) tended to line up behind consequences for Catflap08 rather than dissolving the ban (solution #1 or #2), and there was a tendency among users with a history of involvement with the dispute (User:Snow Rise, User:AlbinoFerret and User:Sturmgewehr88) to favour dissolution of the IBAN (solution #3).

No one benefits from the status quo, though, so something clearly needs to be done. (Also pinging users @SilkTork: @Wikimandia: @Hoary: @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown: for historic involvement in this dispute -- sorry if you don't want to comment, as some of you specifically stated months ago; just ignore if so.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not followed this ongoing drama except for occasionally skimming it if I'm reading ANI. So I'm not up to date on the history but I will say that THIS EDIT from Catflap08 saying that "88" in a username is a some kind of well-known code for Nazi enthusiasts is WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE and patently offensive. In this stupid comment, Catflap08 has cast aspersions on everyone with 88 in their usernames as possibly being Nazis. There are almost 30,000 of these users on the English Wikipedia alone (no doubt many of whom were born in 1988, or are using 88 for any other perfectly innocent reason). If someone knows how I can safely lobotomize myself to delete just this odious factoid, please tell me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Nazi symbolism#Continued use by neo-Nazi groups, "88" is in fact used as a code among some neo-Nazi groups. Your notion that he extends this to any username containing "88" seems to be a strawman.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if you want to get technical, those (for lack of a better word) dumbasses use two eights not eighty-eight like Hijiri and myself. When I render my username in Japanese I use 八十八 (eighty-eight) instead of 八八 (eight eight). But if you read Catflap's comment, he's obviously insinuating that anyone using 88 has a "Fascist background". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: Considering Hijiri88 is apparently Catflap08's WP nemesis and all of this is really about this ongoing feud and hatred of Hijiri88 and the iBan is with Hijiri88, there is some kind of insinuation here regarding his 88 username, no? Keep in mind this is about an ongoing dispute apparently related to Buddhism/Japan and (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong) this has nothing to do with any editing of Nazi subjects (such as German, Jewish, Holocaust or World War II, etc). So, Catflap08 writes about Hijiri88: "As soon as the ice gets thin he calls for his cronies including Sturmgewehr88 (being banned from a number Wikipedias for obvious reasons – in many European countries just like Germany the number 88 is a code for a fascist background – based on edits)." ???? He says "based on edits" and "banned for obvious reasons" ... so what has Sturmgewehr88 done to indicate his supposed fascist background? Why is this being brought up at all? If you say I'm using a strawman argument, please tell me what the actual argument/intent is as you see it. Because as a casual observer, again, I think this is a personal attack on H88 and S88 (and potentially all *88 user names apparently). —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it is a relatively minor point that should not distract from the overall concern raised by OP. Your reading could well be right.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true about overall point, I will take some time to more thorough read all the diffs. I may need to give a more thorough analysis in case this 88 remark that grinds my gears is missing a larger point. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I had an edit conflict with the above two posts while trying to craft my response. I put a lot of work into it and I don't want to throw it out just because the user to whom I was responding has indicated that he/she is not that concerned and does apparently recognize that the IBAN-violations are an issue. There is also a little bit of important commentary relevant to the larger dispute that I would like to get on the record. I'm removing said user's name from the response in order that it not look like aggressively insisting on getting the last word, though. I hope you all understand.

Response to slightly-off-topic discussion of accusations of fascist associations

Both I and (I believe) Sturmgewehr88 were born in 1988. I use my birth year rather than my month/day in my username because I use the latter in my usernames on Twitter, Facebook and several others associated with my real-life identity and, if combined with other features of my wiki-activity, it would make my real-world identity too obvious. I have a right to edit anonymously, and I also have a right as an Irish person based in Japan who has never been to Germany or eastern Europe to have no idea whatsoever that "88" has neo-fascist connotations. The fact that technically his above-cited comment didn't directly attack me but only Sturmgewehr88 is irrelevant; in the middle of a long rant about how I am supposedly such a terrible person, he randomly mentioned that I often associate with Sturmgewehr88 and that said user's username has fascist connotations. The clear and obvious intent was to accuse me in the same fashion. He accused me of having "cronies including Sturmgewehr88" -- why did he choose this particular one of "my cronies" to mention, and why did he decide to hone in on one particular aspect of said "crony"'s username that he happens to share with me? It should also be noted that, in that particular post and elsewhere, he has been very careful not to directly mention me by name (except in deliberately-chosen anachronistic section title edit summaries), as he apparently believes reverting my edits is okay, as long as he doesn't mention my username even in an open discussion of the IBAN itself. It's pretty clear that if he thought he could get away with it he would have written "Hijiri88's username has neo-fascist associations", but said it about Sturmgewehr88 instead. Sturmgewehr88 has also told me off-wiki that he received a suspicious email from Catflap08 "advising him" to be careful about editing German Wikipedia under that name -- did he really mean the email for me, but for the fact that this was after the IBAN was in place? Catflap08 and Sturmgewehr88 have NO history of interaction with each other, except when it comes to me. Neither Sturmgewehr88 nor I should have to put up with this kind of attack anyway, IBAN or no. Catflap08 apparently has a history of causing trouble by accusing users of neo-fascism in this fashion -- I wonder if I should ping Horst-schlaemma? (I remember this issue from months before the IBAN, as it was one of two or three other massive feuds Catflap08 was involved in around the same time he first got involved with me, and was on his talk page around the same time as me. I did not trawl through Catflap08's edit history to find it, as he and his friend have admitted to doing to me.) Surely it's time the community put this tendentious user who has never been able to edit a single article without getting in a fight with someone out to pasture? Whenever the ice gets thin he accuses other users of having a religious bias, or being neo-fascists or Holocaust-deniers, of wanting to somehow "deny history" or "censor sources", and he has never shown any interest in changing his ways -- just see his recent edit history on various talk pages related to Nichiren Buddhism and Soka Gakkai for evidence that after the IBAN with me was imposed he went straight on to find more victims (while of course continuing to harass me in a manner that has thus far gone unnoticed as the IBAN-violation that it is).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The IBAN has been a disaster. The editors edit in the same area and its almost impossible to avoid each other. I am against removing one or the other because most of the problems flow from content disputes. My suggestion for a 1RR for both of them to replace the IBAN didnt receive a lot of discussion last time because of the huge length of the section. Strangely, or not so strange, the sections become walls of text and that slows or stops willingness of the community from input. But I think a 1RR is a good way to stop the battles and force discussion and consensus if not a 0RR for both of them. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for lifting IBAN, but a different take on the next measure My thoughts on why this IBAN was never going to work are summarized in my second post of the thread in which said ban was implemented. In short, IBANs are always a dubious, short-sighted and counter-intuitive approach to handling editors who have have refused to collaborate civilly and have an inability to disengage with one-another; in cases where said editors share "close quarters" with one-another on a topic area dominated by articles with limited numbers of editors, an IBAN is pretty much guarunteed to result in the situation we've seen here -- recurrent disruption on the articles in question and endless bickering on the noticeboards, sucking up massive amounts of community and administrative effort that quite simply dwarfs any benefit the IBAN could reasonably have ever been expected to have. This has been discussed ad nauseum in the threads one or the other of these parties have filed here in the months since the IBAN was implemented and we are well past the point to stop dithering and remove it as the first step to discussing sanctions and other remedies that will put an end to this drama.

However, as to the second point, I happen to think though that 1RR/0RR would probably fail here for the exact same reasons the IBAN has; neither party has the least bit of intention of giving ground in their feud over the tone of numerous articles on Japan's culture, religion, and history and they haven't been held accountable for the disruption they cause between them. The remedy for the refusal of two parties to respect our collaborative principle and behavioural policies is not to suggest that they should try collaborating or behaving better, certainly not at this point. They would clearly both just try to game 1RR/0RR, by rushing to stake-out territory on the disputed articles by being the first to edit on particular points, and then reverting one-another anyway, using pedantic arguments about why they were really not reverts, all landing us right back here. I suggest instead that we review the latest wave of disruption and then topicban one or both from all articles on Japanese history and culture, broadly construed. That is clearly the only way this nonsense ever stops. These two exhausted any reasonable amount of patience the community should display on this matter months ago and though I need to review the most recent confrontations to say with certainty whether both have failed to learn from the previous warnings and are deserving of the proposed measure, I'm convinced there's no chance of stopping this disruption short of TBANs or blocks. The kid gloves have to come of on this ridiculousness; we've been thoroughly enabling this drama and will only have ourselves to blame if we don't draw a line here. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree that Catflap08 should be topic-banned from the area in question (Miyazawa Kenji and Kokuchukai) and, if he shows further disruptive behaviour in other areas (Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism, for instance), he should be banned there too. But "Japanese history and culture" is ridiculous, for the reasons I outlined below. For Catflap08, let alone me. Additionally, Snow Rise, you are aware that AlbinoFerret has just done what he usually does and taken one off-hand comment by you as some sort of "community consensus" and rolled with it in opening a new sub-thread, and that this is now likely to derail this discussion to the point where it will again be archived with no result, right? Careless remarks like that are clearly a much bigger factor in enabling this drama than "treating it with kid gloves", since it's a demonstrable fact that on three previous occasions AN/ANI discussions of violations of this IBAN have been archived with no result despite a clear consensus to do something. And believe me, I have not been treated with kid gloves in this matter. I have had every single word of my comments closely scrutinized for even the slightest hint of a violation and when such may or may not have been found an ANI thread was immediately opened. John Carter has a history of going well out of his way to read very, very deeply into everything his friend Catflap08's "enemies" say to find some excuse to get them banned from the project in order to defend him. There were no kid gloves involved, believe me. To see an intelligent user like yourself make a gaffe like this makes me feel a pang of despair.

Anyway, if you really think I should be banned from "Japanese history and culture", then I would like you to recommend another user to complete the project I have been recently working on, creating articles on all classical Japanese poets who do not already have them. It would also be very nice if you could demonstrate where I have ever behaved in a disruptive manner in this area. I know you yourself did not say "Hijiri88 and not Catflap08 should be topic-banned" or "both should be topic-banned", but you must know that in such a hot-bed dispute where there is a long history of users jumping the gun and immediately taking any opportunity to request extremely harsh and draconian measures, that even mentioning such a thing without providing extensive reasoning based on evidence is highly dangerous.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, the community members reviewing these matters will judge for themselves, but I don't find my comments here particularly "careless" or "gaffe"-like. Nor do I find the proposal AlibinoFerret has made particularly impulsive or draconian. This is one of at least six threads that I know of have been opened on AN or ANI in just the last few months by you, Catflap or another party who has been dragged into your battles. They all follow a similar pattern of disruption, obfuscation, and attempts to game the system to remove one-another from your shared areas of interest (or, increasingly as a tit-for-tat response to the other party for attempting to do so themselves). Not only do I not feel that you are being treated particularly harshly here, I think that you have been an extreme amount of patience on these issues -- indeed it was several noticeboard threads back that this level of tolerance began to venture into the absurd and problematic. I personally would have rather seen the IBAN removed prior to (or at a part of) the proposal for an alternative sanction, but it's hard to see the proposal of the topic ban itself as anything but inevitable. I was in fact surprised that a pageban was not implemented at any point in the previous threads.

As to my own !vote on said proposal, I said I would wait until I had time to review the most recent accusations between you and Catflap before determining which, if either of you, this measure ought to be applied to, and I've done that now. I'll summarize my thoughts on the matter in the subsection bellow, but there's a few points that are more germane to your filing here that ought to be addressed. First off, you haven't a single diff to support your assertion that Catflap is actively and presently involved in violations of the IBAN. The link which you provide is of Catflap asking (in a straight-forward, one-sentence request on AN) to have the edit history on an article you are both active on reviewed to see whether or not your activity represents a violation of the IBAN. Not only is his request allowable and not in itself a violation of the IBAN, it is what he is meant to do in this situation, rather than address you directly and start the feud going again. You're also allowed to respond to that accusation on the noticeboard, but opening your own thread here is clearly meant as some combination of retaliation and attempt to re-contextualize that disagreement in a way that paints him as an aggressor, but it's clear that he has not otherwise been involved in legitimate violations of the IBAN, or else you would have linked such behaviour.

What you've done instead is reach back several months into the past for diffs that were already addressed in the previous AN/ANI threads on the disruptive behaviour between you two. In fact, some of these links predate the IBAN itself and therefore could not be violations, and most of them would not have been violations of the IBAN whenever they occurred; for example, an IBAN does not prevent either of you from commenting in the same discussions as the other, provided you both avoid directly referencing or reverting one-another. I know that might sound silly (in my opinion it's one of the reasons IBANs almost invevitably lead to more disruption), but that is in fact the way the sanction works; see WP:IBAN. As to the "88" issue, it may have been meant for StG88 only, but was, in any event, an ill-considered comment on Catflap's part, which is exactly why other involved community members condemned it and cautioned him not to use such statements unless he was prepared to substantiate his suspicions with a lot more than a prejudicing observation. But that comment was made (and addressed) back in April, and, especially in the context of all of these other dated diffs, it surely seems as if you didn't have enough (that is to say, any) evidence to support your accusations of present IBAN violations, so you've instead dug up a lot of stale drama in order to have some blue links that superficially seem to support that he is actively violating the IBAN and presently making personal attacks.

And that is just not going to be a winning strategy for you, because if we go back that far into the hostilities between you two, you do not come off looking like a victim by any stretch of the imagination. Catflap may have made serious behavioural blunder in making that 88 comment, but for context, around the same time you were actively stalking Catflap across multiple unrelated talkpages, userpages and project spaces, in what can only be described as hounding, despite the fact that you had received multiple warnings from an admin that this was completely unacceptable and that you were on the verge of being blocked for incivility; even after these warnings, it took the combined efforts of numerous uninvolved editors to get you WP:Drop the stick, though clearly not for long. Most everyone involved in those discussions found your behaviour to be tendentious and needlessly combative, so reaching back into that period of your conflict with Catflap strikes me as both hypocritical and highly disruptive. In any event, it is clear that you have opened the present thread as a tit--for-tat response to Catflap's above-board request at AN, and in so doing, you have failed to present any evidence of present IBAN violations in the time since the last ANI/AN discussions on the matter of your ongoing contest of wills, nor indeed any certain evidence of an IBAN violation on Catflop's part at any point in your exchanges, period. So I see strong evidence that this present thread requires a WP:BOOMERANG response in the form of the TBAN proposed bellow.

Lastly, I'll offer a piece of advice of the sort that's been given you before but which you ought to adopt with speed now if you don't want an even more severe backlash to your present efforts; your comments directed towards BMK and AlbinoFerret below suggesting that they are somehow acting in bad faith and that they will "be the next for repercussions" is not doing you any favours here. They are providing their perspectives as uninvolved parties and concerned community members, which is exactly what this space is for. Calling them, and anyone else who !votes against your interest, out and implying laziness or bad faith on their part can only solidify the reputation for disruption and hostility towards contravening views that you've steadily built for yourself here. No one made you open this thread without evidence; you could have just defended your actions to the best of your ability in the AN thread after Catflap opened it. Instead, you upped the ante by reviving old drama, and it is completely appropriate if the editors here express the opinion that the benefits of your (and/or Catflap's) involvement in the project begin to be massively outweighed by the burden that you impose on the community and the project at large with this unceasing, caustic bickering. I've pointed out to you on two previous occasions, that when you make accusations against Catflap, he generally doesn't bother to respond, and I think its strategic on his part -- I believe he expects that you will respond to criticism of your behaviour with such ardent and histrionic denial and counter-accusations that you will tank your own position. And if that is his strategic motivation in not engaging, it's brilliant--because that's usually how it bears out. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for both Hijiri 88 and Catflap08 for 3 months

This has gone on long enough as Snow Rise has pointed out. It would be wrong in my opinion to topic ban just one side of a constant, ongoing, and seemingly never ending dispute over content. I therefore propose a topic ban from Japanese history and culture, broadly construed for a period of three months for both. With longer bans possible if the problems continue to other areas or when this one ends. This constant disruption needs to end. AlbinoFerret 23:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Additional info for those that wonder why I am proposing this. Neither party is innocent. This has been going on for months. Feel free to look through the search results. Like these WP:AN [27][28] and WP:AN/I [29][30]. Each time it becomes a wall of text that goes nowhere. Neither party is blameless in this, it needs to end. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The only other options would be indef them both, or to take it to ArbCom. This is the community's last chance to deal with this ongoing disruptive dispute. BMK (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I would also support this as an indef topic ban for both, rather than 3 months. Let's shut this engine down for good. BMK (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret: Please show us the diffs in which H88 violated the iBan or any instructions from the last ANI. It's not right to bring up all the older ANIs that have been closed and retroactively punish him. If H88 was given a topic ban, iBan or any other instruction, and he has followed that in good faith, I can't see how the right response to Catflap08's violation of his iBan with H88 is to ban Catflap AND H88 (especially indef!). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. This would essentially be a 3-month site ban for both of us, as neither of us has ever expressed any interest in editing any article outside the area of "Japanese history and culture". The proposer has demonstrated in the past a lack of understanding of the dispute in question, and has been called out by myself and other users for attempting to unilaterally sway discussions in ridiculous directions far away from their original scope. Additionally, no evidence has ever been presented that I have edited disruptively in the narrow topic-area under discussion (Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai), much less "Japanese history and culture". If AlbinoFerret and Beyond My Ken, neither of whom have to the best of my knowledge ever contributed anything of note to "Japanese history and culture" legitimately think that I should be de facto banned from the entire project for three months, they need to present some form of evidence. User:Shii or perhaps User:Nishidani: you have a great deal more experience in this area, and hardly ever agree with me (so you could hardly be called biased) -- is there any chance you could talk some sense into this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell does our lack of participation in Japanese history and culture-related articles have anything to do with anything? The point is that the two of you keep bringing this back to the noticeboards over and over and over again and I, for one, am entirely sick of it, and I am certain that others are as well. Whether I've contributed to your pet subject area is totally irrelevant: the lack of control on the part of the both of you is the subject. Since you cannot control yourselves, we, the community, will do it for you. We've tried an IBan, and that hasn't worked, this is another possible next step. As I said, other possible steps are indef blocks, site bans or ArbCom. If you're more interested in those actions than in trying out topic bans, then we can see how much support we can find for that. But what cannot happen is for this to continue to go on as it has. BMK (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that a ban should be placed, even though you clearly have not looked at any of the evidence and clearly have no understanding of the dispute in question. "Japanese history and culture" was mentioned, no doubt inadvertently, in an off-handed manner by Snow Rise, and was then thrown out of proportion by AlbinoFerret. You then throw your support behind AlbinoFerret's ... frankly quite insane proposal. This dispute is not about "Japanese history and culture" -- if it's about content at all (and no user who has actually looked at the evidence thinks it is) then it is about one poet and one group he was briefly associated with. Why on earth would you want to ban me from editing every Wikipedia article I have ever edited based on this? What the hell are you on about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You've done a very pretty job of twisting my words, well done. Let me simplify for you: the topic bans are because you the two of you cannot behave yourselves, and it will take you out of each other's way -- so it's not about content, it's about behavior. Please do not deliberately misinterpret my words again. BMK (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment BMK, and I would like to clarify my position above. While the content is the engine that drives the problem, its the behaviour of both of them that warrants a ban. AlbinoFerret 00:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, please show some evidence that I have not behaved myself? Catflap08 violated the IBAN (multiple times, in fact), not me. Everyone who has commented on the issue agrees on this point. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence presented that the disruptive behaviour was at all mutual. And a TBAN (de facto SITEBAN) does not make sense unless a reasonable parameter has been set; the above-proposed parameter doesn't make sense, because it is based on a misinterpretation of an off-handed remark by a user without much direct awareness of the dispute to begin with, so even if the "behavior" was mutual (it isn't and everyone here except you agrees) the proposed topic-ban would not be appropriate. A TBAN for Catflap08 in the area of Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai makes sense, and has been supported by a large number of users; if you think I should suffer further repercussions beyond the constant harassment/being called a Nazi I already have, then you need to present some form of evidence.

@User:AlbinoFerret: What does that remark even mean!? "the content is the engine"!? "behaviour of both of them"!? You need to present some kind of evidence to support such accusations, or you'll be the next one up for repercussions from this mess. "Japanese history and culture" is a ridiculously broad topic, and one that neither you, nor BMK, nor even Snow Rise, have any legitimate reason for claiming either I or even Catflap08 should be banned from, given the narrow scope of this dispute. If you think I should be site-banned, then come right out and say it, but be warned that such harsh and unjustified attacks tend to come back and bite the attackers in the lower back.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In the last incarnation of this shitstorm, I did indeed support sanctions against Catflap as I felt that they indeed violated the conditions of the interaction ban. However, optimist that I can be, I also felt that just giving up on the ban so soon after it had been implemented would be a shame not to mention a disrespectful waste of the time of those editors who participated in that discussion. I had also hoped that we would see the last of this feud here. If the two editors involved cannot fix it then it falls to the community to sort this out, so I Support the topic ban per AlbinoFerret and BMK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Wow Blackmane .... so because Catflap violated the punitive directions so quickly after said decision was made means he should be given a pass, in order to see if the ban sticks this time around? Please share your logic on that one. So is there like a 72-hour window, or one-month window, in which the bans shouldn't be enforced, you know, so it doesn't waste the time of the previous ANI contributors? Looking forward to your answer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I stated that I supported sanctions against Catflap for his IBAN violation in the last round that this appeared at ANI. I also stated that I was against the ending of the interaction ban between Catflap and Hijiri but not the withdrawal of sanctions against Catflap. Please reread my statement carefully.Blackmane (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: You are indeed right, and I thank you for your continued attempts to pump some sanity into this debate. However, Wikimandia was also partly right in responding negatively to your above post, because you stated that you support the topic ban per AlbinoFerret and BMK. This was clearly a slip of the pen on your part, since the rest of your comment indicated that you oppose said topic ban, but in fact support a one-way sanction on Catflap08 per the latter's violations. The final sentence of your above comment implies you support a strong topic ban against me, and a significantly weaker (relative) sanction against Catflap08, who at least occasionally edits articles on Germany and mainland Asian Buddhism that have nothing to do with Japan.

But no careful admin could legitimately read anything you have written here or elsewhere as actually supporting such an outcome, so no harm no foul as far as I am concerned. The rest of what you have written here is reasoned and much appreciated.

Hijiri88 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Umm why ban for Hijiri88? Nobody has supplied any diffs showing how he has done anything to violate the iBan or anything near it. He has provided diffs showing Catflap08 flagrantly violating said iBan by reverting his edits, insulting him and apparently also calling him as a fascist Nazi. Yet you want to ban H88 for reporting this, because you're tired of reading about here? I'm speechless. Oh wait, that's not the right word. How about appalled. I have seen this kind of apathy/laziness around here (please go see all the unresolved reports in the archive) because people don't want to take the time to look at it or just tired of it. One report last month or so must have taken the reporter about four hours to compile all the diffs showing downright proof of ban evading, sockpuppetry and extreme NPOV violations going back to 2008 (seven years) and the response was "yawn, tl;dr" What's the point of having ANI? (See below) —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for both. Would anyone who is not prepared to examine the situation and find out whether there has been an iban violation per the report please find another hobby. The pollyanna suggestions above that associating H88 and S88 with nazism should be overlooked as minor is also unhelpful—if an editor repeats such an accusation without being able to produce good evidence showing POV-pushing for nazism, the editor should be blocked until they agree to not make unfounded accusations. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Please provide diff for the comments suggesting that associating other users with nazism should be overlooked. If no such diff can be produced I suggest we instigate actions against you too per WP:ASPERSIONS.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: To be completely fair, your initial post in this thread did imply that you believe Catflap08 was merely providing an off-hand comment about how "88" has neo-fascist associations, rather than directly attacking Sturmgewehr88 and indirectly attacking me, and that at least that point was irrelevant. You did not, like some other users who refuse to look at the evidence, directly insinuate that I was the one who violated the IBAN and that I deserve to be sanctioned, but the implication of your initial comment was that you did not feel Catflap08 was calling all users with "88" in their usernames Nazis. This may in fact be the case (that he is not accusing all such users in this manner), but in the context you made it look like you thought he should be excused for (indisputably) accusing two particular users in this manner. If it merely looked this way, then I apologize for misinterpreting you, but you should forgive me my justifiable misinterpretation, as you should forgive Johnuniq. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I haven't implied anything at all about whether or not Catflap08 was attacking you or anyone else. I was merely pointing out that the suggestion that he was attacking anyone with "88" in their username seems to be stretching it. I understand that "mob justice" is the modus operandi on these boards, and people like Johnuniq feel bereaved when someone detracts from the universal demonization of the user which the mob has elected to be the culprit. Nonetheless, I prefer cases to evaluated on the basis of just the facts and nothing else and I hope you too will forgive me for that.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that Hajiri88 is acting disruptively. Quite the contrary, in fact, accusations of Nazism by Catflap are very disconcerting. Claiming that both editors are 'disruptive to the community' simply because this issue has been brought to ANI on more than one occasion is a non sequitur. It doesn't prove that Hajiri88 has edited inappropriately on 'Japanese culture and history'. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Elspamo4: I think that Hijiri88 calling Catflap a "jackass", as well as Hijiri's stalking Catflap's edits and blatantly violating his IBAN with Catflap on the Kokuchukai article all constitute "acting disruptively". Like I said, this is the third time this year that a similar topic ban has been proposed. The user Snow Rise said it all the last time a topic ban was proposed against Hijiri88 back in May. "Unfortunately, the noticeboards have already seen an abundance of evidence of Hijiri's tendentiousness in this area. But as he is facing a pageban here and the possibility of two more in a thread above, I hope he will take the message with whatever narrower sanctions he might receive (or narrowly avoid, if that proves the case) and try to reach towards consensus and middle-ground solutions instead of the type of approach that has brought him here repeatedly. If he doesn't, I'm sure someone will propose a broader TBAN next time he is back here (as it will probably be for issues in the same content area)."TH1980 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are a lunatic. Snow rise never suggested any such thing against me in me. You are talking utter nonsense and need to be banned from editing Wikipedia until you learn to interact with other users in a constructive manner. Your following me here is directly akin to Catflap08's following me to the "topic ban" discussion to which you are referring. The only users who think I should be topic-banned at all are users who already don't like me, even though they themselves have never contributed anything to the topic in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 to TH1980: You are a lunatic. This is why the topic ban is needed for both of you. You are a lunatic, indeed. 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Catflap08 has been taking plenty of abuse from Hijiri. Hijiri has called him a "jackass" and always assumes bad faith by casting aspersions on him like "You don't want to go out and do the research on the modern Kokuchukai in order to clean up this article because you're afraid it MIGHT contradict you". When Catflap was considering retiring, Hijiri posted an insulting message celebrating his decision to leave. Hijiri's recent edits to the Kokuchukai article were clear violations of the IBAN.

This is the third time this year a topic ban has been proposed for Hijiri88 due to his disruptive behavior. He has demonstrated an extremely long-term pattern of uncollaborative and disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, He has created attack pages defaming me and has called me a POV-pushing sock. He was stalking my edits on the article "The Magnificent Seven", taking issue with extremely minute details about a sword Akira Kurosawa presented to John Sturges, and he repeatedly insulted me on the talk page. I've seen a ton of other users harassed by him in the same manner or worse. Either the admins or the community need to deal with this and impose some sort of sanctions on him. Wikipedia is supposed to be about cooperation among editors, not anarchy.TH1980 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, the above is a clear revenge edit. Your own history with me was pretty neatly summed up recently when you made a series of personal attacks against me on an article talk page and then when I asked you not to make attacks against me on the article talk page you moved over to my user talk page. You can count on me seeing to your receiving harsh repercussions for this in the near future. Your edits on the two articles you mention were clearly problematic, as about a dozen other users agreed. You should be blocked for this kind of abusive behaviour. Good bye and good luck. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88's rants posted in reply to me here speak eloquently as to his disruptive nature.TH1980 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Rants? Your posts are rants. Your above post indicates that I should be "topic-banned" (site-banned) because I have violated Catflap08's IBAN with me, but all of your examples of me violating the IBAN predate the imposition of the IBAN. You and I have had negative interactions in the past, as well; but how is that evidence at all? About a dozen other editors approved of what I did in those interactions because I was in the right. You need to stop this harassment campaign and go home to whatever "democratically-run" social networking site you are confusing Wikipedia for immediately, or you will find yourself facing similar consequences to the ones you are unilaterally trying to enforce on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Absolute support for TBAN for Hijiri, neutral on Catflap at this time, pending further evidence of present improper behaviour Like BMK, I would have supported an indef, but we'll see if a short-term ban won't do the trick (I am personally doubtful). This issue has been bounced back to the noticeboards half a dozen times too many. Looking at this present filing, it feel it represents clear evidence for the necessity of a WP:BOOMERANG response in the form of the topic ban that should have been implemented instead of an IBAN in the first place. Hijiri clearly filed this ANI in response to an above-board request by Catflap to have a potential violation of the IBAN reviewed by an uninvolved admin, which is exactly what he is meant to do under those circumstances. Hijiri is now inappropriately presenting that as an IBAN violation itself, which it is not. Likewise, the other diffs and links which Hijiri provides above do not constitute IBAN violations and even if they did, they are all months old, predating older ANI/AN threads on their longstanding battle of wills and, in some cases, the IBAN itself. The "88" reference was unfortunate, but was responded to appropriately back in April, when it occurred (in the context of Hijiri having been involved in protracted hounding of Catflap across multiple spaces for which he (Hijiri) received numerous admin and community warnings); Hijiri bringing all of this up here as ammunition to add bite to his complaints when he otherwise has not evidence of present behavioural issues from Catflap is indicative of his general inability to WP:Drop the stick on this ongoing and highly disruptive drama, and of his tendency to carry a grudge for perceived slights against him by Catflap while failing to own up to his own uncivil and disruptive behaviour. It's become (or indeed, long ago became) abundantly clear that this issue cannot be resolved by an IBAN which cannot keep these two parties apart, and a more effective sanction needs to be implemented--and frankly I think 3 months is a light response, given how long this has been going on without resolution. I'm not entirely against extending the TBAN to Catflap if even a little bit of evidence of present and ongoing misbehaviour is presented for him, but I see none at present. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal: Elevate this to ArbCom

• Support as nominator If the prevailing attitude around here is just "ugh I'm so over this" and thus you want to punish both parties when there (as presented so far) is only wrongdoing by one person, then obviously either a) this is not the right forum for you personally to contribute to or b) this is not the right forum to deal with this anymore. I am assuming good faith here, so I am recommending B. We need people willing to roll up their sleeves and take time to look at this from a NPOV. Obviously, the measures so far coming from ANI are a complete failure. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Arbcom have enough to do and if ANI can't handle this trivial issue, ANI should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your second statement. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to hold my tongue on this for the time being. While I have indeed become very skeptical about the admin corps' ability (or, rather, the ability of the minority of non-admins who actually appear to control ANI) to deal with this issue, a user for whom I have a great deal of respect has told me off-wiki to stay the hell away from ArbCom if humanly possible. (In that case, he said that even though I was right about content, I had the weaker case when it came to talk page etiquette, and ArbCom was according to him inherently biased in favour of the user who had used slightly less foul language. So in fact said user's advice might be irrelevant in this case, where I'm not the one who called the other user a Nazi.)

But for the record, I don't think ANI should be closed -- I think certain users who never contribute anything to the project except hijacking ANI threads without actually looking at the evidence should be blocked, and others who sometimes contribute to the encyclopedia but also cause a lot of trouble hijacking ANI threads without actually looking at the evidence should receive temporary page-bans.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• A proposal to "elevate" something to ArbCom is worthless because it doesn't work like that. If someone thinks there's an ArbCom case here, it can be filed at any time, but since an AN/I discussion is open, they're most likely to hold off on accepting a case until the AN/I is finished or archived or runs our of steam. In any event, it doesn't require a proposal. If Wikimandia (who confusingly signs their posts "Мандичка") think the case should go to ArbCom, then they should go file an ArbCom case, no one's stopping them. BMK (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive users vandalizing article about Spiro Koleka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi wikipedia admins. There are two users (Zoupan and Alexikoua) who jointly vandalize the page of Spiro Koleka. I have tried all to convince them to stop, and so have done other users but it is impossible to make them reason. This has gone too far, the talk page looks like a war zone, the length of discussions is incredible. There are other users involved bringing sources and logic to the discussion, but that does not help either, as the vandalism of these too intensifies even more. Please help by removing access to this article for these editors. Ban them or take some disciplinary action. They revert or delete everything they please! Absolutely disruptive and provocative, a real shame for the wikipedia community. Burridheut (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

While I am not involved in this matter I would however like to note this has gone on before, and in multiple places. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what to do anymore. It is like they are paid to provoke and disrupt. How is this possible that this is allowed in here? Burridheut (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been countless attempts for constructive discussions. There was an ANI, and a previous EW that ended in semi-page protection. He has major WP:OWN and POV problems. The latest comments include "Please don't touch the article again." and "Get out of here, vandal. You have been warned by several users many times to stop this shameful campaign of yours." Please see the lengthy discussions on the article talk page for more information. I have reported his edit warring once again here, after assuming good faith for several reverts. User has made over 10 reverts, and broken 3RR.--Zoupan 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You Zoupan and the other user Alexikoua have made probably twice as many reverts as me and have disrupted any attempt to have a constructive outcome. For you the political agenda that you are paid or volunteer to push here on wikipedia comes first, but you have crossed every red line. I have warned you many many times to stop vandalizing that article. Other users have appealed to your reason too, but in vain. I have no other choice but to appeal to the admins to take care of both of you. Burridheut (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The user has disregarded the whole discussion and does not adhere to the least of policies. His "constructive outcome" is obviously not constructive. As for the conspiracy claim, this only shows his own neutrality problems.--Zoupan 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is the version of "vandalism" that means "editing with the wrong nationalist bias". The following users are involved:

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

Burridheut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who displays classic ownership behaviour

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

Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to a somewhat lesser degree.

Seems to me that all four could usefully find some other article to edit, since edit-warring over ethnic issues on a WP:BLP is near the top of the list of things that are a Really Bad Idea. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, the article is about a family member of mine. If it were not, I would not lose my time with the internet trolls I created this complaint about. Trust me, it gives me no satisfaction to discuss with such people. Just take my word for it. Burridheut (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless who is Spiro Koleka, Whether it's your family member or not, The articles of Wikipedia HAS NO OWNERS, You have clearly violated the WP:OWN and insulting Alexikoua, Resnjari and Zoupan, These users are CONTRIBUTORS of Wikipedia they're eligible to edit your article(s). You have refused to retain the good faith and civilised manner after temporary suspension from editing article. You have been acting as owner of Spiro Koleka based on WP:SPA which has violated the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I, As supervising editor, will never allow internet trolls to vandalise articles without any verifiable reference pertaining section on articles. If you don't stop editing war, You will get banned permanently from editing other articles based on prolonged edit wars with other editors who have provided with significant source to support its the contents. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Prince Sulaiman, what do you mean when you identify yourself as "supervising editor"? No such position exists on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition, Prince, the fact that you're proclaiming yourself to be the so-called "supervising editor" indicates that you are the one who is trying to own the article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In case you haven't watched the article history, Sulaiman has no edits to the article, nor is it his area of interest — he obviously commented as an uninvolved editor. I don't think he meant to "crown" himself, but wanted to point out that he does not support the behaviour, as a follower of policies and guidelines. Now back to the thread: Burridheut was blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks and edit warring.--Zoupan 00:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Prince has never edited the article so I don't think he has any ownership claims to it. I think the "supervising editor" comment is simply an awkward way of describing himself as a wiki editor who is checking on ("supervising") the article. In my opinion it is purely a language issue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If the OP has been blocked, then this thread can probably be closed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:I mean by going “supervising” that I help other articles to find verifiability source to support it's the contents, I never proclaimed the role of “supervising editor” thus I play active role in preventing vandalism in articles which I kept eyes on. Therefore, I have no direct involvement in Spiro Koleka but these editors Alexikoua, Resnjari and Zoupan are the victims of edit wars which Burridheut keeps reverting all the edits made by these three editors which they're helping to improve the article then Burridheut claimed that Spiro Koleka was descendant, Which he already violated WP:OWN and WP:NOPV by claiming the ownership of article. Therefore, I don't support the behavior of Burridheut who have been accused of victimising other editors in Spiro Koleka and personal attacks using summuary, Which Burridheut didn't approve of good faith and the five pillars.--Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 08:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to get the interested parties to a middle ground. The sources used to assert one position have been shown to have an important inaccuracy. They have stated that the birthplace of Koleka was in Himara and as such he was Greek. Though it has been established that Koleka is not from Himara town, a nearby Greek settlement, but Vuno, a Orthodox Albanian settlement, the editors have not brought (a) peer reviewed source/s which has both Vuno and Albanian in the same sentence, thereby making the removal of Pettifer, or the very least it going to third party arbitration on source reliability an issue. Beware of picking sides as some editors of both sides have resorted to name calling (I have been at the brunt of this just before).Resnjari (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: You're free to edit Spiro Koleka and Burridheut had already handed temporary suspension. Long as you provide verifiability source. Its all good. Make sure to retain good faith :) --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: The inaccuracy you're pointing to is not plausible, because Vuno is most oftenly described as part of the Himara region (be that village or town, being situated directly next to it, and not nearby, same is done with the other neighbouring villages) in official documents and historians. Your analysis of birthplace—ethnicity is flawed; As for the 2011 census and Nitsiakos' anthropological study, these do still not refute a historical Greek presence (identity) in Vuno and Himara, nor Koleka's belonging to the community. The contemporary local Greek school, local Greek-oriented rebel bands, the Himara question, subsequent Albanianization etc, should not be disregarded — your insistence in this shows only that you in fact don't try to get to a middle ground, but try to impose present-day circumstances to an older reality. Beware also, that WP:SYNTH has been attempted when the objecting side has not gotten their POV through in the discussion. --Zoupan 09:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zoupan: in case you have not come across a map of the region, Vuno is a separate village to Himara town. Some of those sources used say he was born in Himara town. That is an inaccuracy. Also, I have not based my information on the Albanian census nor do I have access to it (So don't accuse me). The stuff available out there regarding the census also is about a general overview, not a village by village analysis. I would like very much to see the village by village stuff and I am looking for a way to get my hands on that material (it’s complicated as INSTAT is being difficult). Nitsiakos was in Vuno and spoke with the people in 2010. So was Kallivretakis who was on the ground in 1995 who stated unequivocally that Vuno is inhabited by Orthodox Albanians. Nitiskos also points out regarding the past that Orthodox Albanians were confused about their identity due to the Greek church having a monopoly regarding the liturgy and education which was in Greek and the Albanian national movement which stressed Albanian components such as language and local identification on the ethnoym of Shqiptar, which interestingly is still used in Greek Epirus by Orthodox Albanian speakers who nationally identity as Greek. Your view regarding Albanianisation ignores that Hellenisation occurred in the late 19th century and also pointed out by academics like Baltsiotis, Skoulidas, Nitsiakos and so on. It’s the same with Muslim Albanians. Many supported the Ottoman Empire. My family were Agas like a few of the other families in the Prespa region, and funded Nijaz Bey’s local rebellion in the early days by providing him with guns, money and men. It latter expanded and became the Young Turk revolution of 1908 that deposed sultan Abdul Hamid. Because of the low Albanian population in area of Prespa were they are from, people in my family never went to a Albanian school, where not proponents of the Albanian national movement, yet they spoke Albanian at home, identified themselves as Shqiptar and Tosks and some of those who later went to Turkey still see themselves even today as Albanians (and speak it too). Back to Vuno, not all people where in favour of becoming Greeks and Spiro Jorgo Koleka in the 1920s embodies that as he organized local himariots who were against Spiro Milo and the pro Greek faction and was the leader of the Albanian national movement in the area. I wonder how did Koleka become “Albanianised” when the Albanian state came into full functionality during the 1920s? You should take you advice on board regarding WP:SYNTH with your POV pushing regarding “Albanianisation” while ignoring conveniently “helenisation”.Resnjari (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent history

This thread was forum shopping of a severe sort. The filing party had initiated a content dispute resolution thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard on 1 August. I began trying to mediate the thread on 3 August. The editors talked past each other, and there was ethnic hostility. This happens at DRN, and a mediator/moderator tells the parties to focus on content and to try to identify the issues, in this case, whether either the subject or the subject's town were ethnically Greek. Then, while the thread was still underway, the filing party came here. That was forum shopping. He had not complained at DRN about conduct issues, or requested that the thread be closed or suspended to allow him to pursue this forum instead. He just was choosing to use two forums at once. He switched forums in the middle of a stream, and appears to have been blocked by boomerang. I failed the DRN thread. My recommendation is to close this thread also and to pursue the content issues (if any other than article ownership) on the talk page, and the conduct issues at Arbitration Enforcement, a more efficient means of dealing with Balkan issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behavior of User:Olehal09 - T-ban request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Olehal09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White genocide conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Affirmative action in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following is just from August 2015. This behavior extends back much further and can be seen in the user's edit history.

User's behavior has been beyond inappropriate. They are engaging in WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory.

• saying issue is "personal" and other editors' actions are "dishonest"... even making a post on the Help Desk about it [31]
• Accusing other editors of "try[ing] to make [the White genocide conspiracy theory article] about nazis and jew haters"

Other behavior includes:

• They have "warned" other edits that they are "not neutral" about Nazis and White Supremacy ([32]).
• They apparently have a beef with any suggestion of overlap between neo-Nazis and White Supremacists (see previous diff and [33], [34]).

Most recently, and the impetus for this ANI:

• They are going as far to ask other users if they are Jewish and asking if that's why they're obsessed about Nazis and Jews ([35], [36]).

This behavior is seen on other pages as well. For example on Affirmative action in the United States they called past editors "sexist and racist ([37]) and said another editor has a list of "thought crimes" (in addition to using talk page as a forum) ([38]).

On the user's own user page they say that Many articles are incomplete or very unbalanced, some on the line to propaganda. I'm here to fix that and perhaps make some new ones too. I get into a lot of trouble because of this, unraveling the dishonest propaganda apparatus which has become a cancer, has tainted and poisoned Wikipedia. They appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (or at least perceived ones).

Note that admins and other users have given this user many warnings ( see User talk:Olehal09) and even expressed concerns about socking (see User_talk:Olehal09#Note).

I am requesting either a site ban as NOTHERE/disruption or a t-ban from all race/ethnicity related articles. I am wholly convinced this editor is unable to edit on the topic of race without doing more harm than good. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Olehal09 about this ANI as well as three other editors who are included in the diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure a topic ban is sufficient? A sampling of this user's contributions show a pattern edit warring, POV pushing, false edit summaries, personal attacks, removing sources and original research. This is an editor with an agenda.- MrX 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: I added site ban at the end of the section, but forgot to change the title. Honestly the former seems more warranted, but I wanted to include a lesser charge as an option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban to quote MrX 'A sampling of this user's contributions show a pattern edit warring, POV pushing, false edit summaries, personal attacks, removing sources and original research. This is an editor with an agenda' I might add a rather unpleasant (that's an understatement for you scoring at home) agenda. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please proove these claims you just maid, both MrX and you above! Olehal09 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The diffs above are all the proof that anyone needs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Eit warring: Yes I have done that. And I have already accepted to stop. Now many editors uses the fact that I don't remove my warnings as a way to get their ways quckly. Giving edit warnings after one or two edits and denie more argumentation.

2. POV pushing/original research: In some cases I have added material which I belived were common knowlege or didn't need sources. I've also used the same sources as others further down, without making it clear. Many users don't want to do any work and reserch before they give out warnings.

3. Fals edit summaries: When, find me proof.

4. The part about personal attacks: to be jewish is not bad, it's correlated with wealth.

Olehal09 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE per their user page, [39], and per this antisemitic personal attack [40] and clearly lacking the skills necessary to contribute usefully to an English-language encyclopaedia. This 'contributor' combines illiteracy, POV-pushing and cluelessness in equal measures, and stands zero chance of ever doing anything useful here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't hate jews. If you read more than just a certain day of irritation, you would agree.Olehal09 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, did no one catch this edit before? I only was looking in August and July this year, but that they called another editor a Jewish supremacist back in December 2014 ... wow... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess I did, but then again. Everything else I have said about them is positive. I were irritated at the person. And it is a problem when you can't say anything anymore. Olehal09 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Boo hoo, you can't insult people based on their identities anymore. Woe is you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm clarly from another culture than you, where these things you call personal insults are not viewed as such. Olehal09 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban as nominator and per this edit found by AndyTheGrump where they called another editor a Jewish supremacist back in December 2014. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why I did so: The person I called Jewish supremacist were a person who were her to write about jewish nobel prize winners and other great jews. That's good, but she didn't want me to add that many of the person did not only have jewish ancestry. A very high percentage of them had other European ancestry (did not belive in Judaism either) and it were usually their mother or father, with other words close. After som time with arguing, with her making no concession, I becaume irritated and said she must be some jewish supremacist. Olehal09 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Olehal09 appears to be an agenda-driven editor with COMPETENCE issues. To wit:
  • Original research:[41][42][43][44][45][46]
  • Removing properly sourced content:[47][48][49]
  • Personal attacks:[50][51][52]
  • POV pushing:[53][54][55]
  • False edit summaries:[56]
  • Edit warring:[57]
  • Sock puppetry:[58]
  • Trolling:[59]

- MrX 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. I am no big fan of personal attacks based on perceived ethnicity of other editors. And I am opposed to the pigeonholing of other editors as supporting or opposing specified or implied ethnicities. And I am opposed to the expression of opinions on these subjects outside of the support of reliable sources. Doing so violates WP:FORUM. But this editor has made relatively few edits. I think that warning(s) should suffice. The editor can observe the differences in tone that other editors use to ague their points, and the problematic method of expressing points as itemized above as complaints against this editor. The environment can be combative and most of us have learned to keep combativeness below an actionable threshold. To an extent the problem here is in the style of expressing oneself. It is abrasive. But I don't think it rises to the level of requiring a site ban. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Olehal09 has been skating on the edge of a racial separatist or white/European victimization POV for some time, with fair success. He started White genocide conspiracy theory, at first as "The white genocide," using extremist sourcing. It is clear that there's a POV problem, and the December "Jewish supremacist" incident together with the "are you a Jew" from yesterday, together with the mass of borderline POV edits don't create confidence in his ability to edit neutrally on race-related topics, nor am I confident that gender-related topics are a good alternative. The claims of dishonesty on the part of other editors who've opposed or debated him call into question his ability to edit collaboratively. Cooperation seems at best grudging. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Against comment: I have not been arguing for racial seperatism, but I have tried to make an article about white slaves (with white master) in the US, a book from New York University press were used as a source. I made an article about a scenario, in which European did no longer exist, caused by policies of immigration. This scenario have its base recent US census bureau calculation, where Europeans in the US are becoming a minority. In UK statics bureau where white british will be a minority a time in the late 21th century. The white genocide had links to an internet site: white genocide project, which don't say anything extreme. The person I called Jewish supremacist were a person who were her to write about jewish nobel prize winners and other great jews. That's good, but she didn't want me to add that many of the person did not only have jewish ancestry (or belived in Judaism). A very high percentage of them had other European ancestry and it were usually their mother or father, with other words close. After som time with arguing, with her making no concession, I becaume irritated and said she must be some jewish supremacist. And the other incident you can read about below. I've also edited some gender topics (or affirmative action and war on women), because they have no proof about the claims about discrimination. I have no grudge against cooperation, that is another claim without any evidence. Olehal09 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think that site 'don't say anything extreme' I question your WP:COMPETENCE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic Ban (indefinite, as minimum) I have had no contact with this editor, but have followed the threads here. To quote above 'a sampling of this user's contributions show a pattern edit warring, POV pushing, false edit summaries, personal attacks, removing sources and original research. This is an editor with an agenda' . As AndytG says there are basic English problems, though that wouldn't matter if s/he were conscious of her/his limitations. Olehal09 has other basic COMPETENCE issues but is drawn to highly contentious subjects despite not even appearing to understand what NPOV and RS mean. Olehal09's user page reads as a 'mission statement' for 'righting great wrongs' (ie here, PoV pushing) and their response on this ANI does not inspire confidence. I get the impression that editing on contentious topics is the only thing that draws them here, so would not be opposed to site ban. Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A defence from olehal09:

Claims/answers:

• Batteleground on "white genocide conspiracy theory" talk page.

- When it comes to the personal attack, my defence is written under this complaint. I never meant to insult him.

• Saying something is dishonest and not neutral.

- Yes, I have written that, but in the cases ther terms were used, they were about certain part of articles, not people. On the help desk, I wondered if there were anyone I could talk to about the user Malik Shabazz. Because he gave me an edit warning but not YnysPrydein, although he started editing without discussion on the talk page. I though the person were dishonest because of this, and I still wonder.

• Claims I think people are not neutral about nazis and white supremacists. Used this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&diff=prev&oldid=675352728. (Link to Malik Shabazz's talk page).

- Read it, I didn't write anything like that.

• Have a beef with the conection between nazism and white supremacism.

- Yes I do. Beause they are differnt ideologies. Nazism = germans are pure white and are a superior race. Slavic peoples (Russians, Ukrainians etc.) are sub-human. All race who are not pure, loses their adaption and strenghts, just like a ice bear fits nowhere if it have kids with a brown bear. White supremacism is the idea that white people or Europeans are a superior race and need to rule over everyone else for everyones profit (colonialist argument).

- There is nothing wrong with that [having a beef with the cenection between nazism and white supremacism].

- One of the reason I have a beef against it is because I feel Europeans have no rights to love their own people, without being branded as genocidal nazis or manic white supremacist. And I know that's wrong.

• Going after jewish people.

- Are you serius? To ask someone of their origins are the same as going after them? Read more about this below.

• Claimed past editors are sexist and racist on affirmative action in america article.

- I called something they had written down sexist and racist. That was my opinion, but if you don't think I should wirte such things, I will not do it.

• Given user many warnings.

- Yes they have, and I did not remove them as some others do. I have tried to limit these edits, but I've not understood the culture here properly yet. I agree my behavior have been disruptive and I will not keep on doing so. If this goes on and I am baned for edit waring, I will accept it and waint to the ban are over.

Again I accept that I have been edit waring and have edited articles without thinking enough about it. And I will accept a ban if I'm not abiding by the rules in the future. Please tell me if you find more arguments for a ban or wonder about anything else? Thank you if you read. Olehal09 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits: I made many typos because I were set out by the reaction by many users. Olehal09 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you really see nothing with this POV--White supremacism is the idea that white people or Europeans are a superior race and need to rule over everyone else for everyones profit (colonialist argument). - There is nothing wrong with that--and how it might interfere with presenting a neutral point of view on articles about race? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never said so. It's extremly hardt to not go after Europeans on this page. I love my people, that is all. I don't dislike anyone else. and now I am suffering from not joining with them. Well, my account is probably gone because of that :( . Olehal09 (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ops. I can see what you mean. That was regarding "having a beef" with the articles conections between nazism and white supremacism. It was meant as a separate point. Olehal09 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Olehal09, we all have our point of view. That doesn't mean that it has to be present in articles, especially if not supported by reliable sources. Although it's often not a welcome suggestion, please remember that you can create a blog that outlines all of your arguments which really have no place in an encyclopedia entry. This very well might not be the place to fight your battles because as long as you edit in contentious areas like this, your future edits will be scrutinized. It's so easy to write about race in an offensive manner, there are safeguards to ensure that Wikipedia articles hit a middle-of-the-road perspective, backed up by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 11 August 2015 (U

TC)

I don't add povs or haven't tought about it in that way. The thing is that I don't agree with these people totally on these matters. Academia is not as extreme as this site, because here you got all the people from liberal political sphere doing everything they can to squeeze out more votes. Olehal09 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Claim of personal attack, which I think is wrong

The user Acroterion and Malik Shabazz claimed on the talk page of White genocide conspiracy theory, that I attacked YnysPrydein personally when asking if he were Jewish. I think this is a dishonest and hurtfull attack, making me out to be a bad guy, when I just want to make articles and weed out some bias ( I can accept, usually liberal, but I really have an aversion of dishonesty of every kind).

It all started with a name change of the article, first it were simply a scenario where whites were to disappear from Europe and the rest of the West, through high immigration rates and low fertility. Then it unfortunately changed name to a conspiracy theory, although this were based on a scenario, and were not necessarily wanted by anyone. The user YnysPrydein then joined in and wanted to add the Nazis in to the mix. This were not what I wanted with that article. It became a white supremacist (people who want to controll other people, because they belive whites are superior) and a nazi fenomenon. This is usally what happens with such articles, even if they are only a minority of the participants [nazis].

The user really wanted this changes to happen, to add as much as possible to make it about nazis, jews and so on. Last edits were about racial hygene and purity, which is nazi ideas. Then I asked him if he were Jewish, because they have good reason to hate the Nazis and worry a lot about them (and everyone else has that too, by the way). I had been conserned about them too if I were Jewish.

I don't think it is anything wrong with being Jewish, but for some reason other editors ran to the "rescue" and slamed me as some kind of agressor. For asking about his nationality and religion. Which is nothing wrong about and could never challange his anonymity or right to a private life. He did also have every right not to answer.

I hope you will review this incident, this time I actually felt hurt, because I try to do something good in my own opinion at least. Olehal09 (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly made this a subsection of the above t-ban request against this user. I will also notify YnysPrydein about this ANI since the OP did not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make a complaint against him, but it will be good to have hime here. Thanks. Olehal09 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

When you mention someone on this page, you are supposed to notify them. It does not make any difference if you made a complaint about them or not. -- GB fan 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling. It was a mistake. Olehal09 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Manieldickenzie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please can you consider blocking User:Manieldickenzie. They are currently editing a vanity page Matt The Unit Hill and have removed a CSD template already Gbawden (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Binksternet's reverting my sourced edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On I Will Never Let You Down I have found a source for it and they keep reverting my edit 86.133.179.118 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe this IP editor is MariaJaydHicky evading her block. She very often pushed the genre of R&B into music articles, and generally engaged in genre warring, with or without sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not MariaJaydHicky; I don't like how you can just accuse people without concrete evidence 86.133.179.118 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic Ban violation by User:TripWire

TripWire was topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 6 Months from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months.

His block still exists. Still he violates ban and defend himself with comments like this

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.112.79.39.220 (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First Sir, have the courage to use your actual ID to report me. I dont think, a sock should be allowed to report registered users. Anyways, I have explained this earlier and will try it again; my topic ban relates to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. Now, I dont understand how does editing a page regarding a terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba falls under Pakistani politics and how does a terror attack in India 2015 Gurdaspur attack which (initially) had nothing to do with Pakistan has to do with Indo-Pak conflict? From what I understand is banned from Indo-Pak Conflicts means is that I cannot edit articles like Siachen Conflict, Kargil Conflict, 1965 Indo-Pak War etc where actual war/conflict is taking place.

The edit I made at Gurdaspur Attack was 'As per MHA sources, 2 x GPS, 3 x AK-47, 10 x magazines and 2 x China-made grenades were recovered from the terrorists' i.e. added just the basic info which was non-controversial. I was reported to Admin FPAS talk page by showing only one edit to made it look like as if I am doing something wrong. FPAS being busy responded quickly without actually confirming that I was violating my topic ban as he did not review the entire issue as he was committed elsewhere. Resultantly, I asked him a simple question:

So what you want to say is that in future ANY terrorist attack on Indian soil (which is condemnable), even like that carried out in Manipur by rebels in Mayanmar, will automatically fall within the scope of Indo-Pak conflict, because it ultimately will end up being supposedly supported by some terror group linked to Pakistan? This sir is a huge statement. Since when did Admins at Wikipedia have started speaking the language of Indian External Affairs Ministry?

As FPAS is still busy, he hasnt responded to the comment. So, I ask here again, will any future terror attack taking place in India be taken as a conflict between India and Pakistan? Or may be till the time India does not accuse Pakistan for orchestrating the attack, I could edit the page as till then it would not have become a conflict between the two countries, because the time between a terror attack in India and India accusing Pakistan for the same is with hours? Please explain? If it is the former, so what editors at Wikipedia want to say is that even before pakistan's hand is established behind an attack, all terror attacks in India will by default be assumed to be supported by Pakistan and thus by this definition, all such pages will fall under the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, and thus within my topic-ban?

As for LeT, how does a page related to a terror org, like LeT, like the LTTE in Sri Lanka, ISIS in Yemen, Sikh Seperatists and numerous others in India etc are all linked to the politics of the respective countries. I am confused and seek advice. If I am told and clarified by the respected Admins that by the edits being quoted against me, I was infact violating by ban, I'll happily admit to my mistake as I did not consider doing so was wrong, and will refrain from such edits in future. Thanks.

Lastly, or the Indian socks and tag-teamers who wants to show that I cant live with my topic ban, my edit history, post my topic ban begs to disagree:

• Territorial claims in the Arctic
• My Trip Back to the Dark Side (film)
• Kim Yo-jong
• Chappie (film)
• Frequencies (film)
• Sabeen Mahmud
• Benjamin Sisters
• Javed Iqbal Ramday
• Central Superior Services of Pakistan—TripWire ^talk 12:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This needs admins attention. This user has been blatantly violated topic ban several times even after several warnings. One can read latest advice by admin FPAS User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Topic ban violation. He is busy. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou sir, for repeating the 'same' words as by the IP one more time. You think repeating it will make it true? BTW, you claimed that I have "been blatantly violated topic ban several times", so please why dont you tell the admins when was the last time I have edited a topic which you for now presumingly believe falls within my topic ban? As I have requested you earlier, that you need to stop lying and exaggerating the 'facts'—TripWire ^talk 13:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned it itself, sir. You think that India thinks that all terrorist attacks in India are related to Pakistan, and because of that, it is part of an India-Pakistan conflict, and this means your topic ban applies. Besides, topic bans are broadly construed. Violating topic bans may result in an extension of that ban, a block, including an indefinite block... If you think a topic ban is unjustified, don't violate it, or try to circumvent it, but appeal it.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So sir, what you are trying to say is that because any attack in India, will automatically, by default, without any investigation, without any proof, without any recourse to any legal proceedings will have to be understood (internationally and among ALL editors of Wikipedia and Admins) to be orchestrated by Pakistan, so it falls under Indo-Pak Conflict? WOW! I will say that same thing what i said to FPAS, ' that's a huge statement sir', not to mention a clear violation of WP:NPOV and numerous other wiki polices. BTW, would the attack carried out by Manipur Rebels in Manipur, India recently by the rebels operation from the Indo-Mayanmar Border, to which India responded by carryingout a hot pursuit operation inside Mayanmar, also included in the definition of topic-ban provided by you? Thanks —TripWire ^talk 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Important Question to Admins (and sock IP)

I am being accused of violating by Topic Ban related to Indo-Pak Conflict pages by editing 2015 Gurdaspur attack page. But please consider:

• 2015 Gurdaspur attack occurred at 5:30am on 27 July 2015.
• The 2015 Gurdaspur attack was created on same day at 08:44 am
• Till then it was an unfortunate attack on Indian soil, no terror group claimed responsibility, no one knew who was behind the attacks.
• Later it was known that one of the attackers seemed like a Sikh, and thus the possibility of Khalistan Movement surfaced.
• I made my first edit at the page at 02:28, 28 July 2015, approximately 24 hrs after the attack.
• Till then Pakistan had not been brought into the mix, so the question, how and when did this page started falling withing the purview of Indo-Pak Conflict, a topic I am banned to edit?
• The first mention of Pakistan at the page was made at 21:44, 28 July 2015. This was usual Indian rehtoric of accusing Pakistan everytime a terror attack happens in India. This time it was a shot in the dark as unlike let's say Mumbai Attacks where India had a confession of Ajmal Kasb, thereby giving credence to the Indian claim, this time the accusation was blank, vague and to date unproven. So the second question: Did this ACCUSATION make 2015 Gurdaspur attack page an Indo-Pak Conflict topic, may be? If so, then I would respectfully ask the Admins the same question I asked from FPAS at his talk page, but I am not going to repeat it here.
• Please, I request, help me understand how (and when) does a terror attack in India becomes a topic of Indo-Pak Conflict? What's the criteria, how should I gauge that a page I am editing is a Conflict page, because the line is quite thin here and personal vendettas quite high. Thanks.—TripWire ^talk 14:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Read above comment, you disagree on "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts" thats why it is part of India-Pakistan conflict. And what about your edits on NGO Lashkar-e-Taiba? I demand strict action on this user. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You, as been highlighted numerous times, are an exaggerator and a manipulator. You are again lying by saying that I "disagree on Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts", can you prove it sir? Which edit of mine made you think that I am against it? Did I remove ANY info related to this? Did I challenge this accusation by India? The only thing I changed in the line quoted by you is that India 'alleged' that Pakistan is behind the attacks, what's wrong with that? Isnt it an accusation as of now or you as per habitual WP:NPOV pusher wants to state this as a FACT? The other edit I made was to add the fact that Indian authorities mistakenly thought one of the attackers to be a Sikh, is that wrong to? Is it not factual or supported by Indian sources? Or by highlighting that India retracted a mistake well in time and instead accused Pakistan, didnt I actually support the Indian POV as opposed to your accusation that I am against "Pakistan is behind Gurudaspur bomb blasts"? Wake up Sir! You in your frustration against me, have crossed all bounds of morality.—TripWire ^talk 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taibar is clearly related to Pakistan, so it is a forbidden article. A topic ban is a topic ban. Not from an article, but from everything related to that topic, broadly construed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Related to Pakistan, not Pakistani Politics. Broadly construed is OK, but making it so broad that anything which has a word Pakistan in it is banned for me is not. If that had been the case, FPAS could have very easily said in by Ban that I am not allowed to edit ANY topic related to Pakistan (alone). Infact, that's the clarification I am trying to seek here from respected Admins. I can be wrong, and I dont mind if I am corrected by Admins.—TripWire ^talk 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Immediately after his ban, TripWire filed a request to lift his ban, which was not even replied and ultimately rejected. You were banned for India-Pakistan conflicts which includes Lashkar e taiba as this terror group launches attack against India every week.112.79.39.111 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny. Ref: as this terror group launches attack against India every week: and this far-fetched accusation makes it a topic of Pakistani Politics/Conflict? Sir, excellent attempt at pushing a WP:NPOV. BTW, did you muster the courage to login? Admins sirs, is it fair to be reported by a sock/SPA? —TripWire ^talk 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

While I will defer to admins more familiar with the India-Pakistan area and topic bans more generally, this does appear to me to be a violation of the topic ban. Edits such as this and this are clearly on topics related to India-Pakistan conflicts. It doesn't really matter, in my opinion, whether it had yet been confirmed that the attacks were carried out by people from Pakistan; I think the fact that a link was being considered brings the topic within the India-Pakistan conflicts topic. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: If an article mentions both Pakistan and India and covers violence or religious strife or political or military wranglings you are topic-banned from that article. Lashkar-e-Taiba emphatically falls under your topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...So sir I have been wrong all along?? Darn! May be I was taking the ban wording too literally. —TripWire ^talk 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@TripWire: It's not a good idea to test the boundaries of a topic ban. If there's any doubt, ask an admin familiar with the matter before you start editing. But these queries should be reserved for non-obvious cases. Lashkar-e-Taiba is an obvious case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I do find it hard to believe that you would think your topic ban didn't cover articles like Lashkar-e-Taiba or in conflict-related articles where a link between India and Pakistan is being discussed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, all along my argument regarding LeT had been that it did not fell under "Pakistani Politics", now it seems that it is connected to Indo-pak Conflict?! Ouch!—TripWire ^talk 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the ban appeal

I noticed someone mentioned a denied ban appeal.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177#Result_of_the_appeal_by_TripWire Ban Appeal) And then I noticed the following: Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't answer or explain his actions in the appeal despite notice, and the appeal was automatically archived after 7 days. This is disappointing. Future Perfect at Sunrise was active during that time. This behaviour seems to be contrary to WP:ADMINACCT.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for saying what I couldnt. I am being continoulsy mocked that I didnt even worth a reply on my ban appeal and thus (ironically) my ban was justified. Sir Neil has suggested that I should have asked an Admin if I was in doubt 9which I was). Seriously, I may be wrong in saying so, but I will not fall down to a level where I approach the same admin who did not even bother to reply to my appeal. On a seond thought, I should have approached FPAS, but whereas I do enjoy my edits at Wikipedia, but it is not a matter of life or death to me. I exercised my right of appeal, it went unanswered, which in itself was insulting, if taken in that sense, I am sorry, if resultantly I didnt feel comfortable to interact with the same Admin. I could have also approached another admin, but for the same reason, I found it rather belittling that I am knocking at a door, only to find out that it remains unopened. The only reason behind my latest interaction with FPAS at his talk page was because I was forced by Human3015 to respond there when he reported me to FPAS. BTW, FPAS didnt even then respond to me, but made a hasty reply to Human3015 alone, which again was taken with a heavy heart by me. But still, I understand that being an Admin is a thankless job, and I hold no grudges. We are all here to improve this website, will try to do that, till I am permitted to do that. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• @TripWire: If someone has not replied to your ban appeal then it doesn't mean that you are allowed to violate your topic ban. That can be different discussion and should not be discussed on this thread, @Müdigkeit: this is the issue of WP:AE. Here we are discussing current topic ban violations by TripWire. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think this is related to that. TripWire had the right to appeal, and it is obvious that right was not fully exercised or granted as no one even replied on the thread. I think we all ought to sit back and re-visit the original ban. It would be good if the previous appeal could be de-archived and the involved admin/editors could add in their thoughts. After all, it's meant to be preventable, not punitive. And to be honest, TripWire isn't really doing anything different than what the POV pushers on the other side of the fence are doing. Perhaps sanctions should be applied equally. Mar4d (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: It is not just you who thinks in that way, even I wanted that his appeal should have been replied, I said this in my long advice on TripWire's talk page see last line. But apparently his appeal could have been refused. His behaviour is such that even you yourself describing his behaviour as "POV Pusher". He has done many mistakes even after his topic ban. Even if we de-archive or re-open his case still again no one will comment on his appeal. Or even if someone comment on it still it will end up in deny. It will hurt TripWire again. And I agree on you that "POV pushers" of "both" sides should be banned. These POV pushers are ruining Wikipedia. When we are busy in any project these POV pushers and Socks unnecessarily attracts our attention and we end up in wasting our time and we also lose our interest in that topic. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  02:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, please stop patronizing me. What you call advice was more of a mockery whereby you showed your true colors. You were the first one to 'enjoy' that my ban appeal went out without a discussion. Stop lying for once!—TripWire ^talk 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Two cents (uninvolved editor)

This is my personal take on the issue, perhaps a bit biased. I just wanted to see if the latest had been added to the article and went there today. I have not edited the article in any way which may show bias towards anyone. I am assuming here that that the reporter is human3015 as there is almost no chance that a person who has not edited Wikipedia knows about our ANI and reporting process.

As far as Human is concerned I would like to say that perhaps he could have waited for a couple of more reverts before reporting, but having said that he is quite within his rights to report and if he follows the law to the letter no one should blame him, even though I personally would have given tripwire some "rope".

On the other hand the total meltdownesque tirade from Tripwire seems to be such a huge huge huge amount of overkill I cannot even describe it in words. Had he just come here and apologized for editing during the TB, i am sure this would have ended in a nice "Ok, no harm no foul dude" and a cool wiki thread. but alas, such escalation! I'd like to recommend that an admin takes just one minute from his time and tell Tripwire that his TB includes everything that has even a tiny bit of connection with Pak-India Politics. That is what the term "broadly" means. And that another incident of violation will "upgrade" the TB to 9 months. I think that should end this for the time being. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 and Sock IPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While we are at it, I'd like to make few observations:

• Human3015 has a weiered habit of showing emphathy with established socks and vice versa.
• I wonder why is it that whenever I have been in discussion with Human3015, a sock or a SPA appears from nowhere and attempts at disrupting my contributions. The fact that I have been reported by a (sock) IP for topic-ban vio here is a point to note. Especially, when Human3015 falsely and in pure bad-faith reported me for 3RR vio, and when it was seen in the discussion there that it is not going to yield results as per Human's wishes, this socks appears and reports me here.
• Point to note is that the last edit I made at LeT page was at 00:23, 3 August 2015 and the last edit made by me on 2015 Gurdaspur attack was at 20:30, 2 August 2015. Thereafter when I was told that I might be violating my topic-ban, I stopped from editing both the topics. But, still I get reported by the sock IP today on 5 August (after it was seen that the false report against me for 3RR was likely to backfire, with a likelihood of some action against Human as he used a 2-days-old edit by me to force compile 3RR volition)??

• This is not the first time this has happened. I was reported by Human for SPI upon 'suggestion' by an established sockmaster. Human, instead of ignoring the sock, gladly acknowledged the Sock's suggestion and obliged by reporting me for SPI. The result of SPI was also not as per Human's wishes, but no action was taken against Human for accusing me of socking that too upon suggestion by a sock - fathom the irony!

• Just yesterday, when Human and I were having a discussion at Talk:Desi daru, and when Human was unable to prove his point, another sock/SPA appeared from nowhere and vandalized my talk page twice while I was amidst the discussion with Human.

• I wonder why is it that established socks/sockmaster always approach Human for help? Is it just a coincidence that socks are in communication with Human, that socks recommend to him to report me for false SPI, that I get reported by a sock IP again here on the eve of sanctions on Human for falsely reporting me for 3RR? Food for thought.—TripWire ^talk 18:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want to allege that another user is a sockpuppet then file an SPI. Sam Walton (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know from where these IPs appear whenever I have discussion with TripWire. My talk page has always been attacked by both Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani IPs. And both of these group of IPs are socks of different sockmasters. As usual TripWire told you half story, now I will tell you another story, [60], [61], [62] Here one IP is abusing me in local language saying "What conspiracy you did to get me topic banned for 6 months?, did you e-mail admin FPAS to provoke him to get me topic banned?. Don't touch Pakistan related articles for 6 months till my ban is over". I will not translate abusive words. I have never even thought that it is sock of TripWire, I have not even complained or discussed it with anyone. I just left this matter. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My take on this

As an uninvolved editor, it appears to me that there is some dispute over whether an incident is considered India/Pakistani conflict, and therefore covered by the TB, or not. There is a reason that the AE/DS motion is worded "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" and it is to avoid this type of confusion. And yes, I'm prepared to accept that there was some confusion, or at least controversy, over whether the Gurdaspur attack constitutes India/Pakistani conflict or is in fact Indian domestic terrorism. I have no opinion on that matter, but I would suggest that the wording of the topic ban is changed to include "all pages related to India and/or Pakistan, both broadly construed" so that TripWire, and all other editors, are clear he is to stay aware from this area for at least six months. Unfortunately, this paints with a broad brush but I believe doing so is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent this type of dispute in future. Djonesuk (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request of SummerSlam (2015)

Could an administrator please place the following matches to SummerSlam (2015)

Bray Wyatt & Luke Harper vs. Dean Ambrose & Roman Reigns - Source: [63] and Intercontinental Champion Ryback vs. Big Show vs. The Miz (Triple Threat Match) - Source: [64]

Thanks! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheGRVOfLightning: Please make your request at Talk:SummerSlam (2015). Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Many have tried this. The page has not been edited however. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Refusal to lift WP:BURDEN by User:Mhhossein

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly inserting material from a disputed source in Quds Day without lifting his burden to demonstrate its reliability on either the talk page or anywhere else.[65][66] The source is a partisan Muslim organisation with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have explained the same user numerous times before that such sources aren't usable per WP:V and he is not likely to stop disrupting the project before action is taken against him.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this not on WP:RSN? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is the place where editors not failing to follow WP:BURDEN can ask about the suitability of sources they wish to add or restore, "not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct", as it says in the leading text on the board itself.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you have opened a discussion at RSN, while both have been edit-warring over this. It is not permissible to edit war even if you are right. Why are people here? To build an encyclopaedia, not create drama. I count 0 talk page comments by either side, both are arguing through edit summaries. A simple post to RSN would have solved this without any drama. A word to the wise: there are no victors at WP:ANI, only survivors. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: What would RSN solve given that it almost never responds? You're obviously a bit of an amateur and mistakenly think RSN is "the ANI-equivalent for sources".--Anders Feder (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: I have posted many times at WP:RSN, as you can check here. You could use WP:RfC, WP:3O (another underused and very useful tool), or a hundred other things. Posting at WP:ANI before posting on the talk page is really weird. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Easy for you to say given that you have zero interest in resolving the issue. Moralizing lectures dismissing everybody else's concerns as "drama" are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

To me, you would not take it here if you had interest in resolving the issue. Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your repeated attempts to shift your own WP:BURDEN onto others across multiple articles is not an issue that belongs on the Quds Day talk page. It is a user conduct issue that belongs here.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm passionately waiting for you to show the cases in which I have not respected a consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? What does your refusal to lift your burden to form consensus have to do with whether you have respected the consensus you have failed to form? Are you attempting to shift the topic even here?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would stop questions after questions. Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What does that even mean? If you want to "stop questions", you should answer them.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Sorry for the delay, I was on a trip. Any way, why not saying Anders Feder is repeatedly removing a challenging material from a possible reliable source from Quds Day without starting a talk page discussion? He could easily open a topic in WP:RSN instead of repeatedly reverting the edit at the very beginning. In fact, he acted so that he is the only one who determines whether a source is reliable or not. Of course, I didn't say that he was wrong for sure (for he was expressing his respected opinion), but his unidirectional reverts was really disturbing. I will certainly respect any consensus over this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I will respond on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualified eyes needed at Bhakt

I have no idea what this term means, however this edit got my attention real quick. Anyone out there able to verify this information given? If its a POV or OR related then it needs to be reverted (or perhaps redacted), but as I said that depends on whether or not the info is in fact correct (which is beyond my ability to judge). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I reverted the edit, since it (more or less) duplicated the lede with added POV. I considered this link to be a "dead giveaway". Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyday someone comes up wit a new term, this is one of those. It's not OR, just that one writer wrote an article using the term, a few newspapers picked it up and the rest is history as we cover everything in this place. WP:NOTNEWS should be retired soon. I'll post at WT:INB and anyone interested can edit the article. —SpacemanSpiff 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and advocacy by 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974/199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123

2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who used 199.116.175.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 199.116.175.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently as well) is engaged in long-term disruptive editing and advocacy on numerous Chinese military hardware articles, in addition to engaging in personal attacks. (See the list of other IPs used by the editor below.) The editor does not seek resolutions through talk pages (even when invited to do so) and edit warring is frequent. The editor frequently falls back on any Chinese-language sources; these sources have few if any credentials demonstrating expert knowledge on the subject or give sources for their information (the Chinese web has so many enthusiast writers that there's always some "source" that the editor can fall back on and claim to be "accurate" and "official".)

I have (to my discredit) edit-warred with this editor, both currently and in the past.

Some more recent examples:

CJ-10 (missile)

• 119.116.175.123 adds ([67]) "sources" which the editor claims supports adding a ship to the box.
  • The claim rests on a Chinese-language article which extrapolates the fact that the ship carries the missile (which given the secrecy of Chinese military developments, such claims coming from a non-expert source is suspect).
  • A personal attack is issued in another edit.
  • Finally, the editor defends his sources not by addressing matters of its reliability by saying "If you argue that my source is not reliable, then back up with reliable source to prove them wrong"; in other words, the unreliable source must stand unless a reliable source can be found to replace it, rather than removing the unreliable source and its claims.
  • A talk page section is ignored.
  • Only the threat of possible admin action stops the editor from reintroducing the claims.
• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754 reintroduces claims from an unreliable source (PopSci) and misinterpreted source (Janes.)
  • The readdition of the Janes article is particularly blatant, since it really does not mention the article subject (the missile's designation has been subject to confusion over the years, so without supporting sources the Janes article should not be used in the CJ-10 article.)
  • I suspect the editor has not bothered to read the article, and is only adding it because I had reverted that same edit made by a different user (who may or may not be a sockpuppet of the editor in question.)
  • The relevant talk page section is ignored.
• Throughout, the editor makes reverts with the comment "removal of sourced content", evidently continuing to lack understanding that not all sources are created equal as per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY
• Similar thing happened on the [[YJ-12], again concerning the PopSci source; again, no interaction on the talk page, and the editor seems to be intervening on behalf of another editor (the same one as on the CJ-10 page)

Type 054A frigate

• 199.116.175.123 marks all ships as "active" simply on the strength that the infobox says 20 are active (the number at the time is completely unsupported by the article)
  • I update the "active" and "building" numbers by sourcing US DoD (17 active, 5 building)
  • 199.116.175.123 interprets the Janes article to say that since the 20th ship under construction has been commissioned, that all previous 19 seen under construction have been commissioned, and uses the Janes article as the "source" for each of the ships.
  • I dispute this on the talk page
    • The editor insists his interpretation of the Janes article is correct, and "backs it up" using a Chinese-language source. As far as I can tell, the Chinese source does say the same thing as the Janes article, that the 20th ship spotted under construction has now commissioned, not that 20 ships have been commissioned. The editor thus misinterprets the Chinese source too. This misinterpretation underlies the editor's argument, and the editor refuses to be budged from it. As an additional defence the editor says that since it's all on Baike Baidu (Chinese-language wiki) and supposedly sourced there, everything the editor has done in the article should stand, regardless. [68]
    • Pointing out that the Chinese-language source has no indication of being more authoritative than Janes are ignored (in editor's words, the Chinese-language source: "It is official source, you just can not argue with it.") Also pointing out that saying it's on Baike Baidu is no substitute for proper sourcing and referencing on Wikipedia is ignored; essentially the editor attempts to use Baike Baidu to WP:PROVEIT. ([69])
    • I suggest that if the editor thinks the Baike Baidu sources are good, then the editor should transfer them to Wikipedia. This would make the interpretation of the Janes article irrelevant. As far as I can tell, my suggestion has been ignored.

Type 093 submarine

• 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 adds a 43 min Chinese-language video as a source. I revert it, ultimately arguing that it is incomprehensible to an English audience (no subtitles, no English summary)
  • The video is readded by 199.116.169.39/199.116.175.123; re-addition is justified by "The source is BETTER than English, it is from official Chinese news media, CCTV 7. Just watch the video as it clearly describes the propeller portion !" and "Does it matter? The source is from Chinese news site, which is more accurate than English version, 093 SSN is a Chinese military product !!!"
  • I start a topic on the talk page; editor refuses to show even after being explicitly invited on the editor's own talk page User talk:199.116.175.123#Talk pages.
• 199.116.175.123 uses a non-expert Chinese-language source to support a change to the "active" number, and claims over the submarines capabilities.
  • I dispute that the article says that the 3 093Gs have entered service, and say so on the talk page. (If you run the article through Google translate, it says the yard has completed construction, not that they have been commissioned.) I point out that contemporary sources support the assertion that the subs were completed, but not yet commissioned. No rebuttal by the editor.
  • The editor claims the Chinese-language source is "newer" than it actually is ("5 As of 8/5/2015 according to official Chinese source", when it was actually written on 29 Mar 2015) and again claims it is "official" and implies it is more authoritative than the other sources (ignoring, of course, how the editor has misinterpreted the source already as stated in the previous point)
  • Editor switches to 2602:306:b8bf:c0:a17b:1dc4:f754:7974 and re-adds the claims, which also highlights the editors ignorance concerning the dates
  • A personal attack is thrown in for good measure.
  • Throughout the editor uses "Removal of sourced content." to justify re-additions, clearly not understanding why they were removed, and of course, avoiding the talk page and deeper discussion.

Shenyang WS-10

• A minor example of the lack of due care on the part of the editor
  • Removes info using the edit comment that "it's not in the source", or "removal of sourced content" ([70], [71], [72]) when what was in the article was indeed in the source (as I explain on the talk page.)
  • Finally, the editor explicitly demonstrates ignorance of the source article's contents, first by elaborating on why the editor thinks the reversions are justified ("The source did not even mention AL-31FM1, where did you get the idea that the latest WS-10 has less thrust than AL-31FM1? You troll !!!!") and almost immediately afterwards realizes that it the information is in the source ("Ok, I read the source. It clearly says approaching. Let us use this word instead of "less". This is more accurate and neutral tone.")
  • In the editors final revision (and the current one), note how any negative connotations toward the WS-10 have been removed to be "neutral". The source article does support the range of a lower bound of 13 t thrust, and an upper bound of the thrust of the Russian engine (this is explained on the talk page.)

Other IPs this editor has used in the past include (all with similar behaviour):

• 199.116.175.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.116.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:9104:96F8:421:1AE7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was unsure whether or not to take this to content disputes, since talk page interaction seems to be a prerequisite for that and this editor seems to make it a point to avoid interacting on talk pages altogether. This is in addition to editor's general uncivilness and lack of comprehension. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've looked at the first three. This is a lot of words. I reverted on and semi-protected the missile and the submarine. I can't do the same for the frigate since a major edit happened in between. Your IP editor, whom I hope you've notified all over the place on as many of their talk page as you can, can get back to those two articles two weeks from now, and if they continue in the same vein, without getting talk page consensus, they will be blocked and, if need be, semi-protection will be extended.

  As for you, RovingEtc., consider taking the reliable source issue to WP:RSN. If you get a consensus that this or that source is not to be used, then you have a good argument for reverting and placing warning templates, etc. And then an admin can block and protect. I also suggest you post a note on the MILHIST project talk page, to get some expert input--since much of this may rely on source reading and interpretation. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk

Sakimonk has been previously been warned repeatedly, once for edit-warring by Melanie here and once again by myself here. The user continues to edit-war on a number of pages. See for example histories of Qadiani, Ahmadiyya or Template:Islam.

The reason why I am writing here is because I have been subject to uncivil behaviour by Sakimonk here. The user refers to me as a "treacherous qadiani", [Qadiani is a derogatory religious slur for Ahmadis], "who allies with the enemies of Islam to make war against Muslims". The user continues calling me, "plain enemies of Islam" and "kuffar"[meaning infidel]. I don't think the user is here to improve Wikipedia.--Peaceworld 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I should probably add that this is not the first time the user has been uncivil. The user appears to claim that I have an hidden agenda here.--Peaceworld 10:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

actually I deleted that message left on your wall because I realised it was not nice and I wrote something different.

Also I stopped editing those pages and I only put the bit regarding the phrase qadiani - all I wanted to say was that it is the official government term in Pakistan (which it is).

Also the only reason I said those things is because you were harassing me and stalking my edits, going into the Israel talk page and siding against me JUST because I was disputing with you is very unfair.

I actually listened to your suggestions on template Islam so I don't one why you're saying I edit warred there.

Sakimonk ^talk 13:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

could you find evidence evidence where I have harassed you? If not, that may constitute a personal attack.--Peaceworld 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakimonk is also going around labeling muslim groups he doesn't like as Sects. Namely the Barelvi movement Misdemenor (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Loool what!? One minute I have Peaceworld who is attacking me because I'm NOT calling ahmadis a "sect" of Islam and then i have Misdemenor attacking me because I AM calling Barelvis a sect :O, look I haven't bothered you guys so please just leave me alone I'm just trying to get along here but I keep running into you two whereever I go. Peaceworld, I was talking about your talk on israel, you sided against me even though you weren't involved in the convo at all whatsoever, and I got angry and left a message on your talk page which I promptly deleted and replaced with something else after I gave your comments some thought. Sakimonk ^talk 04:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion I "sided against" you, even though I don't see it that way. My comment was (in my opinion) a closing response to the never-ending discussion. Nevertheless, I don't see how that counts as harassment. Secondly I don't see where I have been "attacking" you.--Peaceworld 09:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you not against you, these are teething problems but ultimately we're all trying to create a representative picture that accurately captures the essence of a topic. A few reverts here and there are to be expected. I've even revamped my edits drastically to align them with WP:NOV guidelines. Sakimonk ^talk 22:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sakimonk, settle down. Misdemor, if you're referring to this edit with your "sect" comment, then you're being silly--the lead already called it a sect. And I don't know how far along you are in your religious studies, but from where I stand "sect" is not a bad word. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat by Craxd1

The following post by User:Craxd1 appears to be a legal threat. It says that the legal action will may be by others, not by the poster, but it appears to be intended nonetheless to have a chilling effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbel_Clarin_de_la_Rive&type=revision&diff=675322010&oldid=675151351

Recommend a block at least until original poster understands the threat policy and reconsiders.

By the way, the original poster also has a frivolous request for arbitration, but appears to be about to withdraw it.  Done

Changing wording in a way that doesn't make a difference. NLT is NLT. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

First, has the legal threat been resolved or not? Your done checkmark is more confusing than helpful. Third, next time, can you quote the actual threat instead of this vagueness? There's no actual words "legal action" used there and I'm not generally in the mood to read hundred-word screeds of round-about language like that but you aren't helping and are being equally if not more vague here. Don't mis-quote with words that aren't there and ignore what the editor actually says expecting others to read your mind. The editor says "I catch you at it again, and you'll be before the Arbitration Committee as fast as you can say Jesus" which is not a legal threat per se but a Wikipedia threat (which sounds ominously like a legal threat to some people). The editor goes on and on and I don't care but fine, the "libelous" bullshit is enough for me to block for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism on my talk page

Hello, could someone please semi-protect my talkpage for a while, revdel the latest changes and handle the IP-editor(s) involved? Many thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the trolling has stopped for now (I am so glad, that we follow the dogma of free IP-editing with zero actual proof of its advantages). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Topic ban for Aubmn

Whether here or WP:AN is the best place for this, I propose a topic ban for Aubmn (talk · contribs) with regard to the Marie Antoinette article. Aubmn's problematic editing at that article has been documented by various editors. For a WP:Diff-link to the evidence, see here and keep scrolling downward. Each section following that is one about Aubmn's problematic editing. And that problematic editing includes WP:Copyright violations, falsifying text, hard-to-read text, WP:Edit warring, WP:Socking and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior. NebY and I, especially NebY, first tried to deal with all of it. Then more editors took notice and tried to deal with all of it. Eventually, Saddhiyama brought the matter to WP:ANI earlier this year; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry. Since then, Blue Indigo (talk · contribs) has been trying to help out with the article and deal with Aubmn's problematic editing; he brought the matter to my talk page, as seen jhere and here, and I eventually suggested that he bring the case here to WP:ANI himself. Seeing that NeilN has WP:Full protected the article (see this link), and that Blue Indigo is understandably stressed because of Aubmn's problematic editing and that NeilN has been clear that he will block either of them for WP:Edit warring, I decided to follow through with reporting this case here. From Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)what I have seen of Aubmn's behavior, I don't think he should be editing Wikipedia at all. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me, more than a year ago I began editing Marie Antoinette article who was on the watchlist of Flyer and who was left incomplete since 2012 and relying on one source Fraser, I was still an editor who didn't know about copyright s rules or a lot of rules in Wikepedia, I removed myself all the copyright violations and began editing by counting first on Fraser and completing the article specially the revolutionary period who was largely left unfinished since 2012. After that many editors came to work on the article , unfortunately the negative behaviour of Neb and Flyer22 let many of these editors to feel empowered and they wanted me completely out of the article after first proposing to work with me; krobison 13 was the first one, he himself acknowledge that he knew little about the subject , yet flyer and Neb wanted to give him complete control over the article, when we were left alone without the negativity and harrasment of Flyer and Neb, I was able to work with krobison who made hundred of edits in the article without interference from me, we have your differences who where solved when Krobison wanted to remove the 14 of July the most important event of that period. Blue Indigo refused to work with me from the beginning although I proposed to him twice on his talk page , he reverted 90% of my edits, I accepted 90 % of his edits (see per talk page). Aubmn (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I will talk of the last edit about the necklace scandal, Blue Indigo removed my contribution completely while I kept his contribution who was not based on the role of MA and when I tried to add my contribution without removing his, he removed it again as he felt empowered by Flyer22 (see SoS, SoS 2) on Flyer talk page, in addition to all that Blue Indigo compared me to a panzer division on Flyer22 talk page with it reference to Nazism without any reaction from Flyer22, know Flyer is saying Blue Indigo is stressed. Aubmn (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC) I welcomed the involvement of NeilN who is an objective person trying to find solutions in the Talk Page; not behaving and taking a negative attitude like Flyer22. Finally I want to say I committed mistakes sometimes out of ignorance of the rules sometimes because of anger but the fact remained , I completed a major article on a major personality which was left incomplete since 2012 and second I listened to many editors including Neb who told me the main weakness of this article is on it reliance on one source Fraser, I provided a solution to this problem by adding dozen of references to this article using the most important historians of MA like Castelot, Lever, Zweig and many others. I m not stressed like Blue Indigo because edit warring was mainly from his side and I believe in talking, cooperation and compromise ,,as an example I opened a new section in Napoleon article about education and I reached compromises with the editors there who were behaving in a positive way. Finally yes I committed some mistakes,I panicked sometimes not knowing about the rules but my intentions were good and positive, in the end I provided information's for a major article unfinished since 2012 and I removed its main weakness by giving it many sources instead of one. Know I trust NeilN and I m ready to follow any arbitration decided by him or her on MA talk page.Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Aubmn (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Note: Anyone wanting to know how I initially addressed Aubmn can see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 17#Aubmn: Marie Antoinette article. Judge whether or not that matches up with his assertion that "Flyer22 has a very negative attitude from the first with me." As seen there, I asked him clearly about copyright violations, and he was dishonest. Unless he didn't know what copyright violations are, he should have known what I meant. The WP:Copyright violations policy is just adhering to what the law does. Yes, there are very likely WP:Copyright violations still in that article because of Aubmn. And any negative attitude I've had toward Aubmn has concerned his WP:Disruptive editing. Feel free to look for any way that I have been inappropriate with Aubmn. I will ignore his mischaracterization of me and others in this thread from here on out. I'll leave the rest of this to the community to handle. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The talk page shows a long history of problematic edits including copyright violations, and strong evidence of WP:OWN. The claim that text is "information" and therefore sacrosanct, is a hallmark of POV-pushers. I think a topic ban is in order. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

First about copyright violations,when I knew the law, I removed not only those I put which Flyer and Neby acknowledged they couldn't find them, I also removed hundred of copyright violations and paraphrasing from the test which were present before my contributions.

Second what is called ownership is first simply the absence of many editors for years to deal with this article, krobison 13 made hundred of edits without any interruption from me, Blue Indigo made hundred of edits who were left unchanged, the problem is like the diamont necklace show he removed my contribution, I kept his.

Third, I added many references to an article who was counting on one reference.

Fourth, frankly I 'm tired, I have a very beautiful life outside Wikipedia, if 'm banned I'll stop my work as an editor and concentrate more on my real life which is the cornstone of my existense, because I never spent more than one hour or two on Wikepedia everyday; perhaps that is the best for me, anyway whatever happen I want to thank NeilN and all who have shown objectivity.Thank you all Aubmn (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You have such a single purpose here than if you can't edit that singular article, you'd quit? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. From the MA Talk page, this appears to be an ongoing problem that should have ended months ago. Lucky he isn't getting proposed for another block, which apparently would have been well warranted. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My friend Ricky I 'm tired, what do you expect, I finished a major article who was incomplete and depending on one source; I was lucky that I was able to complete it and also to provide many sources so the article don't 'depend on one source. I 'm not very interested in adding a few lines to other articles who are almost complete and to face the same scenarios. Unfortunately this is the kind of policy that is driving editors away from Wikipedia which is also losing a lot of readers. I' m going to Monte Carlo with my beautiful girlfriend and I don't need all of this. Thank you for all,a last notice NeilN said on MA talk page flyer22 put words from her mouth, I think that resume the person.Aubmn (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed, per WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.- MrX 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK making the decision easier and making you not loose more time, first I want to thank all people of good faith who collaborated with me, second unfortunately Wikipedia is losing it appeal and all studies are showing that the reading of its articles is going down in a very dramatic way ; I 'm logging myself out of Wikipedia as an editor, I m not like Blue indigo afraid of being quicked out., I have a life better outside Gentlemen and Ladies, anyway wish you luck. Aubmn (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support up to 6 month topic ban (uninvolved non admin) There is some problematic behaviour. Suggest 6 months is long enough for this relatively inexperienced editor to try and learn more about WP and to stay out of trouble. I would also suggest that they learn not to focus on one specific article. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support _{(was involved)} Whenever an editor tries to do any sort of substantial and badly needed work on the article (and not just if they tamper with the repeated and embarassingly banal descriptions of Marie Antoinette's feelings and suffering), Aubmn returns and reverts them edit by edit, then inserts more text that further obscures the subject. NebY (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support For reasons already described by the editors above. But I particularly agree with Guy, article ownership and POV pushing is troublesome here. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC

• Support_{(was involved)} for the reason that it is impossible to work with Aubmn or have a sensible conversation with him - (although I ignore if the fact that my last contributions of 7 August, which provoked the protection of the article, should keep me from voting in this case.) Aubmn automatically rejects the work of others, also uses the 3-revert rule in a calculated manner to accomplish his goal of the day: the elimination of others. He has set up his own censorship over the Marie Antoinette article, allowing the contribution of others only after he has put his stamp of approval on it, or reworded it beyond recognition, sometimes contradicting the very reference he is bringing to prove his point. It is not necessary to go into any further details: the article talk page and revision history speak for themselves. I also want to answer Aubmn here as to his accusation (above) of my calling him a *N*: I never used the word, only compared his removal of huge blocks of vital information from the Napoleon article to the tactics of a Panzerdivision, using military terminology to describe his elimination of military actions - mention of battles - from an article concerning a military man, his accomplishments, his victories and his defeats. --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Eik Corell blocking TALK PAGE discussion by repeatedly erasing it

This member is involved in a revert war on List of Internet forums and has erased the entire discussion to resolve it on the talk page three times. In erasing the talk page he refers to a call to arms on a messageboard to war with wikipedia.

Removing irrelevant blahblahlah courtesy of this tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-680335.html thread
[diff3]

[diff2]

[diff1]

72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked the editor. However, the problem is that the "categories" column is entirely made-up WP:OR so I've removed the entire column. I opened it up on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw the user forcing their edits through and threatening to get admins involved against anyone stopping them. Combined with the meatpuppetry here[73], it seemed logical to just remove the entry since pretty much any time video game forum members flood to a Wikipedia article, it usually only serves as a space to rant and rave at each other, especially when the thread above was what brought them here. Eik Corell (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a long time contributor to that thread and not part of the meatpuppetry. I was not involved in the article edit war. I don't know of anything in the dispute resolution process that recommends erasing a lengthy discussion among many editors on a talk page - three times - regardless of who is participating and what side of the dispute they are on. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cotap Spamming

I would like a couple of more eyes on an article if you can, the Cotap article. Over the last six months or so a series of IPs and low time registered accounts have been adding information on a "controversy" around this company spamming emails to people and using either no sources or completely unreliable sources to support this position. I feel this is over A) Undue weight and B) completely badly sourced. Since I've been reverting these additions, and my "connection" to the company (i.e. none) is now being questioned, I believe should bow out of the article to avoid drama and any possibility of edit warring in case I'm viewing it wrong. Could someone else give it a drive by and maybe chime in with their view? I did protect the article a couple of times due to the roving IP edits, and it is currently protected against non-approved users. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My advice is not to abandon the article unless you want the spammers/disruptors to win. If the information has merit, they are welcome to find WP:RS that reports it. If not, it's not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't Google or a newspaper, and doesn't report every claim that shows up on Google. These IPs and whatnot (and even the reports on forums and Google) could also be competitors looking to slander the company. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the "Spamming controversy" section on the Cotap page. As I've stated in the article's "Talk" page, I have no connection to the company, except as a sysadmin of an email domain which they have targeted with their UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email, aka SPAM). Additionally, I want to state that I have absolutely no relation to any of the company's competitors, and also that I have no axe to grind with the company; my motivation for writing the aforementioned section is that I find it worthwhile (and enhancing to Wikipedia as a whole) to report on the company's current affairs and practices, as it's the case with the issue at hand. All the edits I did to the page was while logged in with my Wikipedia id, so I do not understand what you mean by "roving IP edits". I also want to note that I have a long story as a Wikipedia contributor (since 2006, please check my contributions page), and I want what is best for Wikipedia; I think it's unfair to imply that I'm a disruptor/slanderer/spammer. Regarding adherence to WP:RS, please note that it offers (as of necessity) only general advice on what is permissible or not, to quote: "[...]Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable" (emphasis mine); the only part of the WP:RS that mentions forums is regarding material on living persons, which is not the case here, and I also took care to list other references which are not forums; please see the paragraph I just added to the article's talk page further explaining my reasoning in this regard. As a final (for now) note, I ask that you please refrain from deleting the section I've added while we are discussing it. Thanks for your time and consideration. Durval (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(Point of note, according to WP:BRD once you've added content and it's been removed (by several users) you should not add it in again until agreement has been reached, not continue to add it and tell others not to remove it.) According to the history there are many IP addresses adding in the same content and now 5 different users have removed this content. In order for this material to be included in Wikipedia you need to have reliable sources for A) the fact it is happening, B) that it is widespread and C) that it is considered a controversy that is discussed by independent third party sources and D) something more than trivia. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see only two other users (besides yourself) removing the section, and those other two only happened in the last few minutes/hours after you asked other editors for help here. So I'm refraining from undoing the removals now as per WP:BRD, but I ask other editors who are reading this to please add it on my behalf. On a final (for now) note, I point that you (and the other editors helping you) have not answered my defense of the sources used, which I posted in the article's talk page, and just went on and removed it again. I think this is undue censorship, and that the right thing to do is to keep the section up while it's still being discussed. Again, thanks for yout time and consideration. Durval (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how things work here, Durval. We need a solid source for information like that, not to mention that, as you've been told, continuing to re-add the section after it has been removed is edit-warring, which can and does regularly result in a block. Also, I suggest reading WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry before you continue your canvassing off-wiki; at this point all you're going to do is waste admins' time and get the article semi-protected to stop your little power-play. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

<procedural note. User:Durval has solicited offsite encouragement for people to edit war on this topic. See the thread here.> Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I will note that two SPAs showed up on the newly-minted AfD discussion. One is an IP; the other is a registered user; both have only ever made edits related to Cotap. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm interested to hear what other admins think of the off-wiki canvassing signaled by Canterbury Tail. I consider that blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

While Durval has been here more than long enough to know the rules, I wouldn't call for a block on it (despite the fact that they mention I've been calling to have them blocked, which hasn't happened.) I think that was a heat of the moment and can assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm of the old school, I suppose. Durval, it might be interesting to hear your comment. In my opinion, such canvassing has the potential of leading to great disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing can be handled by the closing admin on the AfD, but as relates to the non-RS material repeatedly being reinserted into the article, I agree this is going to cause great disruption. My view would be to warn Durval that he needs to either delete that canvassing post or, if that's not possible, retract the canvassing in that thread and tell the people in that thread to stay completely away from the article, or else he faces a block. By the way, here is a more direct link that goes right to the canvassing and does not require any scrolling: [74]. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC); edited 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note from a non-admin involved person: given that the canvassing was in response to an edit-war warning, its clear intent was to continue the edit war through meatpuppetry, while denying that it was an edit war ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durval&diff=next&oldid=674995354 " I'm not doing any edit wars -- I've merely reinstated the section that I wrote and is being repeteadly removed by another editor"). While the edit war seems paused now that the AfD is underway (it looks to be heading toward a no-consensus result), I see no sign that he's aware that either the edit war or the meatpuppetry attempt to avoid a block is inappropriate and thus that those attempts will not be resumed should the deletion attempt fail. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

IP edits to New Jersey Devils related articles

Look at this history. We have several IPs making changes and several established editors reverting them.

The IP edits look cack-handed at best, but not really vandalism. I see no attempt to discuss it... although I get the impression that the established users have been here before and think this may be socks of people who have been causing problems before.

Anyone familiar with the history and want to intervene?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

For relevant history, see this previous incident report which led to an editor block, Talk:1994–95 New Jersey Devils season and the discussion threads to which the last two sections link, and Talk:1993–94 New York Rangers season to see many attempts at discussion and the stream of edit requests that have been made which lack specific details (the talk page history contains more edit requests that have been deleted). isaacl (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Block evading user who has been at it for years. It has been pretty much wack-a-mole with him. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Improper revert by User:Calidum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since 2005, the infobox at Hillary Clinton has used the full name, Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was also the title of the article until a move request earlier this year. Following that move, it was proposed that the infobox name should be changed, and the infobox was in fact changed back and forth several times until User:Bearian randomly locked the article at a stage where the infobox included the proposed change. After a long discussion on the matter at Talk:Hillary Clinton, User:Sandstein closed the discussion, finding that there was no consensus for a change. In accordance with WP:NO CONSENSUS, which states that "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", I restored the status quo ante. This was immediately reverted by Calidum with the assertion that the closer apparently intended something other than the "no consensus" finding in the close. I request that Calidum's improper revert of my policy-based restoration of the status quo ante be reversed, and that he be advised against further edit-warring on the matter. bd2412 T 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I neither took part in the discussion nor !voted in the RFC, but I can see that your interpretation is wrong and you are misrepresenting some facts. The closer's intent is obvious: "That means we have a majority for "HC", but not consensus, but even less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of "HC"" (my bolding for emphasis). Calidum's revert was in line with the closing. If you have an issue with the closer's version of what the proper status quo is, you should ask him to review his closure.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that bd2412 has misrepresented anything. What do you feel was misrepresented? Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@WilliamThweatt: I did ask the closing admin to review the prior status of the page, but he has lost interest and washed his hands of it. The fact that he referenced the "as of this writing" status indicates that he was unaware that this was not the status of the article before the dispute arose. Editors should not be able to game the system by edit warring until an article gets stuck on their preferred version, and use that to effect a disputed change without consensus. bd2412 T 01:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For some background I would like to point out a previous ANI thread on the matter and the successful move request that proceeded it. Back to the matter at hand, the name parameter of an article's infobox almost always matches the title. To deny that a move request would also affect parts of the article (infobox included) is WP:WIKILAWYERING and a violation of WP:NOTBURO. The title parameter of the infobox matched the article's title for the past decade and a no consensus close reinforces that that should continue -- in this case meaning the infobox should say "Hillary Clinton." That was how I interpreted Sandstein's closure. I have also already asked about this on Sandstein's talk page. A simple solution would be to have another admin or panel of admins review the relevant RFC, provided Sandstein does not object. Calidum T|C 01:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who thought that was the case should have brought it up during the move request. There is no policy stating that an absence of consensus ties the infobox name to the page title. There is a status quo ante visible throughout the article history, and that is all that "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal" has ever meant. bd2412 T 01:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't obfuscate the actual issue here, Calidum, by re-arguing the RFC. There was no consensus. We're all agreed on that.

The status quo ante was HRC. Calidium and colleagues were edit-warring to impose HC when the article was protected and an RFC was raised. The wording of Sandstein's close is ambiguous, and will just draw this thing out even more. User:Sandstein, clarify what you mean. Your present wording is being used by Calidium and colleagues to push their bold change onto the article, despite no consensus. Is that what you intended? Be clear.

I really don't see how there can be no consensus for a change from HRC to HC but "even less consensus" to retain HRC, unless you are just referring to the numbers (15 !votes vs. 20 !votes). If you intend to sit on your hands here and just let this thing fester and consume more and more ordinarily-productive editors' time, I consider that to be grossly irresponsible.

It looks very much like you didn't notice what the status quo ante was when you made your decision. That's fine. I don't think it was mentioned in the RFC. But if that's the reason for your odd comment in the close, please explain that and clarify your meaning and save us all a lot of time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We might agree it was closed as no consensus, but we clearly disagree on what no consensus means in this instance since the closer said " less of a consensus to change the current (as of this writing) status of 'HC.'" Given that, it's hardly irrelevant to provide background on the dispute since BD's real issue here seems to be the RFC itself and not my single revert. Calidum T|C 01:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "single revert" imposed the change for which there was no consensus. If you would like to create a rule requiring the infobox to match the article title, go ahead and propose that somewhere. This dispute is not the vehicle to create a new rule. bd2412 T 02:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rereading this, it's now beginning to look to me like you acknowledge there is no consensus and you are aware of the status quo ante but, because there is a majority in favour of HC, you think the article should be changed from the status quo ante (HRC to HC). Is that what's going on here, User:Sandstein? All very confusing. Please clarify. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As the RfC closer, I did not take into account any status quo ante, but only attempted to determine what, if any, consensus, emerged from the RfC itself. The position of RfC closer gives me no particular authority beyond that, so I don't see why I should have any determinations to make regarding the past or future of the article. How to proceed, and what if any weight to give my opinion, is now a matter for interested editors to determine through the editorial process, which last I checked does not involve this noticeboard. If it helps, I don't object to other admins re-examining the RfC.  Sandstein  04:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So, since the closer finds no consensus for the change, we continue with the status quo ante until such time as a consensus to change becomes evident, per WP:NO CONSENSUS. I'll go and restore the status quo ante now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am no longer a sysop, so I don't have the magic buttons any more. Also, at the time, I was not supporting the subject, but now I am a proud supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President. That being said, the clear consensus has been that HRC is her name and initials. Bearian (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gob Lofa disruptive editing on Troubles related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Articles to do with the Troubles are subject to arbitration remedies due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter. User:Gob Lofa has been intent on pushing subtle or blatant bias, misusing sources and using personal opinion as justification, mixed with occasional edit-warring. They may also have breached the 1RR Troubles restriction in regards to the Kingsmill massacre article, which I detail below.

What follows is not an exhaustive list of troublesome edits/behaviour by Gob Lofa, and is a selection of the main instances that highlight Gob Lofa's issues that affect the Troubles arena. There is other issues that other editors are better able to detail, and one of them I know is preparing their own AN/I report on Gob Lofa, so I will leave that to them, however I am getting weary of policing Gob Lofa's edits. Whilst there are instances where I have worked with Gob Lofa no problem, even recently, I have to admit that I have no good faith left in regards to this editor, and my own attitude to them on talk pages is not always as diplomatic and AGF as it should be.

McGurk's Bar bombing

• Here Gob Lofa removes a statement and adds in a context changing piece of OR, "launched armed campaigns" to "retaliated". [75], providing no sourcing whatsoever.
• I reverted [76] and that was it for 9 days until they decided to repeat the edit using personal opinion as their vindication, personal opinion that only makes mention of one of the two groups mentioned in the statement, yet still applying it to them both: [77]
• I once again inform them of WP:BRD, add a source for the sentence they keep removing and remove the OR. Likewise pointing out the obvious [78]
• A month later Gob Lofa decides to return and push his edit again with the edit summary of "See talk" [79]. As anyone can see, there is no consensus or anything at the talk page for Gob Lofa to even get the impression that they can go ahead with their contentious edit.

Ulster Defence Regiment

• Here Gob Lofa adds in personal opinion citing "well documented" as their justification [80]. User:Gavin Lisburn reverts them asking them to take it to talk [81].
• Gob Lofa restores it claiming that it is referenced [82]. This they are reverted by User:Flexdream [83].
• Next Gob Lofa decides to take the personal opinion and OR furhter [84]. Reverted again by Gavin Lisburn [85].
• Nearly two months and 15 intermediate revisions later [86] Gob Lofa decides to revert Gavin Lisburn again and still providing no evidence for their claims. Once again Gob Lofa is reverted [87].
• Gob Lofa returns with sources [88] but these do not bac up their claim and they are reverted by Flexdream [89].
• Regardless Gob Lofa tries to force it again [90]. Gavin Lisburn removes one [91] as it didn't even mention the UDR specifically. They then restore "some" per the talk discussion [92]. Flexdream removes the other of Gob Lofa's dubious sources [93] as it doesn't substantiate the claims Gob Lofa is making.
• Gob Lofa then lets the issue lie, however decides to embark upon an unsourced weasel-worded rewrite [94], which I amend [95] as Gob Lofa added in very subjective wording that is not backed up the sources they provided.

Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1970–79)

• Here [96] Gob Lofa changes a sourced statement to add in contentious OR so that the sentence states that the army looted hundreds of houses. I remove the "and looted" telling Gob Lofa to provide a direct quote from the source [97].
• Gob Lofa then provides a source [98], however I have to reword [99] the statement as the source Gob Lofa provided did not state that hundreds of homes were looted but that the army admitted that their were "incidents" of looting. This is outrageous and disruptive POV pushing.
• The next issue on this article is Gob Lofa removing wording from a sourced sentence stating that it is speculation [100]. I revert asking them do they have the source to know it's not in it [101].
• Gob Lofa removes it again stating that it is not in one of the sources [102], however I have to revert again as there are two sources given. Just because it is not in one does not mean the other does not have it [103].
• After reverting, I decide to show Gob Lofa what they should do in such circumstances by adding a request quote tag to the statement [104].

Curragh incident

• Gob Lofa decides to make minor changes to this article [105] citing that its awkward etc. I revert it [106] stating that the wording is fine. Regardless Gob Lofa in a clear act of "I am right, everyone else is wrong" restores the edit [107].

Billy Fox (politician)

• I myself perform no reverts one this article, however this article is littered with reversions of Gob Lofa edits [108]. Also Gob Lofa has been slow-edit warring on this article since 8th September 2013.
• Despite opening a talk page discussion back in February 2014 on the issue which was still going on till the 28th July 2015, Gob Lofa has garnered not one bit of support for their edit with the other five editors (including me) who have commented on the discussion requesting he provide sources.
• Gob Lofa has provided two sources, however neither back up their claim that Billy Fox identified as an "Ulster Protestant". One source doesn't even mention Billy Fox, whilst the other one makes mention of Protestant in one part of it and Ulster in another, but not as an ethnic term, meaning Gob Lofa is using synthesis.
• Gob Lofa has been slow edit-warring over this issue since they first tried the edit on 8th Septmeber 2013 with their latest being 12th July 2015: [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116] - that's eight times.

Kingsmill massacre

• Adding unsourced original research and POV [117] (the very last addition)
• [118] - again adding further OR
• These edits are OR and opinion, evidenced by Flexdream challenging them as not being in the source quoted [119]
• After this Gob Lofa adds a reference [120] however it does not back up their statement as my revert clearly points out [121]
• Gob Lofa then restores their edit within 4 hours of making it regardless of issues raised [122]. This may be a breach of 1RR. They were notified of 1RR in regards to Trouble articles on 1st August 2015, this breach was done on the 8th August 2015. It could be argued that it was not technically an exact revert as they changed the tense of a word, however that could simply be a case of gaming the system considering there is still an issue with the edit. Also consider that they still hit revert (or rollback) as it does state "Undid revision" despite making an alteration.
• I again reverted back to the citation needed version informing Gob to stop adding sources that do not back up their claims [123] to which they decide to revert me whilst making a change to the edit that still does not solve one of the core issues raised about the source [124]. Why they needed to do a revert here I don't know and I can only see it as antagonism.

Gob Lofa's edit is biased and flawed because they are stating that the case is "regarding UDR involvement", despite the direct quote he provides in the edit summary stating "because of strong indications that Ulster Defence Regiment colluded with the UVF". Gob Lofa is presenting speculation as fact. The edit also doesn't state that Reavey took out the case, so a source is still needed for that or a rewording.

Civil_Authorities_(Special_Powers)_Act_(Northern_Ireland)_1922

• Here Gob Lofa tries to enforce their viewpoint on Northern Ireland's status by pushing their edit into the article four times between 30th July and 6th August despite being reverted by three different editors (me, User:Snowded and User:Ebonelm) [125], [126], [127], [128].
• The second last is the most ironic because despite making the initial edit that was reverted he demands that Ebonelm argues their case on the talk page whilst they don't even go near the talk page until after Snowded reverts him and even then he didn't even argue a case. The result of the talk page discussion shows that Gob Lofa doesn't even accept or is unwilling to admit and accept that they were edit-warring.

RUC Special Branch

• An article created by Gob Lofa.
• Here I revert [129] a clear misuse of a source where Gob Lofa simply is presenting speculation as fact. The source clearly states "perceived". Also the subjective term "infiltration" is likewise not in the source, so I amend the statement to be more accurate [130].
• Despite the irony of Gob Lofa's edit summary they revert back to their OR and bias [131].
• After this I take it to talk and then notify the UK and Ireland WikiProjects so that more input can be sought. Having done that Gob Lofa is quick to restore the amendments to their contentious edit despite their assertions that it itself was OR. As far as I am concerned they were intent to push their POV until it was put up to a wider audience and they realised that no other editor would agree with their edit.

Bloody Sunday (1972)

• A highly sensitive article.
• I come across highly contentious categories in this article whilst checking up on Gob Lofa's edits to the categories [132]. These categories state that Bloody Sunday was an act of British terrorism despite the article itself not making this statement anywhere in it.
• Gob Lofa decides to re-add the terrorist category but this time amended [133]. I revert stating that Gob needs to provide reliable sourcing that it was indeed terrorism [134].
• On 20th July an IP suddenly appears to add in the claim that Bloody Sunday was a terrorist incident [135]. Maybe it is related, maybe not.
• Despite not once discussing the issue on the talk page Gob Lofa decides to reinsert the terrorist category citing a source [136]. Another issue with this edit is that Gob Lofa "reverts" my edit I made on the 14th July, which is 20 days and 12 intermediate edits later [137]. The fact the only thing that seems to have changed despite reverting 12 intermediate edits is the addition of the category, meaning Gob Lofa is intentionally clicking revert whilst keeping any intermediate edits. What is the point of this other than being provocative?
• Snowded reverts [138] Gob Lofa's addition requesting a direct quote, to which Gob Lofa does take to talk, to which I provide the rationale to the problem.
• It also turns out that Gob Lofa was the editor who introduced the contentious terrorist categories I originally removed into this article back on 8th January 2015 [139], changed it a bit on 5th February 2015 [140] and n same day added the other [141].

This article is sensitive enough without such contentious content being added.

Birmingham pub bombings

• Here Gob Lofa changes "terrorism" to "violence" [142], to which Snowded reverted [143].
• Just over a day later Gob Lofa restores their edit regardless [144]. User:Kieronoldham restores "terrorism" adding two references [145].
• The articles talk page shows Gob Lofa's unreasonable attitude trying to argue what is the sources definition of terrorism .

What this shows is Gob Lofa's blatant bias where it is OK for actions by the British Army (Bloody Sunday) to be classified as terrorism however actions by the IRA to not be so.

Democratic Unionist Party

• Here an IP removed two infobox ideaology terms [146]. Gob Lofa restored them [147] (note they didn't do a revert for the IP). Snowded then reverts Gob Lofa [148] citing OR and synthesis.
• Gob Lofa agrees with Snowded about one of the sources [149] so omits it but restores the rest. I revert as the sources do not explicitly say that the DUP are what is claimed and that it is synthesis [150].

This helps show the issue Gob Lofa has with sources and being able to interpret or use them properly. Despite the fact none of the sources backed up the claims, they were happy enough to include two of them.

1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing

• Alters the position John White held within the UDA despite no evidence to state that he was the leader of the organisation [151]. His own article states that he was a leading member of it, not the leader. Instead his article states that he was the leader of a cover-name branch of the organisation called the UFF, which is what the Balmoral article states, but Gob Lofa for some reason seems to object to that. I revert clearly stating why [152].
• [153] Gob Lofa reverts anyway regardless. I restore and tell them to take it to talk [154]. Four days on still no talk page discussion from Gob Lofa to argue their case.

Ulster

• Here [155] Gob Lofa alters a statement, provides two sources, yet despite claiming "Remove Irish nationalist rot" in their edit summary, they keep the original source. Having put that edit into the article myself I can categorically state that it is not Irish nationalist rot, and the original source that Gob Lofa didn't even bother removing despite it not backing up their amended statement (which on its own gives false backing to a statement) is from a well-respected historian who is definitely not of an Irish nationalist persuasion. Thus Gob Lofa is using his own personal opinion as justification for making changes to sourced information.

Protestants of Ulster

• A very minor issue, but one none-the-less that typifies Gob Lofa's inability to accurately source statements.
• Alters a sourced statement to backup "Ethnoreligious" [156], which I alter to actually match what the source states [157] which is "Ethnonational", which is obviously not the same the thing.
• I also have to reword to better match the source this piece of subjective and slanted wording [158].

End notes

I must also make mention of administrator User:JamesBWatson. They blocked Gob Lofa for their behaviour on 10th July 2015, however decided to unblock Gob Lofa two days later, which I contested.

A week later I raised a few issues, not too indepth, on Gob Lofa's page tagging JamesBWatson seeing as they have experience with Gob Lofa. All that did was, for me anyways, call JamesBWatson's judgment as an administrator into question as they did nothing but defend Gob Lofa, to which I issued a refute. Though it was my fault for not providing JamesBWatson with more indepth evidence of the issues I mentioned at the time before and after his response. Though Gob Lofa has decided to help provide many new examples since his 2 day block. JamesBWatson's quick unblock and defence of Gob Lofa may have only served to embolden Gob Lofa to continue as they are despite their block log and recent let off.

The above is not an exhaustive list of Gob Lofa's issues and I have not even gone into their history beyond July unless it is at a particular article where there have been issues recently or have been involved in beforehand. No doubt there are many more examples in the history records.

Personally I believe Gob Lofa should be topic-banned from Troubles articles, or be made to request an edit to a Troubles article on the talk page just like IPs have to do on semi-protected articles. Whilst they do do many minor edits that are not troublesome, even if not needed, their attitude in the area is disruptive and problematic and has antagonised several editors, all from different political bias'/viewpoints. Like in all my time on Wikipedia I can't ever remember me and Snowded actually agreeing on something! I haven't even looked at their articles to do with things outside the Troubles and UK, so there could well be further issues, however the Troubles area is an incredibly sensitive area and quite a few of Gob Lofa's edits in that area are not beneficial to the project or its integrity and sanctions are merited to try to encourage them to edit more responsibly in that arena or elsewhere. They may also still be guilty of breaching 1RR on a Troubles restricted article despite knowing of the restriction. I also believe that Gob Lofa may be abusing their rollback privilege with their reverts, especially the ones that seem to not affect intermediate revisions of articles, but still result in me getting notifications that my edits have been reverted.

The one thing for sure is that failure to do so something only further emboldens Gob Lofa's attitude. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I understand by this you have an issue you absolutely want resolved, this is probably not the place with that amount of evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The original poster acknowledges that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are in effect. So why is this filed here, rather than at Arbitration Enforcement? Maybe because ANI doesn't have explicit word limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the reference above linke dto my name. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As Mabuska says we are normally on opposite sides of the fence on NI issues but we clearly have a disruptive editor here. I think its better at Arbitration Enforcement. The problem is 80% of the edits are gnome like improvements and very useful, but they seem to be a cover for ideological changes and it is exhausting tracking through them. I've been trying to think of a way to word a proposed sanction that would cover the case. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mabuska has mentioned me above, and also posted to my talk page calling my attention to this report, so I will make a brief response. Mabuska says that my judgement is questionable, because I "defended" Gob Lofa. Indeed, Mabuska goes so far as to specifically say that I "did nothing but defend Gob Lofa" (my emphasis). Perhaps Mabuska did not notice my final sentence in the discussion in question: "None of this means that I think nothing in Gob Lofa's editing might reasonably be criticised, but I do think that the way that Mabuska goes about making criticisms is very unhelpful." That is not doing "nothing but defending Gob Lofa": it is mainly criticising Mabuska, and in the course of doing so also limiting the degree of any "defence" of Gob Lofa, by making it explicit that I did think that there are problems with Gob Lofa's editing. Also, when I lifted the block that I had placed, I did not say that I thought there were no problems with Gob Lofa's editing: I merely said that on reflection my block was disproportionate to the problems for which I had placed the block. Further, in answer to an accusation by Mabuska that Gob Lofa had made a personal attack, I wrote "the wording used by Gob Lofa may not have been ideal, but to call it a 'personal attack' seems a bit extreme." Both "may not have been ideal" and "seems a bit extreme" were attempts to use minimal language, in the interests of keeping things as cool as possible, but I was indicating that I thought both editors in question were deserving of criticism. I was not "defending" Gob Lofa's comment: I was criticising Mabuska's handling of the matter. Anyone interested in reading the whole of my response to Mabuska in that discussion can do so at User talk:Gob Lofa#July 2015 again, but I think I have said enough to demonstrate the following two facts: (1) it is certainly not true that I "did nothing but defend Gob Lofa"; I also criticised Mabuska, and (2) my "defence" of Gob Lofa was at the level of attempting to keep the problems with his editing (or at least, those I was aware of) in proportion, and more than once I specifically stated that did not mean I thought there were no problems.

I have no intention whatever of becoming heavily involved in any of the numerous controversies among Wikipedia editors about Northern Ireland, any more than in the controversies about India/Pakistan, Israel/Plaestine, The Balkans, etc etc. However, I will just say that, while what I have seen of Gob Lofa's editing suggests there are some problems, what I have seen of Mabuska's editing suggests to me that there are problems there too, and all editors contributing to this discussion should take into account all relevant facts, no matter what editor is concerned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I posted this here because other than the subject matter, which is covered by ArbCom, there are problems such as possible abuse of rollback privleges, source misuse and disruptive editing that I believed was more applicable to here. I will however take this to ArbCom instead. User:JamesBWatson you are more than entitled to, in fact I insist, that you provide evidence of your claims at my talkpage. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I request this AN/I be closed having taken it to ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Gob_Lofa. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sundar Pichai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Going a bit crazy here as Sundar Pichai is apparently going to be the next CEO of Google, but being promoted prematurely and lots of un-sourced edits including BLP vios and vandalism. RFPP already done, but can an Admin please protect the page? 220 of ^Borg 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 DoneProtected by RegentsPark Many thanks! 220 of ^Borg 12:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed at CSI Talk page (edit warring over personal attack redaction)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Unframboise (talk · contribs) has included language in a discussion that Drmargi (talk · contribs) has taken offense to (which I believe Drmargi's offense is justified), Drmargi has redacted some of the language several times but it has been restored by Unframboise. Drmargi did ask Unframboise to stop, but this user doesn't think the language used is a personal attack. I'd tend to agree with Drmargi here and the fact that Unframboise is edit warring to remove the redactions is a problem, but I would like a second opinion here. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support a block for Unframboise (talk · contribs). This disruptive activity needs to stop. Nakon 01:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. This particular brand of smug needling sticks in my craw about an order of magnitude more than when people get pissed off and use bad words. Next time he demeans someone like this, let me know and I'll block for a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) While it's true the term "honey" may sometimes be used for either gender and without intending offense when addressing someone you don't know (like at a diner in certain parts of the US), it should be used with care. More importantly, even if it's true the term "honey" would have been used by Unframboise when talking to a male that they were getting along with, once Drmargi had taken offense, there is zero reason to go around calling them "chick". AFAIK, unlike with "honey" using chick as a form of direct address (rather than referring to someone as a "chick") of random people in a completely innocous fashion is rare. In the context of the discussion it seems hard to imagine the editor wasn't being obnoxious by using it. To then follow it up with the third comment which in the context of discussion is even more difficult to imagine was anything but negative sentiment of the editor, and to revert war to keep it, well IMO a block is completely fair. (The third comment is the sort of thing I'd normally be more inclined to let slide, were it not for the earlier comments and appearent need to keep them there.)

Ultimately if you're talking to one person on wikipedia, the best bet is to refer to someone by their public identifier (i.e. wikipedia name or their IP) or a clearly neutral term (like OP, IP). Terms which could be taken as demeaning, derogratory or offensive should be used with care particularly when used with someone you're not getting along with. And even if no offense was meant, once it's clear someone doesn't like being referring to that way your best solution is to at least stop, if not apologise.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you all. It's been a trying afternoon. --Drmargi (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Page fork issues...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One of the editors at the Freemasonry Wikiproject pointed out that National Grand Lodge and Prince Hall National Grand Lodge are two different articles about the same subject. We therefore have a content fork. The content fork policy says the older article takes precedence, but "National Grand Lodge" is too vague a title (it could refer to a number of things). The title of the newer article is more correct in usage, but the edit history of the newer article shows editwarring already (as well as a redlink redirect; I'm not sure what happened there, and I don't know how to track it back). Ideally, we need to merge the older article to the newer title (which process needs an admin anyway), but I'm concerned that a merge discussion is going to turn into another mess. I think we also need to salt the old title to prevent a future refork. Does the content fork policy allow an admin merge without discussion? MSJapan (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The better solution would be for protection of the redirect, wouldn't it? But there's a difference between needing to merge the articles and needing to merge the histories. Prince Hall National Grand Lodge looks like it was created/redirected or something and I can't figure out what's going on here but it was moved to National Grand Lodge of 1847 which was soon deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any suggestions on this sort of edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have not seen [this kind of rambling SPAMmy addition before. Is it common? Is it something that we could guard against? I suspect that we could add famousmolvibaba.com to the blacklist, but would that stop other, similar additions? I'm not watching here, so if I'm needed, please ping me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: abuse of twinkle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this edit by Human3015 constitute an abuse of Twinkle, the user having knowledge of escalating an edit war? The user claims there is a dead link in the edit, although the source cited evidently isn't a dead link. The user also removed a reference, quote, and sourced text to revert to an earlier version which matches their WP:POV, despite a source cited for the contested content. This article was previously locked due to the user's edit warring, and I can't see any good faith in this edit which removed sources and text, and escalated an edit war. Mar4d (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP sock evading block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following on from this SPI, the IP editor was blocked for a week and the "proper" account blocked for two. The IP sock is now back, restoring images that are tagged for deletion on the sockmaster's talkpage. I would follow this up with Bbb23, but his talkpage states he's not around for another day or two, hence why I'm posting it here. Please could the IP address be re-blocked for at least as long as the user's account? There is the other issue of this user uploading lots and lots of non-free images (talkpage has a long history of this too). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Also IP address 68.5.180.139 is the same user re-adding non-free images. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked both IPs for two weeks. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass creation of blank pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Michaelbenis (contribs) has created numerous blank articles in the last hour or two. Would be great if someone could delete them all (I've only tagged 2 for speedy deletion) and then try to communicate with the user. Everymorning (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the all the blank pages and User:Kudpung blocked the editor for 12 hours to stop the disruption. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on his previous history of contribution, I suspect he was creating the titles with the anticipation of filling them in later. bd2412 T 13:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind, but the spree had to be stopped in case it were vandalism. And if it wasn't it's still disrutive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• What a poor block. I've unblocked this good faith editor, and left a hand-written message asking for an explanation. Please note that he stopped creating blank pages (there weren't actually that many, "spree" is silly) as soon as he got the first communication about it on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Many apologies from me - Michael Benis - I was unaware I could create Draft Blank Pages to complete later. I will anyway delete all those remaining for the time being. Sorry for taking everyone's time up with this. Michaelbenis (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why create either articlespace or draft space blank pages to fill in later? Why not just make the page at the point where you start to "fill in"? Blanks pages, wherever they are, aren't really helpful to anyone. BMK (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ROPE renamed without discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A SNOW failure at MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope was followed by the nominator Alakzi (talk · contribs) renaming Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope and Wikipedia:ROPE. There was no discussion. Choor monster (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Revert and WP:TROUT - the moves are pretty clearly against consensus. Alakzi is now reverting some of Guy's reverts. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A consensus among spineless, insensitive and domineering admin wanna-bes is no consensus I care about. Alakzi (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hope that vicious personal attack wasn't directed at me, I didn't participate in that discussion at all. Consensus is policy; if you can't follow it, kindly get the fuck out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Alakzi is now also changing redirects to include a message from them... Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You don't have to care about it, but you need to follow it, or you'll be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have no interest in being an admin but I do think we have an editor that should be blocked at this point for disruptive editing. At their request no WP:ROPE should be extended to them Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:GEER hasn't been fixed yet. Choor monster (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just in case anyone thinks it matters, the essay was originally at Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, but is now at Wikipedia:Give them enough rope. All of the shortcuts seem to point to the right place now though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I went through and fixed most of the double redirects. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I rolledback, I am concerned though that this is a possible case of sockpuppetry. The vendetta against this essay seems odd that [[159]] this seemingly random edit was done. It reminds me of the actions of a person smarting over having the essay used on them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) They made that edit because WP:SECONDCHANCE redirects to Template:2nd chance, and they had changed WP:SECONDCHANCE to point to the new ROPE location. Sam Walton (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Largely bogus content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• King Tiger (Recording Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drastic Universal Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bermúdez (rum) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bookingforkingtiger (talk · contribs)
• Whiskyrum1852 (talk · contribs)

Calling these promotional articles and promotional accounts doesn't do justice. Both the music-related articles, while apparently referring to a real musician and a real record company, are laden with made-up content--the claims on behalf of King Tiger appear to be whole-cloth fiction. Upon researching the songs and the 'sources' provided in the articles, one finds that none of them have actually charted, and claims like 'number one hit single in the world' are painfully false. I'm suggesting deletion and salting of those two articles, with final warnings for the accounts. 2601:188:0:ABE6:F51F:3422:6AAA:30D0 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please either tag the articles with an appropriate WP:CSD, or send them to WP:AfD with a well formed deletion rationale.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:WilyD and RfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am currently unable to edit WilyD's user talk to inform him of this. WilyD is an administrator. At WP:Redirects for discussion, WilyD states that no rationale has been presented for deleting redirects when a rationale had been presented. He mocked me when I attempted to discuss this with him. WilyD has also bludgeoned the discussion at times, and applies his own take on WP:NOTFAQ as if it is policy. --Rubbish computer 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

First, WilyD's talk page is not protected. Second, RFD is a big page; can you link to the mocking? The one interaction I saw didn't have any. Third, no one is forcing you to continue discussing this there; if you've said all you have to say, then stop. This is not ANI material. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about WP:RFD#Vereinigtes Königreich, then it seems to me this complaint is pretty much without merit; I can't see any mocking at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that his/her talk page is protected, I think my phone is playing up. The mocking is on my user talk page at the section entitled RfD. --Rubbish computer 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been a few users, myself included, who have taken issue with WilyD's comments at RfD, but I agree that this is probably not ANI material. The admin has taken to dismissing arguments which would be nuanced except for links to shortcuts (which is common practice pretty much everywhere in Wikipedia) with their seemingly boilerplate "no rationale has been presented for deletion" (currently 35 instances at WP:RFD), which is particularly aggravating when they are the only keep !vote in an otherwise clear-cut discussion. My take has been to ignore it, because "no rationale has been presented" is itself no rationale, but with other users becoming frustrated with this, it's beginning to attract drama. For example: [161], [162], [163], the lengthy exchange here, plus this here thread. I didn't know that WilyD is an administrator, I would expect an admin to be better able to respond and adjust when the community makes specific complaints about their conduct, rather than just continue on doing the same thing. I also made a comment about this in one of the more recent Rfd threads but it seems to have disappeared. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC) This is my comment that I was looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did someone just outright delete this thread while I was typing? that's not very nice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page for Nancy Cartwright

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk page for Nancy Cartwright consists of mostly personal attacks and discussion not related to the article. Any attempt to remove irrelevant material has been met with resistance from Winkelvi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.172.239 (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is any of that more recent than, say, 5 months ago? It's a little stale. GregJackP Boomer! 02:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I do see that User:Winkelvi is pushing the boundary of civility, but I also see that the original poster blanked the talk page, and had it restored, and is lucky not have been blocked by the incoming boomerang. In view of the OP engaging in talk page blanking, which is often considered vandalism, I can't blame Winkelvi for being hostile. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The talk page content needs to be archived, not removed from the record. I have manually archived the thread. The edit summary here is kinda rude. You forgot to notify Winkelvi; I have done so, and he has wisely decided to ignore teh manufactured drama. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instructions...

(non-admin closure) Blocked. BMK (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
...on how to sock are being posted by User:159.122.133.226. Please block. BMK (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Blokced by Ponyo. BMK (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and harassment by 8.39.228.13

8.39.228.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP made their first edit to Shooting of Samuel DuBose on 30 July. They had 25 total edits prior to that, going back to September of last year (assuming they are all the same person). Everything was cool for awhile after they joined the DuBose article. Then, around 3 August, their editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes. In article talk, I asked them to "Slow ... down. Please." When they continued, I issued a template warning for DE on 3 August, and another 12 hours later, referring to their then-current style as "steamrolling the article". I am not providing diffs for the events up to this point because they are not relevant to this report. Even if my handling of the situation was incorrect, and I don't feel it was, that would not justify or even mitigate what has followed.

The IP's editing style then became less aggressive, and I have had no complaints about it since then. However, the IP started an article talk thread about biased editing by other editors, specifically me, and was advised by another editor to observe WP:AGF. Their tone in discussion has often been confrontational, with comments like, You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I? I won't say the IP is WP:NOTHERE, but they are not here to collaborate peacefully and cooperatively.

But the main reason I'm making this report is that the IP has continued their article talk criticisms of me, which are both unfounded and inappropriate, amounting to harassment. They have accused me in article talk of "dominating" discussion and POV-pushing, of "whitewashing". They started a second thread in article talk specifically about me, presenting statistics that apparently show that I have the highest edit count for that article and its talk page, as if that's something to be ashamed of (I'll take their word for it, as I didn't even bother to look at the statistics due to the patently ridiculous nature of the assertion). The thread was promptly closed as inappropriate use of article talk. As far as I know there is no limit on discussion on an article talk page, nor does the community recognize a concept of over-participation. I certainly do not exhibit any WP:OWN behavior in that article or any other, and I have never had any complaints about POV-pushing. The IP has repeatedly been advised by me and others to take any misconduct complaints about me to this page or user talk, but they have not done so. As far as I know, they are completely alone in their opinions about my participation, and that includes multiple experienced editors actively involved with the article, including MrX, Gaijin42, and Cwobeel. In any case, I'm not here to defend myself, this report is not about me, and any user is free to open a separate thread about my behavior.

Yesterday I posted on the IP's user talk page about the harassment, and also about WP:NOTFORUM after they took an RfC into off-topic discussion about bias in Wikipedia editing. I suggested that they consult an uninvolved third party about the whole issue. The response was more angry accusations and this threat: If you do not cease your whitewashing, I plan on compiling a list of specific instances of whitewashing in that article, publishing it in a separate Talk section in that article, and inviting others whose edits you have repeatedly reverted in other similar articles that you have disproportionately dominated (for example, in Shooting of Michael Brown), to weigh in with their feedback.

The IP's behavior is completely inappropriate, they have been an overall disruptive presence at an article that enjoyed relative peace before they arrived, warnings have not had any effect, and I don't see this situation getting any better by itself. So I am requesting a short block.

1 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Biased application of 'alleged'" naming me as the main culprit

2 - Article talk: "You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I?"

3 - Article talk: Starting a talk thread: "Disproportionate number of edits made by Mandruss"

4 - Addition to the above thread: "I should note that your editing of this Talk page is even more disproportionate."

5 - Article talk: Direct accusation of biased editing against me, in the RfC

User talk:8.39.228.13 ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If not a block, the IP should at least receive a final warning to stop personalizing content disputes, and to use to proper channels for addressing alleged conduct issues. Secondary concerns are Original research and WP:NOTAFORUM, which the IP has been previously warned about as well. - MrX 15:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss is one of these editors that always collaborate and engage in useful discussions, we should have more like them. This IP editor, on the other hand, arrived to that article with an aggressive and un-compromising lack of good faith. The IP editor needs a super strong warning, with the hope they reconsider their approach. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, Cwobeel - can any of you provide diffs to substantiate the claim that my editing was "very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I never made any such claims.- MrX 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that, thank you. In response to your question, I'm asking you because those claims are central to this dispute, and you have commented on this dispute in support of Mandruss's position that I be disciplined. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Who is saying that your editing was disruptive. What I said that your interventions at that article talk page show a WP:BATTLE behavior and total lack of good faith. Maybe time for you to listen and heed the advice. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have already clearly explained why there are no diffs for that. I'll try one more time, since the IP apparently has a hearing problem. First, that DE is not a basis for this complaint; I am not seeking a sanction as a result of that. The DE ceased roughly four days ago and sanctions are preventative not punitive. There is no question that I issued the template warnings, I don't need diffs to show that I did, and the only reason I mentioned that was that I believe it explains why the IP has been preoccupied with me since then. Second, even if my template warnings were inappropriate under those circumstances, that does not justify or excuse the IP's subsequent behavior. There is no justifiable repeated misuse of article talk, no justifiable repeated WP:FORUM discussion, no justifiable repeated confrontational talk behavior, and no justifiable harassment. That's my last attempt, if the IP still doesn't hear me, they never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you have claimed that my "editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes." This is a falsehood. Not only did I not commit "a lot" of aggressive reverting, I didn't commit any. In fact, I intentionally refused to become involved in an edit war, instead taking my concerns to the Talk page. When I added a relevant, sufficiently-sourced phrase to the article about one of its subjects committing a violent crime, you whitewashed it. Now you want discussion of that sentence whitewashed from Talk, and you want me whitewashed from Wikipedia. Please either substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive editing or aggressive reverting, or edit your comment above to remove it. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am accountable to the community, not to you. You seem to harbor the mistaken impression that no sanction can occur unless I satisfy your endless demands for more information, responding to your every obtuse point or argument, while you repeatedly fail to hear what I have said. That's not how it works here. As I said earlier, below (more hearing problem), others are free to ping me if more information is required from me. Your arguments are unimpressive and this is my last comment to you in this report. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You are bullying me, in direct violation of WP:BULLY. Specifically, you have made a no-edit order contrary to policy [164], and you have attempted to unjustifiably use the Wikipedia system (in this case, an ANI) to block me from editing. Also, you have claimed that my "editing became very disruptive, with a lot of aggressive reverting and without waiting to build consensus for disputed changes", a complete falsehood. By lying, you have violated Wikipedia guidelines on civility (WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL). - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

For an editor with about 50 edits, you surely can wikilawyer. Go do something useful, for Pete's sake, and stop wasting everybody's time. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have every right to defend myself, no matter how many edits I have. Had such a baseless claim not been made against me, in an attempt to have me blocked, perhaps I wouldn't feel the need to so diligently make sure that my position was fairly represented. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Response

Zero evidence of disruptive editing to the article has been provided. Mandruss claims that "they are not relevant to this report", but nothing could be more relevant. Accusations of disruptive article editing should be accompanied by links to article edit diffs. If no such links can be provided, then such an accusation should be retracted.

Mandruss has pursued an agenda of whitewashing the Shooting of Samuel DuBose article, repeatedly reverting well sourced claims that present one of the article subjects in a negative light. He has even stated about one of the article subjects: ""Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets."" [165]. Our job is to honestly report on the events that the article covers, and not conceal relevant information because "the more we say the worse it gets". I am not completely alone in my concern. For example, Gaijin42, who is mentioned above, said: ""Presenting information that looks poorly on DuBose is not an attempt to shift blame, it is honest reporting, and hiding it makes it look like we are trying to whitewash him/bandwagon on Tensing""[166].

Mandruss was the first to personally call me out by username/ip in the article's Talk section, under the "8.39.228.13 edit" section [167]. When I mentioned in a talk section that a disproportionate number of the edits were made by him, I also used it as an opportunity to repeatedly praise Mandruss, and encourage others to increase their editing activity to balance out the voice in the article.[168]. Mandruss characterized this as a "spurious attack thread" on my Talk page.[169]. When I asked him to substantiate this claim by pointing out what in that section was spurious, he didn't respond.

Mandruss has participated in WikiBullying by accusing me of steamrolling the article with zero substantiation, and threatening me with having my edit privileges revoked[170], while himself making a disproportionate number of edits on both the article and the talk page (29% of the edits to the article[171], and 46% of the edits to the Talk page[172]). I have refused to participate in aggressively editing or reverting the article, instead choosing to state my concerns on the Talk page.

I would be happy to compile a list of diffs documenting the whitewashing of this article.

Finally, I again request that diffs evidencing disruptive editing to the article by me be provided to substantiate the claim that I have participated in such activity. Thank you for considering my position. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, any issues about my behavior should be discussed separately and independently from those about yours. Even if you had any valid reason for complaint, one does not justify or excuse the other, and, as my parents taught me, two wrongs don't make a right. You steadfastly refused to come here with your complaints until you needed them to defend yourself here, to divert discussion from the issue at hand in this thread. I refuse to defend myself in this report, beyond what I have already said. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As your behavior is relevant to this conflict, and specifically to the accusations you have made against me, I feel it is fair and appropriate to mention that behavior here. Again, I encourage you to provide diffs to substantiate your claim that I have made disruptive edits to the article. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I decline, for the reasons stated. As I'm well aware that far too many of these ANI threads devolve into unproductive and extended pissing matches, I'll now leave this with the community and trust that the right thing will be done. Others are welcome to ping me if further input from me is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: both sides of this argument have WP:BURDEN, as well as WP:BOOMERANG. Not saying that you've done anything wrong, but "it takes two to tango" as the public says. Might not be my place to say this but it needs saying, though the same goes for @8.39.228.13:. However, I'm not sure if this has now calmed down and been resolved and is no longer relevant.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat over at File talk:Ffmovie1994.jpg

An IP address has popped up over at File talk:Ffmovie1994.jpg claiming ownership of the image. Possibly in the heat of the moment, but it looks like a legal threat has been made to try and force a rapid resolution?

All informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaheel. I agree that the comment could be construed as a threat, but you'll see from my reply on the file talk page that I have preferred for now to treat it as a "polite complaint". I'm taking into account that it was written by a visitor who may not be expected to have prior knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Wdchk (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which was why I included the caveat of "Possibly in the heat of the moment"... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

childish personal attacks in edit summary - can some administrator remove it?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been subjected to a rather childish personal attack in an edit summary - see [173]. Can some administrator strike out that offensive edit summary comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad Dyer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: ? General Ization ^Talk 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, General Ization. I suppose it's okay in Brad's book to say that an editor's messages and edit summaries are false, they are a wikilawyer, and their editing is pointy and disruptive[174]—but heaven forbid you say it in an edit summary. Talk about chutzpah! I'll strike the edit summary if it makes him happy, but it won't erase his WP:COPYVIO from the record. That's the real issue here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please strike out that edit summary. but not because it will make me happy , but because it is a violation of wikipedia policy, and all editors need to follow policy, including you. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Best to avoid calling editors sick in the head, if at all possible, when they misrepresent a source.

Malik, do you know if this editor makes a habit of misrepresenting sources? That is, is Brad Dyer an egregiously tendentious editor, or is this just a one-off error on his behalf? I see a fair bit of Jew/Muslim editing in his history. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are bit confused here. Malik's complaint was that I followed the source too closely, to the point of copyright violation, not that I misrepresented a source. Something I have not done (ever, to the best of my knowledge).

You said something was current, based on a 7-year-old (?) source. I've been sampling your article edits and, although you have a clear personal bias, I haven't found any serious problems. You both need to work on your interaction style, though. Hard to do in such a hot-button arena I know, but in the long run it'll serve you well. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik has indicated he is willing to strike the edit summary, but has so far failed to do so. Is there any administrator who can step up and remove this childish personal attack? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't mind a spirited debate, but this is way across the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA line, and has been for some time. I and others have tried to dissuade Doc9871 (talk · contribs) from making an action like this necessary, and my skin is very thick, but this behavior can't go on. I shudder to think if this is habitual across his other editing. Kind of a afraid to look.

• Threat/intimidation, followed by an explicit promise to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERing: [175]

  "Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will "Wikilawyer" you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me."

  (while obviously not a threat on my life or anything, it's clearly a threat to WP:HARASS.
• Followed immediately by a veiled threat to attempt to use my having a block log to pursue action against me: [176]. He did this in response to my observation that he was making threats and promises to disrupt; this is strong evidence of self-righteous recalcitrance. He's also done it before to others; diffs below.
• This was all after third parties had asked him to stop, e.g. [177]
• Previous vow to WP:BATTLEGROUND "until the bitter end" (a promise he is keeping, to date): [178]
• Personal attacks (among many others going back through this entire debate, against multiple parties, both at the WP:MR discussion and at the WP:RM, and earlier at same essay talk page): [179][180]
• Absurd accusation of abuse of my admin status (I'm not an admin): [181]
• Assumption and accusation of bad faith: [182]
• Assumption and accusation of bad faith and conspiracy: [183]
• False accusation of "repeatedly" and "against consensus" engaging in "edit-warring" to restore the version of the essay that resulted from the decision of the closer of the move discussion [184]; in actual fact, I put it back one time, for procedural reasons: [185], as did someone else later [186], after multiple admins (and a non-admin) at the MR commented that such actions are counterproductive/disruptive, both before and after he started revertwarring: [187] [188] [189]
• False accusations of personal attacks by others: [190] [191]; another observes that this tactic is being used in an attempt to WP:WIN a content dispute, not just with regard to this RM/MR: [192].
• False accusation of WP:GAMING to get the page deleted: [193]; it's actually Doc971 who keeps agitating for deletion (see below).
• Proud, uncivil insistence that these tactics are justified because he got a convert in the MR discussion: [194]
• The attack-and-threat pattern by Doc9871 pre-dates this debate, but seems to surround his involvement with this essay (no opinion about other editing areas; I'm not contribs-stalking him): [195] [196] [197], as does his repeatedly-expressed feeling that he's essentially immune from any repercussions as long as the other party has a block log: [198] [199] [200] [201] [202]. The cure for this is pretty obvious, especially since he's keeping right at it despite requests to stop, while I was writing this: [203], and his responses to the requests to stop were a flippant "See WP:CON" [204] and escalation of his intimidation tactics [205].

And a whole lot more ...

WP:GAMING / WP:FILIBUSTERING and disruption of an MR in progress, first by retroactively declaring a one-editor lack of consensus [206], reverting to his version when half the ongoing MR discussion is about whether the closer's decision to use the version that matched the new title should be endorsed or overturned [207], revertwarring to restore his version [208] (note the additional personal attack, and blaming me for the closing admin's decision to use a version I drafted that better matches the new page name, a version I wrote at Doc9871's own prompting), and more revertwarring to stop anyone else from editing the essay [209]. While this has been slow enough to not trigger WP:3RR, I submit that it's "slow editwarring" and rather WP:OWNy, as well as disruptive of the ongoing MR – much discussion there has turned to this revertwarring instead of focusing on the endorse/overturn on the merits of the close, the second of two that found consensus to move ([210] "rough consensus to move", relisting to pick a name; [211] full close, finding consensus to move to specific title and rescope; later sent to MR). The entire process has been mired in Doc9871's general battleground / WP:WINNING attitude [212] [213], and denigration of anyone who disagrees with him as full of "p.c. bullshit", "p.c. handwringing", "p.c. crap", "p.c. patrol feel-good smackdown" (whatever that means), etc. [214], [215], [216], [217], [218]; this has been going on since mid-June: [219], [220] [221] [222]. Even if one takes the view that concerns about gendered epithets aren't valid, the bulk the RM discussion was actually about the counter-productivity of the essay essentially being an attack page instead of an advice page, so this "p.c." stuff of his is a red herring. This is all compounded by a consistent WP:POINT pattern of demanding that the essay in question just be deleted if it won't be his WP:RIGHTVERSION.[223] [224] [225], and concedes that his version is problematic despite his defenses of it [226]. This action was in the same vein: [227] [228], and produced precisely the expected disruption, a whole thread about editwarring and misleading tagging. This is all deeply bound up with what Doc9871 is certain this essay is for: helping editors label and denigrate other editors as "divas", specifically meaning some kind of incurable "type" of mental defective "not capable of changing", a diagnosis that seems to not exist anywhere in psychology or psychiatry: [229] [230] [231] [232]. I'm not the only one to observe this, e.g.: [233] [234] [235] [236], many of the comments in favor of the rename remark on the "attack page" style of the essay.

For my part:

Extended content

I've been quite critical of Doc9871's reasoning and behavior throughout, but that doesn't constitute personal attacks. I've repeatedly sidestepped his pointed attempts to goad me into making one. Here, I criticized my own behavior as well as Doc's: [237] In response to his accusations, I've pointed out that my concerns about his reverting were procedural and anti-disruption, not content-based, and that I wished to avoid unproductive drama [238] (this was also the basis of my own sole revert at the essay: [239], and I reiterated the issue here [240]). Rather than have a positive effect, this lead directly and immediately to Doc9871's threat and wikilawyering vow in the first diff above; my being conciliatory and expressing an interest in staying away from noticeboards was interpreted as a sign of weakness to exploit. I'm not depending on any particular outcome at MR/RM, other than consensus against the current name, and expect either a re-opening for RM round 3, or an essay fork, followed by a probable merge discussion. I redrafted the essay to demonstrate that it would not be difficult [241], because a rescope was thought to be needed [242], and I also noted it would resolve four dispute threads at once [243]. Doc9871 repeatedly demanded that I write my own version [244] [245], but has reacted with shock and indignation that I did so [246] [247] [248], and doesn't seem to distinguish between me writing it and the closer using it (because no one but Doc objected to it). Note that Doc himself has directly, not in a sandbox, rewritten the essay extensively without consensus, in a flurry of changes from 5 Sep – 14 Oct 2012: [249], but sees no WP:KETTLE problem with slamming me for having done what he asked, cautiously in a sandbox page. I don't much care what name it's at, as long as it's not sexist or phrased as an attack/labeling exercise. The one it was moved to is a variant (without the "don't feed" part) of Doc9871's own suggestion [250] [251], agreed to by his principal opponent in the debate (which isn't me) [252], and which won me over as well, among others. One editor thought my own one-time reversion to the closer's version of the page was "disruptive" for some reason: [253]

In Doc's defense:

• His was not the only incivility in this discussion, as I pointed out and as Alakzi hatted later: [254]
• I've also defended Doc's refusal to provide examples of editors he thinks "are divas", despite someone else's requests for "proof", since providing them would be uncivil at best. [255]
• Update: He appears to have logged off by the time I posted this, so a block would just be punitive instead of preventative, unless similar behavior resumes when he returns. These actions should not go unaddressed, though. And if does resume, I'm asking for a one-way interaction ban, given the intimidation/harassment threats. 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I will notify the subject and the other editors whose diffs I've included, immediately after saving this post, but no other parties connected to the background dispute in question. This about behavior, not content, titles, or bureaucracy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Updated: 14:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

An unbelievable waste of time. I've done SPI's that are more detailed, but that was for the actually "disruptive" types. RFC/U, perhaps? Drafted. Doc talk 08:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U doesn't exist any more except as {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I saw a comment a while ago that any time you see the phrase "political correctness" you should replace it with "treating people with respect" and see what that does to the sense of the comment. Thus we see:

I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end. Doc talk 05:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Which, applying my rule, gives us:

I will fight this treating people with respect nonsense until the bitter end.

I think that tells us all we need to know. If someone wants to defend essays that don't treat people with respect, that's fine, just not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia essays are designed to help epople avoid problematic behaviour, not to attack people, still less attack them on the basis of any specific attribute.

That is why there was, to my reading, absolutely clear consensus that a title based on "diva" was inappropriate for the essay under debate. Other admins should certainly wander along and look at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#WP:Don't feed the divas and look at the comments, many of whihc are less than stellar examples of Wikipedian behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I have no opinion at all on whether those who commented in the move debate were right or not - I didn't read the old version, I simply judged the discussion, and, as noted at the move review, once you discount the obvious WP:ILIKEIT and other such non-policy-based support, the consensus against the previous title is clear. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (Full disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by SMc, I participated in the RM in an administrative capacity, I voted at the MRV.) Having had the MRV on my watchlist since it began, I would agree with the assessment that Doc's comments there have gone beyond what could be considered spirited debate. That said, I think a block would probably be overkill for this. Doc has had more than his fair say at the MRV, so what probably needs to happen is for an uninvolved admin to tell him to lay off and let others have their say without being badgered. If he persists after that then either block or (better, probably) implement a very narrow topic ban from WP:DIVA-related pages. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Jenks24 and have implemented his suggestion. I also agree with JzG. --John (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Doc is definitely being his own worst enemy. He seems not to understand that civility, and letting the discussion proceed without his constant commentary and interference, would quickly gain his desired outcome, whereas his behaviors are rapidly decreasing the likelihood of that happening. That said, I very strongly do not think Doc's actions should impede the calculation of the consensus, either on the RM or the MVR. The consensus seems to be that the RM result was closed inaccurately. And I also see that, above, JzG is equating "PC nonsense" with "treating people with respect" (and put it in boldface), which is very worrisome (evidently this is his personal rule), and probably indicative of why he should not have closed the RM. If he is basing his decisions on his personal rules rather than WP:CONSENSUS, he should definitely not be closing RMs, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree this should not affect the MR. I did not post about this ANI filing at the MR, or the essay page. But we also needn't try to reargue why we think the MR should go this way or that, or what the ultimate consensus there might be. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've also voted on both and was notified of this discussion because I was quoted in a diff. That said, I agree with Jenks24. I tried to intervene last night when I saw repeated changes on the DIVA page and some personal attacks in the edits summaries. It seemed to have worked a bit but the edit warring continued. Hopefully my RPP was fulfilled (have yet to check). That said, I'd also encourage SMcCandlish to step back from the rmv at this point. In my opinion, both Candlish and Doc were engaging in BLUDGEON. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no particular objection to a "reopen" result, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• One-way interaction ban? "Narrow" topic ban? You want to muzzle me because I am going against this politically correct bunch of utter nonsense? Predictable as heck. This has needlessly been turned into an issue that cannot be defended without being painted as a villain. It's ridiculous. I'm a big boy, and I can voluntarily stop "badgering" the endorsers (whose ranks are swelling with my haters thanks to this attempt at punishing me for standing up for the CON policy). My first ever AN/I thread. I guess I should feel honored. Doc talk 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, we want to you stop making harassment threats and personal attacks, obviously, but you just did it again. No one cares what your exact position is about some RM. If you feel that you have "haters", well, cf. previous sentence. Care was taken to insulate the MR from this ANI action. If it's going against your position, it's because the twice-found consensus to rename (even if not about what the final name should be) is being confirmed, and you've been your own cause's worst enemy by consistently attacking people for disagreeing with you about it. See also self-fulfilling prophecy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: Given that Doc9871 was just administratively warned on his talk page drop this stick or be subject to a topic ban and/or block, but instead came immediately back here to label and denigrate other editors in the same dispute with the same "politically correct bunch of utter nonsense" pointless insults, a topic ban at least is clearly in order. If he does it again, at least a short-term block is called for. There are no WP:VESTED editors who get a free pass for defiant, unrepentent incivility just because they've been around a while.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. I have already said I would voluntarily stop "badgering" people on the talk page. A topic ban would basically only cover the one page only, correct? It's not a "topic" in the way topic bans are handed out. I will have to point out that I have never been blocked for anything here, and topic bans usually occur after disruption is severe enough that blocks have already been issued. Meh. I am allowed to have opinions, and I am allowed to respond here, especially when I'm on trial. Doc talk 23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Topic bans (sometimes with expiration dates) are quite often used as alternatives to blocks, not the other way around, because they have far less impact on the editor. Badgering on the talk page is not what this ANI is about (though someone raised it as an additional concern); this ANI is about civility. The fact that you're still WP:NOTGETTINGIT is cause for concern. PS: Your "politically correct bunch of utter nonsense" insult was directed at your opponents in the RM/MR discussion, not at respondents to this ANI; it's precisely what the warning on your talk page said not to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You think this is my first day here? You talking down to me is ratcheting things up. Shut. Up. I don't like you, and I don't need you lecturing me. If you keep badgering my remarks, a two-way interaction ban is looking like the more correct solution. So stop it. Doc talk 00:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

The author of the article, Mr Bill Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bringer of The Truth (in the sense of 9/11 Truth) and has created numerous articles on the work of anti-medicine crank Gary Null. We can't work out if this is COI or just a True Believer but either way his behaviuour is disruptive and I'd appreciate some help form an uninvolved admin.

His Talk page contains this gem:

You're either a total idiot Jytdog or you take to the given tasks very seriously. I may find time to reply to this piece of gross stupidity that you have put down here. Whilst considering a possibly .... if it's what I suspect and you're just obeying your masters, I feel the greatest pity for you. I really do. You have no idea of the pity I feel for you. Oh I will say one thing. I work for nobody and I bend over for no body! Oh and one more thing again. Either way, I truly pity you

( diff ) Nice. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to JzG/Guy's accusation. Totally false. Personally I believe that JzG/Guy seriously does not even believe the accusations he has thrown at me. I know they're not true! And I think he does too. Yes I have created about 5 articles on Gary Null, all to do with his films which number about 50. Prior to my creating Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, there were none. I found that highly unusual considering Null has made many more films than Michael Moore and some, at least some would have to be notable. I have created other articles. I would suspect there are other motivations here. Please keep an open mind here. If editors are using a Wikipedia process to block, ban another editor because they don't agree with their creations then that is not only immoral and dishonest. That is misconduct. I'm amazed and equally amused that (in the sense of 9/11 Truth) has been thrown in here. And again, for a Wikipedia process to be misused is misconduct. ThanksMr Bill Truth (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• You have provided exactly one diff. I don't see any problems worthy of ANI. Why is this being brought here? The guy is defending his article at AfD, the same way most article creators do. There's nothing disruptive about it, nothing out of the ordinary, and no one seems to be swayed by his arguments. Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Defending an article at AFD is one thing, describing an editor as a "total idiot", describing contributions that are not unreasonable as "gross stupidity" and what appears to be a serious suggestion that an editor is "obeying" the dictates of some shadowy "masters", is quite another. WP:CIVIL did not have an exemption for AFD or controversial topics last time I checked. I trust that User:Mr Bill Truth will have a read of the policy and choose some less confrontational language next time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

  Well Lankiveil, being harrassed and possibly baited, I may have appeared confrontational. I guess I have to learn to just ignore certain things. I will try hard to just ignore certain things. Thanks for your comment too. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Check Mr Bill Truth's contributions. He is hectoring people at AfD, and he is promoting WP:FRINGE topics with a quite remarkable persistence. And coming to ANI saying that an admin doesn't actually believe the statements they are making? That is a perfect example. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive at the AfD, which is what this thread accused him of, without providing a single diff. I have no idea why this is at ANI. It's just normal AfD back and forth, with the article creator being understandably passionate about the merits of the article they spent a lot of time creating. There is no policy against editing in topics one is interested in. Can this thread be closed before we waste any more of everyone's time? Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't approve of editors promoting fringe crackpot nonsense or writing a lot of smug jerkassery on their own talk page. But what exactly do you want an administrator to do here? Reyk _YO! 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Assuming that Mr. Bill Truth has stopped with the personal attacks, we can close this out as is. However, if not, then I'd collapse the attacking sections (the one arguing about consensus isn't attacks and is probably counter-productive but I'd see if the editor has the sense to strike it out himself). The COIN discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gary_Null requires more eyes though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the full thread from which the diff is taken is all on Mr_Bill_Truth's personal tp but display unacceptable incivility on (presumably) his part. I have known Jytdog to have behaviours that I have interpreted to be manipulative and tendentious but this is within an area of editing where others may have similar approaches.

sorry where not relevant but pinging @DASonnenfeld, Jytdog, Wavelength, Shawn in Montreal, DMacks, AndyTheGrump, and Northamerica1000:and @Sjakkalle, Spartaz, BullRangifer, and Winner 42: as editors of the Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs article.

Not withstanding other potential issues that may be raised I propose at minimum a 48 hour ban on Mr Bill Truth for incivility.

As far as "quack" is concerned, his article presents that Gary Null's "... views on health and nutrition are at odds with scientific consensus; psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease". This in itself is not meant as a criticism but to both bring JzG's comment back from WP:ASSERT and to set context for discussion.

GregKaye 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• My proposal for a ban may need to be considered in the context of edits of the appallingly uncivil and bitey example of Andy the Grump earlier on the same talk page. Again this only gives context. GregKaye 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The 'context' begins with Mr Bill Truth repeatedly using the Essiac article and talk page as a platform for the promotion of a herbal tea as a supposed cure for cancer, (e.g. [256]) despite there being no scientific evidence whatsoever that it cures anything. And dismissing the American Cancer Society as a valid source in doing so, while citing meaningless anecdotal 'evidence' even after repeatedly being told that WP:MEDRS was the relevant criteria for sources. His sole purpose on Wikipedia is the promotion of quackery and similar fringe topics, and he has never shown the slightest evidence of being willing to comply with Wikipedia policy. He has wasted a great deal of many contributors time with his badly-sourced, weasel-worded, semi-literate 'articles' promoting Null and his films, and it seems self-evident that he will continue as long as he is permitted to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump WP:CIVIL is not a conditional policy and I think that it is possible that your unjustified venom has only made a bad situation worse. GregKaye 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That is edging towards a WP:FRINGE ban, when added to his advocacy of Null's claptrap. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See also the ANI thread from November last year: [257]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I second Soft/Lavender - if there is no "AfD disruption", there is no reason for this thread. If the charge is switching to: "he writes articles about topics we despise", a new thread should be opened. petrarchan47คุก 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

But since there plainly is add disruption, in the form of numerous shrill, bolded appeals to all and sundry, the point fails. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I had a minimal involvement in cleaning up the Seeds of Death article (no vote at the AFD) and a short suggestion here and at COIN but upon seeing that the editor's sandbox at User:Mr Bill Truth/sandbox which is basically a storehouse for all the articles, and refusal to actually work with or respond to any of the concerns people now have with Vaccine Nation following the Seeds AFD closure (such as forcing another AFD to deal with it), this is a WP:NOTHERE issue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and editors who attempt to delay and drag everyone else through procedures just for their own personal advocacy are not wanted here. If I'm considered WP:INVOLVED, I'll rescind the block but I think a starting resolution could be that User:Mr Bill Truth be required to start all future articles in draftspace and have evidence of reliable sources before moving the articles into mainspace (although the AFC process sometimes leaves something to be desired, it's better than most things we have). The incivility and bludgeoning issues need resolution as well though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User issue....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Morrissey1976 is an SPA (also related to User:Morrissey19766) who has only edited on Cornerstone (Austrian band) and their related album articles. I came across the user because he attempted to have Cornerstone (disambiguation) redirected and Cornerstone redirected, in violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Upon researching the band and copyediting, I decided that their notability was tenuous, and discussed it here. As a result of the discussion I therefore prodded the band article [258] and the record label [259]. Morrissey removed the endorsed prods, and undid all of my copyediting (much of which was actually to remove puffery and correct "Germlish" ("UK-Tour", etc.).

I would also note that his comment to Fae regarding deletion of a picture on "Somewhere in America", he claimed he created the picture that was deleted, which indicates a potential COI, which seems to be reinforced by a later comment. [260]

As the prods were removed, I therefore sent the band, album, and label articles to AfD. In apparent retaliation, Morrissey has prodded John J. Robinson [261] and Believer (Laura Dawn album) [262] which are both articles I created. To find them, he went to my created articles page, so there is definite retaliatory intent, as he touched nothing else that I've substantially contributed to otherwise, and in fact, the Laura Dawn album was one edit. The prods really need to be removed, but I don't particularly like article creators removing prods on their own articles under any circumstances, so someone else will need to do it.

To specifically address those prods, for the Robinson article, Morrissey said "NN Author- no relevance, no awards for books, doesn't hit Wikipedia:Notability (people). This author is maybe important for a small group of people, but non-relevant for Wikipedia folks" None of which is even a legitimate basis for prodding. Robinson published a book that is de facto reading for almost every researcher in Masonic history (because it wasn't written by a Mason). It was reviewed by two major reviewers (as cited in the preface) because of its high demand in libraries. Robinson went on to publish two more books. This is clearly stated in the article.

The Laura Dawn album prod has the following statement by Morrissey: "NN Artis- and album is not not relevant. No chart rankings or third party sources of relevance available. No reliable sources or references of relevance of both artist nor artist. No major release, everyone in the musicbiz can do distro via a Major distribution meanwhile. Poor rating on Allmusic, no relevance on WP in my opinion." Now, the album was distributed by Warner Bros., so it was a major release by an artist who also has her own WP article. The deprodder found several sources, including Billboard. Apparently Morrissey didn't even bother to look for them.

Morrissey1976 also indicated the following on the Somewhere in America AfD: "Notice MSJapan "Hitradio Ö3 is one of the nationwide radio stations of Austria's public broadcaster ORF" "Radio Wien is the regional radio for Vienna, and is part of the Österreich 2 group" as cleary is seeable on the pages of the radio stations. Learn to read, or in case you can't, let me know, so I will read it aloud for you. User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (CET+1)" [263].

On the Notability page discussion, he also states the following (emphasis mine) "I'm not a periodically contributor to WP, and most of the stuff is music-related, so you're right, there are too many editions happened, which is clearly a mistake of mine. I've requested the movement of the Cornerstone dab page because for me it's sounds like a logical thing, to get a page with the different meanings of the term "Cornerstone", and not one meaning, with a shortlink, that there are more meanings. 'Of course I did this, to get more recognition for my site..." That pretty much sounds like ownership, a conflict of interest, and a single purpose to me.

The user apparently duplicated the Smalltown Boy article at some point in the past: [264].

According to his response on the Somewhere in America AfD, I'm now an SPA. Guess nobody noticed for ten years:"Regarding the other topics: Requested movements of Cornerstone dab page and Cornerstone happened because of logical point of views and an easier search modus for the several meanings of the term Cornerstone. Probably user is also an SPA for the "Cornerstone dab page” and “Cornerstone” (haven’t checked out yet)." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere in America (album)

Also some snide comments on the ATOM AfD: "Notice ATOM Records has one chart-ranking with Cornerstone and noteable musicans Jon Butcher (three albums in the Billboard 200, several singles in various charts) and Leland Sklar in it's rooster, one of the most prominent Bass-players in the music-business. MSJapan, by clicking this blue underlined words on every WP page, you'll redirected to the related pages, where you can check out all of the facts. I'm sorry that you're obviously not know that, but absolutely no problem to help out :-)" User:Morrissey1976 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (CET+1) (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATOM_Records)

The user has apparently "contacted Wikipedia to have my IP blocked for vandalism." (according to the diff edit comment). Therefore, the WP:OWN is getting out of hand and so is the behavior of the user, who was notified of the discussion. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and closed those malformed move requests. I has a disappoint. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I usually work WP:COIN problems, I did some cleanup on the article. They probably do pass WP:MUSIC, just barely, having two releases on a major label and some awards, and the AfD seems to be headed for "weak keep". They certainly don't get to have the base article for "Cornerstone" even in the band space; there are other bands named "Cornerstone" (Wikipedia knows of three, Google turns up at least five, and two of them were in trademark litigation), plus various companies and churches. Closing out their move requests regarding the disambig page was reasonable enough. This looks like a routine new-editor COI problem, from someone who hasn't yet realized that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. (We get these all the time at WP:COIN, and only rarely does someone have to go to AN/I and ask for the use of the big admin hammer. Band self-promotion is almost retro. A few years ago, that was a big thing, but now corporate PR is the big COI problem.) I'd suggest to the involved editor that they edit some articles on subjects with which they are not involved to gain experience with Wikipedia, and avoid editing on this subject for a while. We can try assuming good faith for now. Keep watching the article, of course. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What major label did you find? The whole basis of the problem was that their releases are on an indie label out of Ohio. The album articles are even tagged with the catalog number from that indie label, and the notability of those albums are predicated on the charting of a single that wasn't even on those albums. Also, this is not a new editor; the edit histories go back sporadically over several years - The two Morrissey accounts only edit those articles; clearly someone simply lost their password in the past. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I thought ATOM Records was a major label. They're not. Changed my vote at AfD to "Comment". Also noted that the promotional picture of the band they uploaded (File:Cornerstone Promo.jpg) never had its copyright issue resolved properly through ORTS, so I temporarily removed the image from the article until that is resolved, and put a note on the ORTS notice board to get it resolved. Some additional eyes on the AfDs for Cornerstone (Austrian band) and ATOM Records would be appreciated. This may all be deleted, in which case the content and user behaviour issues become moot. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, maybe my research of the quality of your articles was a direct result to your strong efforts, to remove the pages I've created. There are some users here, who are not regular distributors to WP, or write just about topics, with which they are familiar with. Btw., incorrect research of yours. I've created more pages on the german WP, for the English WP I've worked on the Cornerstone-Pages and did contributions from time to time on other pages. For example, most of your articles are related to the freemasonry-church, so I suppose you are strongly involved with that, which is ok, you are probably familiar with. Every user should write about the topics, he is familiar with.

I CLEARLY pointed out the facts about Cornerstone in the AFD-pages, so it is completely unnecessary to talk about this topic again. I suppose, you personally hate the band for whatever reasons, and it seems like, you construct and try to figure out ways, to remove the pages I've created, and simply ignore reliable facts and references ("Hitradio Ö3" and "Radio Wien" are just local stations, etc -> incorrect). Talking about "behaviour", reading your comments and references on the removement pages, which are full of rejections and subliminal allusions, we could forward the discussion here quite long , I guess. Writing articles and discussions using Special WP-terms and arrogant, incorrect allegations doesn't cause, you are right. My comments and "behaviour" were a direct reaction to your behaviour. Everything comes back in life.

Just for the records, the album "Head Over Heels" was released in Europe via Sony Music Entertainment, and the bands OWNS the trademark rights to the name Cornerstone in the most common music markets (Not "Two of them had a trademark issue, the TRADEMARKED, AUSTRIAN BAND "Cornerstone" had an trademark issue, because they own the trademark), many bands used this name and had to remove their content from Social-Media platforms, Distribution Platforms, etc. ANYWAY, to cut a long story short: I really don't have the time, to reference to sources all day long and do discussions here with you. So, as a gesture of peace, may I suggest, that I'll do better research and reference for the articles I create(d), so I'll leave your pages alone, and you'll leave my pages alone (except it is a constructive contribution)? User:Morrissey1976|Morrissey1976]] (Morrissey1976|talk) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)

Sorry, can't do that, because we've got an information problem again. The article you wrote about the album clearly indicates that it was released by ATOM Records. However, you just said Cornerstone released the album via SME. If in fact, Cornerstone's European releases are SME, then ATOM isn't notable for the single that charted in Austria because ATOM didn't release it in the country it charted. ATOM would not be notable, in fact, for anything related to Cornerstone, because Sony's the actual home market label. So something is still grossly incorrect, and apparently at least two of the articles in question have basic information that is wrong. MSJapan (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like, again you spin facts and references into your strange view. "Head Over Heels" was originally released in 2008 by ATOM Records and re-released in 2010 in EUROPE via Sony-Music (clearly seeable on the Cornerstone, Section Discogrpahy. The band is signed to ATOM-Records but re-released one album in Europe. Both "Somewhere in America"-album and "Smalltown Boy"-Single was released via ATOM Records both in US and Europe. User:Morrissey1976|Morrissey1976]] (Morrissey1976|talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (CET+1)

Would the two of you please stop arguing about content here? ANI is for dealing with behavior, not content. You are both making yourselves look bad and discrediting yourselves by arguing about content here. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The barrelling editor from IP 72.229.40.94

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems IP 72.229.40.94 is being used by a barrelling editor, i.e. one who edits copiously with absolutely no communication on talk pages or through edit summaries. I didn't bring this to WP:AIV because many edits look constructive, though some are dubious or just plain wrong. The issue came to the forefront for me because on the article for Sage the Gemini, three recent edits assert September 2015 [265], then December 2015 [266], then November 2015 [267] as a release date, none of which have actually transpired yet. From this, it seems as though the editor is just making things up as they go.

The IP talk page gives a pretty good picture of the community's concerns, ending with a couple of templates I used along with personalized comments. I can see the good faith, but it can't be good for an editor to unilaterally plough through Wikipedia with absolutely no discussion or accountability. I trust that an administrator reading this will have the tools and wisdom to effect a solution to prevent further risk of damage. Willondon (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Now January 2015 is proposed as a release date. [268] Willondon (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: And now the release date is back to September 2015 again [269]. Willondon (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Willondon, I'm presently looking into this. IP geolocates to Elmhurst, NY; ISP: Time Warner. I see a number of dubious changes like this one, where he credits rapper/actor Treach with appearing in season 3 of Sleepy Hollow. I can't find any press release of the sort and the Sleepy Hollow episode list suggests S3 has just started, which makes his addition a WP:CRYSTAL violation. I also notice along with that edit, he changes the date of When All Else Falls from 2016 to 2015. This title redlinks and I can't find it at IMDb for instance to get more info about it. So that's suspicious. When I searched the article to see who made that addition, I found this edit made by 184.152.17.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That IP geolocates to New York as well, also on Time Warner. It was indeffed (that's rare) by Bgwhite for disruptive editing. I note that both IPs share an impressive number of intersections. Naturally my belief is that it's the same vandal.

@Bgwhite:, do you happen to recall the 184.* IP, and/or do you have any info about an LTA or anything? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I don't recall. I suspect I saw a page being vandalized, investigated, saw the repeated blocks and did the final block. Talk page shows they were non-communicative, had repeated warnings and had repeated blocks. Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite Thanks for the info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete this image with passwords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone delete File:Screen Grab of web-browser showing Islamic State Hacking Division online posted result.png? It's not really a big deal hence why I asked here rather then doing it privately, since frankly the info is all over the place and it's unlikely mentioning it here is going to expose it to many more people that have already seen it and it's not even clear if the info is reliable, or new. But it still seems we shouldn't be posting such info which includes alleged passwords for something, addresses, phone numbers, etc, especially as it doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. I couldn't work out a speedy category (except perhaps as a copyvio since the presentation and comment is likely copyrighted by someone) and it seems unnecessary to take it to AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Deleted by admin Nyttend. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism/Block evasion/Personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bishietushie (talk · contribs) - Block this account immediately please. - NQ (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@NQ: I've made a report at WP:AIV, which is the best place to report obvious vandalism. Thanks for bringing this up. ~ Rob^Talk 13:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I did it already half an hour ago ([270]), but it has been reverted a couple of times... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

USER:BU Rob13 you mean like say [[271]]? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked and the report wasn't there when I started filling out the report, likely because he reverted it. ~ Rob^Talk 13:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's because it had been removed eight times prior. He knew where to go but it wasn't working look at the history Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I love the smell of socks throwing an impotent tantrum in the evening. Hell in a Bucket, I fixed the URL in your "history" link. DMacks (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So it's closed, but I'll just mention that it's "she", not "he". Like all the other impotent Bishonen vandals since early July, this is a sock of Kutsuit. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kingshowman using Wikipedia as a battleground

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A quick survey of the talk page of Kingshowman (talk · contribs) as well as his contributions and edit summaries (e.g. here and here, to show but two of many) will show that he views Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that every time someone reverts his edits or warns him about something, he resorts to incivility and rants. He has been blocked three times already in the past month, but each time he comes back as combative as before. He appears to be knowledgeable in the areas he edits, but completely unwilling to work within the collaborative style of Wikipedia. He is beginning to become a serious disruption.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 Aug 2015

Generally, I only edit the David Hume page. I think you'll agree on perusing the page that I've vastly improved it from the state of torpitude and decripitude it was in before. There are various thorn-in-my-side editors who follow me there to try to revert the edits, although they have never read a word David Hume penned aside from the quotations I've placed in the article. This is a bogus bunch of bollocks and the people making the claim now that as well I do. My edits speak for themselves. You will find that a number of editors , for example PGALLERT, Prhartcom, and maunus have all praised me publicly for my high quality edits. Those pursuing this block have no abiding interest in the topics I edit and revert them pointlessly simply to try to annoy me. Likewise, they are bringing this case against me to annoy me. The high quality of my edits and the vast improvements of the David Hume page since I came to it speak for themselves. Kingshowman (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: It would be a stretch to say that you have been "publicly praised for your high quality edits". Several editors have agreed that some of the points you've made on David Hume were valid improvements, but all have agreed that your means of going about making the changes flies in the face of Wikipedia policies about verifiability and collaboration. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingshowman: Could you please explain your habit of referring to other Wikipedia users as "edit goons", a theme that seems to be the focus of your contributions here? [272][273][274][275][276][277][278] - MrX 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I naively assumed this was a new editor with potential and needed a bit of guidance/caution about interacting with others. I shoulda done my homework. Although his article edits may be good, the level of personal attacks in edit summaries and talk comments are unacceptable. His last two edits to his talk page tell it all his reply to the notification of this discussion and edit summary and his response to my edit warring note and second edit summary are typical examples. Vsmith (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries like This is another editor with no interest in the topic and no reading comprehension skills who has destroyed work without any justification., and messages on talk pages such as Wikipedia policies are not an excuse to not use your brain when editing are totally uncalled for. The reason I undid the users edit was because they were using a typepad blog as a source and I was told to stop my unreasoned edits [inspite of stating in the previous edit summary]. It's not the edit warring, but the unwillingness to discuss and the bad faith comments directed at others that bugs me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just saw that he told Vsmith to fuck yourself in an edit summary. Don't you think a Topic ban is in the order? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Several times I have referred to certain editors as "edit goons" (jokingly) because they seem to follow me around wherever I go and revert my edits on topics that had previously been of no interest to them. I have no objection to collaboration with people who are legitimately interested in the topic but those who follow me around to revert me because they dislike me I have a real problem with. Dan, no it is not a stretch. When I was previously hounded by editors who don't know my topics but know they dislike me and try to revert on mere technicalities , I threatened to quit and reverted all my edits. They were put back as an improvement to the page. When constructive criticisms were made by actual contributors to the page( rather than drive by shooters who make up completely in informative comments as their "reasons" for reverting the page, something which too, is regarded as uncivil and destructive) I took them into account. For instance you'll see the helpful collaborations on tightening the length of the lead from last night with maanus who said that the trimmings were a great improvement. So no, it is not a "stretch" to say that I've been publicly praised. Why am I continually subjected to excessive scrutiny and harassment on here when my edits have , by and large, been helpful and remedied major deficiencies In a high importance philosophy article? Also, you'll see that in the edit war I was accused of engaging with, I was happy to accept the deletions of the polls of members of the profession ranking Hume highly once a more cogent objection was presented than the mere fact that it came from an academic's philosophy page? Finally, I can hope you would find it clear that "edit goons" is an attempt at humor in response to what I perceive as unwarranted harassment and lack of appreciation for all the hard work I've invested in improving the Hume page, when I could be putting this time into my academic papers. I didn't think humor was illegal. Thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And I am a new editor. I've been here for a week.

And unwillingness to discuss? I go begging for days for discussion on the talk page before I make changes. What irritates me are the drive by editors who revert on a technicality totally content free destroying work rather than asking for a citation if they would like one. Kingshowman (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And you clearly don't know much about philosophy if you're going to refer to the most trafficked philosophy web page on the Internet as a "typepad" blog.

Neither you nor vsmoth have read Hume nor seem to know who he is. I can only conclude you are editing out of malice towards me. Vsmoth particularly has an obvious petty grudge and was destroying and damaging the page without reason to annoy me.Kingshowman (talk)

Editing out of malice? We aren't jobless. If you are going to insult a horde of editors and then claim it was done in jest, then I can very well claim that my reversion of your edits were done in jest. I don't need to know about philosophy to edit the page. The fact that an edit violates a policy is enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary , it is extremely destructive to have philosophy pages continually edited by people who haven't read the works. And I called you stupid because and your edits idiotic because you felt t was necessary to revert the first sentence of the lead and delete "highly influential" on a page you know absolutely nothing, not zero about. First of all that judgement is verified below in the article and such a general statement as Hume being influential does not need a citation in the first sentence of the article. Frankly , your edit was stupid and if you want to rag on me for being uncivil that's fine but at least I didn't stupidly delete something on a topic I am admittedly completely ignorant of. It's ok to be ignorant of some things. There are plenty of topics I'm ignorant of. I don't go editing them and drive by destroying information in the middle of t being updated to annoy editors who are freely donating their professional time and improving your poor quality article. ( not my judgment but wikipedia's which currently rates the par as low quality and several other knowledgeable editors have asked me to help improvement it and get it to good article status) you are merely obstructing not that process with admittedly ignorant edits how can it possibly be helpful to have persons who do not anything about the topic edit the pages? How? I'm not asking that you be a Hume scholar but if you have never cracked the spine of one of his works, please, please don't be tempted to ignorantly edit his page. You people are really rather unbelievable that I should have to request that people who have never read Hume refrain from editing. Kingshowman (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ass for jest, a question was asked about calling people "edit goons" on my user page. The page is marked as humor and anyone ought to be able to tell it is meant to be funny. I've also started on the talk page that the page was meant to be funny. Please read for context. Kingshowman (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to editors as "goons" in an edit summary is not humor. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Uncivil edit summaries are worse than uncivil comments on talk pages, because they cannot be deleted except by redaction, which requires work by an administrator to correct extreme poor judgment. Knowledge of David Hume does not compensate for ignorance of Wikipedia culture. Recommend a short block to get the attention of the subject that these personal attacks are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kingshowman for your answer. I will keep it in the back of my mind that the subject is influential and doesn't need a source. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You're an idiot and an uneducated ignoramus. Please , for the sake ,of the encyclopedia stay far away from the philosophy articles in the future. No a citation isn't needed in the lead for the claim that Hume is "influential" which is located elsewhere in the article. hint: perhaps you might have read the section marked influence or even begun to read Hime before ignorantly opining on him?Kingshowman (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's enough of incivility for now. I'd suggest you refrain from using unparliamentary language and stop coming up with your own definitions of vandalism before you get blocked. Thank you, have a nice day. Admins, please take over. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be preserved after Kingshowman is blocked and/or banned. It reads as a classic example of "how NOT to argue on public forums". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Dennis Brown blocked Kingshowman for a week. But like I indicated here and here on my talk page, Kingshowman should be indefinitely blocked. I don't at all agree with anyone thinking that this editor should be allowed to continue to edit here. Being so familiar with, and tired of, editors like this, I am of the viewpoint that anyone trying to help Kingshowman is wasting their time. But, hey, those are my opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• As an editor, I would agree that an indef block is best, but I acted conservatively as an admin whose job is to guess consensus. If there is a consensus here that an indef is best, I would ask any admin to modify the block without asking my permission. I had to do something to prevent disruption now and make a decision that would clearly be supported as a minimum, but if there is a poll, my personal opinion is that indef is the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dennis Brown in not giving an indef block. I only favor an indef block on the first offense for users who are clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as trolls and vandals. This editor is a flamer, but has an agenda to contribute to an article about a philosopher, and we need constructive editing on modern philosophers. If he continues to flame after coming off block, an indef will be in order, but at this time, a timed block is a chance to get his attention to be civil to other editors who are interested in philosophy even if they know less than he does. (I would have supported a three-day block, but seven days is fine.) Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have not experienced any of these problems with Kingshowman, on the contrary he listened carefully to my arguments and followed my suggestions with no conflictive posturing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  However, the rest of us have had loads of problems, all of which are out in the open to see. Three blocks prior to the current, plus Flyer22's opinion of an indef block. I think the last one speaks for itself. Kingshowman has harassed Flyer22 a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given that this is Kingshowman's fourth block in less than one month, I think an indef is in order. While I can't say this user is WP:NOTHERE as his contributions on David Hume have been done in an earnest attempt to improve the article, I can say that this user is unwilling to accept the consensus of the community regarding his efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• His block log[279] shows that his first block under this username was for block evasion. What username was he blocked under previously? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

He was editing as 24.46.196.22 (talk · contribs), blocked for BLP issues, then created this account while actively blocked. Kuru (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Note... Instead of stating this on Kingshowman's talk page, I'm going to state this here: Regarding the unblock request that Ohnoitsjamie turned down, Kingshowman is incorrect that I called him a poor editor; I called his edits poor; there's a difference. If there were no difference, the WP:No personal attacks policy would not state, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Noting an editor's edits as problematic is commonplace here at Wikipedia. Same goes for noting an editor's edits as poor. Those are not WP:Personal attacks, as significantly experienced editors here are aware of. Do I consider Kingshowman a poor Wikipedia editor? I do. But then again, he is a WP:Newbie. Seemingly anyway. I, however, chose to focus on the state of his editing, in an effort to try and make him see what others complaining about his edits see. Instead of taking the time to reflect on why these editors are complaining, by clicking on/reading the WP:Policies and guidelines presented to him, he chose to attack...harshly. Not just me, but just about everyone he was in dispute with. He also takes matters out of context and twists facts regarding how editors interacted with him. Everything Kingshowman has stated about me has been a mischaracterization, but I'm not going to address all that. He keeps repeating the same things over and over again, as though not listening anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, calling an editor a goon might actually be humor per this , however, it really depends on what was said, how it was said and how it was precieved. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

I think that the admins have enough information now to make a decision and close this, and that further discussion will not change that. Let's take whatever action the closing admin deems appropriate, close this, and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need for a quick block of a new Evlekis sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Burjeremonz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very obvious Evlekis sock, creating hoax articles and user pages that are pure and blatant vandalism. I have tagged The CMO Survey and Power trays for speedy deletion as G5, with a pointer to why it's obvious it's Evlekis in the CSD reason, so admins can find all the info they need there. Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• CU-blocked by Bbb23 so closing. Thomas.W ^talk 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Useless and unsourced edits by The Sheikh001 (part 3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On July 28th, 2015, I filed this report about @The Sheikh001: repeatedly adding odd and unsourced info and then self-reverting. A previous report had already been filed by @Livelikemusic: on July 6th for the same reason. We were told, "If he does anything like this again, please report it here," by @WikiLeon: and he has done it again with this edit. I'm hoping something can be done this time because, if you look at his talk page, he's clearly not here to make constructive edits of any kind. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --w^{L<speak·check>} 00:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ndsm breaking WP:3RR at Brandon Haunstrup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user mentioned above has broken the three-revert rule, by saying that "we don't use nicknames in Wikipedia". Since when? I even quoted to him two articles, Cristiano Ronaldo ("[...] as Los Blancos won their tenth European Cup.") and Lionel Messi ("[...] score twice for Barça [...]") with the nicknames pretty clear. But received no replies, and a revert as a prize. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:EWN is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: created a section there. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 03:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial nonsense pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MherHzzor (talk · contribs)

We need a block and mass reversions--numerous articles being created that translate to nonsense. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuked and blocked. Thanks for the notification. Nakon 01:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That user has been blocked now... Thanks for your contribution to fight vandals! --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

José Bormann not discussing about Lucas Gafarot, thus breaching WP:BRD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Even after I send him a message explaining everything (The official website says "El FC Barcelona ha llegado a un principio de acuerdo con la UE Cornellà [...]"), he insists that Gafarot is loaned from the B-team. However, any B-team in the whole world cannot loan any players, they are loaned from the main team, and the statement above confirms it. MYS77 ^✉ 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the talk page is blank. Why not start a section to discuss it? So far it look like a content issue. AlbinoFerret 02:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; ANI is extremely premature at this point. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: @AlbinoFerret: I already sent him a message in his talk page, the last one being at 01:20 UTC. 25 minutes later, without providing any replies, he restored his content with anything but "he plays for b' team" in his edit summary, which clearly has no sense as the guy was recently loaned out. MYS77 ^✉ 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• MYS77, this is the second ANI filing you've made today which does not belong here. I'm closing this ANI, and reminding you that ANI is only for longterm behavioral issues which all other methods have been exhausted on. You need to follow all of the precise steps in WP:Responding to a failure to discuss. Do not bring the matter here. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Annoying user, will not follow editing guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, Zurich00swiss. Has been bugging me alot, he has already reported me to this user (and several others) for me reverting his edits.

I reverted them because...

• No sources were provided
• They were not allowed per WP:Airports

This user has already been blocked in the past for sockpuppetery per WP:Sock, he has been getting on my nerves as he tells me to stop reverting his edits for no reason and he seems quite young for an editor, he also left a message on my talk page (which I deleted) about not providing references for my edits, which is not true. RMS52 (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RMS52
1-My edits are correct and your reverted are incorrect! And you reverted my edits because you are mad at me!! 2-I would not be blocking because for you! Zurich00swiss (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss If you think that unreferenced edits and incorrect edits are correct, they are not. So you are going to have to think about that for a while. As I said, you can read this tutorial and WP:Airports. RMS52 (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52 when you delate the flights from ZURICH AIRPORT without reason , or delate the VOLOTEA at VRN when there is a definite source , you put two airlines together ( LH and AIR DOLOMITI ) you put a references in this edits? I think NO! Zurich00swiss (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss References are not needed for those edits, I removed flights because they were removed before, but they were reverted. And please note that some of your edits did not apply to the guidlines at WP:Airports

@RMS52 In you edits the references are non needed obviously in my edits the the references are needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurich00swiss (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss Well, because you are the one adding the content without references, I have the right to remove it without a reference. Same goes for you too. RMS52 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RMS52: please keep in mind that you were also blocked of using two identities recently. So pointing at the, now not relevant, sock-history is not useful and potentially dangerous. The Banner talk 09:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner How is it dangerous for me? I was not really going to point out the 'sock' but this user created lots of sock accounts, I only used an IP. But that does not really matter I guess. RMS52 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You used his history to discredit him but your history is not clean either. The Banner talk 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion best thing for the encyclopaedia will be a topic ban for both editors for one month. They are both on the attack... The Banner talk 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner Hold on now... Topic ban?

I think the best way to settle this is just to get Zurich00swiss to read the guidlines, then he should be aware of the policies of editing on airport articles. RMS52 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban. No more activities on airport-related articles for a month. The Banner talk 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner I blocking for a month ? I have not done anything wrong ! Zurich00swiss (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No block, a topic ban. No more activities on airport-related articles for a month. The Banner talk 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@@The Banner, @Zurich00swiss I didn't use his history to do that, I was just pointing out that this user did not have a clean history, but everyone has reasons. And Zurich00swiss claims that he created socks to keep editing and avoid getting blocked. He apoligized for his errors too, like I did to you.

As I said all Zurich00swiss needs is a little kick in the backside, (not really!) just get him to read the guidelines and we should both be able to edit without issues or edit wars. RMS52 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@@RMS52 @The Banner For me the case is closing! everyone goes their own way! Zurich00swiss (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zurich00swiss Read WP:Airports and then you will understand why your edits were reverted and in the future, try not to bug other users, I will close this disscussion. RMS52 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: You are clearly not the one to close this discussion. Let the community have their say. The Banner talk 09:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52 Ok I will read WP:Airport. Zurich00swiss (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• A diff as part of a single paragraph summary would be helpful here. ANI is for conduct not content disputes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User constantly revert my edits...

Dear Administrators,

Recently I took care of few wikipages. I started to edit information on Mad Max (band) and Roland Bergmann (draft) pages. Unfortunately, constant interruptions and re-editing page by Walter Görlitz, is not allowing me to keep the pages valuable. I wrote in a comment of editing that a source provided by the user is not reliable, contains wrong and incomplete information. However, the user is keep putting the reference to the page. Please, do something with this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_(band)

Kind regards, WikiSilv

This is a request that's best made at the edit warring noticeboard. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that the editor insists on removing what I believe to be a RS for a specific fact, the band's date of establishment. I have taken that up at WP:RSN as I requested of the other editor. WikiSilv has been drafting an article and put it up for acceptance, but the sources are poor and I have been notating the errors, and the article has improved, but the subject still fails WP:GNG. It appears that the other editor doesn't want help so I'll stay away from the draft article, but the other article, which was unsourced until recently, when I added sources, is a different problem. If I interpret correctly, WikiSilv wants to own the pages and not accept help from others. Not likely fodder for ANI, but the editor isn't a native English-speaker either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a normal ANI discussion. The solution may be full protection so that the editor has to work out sourcing things properly via talk page edit requests. Sounds more like a situation where the article should have been started in draftspace (doesn't solve WP:OWN but does keep it downplayed for now) and then brought here. Perhaps suggest that to User:WikiSilv? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the editor has tired of my suggestions and notices. Feel free to try. Might be a better case for WP:DRN? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP may be better. Is the band notable? Only this one seems like a reliable source. I was thinking AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support an AfD there. A polite decline of Draft:Roland Bergmann might also be appropriate at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with COI-SPA sock/meat farm (Spanish-speaking admin a plus)

I have been playing Whack-a-mole across enWP and esWP with a COI-SPA sock/meat farm for about 3 weeks now over articles and content related to Daniel Múgica. There was a round of blocks after an SPI in enWP, and similar blocks and protections in esWP based off of the same SPI, but they keep coming back for more. There is an ongoing conversation at Talk:Generation X with 81.39.202.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is the admitted owner of indef-blocked account (on both esWP and enWP) DMDHA1967 (talk · contribs). I could use some help from an admin, preferably one who speaks Spanish, and has cross-wiki powers if such a thing exists. If not I can coordinate again with esWP to take care of the newer accounts over there, but need some help here on enWP.

The whole story, with diffs and links to SPI, is documented here.

Thanks, Vrac (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection on Daniel Múgica expired last night, today a new ip 83.41.209.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) re-made here a bunch of edits previous made by blocked users DMDHA1967 (talk · contribs), Alejandriya (talk · contribs), etc.... Vrac (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Another new account: Mundoviejoycansado (talk · contribs) appeared today making the same edits as 83.41.209.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that were reverted by another editor yesterday. Can someone please re-protect the Daniel Múgica article? Vrac (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now there's another one: Mikel nieto (talk · contribs) and we're in a revert war, someone, anyone give a little help here? Vrac (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

AMMAR19UL93ISLAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a bunch of copyvios, much of it also being rambling, vulgarly religious POV.[280][281]--Anders Feder (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the copy vio and given a final warning. I will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kitsunelaine and 2601:140:8200:23E5:6074:1FCA:AB9A:3119

These two users, Kitsunelaine (talk · contribs) and 2601:140:8200:23E5:6074:1FCA:AB9A:3119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); removed Category:Ghosts in television and "Supernatural" in the Kamen Rider Ghost article and Category:Fictional ninja and Category:Martial arts television series in the Shuriken Sentai Ninninger article. These categories and the word is what describes these shows. For the Supernatural genre, take Kamen Rider Kiva for example. The word was included in the article. For the Category:Fictional ninja and Category:Martial arts television series, take Kakuranger and Hurricaneger for example. They included these categories. I edit these articles because I want to describe the shows. These categories helped people on knowing what kind of show it is. That's why I make two reasons for my edits: "Since the show has a ninjutsu motif, it is a martial arts television series" and "Since the show has a ghost motif, it's genre will also be supernatural". She reverted my edits a couple of hours ago. I revert her edits that they are actually helpful. 10 minutes later, Kitsunelaine revert my edits without giving her own reason. These edits I made have a good explanation on why these categories described the shows. Please do something as soon as possible. FrankieL1985 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I was not vandalizing anything at all, I edit articles in a good fashion. But she thinks I'm vandalizing these two articles when I'm actually making good-faith edits. FrankieL1985 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss it on the talk page. If no one responds there and the edit warring continues, that's conduct that's disruptive and worth bringing to ANI. I'd say you should try to find a secondary source for the genres rather than just keep arguing it. As for ghosts in television, discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can we close it immediately? FrankieL1985 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 and Universal Medicine

Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian cult. Tribscent08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been credibly identified as associated with that cult, but does not acknowledge the COI. 100% of Tribscent08's edits are related to that article, and many of them are endless repetitions of rejected querulous demands. Neutrality requires the involvement of multiple points of view, but it's my view that Tribscent08, one of a series of WP:SPAs involved wiht that article, is not helping. I suggest that a topic ban would be in order. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for reasons stated above. 79616gr (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would in general prefer to see Pseudoscience and other topics covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement, a more efficient and less contentious process than here, but since we are here, Support topic ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral (procedurally) for now see later post below: oppose action beyond admonition at this time: What's the evidence?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm not contradicting or supporting the original poster's position on what's happening. I just can't fathom why there's an ANI open making specific allegations without even any diffs to back them up, and yet people are "voting" to take punitive actions based on nothing but an unsupported allegation. Notwithstanding the subject editor's quasi-confessional below, that is not the proper way to do an ANI filing, much less respond to one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Seconded; SPA is evident, but not on first inspection the COI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support DS (preferably) or topic ban. Miniapolis 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. User doggedly refuses to acknowledge the cult's unethical behaviours, and appears determined to manipulate the article to further obscure the organization's convoluted financial structure. Disputed issues are consistent with the cult's public protestations of "media bias" and "trolling" by official complainants and government bodies, so COI/meat puppetry is impossible to rule out. Persistently recycles resolved & archived issues. Disruption appears deliberate. XRii (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Reviewing Special:Contributions/Tribscent08 shows that the OP is correct. It's one thing for a person to be an SPA on, say, birds because that is their interest, but being an SPA on an alternative medicine and religious organisation providing "esoteric healing" products, music, publications, workshops and courses is not desirable for the encyclopedia. The long posts at Talk:Universal Medicine suck up time and energy from non-SPA editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as both SMcCandlish and Georgewilliamherbert noted, there is no evidence other than being a SPA is shown. Are there any diffs to support the call for a topic ban? GregJackP Boomer! 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence is a pattern of Talk page edits pestering with the same grievances as a declared COI editor Choose12. These include repeated requests to remove reference to the cult leader's bankruptcy, and repeating Choose12's claims there's no evidence of unethical behaviour - when the article itself, and the numerous referenced articles from a dozen independent media organizations, plus material on the cult's own websites, indicates a plethora of unethical activity. The editor's inability to distinguish unethical behaviour and repeat attempts to whitewash financial information directly echoes the cult's online propaganda. Tribescent08 refuses to address whether he or she has contributed to the propaganda sites. Those of us who have researched this group have found the cult has at least 30 websites (dozens more Facebook pages etc.), and it relies on a "Facts Team" of propagandists, as well as "investors" to provide the material for a dozen or more blogs. All investors are religious devotees to the leader and most blog contributors have financial or business ties to the organization. Questions or corrections from non followers is prohibited These are examples of edits where Tribescent repeated the insistence there's "no evidence" of unethical behaviour having waited for discussions to be archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Medicine&diff=670252225&oldid=670008491 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Medicine&diff=next&oldid=647134493 I could pull out more instances. The following link is an example of one of the propaganda pages attacking an official complainant and a News Ltd journalist http://universalmedicinefacts.com/somewhere-in-a-galaxy-far-far-away-jane-hansen-might-find-her-integrity/ Frankly, anyone who can't see problems with this business is certainly a religious follower/investor. XRii (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That's helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Reviewing. His main point at [282] is actually valid; dwelling on some WP:BLP subject's bankruptcy 20-ish years ago in the lead of another article raises WP:UNDUE / WP:POV issues. The "no official findings have found Serge Benhayon guilty of any one crime or in breach of any serious misdoings" also has merit, if it's true. His second post at [283] makes the same point more clearly: We're repeating allegations made in the media, but [he says] there are no actual convictions or other real-world evidence. These seems to be valid concerns, even if there could be some ulterior motive for raising them. I agree that this is a WP:FRINGE group, but that doesn't magically suspend WP:V and WP:BLP policies with regard to the topic and people associated with it. If there are legal/regulatory findings of fact behind the media allegations, then citing them directly along with the media stuff would appear to be the resolution.

      I agree that this is clearly a single-purpose account, and that it is probably but not demonstrably one with an undeclared connection to the organisation (and perhaps we can assume one at this point per WP:DUCK). Some of the sourcing attempts by this party have been quite poor (local articles about swimming awards?). That said, not every edit to the article or its talk page have been non-constructive. E.g., XRii agreed that one of the funding-related sources that Tribscent08 flagged as unreliable was in fact unreliable. Some of his copyediting suggestions, e.g. to more closely follow the source and say "The cost of Universal Medicine’s treatments, courses and retreats, for some individuals over a period of years, are reported to be in the tens of thousands of Australian dollars", don't appear to be out of line, either. On the other hand, I also saw deletion of sourced material, and am not sure there's a consensus for that.[284]. As much I'm generally in favor of restraining FRINGE COIs, there's insufficient evidence of disruption, and the article is actually being improved in response to the editor's concerns, even if he's being a bit of a pain in the butt to get them, and may have non-neutral motives (several other editors clearly do as well, in the other direction, even beyond WP:FRINGE skepticism and due-weight balancing). Tribescent's denialism with regard to facts sourced to the organisation's own materials has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

      • But this is the problem of Tribescent's disrupts. For the third time I have to point out to Wiki eds News Ltd reported that a patient had spent $35K on treatment from a doctor working at the UM clinic in Goonellabah, who also referred the patient to esoteric "healers". It was confirmed in a second article referenced that News Ltd had viewed the receipts. So the tens of thousands is correct. The bankruptcy is not given undue weight because the cult's current publicity states that the leader was financially successful at the time he started Universal Medicine. News Ltd found he had just come out of bankruptcy. So Tribescent and colleagues are attempting to make Wikipedia perpetuate the cult mythology. Benhayon may not have convictions - possibly due to the group's extraordinary bullying of complainants - but there is no dispute that the group's behaviour is unethical. All covered on the Talk page. In terms of real world evidence, they do a good job of incriminating themselves. It can be found with minimal research. For instance their defence of photographs of inappropriate touching they call healing on this page - which another site reveals to be inflicted on sexual abuse victims: http://universalmedicinefacts.com/esther-rockett-byron-bay-acupuncturist-engineering-fear-from-brainwashing-to-false-child-abuse-claims-part-2-lies-about-sexual-abuse-and-incest/ I agree not all of Tribesent's edits have been hostile, but the overall agenda is to disrupt and exasperate. Personally I will be keeping this as a SPA because in the course of my research I've concluded they are highly dangerous. XRii (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate to have to not quite play devil's advocate here. The "was he really successful, or bankrupt?" point doesn't seem valuable in the lead. It's kind of trivial. Does anyone know or care how large L. Ron Hubbard's bank account was at the exact moment the started what became the CoS? There doesn't seem to be a dispute about whether this guy was broke or not, just about dwelling on it in the lead of the organization article. Even if consensus says "keep it there", it's not disruptive to have questioned its placement. If Tribescent harangues about it again and again after a clear consensus emerges to keep it in the lead, then that would be an actionable WP:DE issue. Tribescent also isn't challenging the "tens of thousands" figure, but challenging the summarization being worded in a way that suggests 10K+ expenditures are common, when the sources don't actually say that; it's a legitimate WP:NOR point about extrapolating one sourced case into a general statement (or implication the reader is being lead to infer), unless I'm missing something. Tribescent's wording on that appears to be more accurate, even if some of their other edits, and general approach, are less constructive. Re: Unethical/incriminating: If it can, in reliable sources, be "found with minimal research", then just cite it, and the issue goes away. I'm approaching this from the viewpoint of having dealt with CoS legal and PR machinations in the past. Someone associated with a cult may abuse a system (WP, the courts, etc.), but they can't be punished for legitimately using it. By way of analogy, the judge can't say "Get out of the court room, just because you're associated with that cult". But they can be nailed right to the wall for perjury, jury tampering, or threatening judges. PS: See top of my user page. I'm very, very mindful about external organizations manipulating WP coverage; I consider it the #1 threat to WP's long-term viability. But we can't address that by bending or suspending our own rules punitively toward gadflies on particular topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's the point. Evidence counter to the complaints is amply cited, but the issues don't go away. Those eds seem to wait until discussions are archived to recycle them, I guess in the hope that new editors who've done less or no research will buy their lines - rather than doing the research. They are attempting to manipulate the system outright, knowing that passing editors are hardly going to read all the articles, check all previous discussions - many of which are needlessly protracted - and also research the massive amount of primary source material. I'm wasting time again going over issues that were resolved. Tribesent is playing tag with the other COI ed, Choose12 on the same complaints. The bankruptcy issue has been covered twice already on the talk page and now once here. Using the "former bankrupt" descriptor once in an article is not dwelling on it. The Wiki article says nothing that is not found within the numerous referenced sources. I'd certainly like to see that editor topic banned if we have to continue addressing the same grievances. As for the tens of thousands of dollars for treatments, Tribescent's proposed edit is not in line with the reports either, so I'll propose an edit: "Clients have been reported to spend tens of thousands of Australian dollars on Universal Medicine products and services." XRii (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose strong action at this time (per my above comments). It should be sufficient to issue an administrative admonition to follow the WP:CORE content policies, and to refrain from disruptive editing, including WP:EDITWARring, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and WP:FILIBUSTERing. Consider it WP:ROPE, and remember that COI editing is not totally forbidden in every way, just "very strongly discouraged". If would probably be more productive for this editor to raise concerns on the talk page and back them up with sources than to directly edit the page; and to use the WP:NOTICEBOARDS for PoV, NOR, etc., if he feels that a bias concern is not being addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry I thought that as this WP article had 2 sock puppets identified who had contributed greatly to earlier consensus about edits on its page, I could revisit some of those topics. I see I was wrong and I will try to do better. Very happy to continue as a WP editor, to contribute to other articles, and to pull my socks up.Tribscent08 (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• This remark is disingenuous as the sock accounts were not the ones who corrected your misconceptions, at times with evidence from UM's own materials. XRii (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Why is User:83.100.174.82 allowed multiple accounts? I thought that there was 1 account per user - User:Xiiophen, User:Jonathancarroll.hull, User:Prof.Haddock, User:Imgaril, User:Oranjblud etc. Appears to be both here and on commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.139.9 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe that all of those registered accounts are related to that IP. Sockpuppetry is prohibited, though there are a few permissible reasons to have and use multiple accounts (for constructive purposes). The place to file reports of suspected sockpuppetry is WP:Sockpuppet investigations. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that without more information from you as to why you assert that these are related accounts, this report is going nowhere (here at least). In general, there should be no reason for you (or for me) to know or even guess what IP is associated with a given registered account, so I have to assume there is some behavioral evidence that leads you to think so. This noticeboard generally requires evidence to even consider a complaint like this, much less act on it, and at this moment you are the only one who knows what evidence you may have to offer. General Ization ^Talk 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Block review

I just blocked WP:SPA EDtoHW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) partly because it seems to be a drama-only account devoted to proselytising homeopathy but also because of a distinct smell of duck, I found the styl reminiscent of a few other banned homeopathy trolls including Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his sock drawer. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Had he edited any real article space at all I would have a problem, but JzG is correct. He's NOTHERE. Good block. GregJackP Boomer! 00:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse The WP:NOTHERE assessment is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, clear SPA with no contributions outside of the subject. Nakon 01:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, good call. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse Nothing else to do with this one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Quack quack. Good block, this sort of nonsense needs to be diluted off that talk page to the point it's as effective as a homoeopathic remedy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
• Question Is there a way by which a person may be blocked from general editing and still be able to reply to comments made on boards such as AN/I? GregKaye 11:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Convention is that the blocked individual posts to their user talk requesting that it be transcribed to AN/I. Tiderolls 12:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Occasionally a blocking admin will unblock for the purpose of responding on ANI, usually with an agreement from the party that is being unblocked that they will only comment at ANI, or they will stay away from an area/topic until the ANI is resolved, etc. It is more normal that it is handled like Tide rolls stated. GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tide rolls and GregJackP:, I presume that a blocked editor who is prevented from personally responding to comments made on administrator boards will not automatically be informed of the mentioned convention or that it might be possible to make the mentioned type of request from a blocking admin. GregKaye 05:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually someone else brings it up at ANI. On the transcribing part, anyone can do that, it doesn't have to be an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 05:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Indian films

Baahubali is Telugu only. See List of most expensive Indian films. Please fix all the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Please fix all the articles" is a pretty broad request. Which articles are you referring to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This user is furthering a content dispute that resulted in multiple page protections on List of highest grossing Indian films. Not to mention they're refactoring others comments in the same way as another editor with an account... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so we're in Australia again? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what you mean. This was ridiculous. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Comments_by_Ricky81682. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Ricky81682. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs are ridiculous. Editors have no right to insult all Indian people's like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.216 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• The request seems to be: remove "Tamil" from here. This seems to be answered here. Another IP has made this change. I am thinking to revert it (as the main film article mentions it bilingual). --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the several California-based IPs who has a personal vendetta against Ricky in regards to his conduct on Indian cinema-related topics. I'm thinking a CU is in order here. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've gotten a crew following me back from Indian ethnic groups for months on and off so I think someone is just taking advantage of their chance to get cheap shots. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

166.170.44.216 (talk · contribs) is just the latest avatar of 166.171.122.101 (talk · contribs), 166.171.121.182 (talk · contribs) etc. WP:RBI if the IP becomes active again. Abecedare (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment, Race-Baiting Personal Attacks, Edit-Warring and NPOV Violations

• Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese are tag-teaming me, as retaliation for an edit I made at SPLC that they hate.

After I added a one-sentence, NPOV edit to SPLC, “In a 2010 book-length issue of exposés devoted entirely to the SPLC, the journal The Social Contract dubbed the SPLC, “Profiteers of Hate”[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227514), User:Roscelese immediately reverted me, with the highly POV explanation, “The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.)

I undid his revert, whereupon he got his crony User:Binksternet to threaten and intimidate me on my talk page.

“Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Southern Poverty Law Center, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)”

I responded,

“(Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Southern Poverty Law Center.)” (Binksternet)

“The fact that this is the journal of a white supremacist group is just a coincidence, of course.” (Roscelese, while vandalizing SPLC.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&oldid=675227077 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Roscelese

“The foregoing is an example of blatant, POV editing. I did nothing of the sort. I also added no ‘personal analysis’ whatsoever. I simply added NPOV material that contradicted the SPLC advertisement that you and your cronies seek to maintain. You are clearly bullying and threatening me (not to mention projecting like crazy!), in violation of numerous WP rules, on behalf of your political ally, Roscelese. How many times have you already been blocked, for just such unethical behavior?2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABinksternet

User:Roscelese also insinuated that I am somehow a “white supremacist.”

I would appreciate if User:Binksternet and User:Roscelese would be ordered to cease and desist in their harrassment, edit-warring, vicious, personal attacks and blatant NPOV violations.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, IS it a white supremacist journal? You left us hanging. Parabolist (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No. But don't take my word for it--read it yourself.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• See this post by Doug Weller at WP:AE. That confirms that a very banned user is currently active, and it is likely that throw-away IPs will post rants at various articles and noticeboards for a few days (example). Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am a banned user’s sockpuppet. Either say it openly, or retract your insinuation.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just deleted the IP's personal attacks at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center with an edit summary saying that it is ok to mention, in an impartial manner, that an issue has been raised here. Roscelese's removal of content was of course not vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I just double-checked what the “personal attacks” were that Doug Weller claimed to have deleted. The entire section he deleted was nothing but a verbatim re-posting of the AN/I complaint I posted it here. And of course, Roscelese vandalized my content. But what do you expect someone to say about his own tag-team/stalking partner?

Suprise, surprise, surprise! In saying that he deleted “personal attacks,” DougWeller was lying, in order to mislead readers of this AN/I complaint into thinking that I had done something very different than I had. Lying anywhere at WP is bad enough, but in response to an AN/I?!2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course they were personal attacks - you were using a talk page to accuse other editors of being vicious, bullying, etc. That's an inappropriate use of a talk page. ANI has a lot more latitude, but you still post stuff like that at your own risk. Just as it's a personal attack to suggest you are being stalked or that I'm tag teaming. Not a very clever claim either. And you just reinserted text at Talk:John Derbyshire with a section heading "In opposition to racist soapboxing" which makes unsubstantiated claims that blacks are dumber than whites. Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted race-baiting soapboxing on Talk:John Derbyshire by the complainant which has little to do with the article [285], and the IP has restored it [286]. I don't, however, think this is a sock account, it should be judged by its own actions and should probably be subject to AE sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I ask a fair-minded reader to countenance what Acroterion is saying, and what he actually did. As far as he is concerned, anyone he disagrees with is guilty of "race-baiting soapboxing." But if anything, he's projecting. I did not express any opinion, but only scientific fact. This may come as a shock to him, but psychometrics is a rigorous science, probably the most rigorous one in the social and behavioral sciences.2604:2000:9061:3800:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have The Social Contract Press which includes the sentence "In response, the Social Contract Press devoted its Spring 2010 issue criticizing the SPLC, calling them "profiteers of hate"." added as a 1-off edit by an IP 4 years ago. Searches for this publication only pull up a very small number of hits, suggesting it is WP:UNDUE even in its own article and obviously in the SPLC article. Doug Weller (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that this IP took Bink and me to ANI after one revert each strongly supports the idea that this is a sock, actually. I didn't think it before, but I'm thinking it now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Sock or not, this guy is hateful and WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to do but block him. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE block for the IP. BMK (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a white supremacist group, according to the SPLC. The SPLC describes hundreds of such groups. Recommend this request be closed and the IP be blocked. TFD (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has reverted again [287] at Talk:John Derbyshire. I'm about to leave on travel and don't have time to take action or do the necessary follow-up. Acroterion (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And yet again [288]. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated removal of properly sourced material by Giantsofnigeria on the Muhammadu Buhari page

• Giantsofnigeria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly suppresses encyclopedic information about the Nigerian government's policy in the early 1960s of sending NMTC cadets to non Nigerian (mostly Commonwealth ) military academies for officer training. When you examine the history of updates to Muhammadu Buhari 's page, you'll see an almost tone deaf and stubborn position that Giantsofnigeria assumes. Giantsofnigeria deleted references to NMTC's upgrade and the government policy of sending cadets abroad until Giantsofnigeria checked the Google books link for one of the references I provided. Unfortunately not all references are on Google Books like Dan Agbese's book (which is also cited and gives the example of Ibrahim Babangida who was sent by the Nigerian government to the Indian Military Academy for his officer training after completing his preliminary NMTC training. India is a Commonwealth country and obviously isn't England so Giantsofnigeria's categorical assertion that NMTC cadets were only sent to England is narrow minded and false. There's also the account from Paul Ogbebor that Giantsofnigeria repeatedly deletes and where Ogbebor clearly notes that NMTC cadets were sent to military academies abroad for officer training. I believe more than sufficient information exists (through the 3 reference notes) to put a stop to Giantsofnigeria's tone deaf position to the presentation of factual information and wrongful removal of relevant and encyclopedic information which is against the Wikipedia ethos.

Thank you, Kunkuru (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You misquote footnote 1&2 p235 of the reference book cited (The Nigerian Military a Sociological Analysis of Authority & Revolt 1960-1967 By Robin Luckham), the footnotes on page 235properly states:

footnote 1: The preliminary selection and training courses for officers cadet had been at the African command training school at teshie in ghana. Cadets passing out from this school(and later from the NMTC) were sent to England for further training at sandhurst, Eaton Hall or Mons

footnote2 which I quoted states: The Defence Academy established in 1964 provided a full three years cadet training, unlike NMTC, which only provided preliminary training prior to the sending of cadets to England

Wikipedia can personally contact the Nigerian Army or Nigeria Defence Academy for clarification, who will tell them that prior to 1964 cadets where sent to England for training. Prior to 1964 graduate officers were sent for courses worldwide by NMTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsofnigeria (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to contact anyone. It is the job of the user seeking to add material that has been disputed to cite a reliable source to support that material.--ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's not immediately clear why this needs to be in the article. The info is on p232 of the book mentioned above, where it states that in 1961 the first officer was sent to a staff training course outside the UK (at Pakistan Staff College, Quetta), and by 1963, training was carried out in Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan and the USA, as well as Britain. The NDA, opened in 1964, was "staffed and organised by a military mission from India." West Germany provided training and planes for the newly established air force after 1964. I would oppose the vague wording "mostly Commonwealth", unless of course it is used by sources. Before adding this to the article, perhaps you should elaborate on the significance to Buhari. zzz (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Ps: For future reference, you should not use this notice board unless your editing account has been open for several years. I replied only because I read the article and happened to spot your disagreement, otherwise this would have been ignored, since both your accounts are new. zzz (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations in uploaded images

Jmt0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been taking an interest in the Santo Domingo article this month - in fact, they have only edited this article. Beginning on 10 August they have been uploading images of the city, claiming that they have unknown authors but are in the public domain, despite being modern. I have tagged several for speedy deletion where I could find plausible sources (e.g. File:Piantini - Santo Domingo.jpg, File:Dario Contreras Hospital.jpg, File:Ney Arias Lora Hospital.jpg, File:Agora Mall Interior.jpg - possibly admin only links) but despite a couple of deletions on 11 August, and several speedy deletion template warnings, they have continued uploading. Can other users please help by checking their remaining images, and admins by blocking if necessary? Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look after this. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of sourced content by User:Hippo43 at Backronym

Unjustified removal of sourced content by User:Hippo43 at Backronym:

• In October 2009, he deleted the sourced information that the word was coined in a "monthly neologism contest", calling it spuriously, "cl. rm detail irrelevant to subject" -- diff

It seems self-evidently relevant and encyclopedical to inform about such origin, as opposed to a word coined by a writer in a literary work. (Part of this info was later restored.)

• In April 2010, he deleted the sourced information that "Actual use of the word is found in texts since at least 1994", calling it spuriously, "cleanup" -- diff

It seems self-evidently relevant and encyclopedical to inform about when a word started being used for real, as opposed to being merely cited as a curiosity or as part of a list. (This info was never restored.)

And if one defines "vandalism" as deliberately removing legitimate and sourced content for one own's agenda or amusement, then why shouldn't this be called vandalism? (I suspect that more would emerge if the history of User:Hippo43 was combed.)

I'm afraid that this sort of daily and unpunished deletions is symptomatic of article decay, explains why good editors leave and bad editors stay, and points at why Wikipedia remains such an awful source after fifteen years. 62.147.26.10 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this content removal on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. However I do see a selection of IPs posting there. I wonder how many of these are open proxies? Or did a whole group of random people show up there just by chance? It almost looks to me like Hippo43 is being harassed, an event which is a lot more likely to drive away contributors than this trivial content removal. Also, we don't punish users for their editing choices, especially five years after the fact, or describe them as vandalism when plainly they are not. Please discuss the removal of the content on the article talk page, or restore it yourself. The page is not protected, and anybody can edit it. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting creation of talk page

I'm not able to create a talk page for Denise Milani since it is creation protected. The article itself was able to be created with the help of a sysop (read this). But she forgot to also create the talk page or didn't know that she had to separately. So I'm requesting that one of you do it. Thanks. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the correct place to make this request would be at WP:Requests for Page Protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. However, according to that page your first step should be to attempt to contact the admin who protected the page. General Ization ^Talk 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

But since the protection probably occurred 7 years ago, non-admins can't see who protected the page, and of the admins who deleted it I don't personally recognize any who are very active, you could probably put in your request at WP:RFPP. General Ization ^Talk 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is the protection:[289].It can only be found when searching in the logs. The admin is still active.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sysop Od Mishehu is indeed active. General Ization ^Talk 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite all that, it is still OK to take the request for 'unsalting' to WP:RfPP (I've done the same there, twice, recently), as General Ization explained above. It's just that, in doing that, be sure to 'ping' the 'create protecting' Admin (in this case, Od Mishehu) when submitting the request to RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This page should not have been unsalted

@KrakatoaKatie:, were you aware of the 2010 AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Milani (model)? That includes, or at least alludes to, some material that's quite important in determining whether this article should have been recreated.

• Most important, "Denise Milani" isn't a real person. It's a fictitious identity contrived by an agent/producer, who hired a model to play the role. The name and parts of the biography were tweaked to line up in part with the model's real-world life, but nothing that's based on her "official" information qualifies as a reliable source. A few years ago, the model and her agent had a falling out, sued each other, and put court filings online which pretty much put the lie to much that's in the current article. They've apparently resolved their lawsuits, the court docs have apparently been removed from public view, and the model is now holding herself out as a personal trainer under the "Milani" name. But while the model and the agent were wasting their money suing each other, "Denise Milani" was appropriated as a fake identity exploited by scammers in at least one high-profile case. And, to thicken the plot a little more, restoring the Milani article became a cause celebre at Wikipediocracy.[290] Scroll down that page a little to see yours truly, The Big Bad (Hullaballoo) Wolfowitz excoriated for his arguments in the AFD!
• And the sourcing is ghastly, especially for a BLP. It's cerainly unlikely that "Face to Tits with Denise Milani", from the venerable "Boobs News Center", meets RS requirements. I believe the unsalting was at best premature, and that the article should be removed to draftspace and not restored without consensus at DRV. Thed article was deleted twice, after all, by community consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of the AFD. I compared the draft version to the version deleted in 2007, and it is substantially different and contains references. On my talk page, I said as much to Rainbow Unicorn, and I also said that I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. I acted entirely in an administrative capacity because I was the one who salted the article in May. If you have an issue with the new version (and it is new and completely different from the 2007 deleted article), take it to AFD again, because CSD#G4 does not apply here. As for Wikipediocracy, I neither care nor can control what is said there. KrakatoaKatie 02:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @KrakatoaKatie: I was asking about the 2010 AFD, under a slightly different article title, not the 2007 version. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

Are the facts presented in the current Denise Milani article about the real person (i.e. the model who had previously been hired to play "Denise Milani"), or are they the fictional backstory created for "Denise Milani", or some combination of the two? If the former, why is there not mention of her real name, no mention of her being hired to play a part, no mention of the person who hired her, no mention of the court cases referenced above? If the latter, why are we presenting a fictional person as a real life person without indicating that it's a character? BMK (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Yes, the information in the article is about the real person. I haven't found anything that says her early life or any part of her career is made up. And I believe that the court cases where about the ownership of the "Denise Milani" website, I mentioned it ("In 2010 her website was shut down due to conflicts with its creators."), but not that clearly. And I'm aware that "Denise Milani" isn't her real name, but I'm not sure exactly when she started using that name, probably for her website though. I will look into this, and try to update it with more information to make it more clear soon. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that really does need to be made clear, as does the circumstance under which she began using that name. BMK (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyanidethistles has deleted content posted on Rohnert Park, California

User:Cyanidethistles has deleted content posted on Rohnert Park, California under the heading 2015 Police Controversy even though multiple users have contributed to it and it regards an ongoing public discussion in America. The content being destroyed repeatedly is proper cited and there are no questions about grammar or objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnolson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hnolson: I have added a heading for your posting here; and did you notify Cyanidethistles on their Talk page of your complaint here concerning them (as is required, see top of this page) so they can present their side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you attempted to notify Cyanidethistles, though you posted it on their User page instead of their Talk page. I have moved the notice to the appropriate page. General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This looks to me like a simple content dispute that can be settled on the talkpage without having to resort to AIV. Especially when you see that the content was only removed once, and no attempt at a discussion was ever made. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I started to post this to a current thread about Jimjilin at 3RR (opened by David Gerard), but it's really more appropriate for ANI.

Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months. Though he's been blocked for edit warring in the past, he's a relatively experienced Wikipedian and rarely breaches 3RR. Airborne84 opened an ANI thread about him in December, but other than a comment from Xcuref1endx it did not attract attention or result in any action.

The current 3RR report concerns Jerry Coyne. Here are some other examples:

• At Promiscuity: sustaining multiple edit wars. One is over adding a statement about promiscuity and health: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Another (related) is edit warring to downplay a source which that says the opposite of the claim he wants to press, adding poor sources to contradict one that passes WP:MEDRS, and alleging it's other people mischaracterizing the source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
• There are other examples in many, many articles Jimjilin has edited: Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, Criticisms of Marxism, Michel Foucault, Moral panic, Cecile Richards...
• An edit war at Michael Kempner led Mosmof to open this thread at RSN a couple months ago. In that article Jimjilin added the same thing 12 times between October 2014 and June 2015: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

I believe Jimjilin has some productive contributions to some articles, and I truly hate bringing people here (it's only happened a couple times before), but POV and edit warring constitute a shockingly high percentage of his edits and, judging by past blocks and the long, long list of warnings/comments at his user talk page, there does not look to be any indication of the behavior stopping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That...are a lot of warnings. Copyright violation, edit wars, POV edits...

The diffs and contributions show extensive disruptive editing, and the talk page shows a complete ignorance of warnings.

How did that user get so many warnings without being blocked?

I'd say infinite siteban for long-term disruptive editing, including copyright infringements, ignoring a total number of fourty warnings...--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've had limited interaction with Jimjilin because of a content dispute. I think what complicates things is that the user is actually operating in good faith and doesn't seem to see a distinction between POV and fact, so like Rhododendrites, I don't want to see a long-term block. That said, Jimjilin has been blocked before and all the warnings and friendly links to guideline pages are obviously not making a difference. Mosmof (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mosmof: No, I no longer believe he is acting in good faith. He has made some productive contributions, yes, but the reason I brought the issue here is because of an egregious extent of edit warring despite being warned/advised many times; persistent WP:IDHT as displayed through editing, edit summaries, and talk page posts; [less frequent] misrepresentation of other people's arguments or [claiming/feigning] ignorance as an excuse to continue edit warring (e.g. ~"this satisfies your concern" or ~"let's just go by what the source says" while changing the text to a POV interpretation of the source); clear POV nature of a large percentage of his edits (often tacking on a line of "criticism" based on a single/poor source after well-sourced content); and having to be told everything repeatedly every time, just for him to do the same thing months later. As I said, I hate bringing people to ANI, largely because I can usually find cause to assume good faith on some level or because the issues are compartmentalized in some way, but after months/years of the same, Jimjilin has exhausted that AGF. It's possible something like a 0RR could solve the biggest problems (not 1RR as he's shown a willingness to continue an edit war over long, long periods of time), but I think that would just delay the inevitable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I've come around and support a long-term block precisely because I think he's editing in good faith (no really, work with me here. There are obvious blindspots when it comes to partisan topics, and there's simply no awareness that he's doing anything wrong. If the user was willfully pushing POV and trying to get around policy, then I think there's a chance for change in behavior. But with all the warnings and friendly advice he's received and he still doesn't get it, then there's no hope. Mosmof (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. See: [291][292][293][294][295] GAB^Hello! 22:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

... or this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A quarter of the warnings received would still be grounds for sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what you are proposing, Rhododendrites, but I support whatever block or ban that will stop this editor from editing WP:Disruptively. He is a prime example of a WP:Edit warrior and someone who disregards WP:Policies and guidelines too often; if he had valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons for acting the way he does, things would be different. And even if he were to have valid WP:Ignore all rules reasons, that is not a policy to invoke on every whim or in most cases. For the record here in this thread, I'm one of the editors who has dealt with Jimjilin's problematic editing at the Promiscuity article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Flyer22: The main reason I didn't explicitly propose a block/ban is because I'm involved and wanted to bring it up here to see what other people thought the best way forward would be. Maybe it's better to be specific about a suggested course of action, though. So for the record, I see no indication whatsoever that Jimjilin is WP:HERE. Countless warnings and words of advice over the course of years has made no apparent difference in his editing patterns, so barring a credible expression of a radical change in perspective, I think that if we're thinking about preventative rather than punitive measures, an indefinite block is the only option. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. Support. GAB^Hello! 00:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support whatever it takes to stop the misuse of Wikipedia for POV pushing—I saw the five virtually identical edits (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) at Jerry Coyne and it is clear this editor will continue for months. Those five edits occurred on 6 and 7 August 2015. Adding WP:DUE encyclopedic information is fine, but adding fluff criticisms is not helpful. I picked another article from Jimjilin's contributions and saw two virtually identical edits to again add fluff criticism (1 + 2). Something like WP:1RR could be tried, but that may just draw the process out because it can be used to repeat an edit once a day or once a week. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites seems to follow me around constantly deleting my additions. It appears he wants to silence opinions that he doesn't like. In the Kempner article Rhododendrites claims I "added the same thing". He is mistaken. I made many changes to my additions. I usually respond to comments from other editors even when these comments (in my opinion) lack merit. I did disagree with Rhododendrites in the Promiscuity article, but disagreeing with Rhododendrites does not = disruptive editing. Rhododendrites seems to be breaking Wikipedia policy, he was not honest in his criticism of me, he is not treating other editors respectfully.Jimjilin (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, a thoughtful article by two Phds is "fluff criticism"?! This seem absurd! Here are the authors: Dr. Alex B. Berezow is the founding editor of RealClearScience and co-author of Science Left Behind. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington. Dr. James Hannam is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. He holds a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. Looks like great qualifications.Jimjilin (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My contributions at Paul Singer (businessman), Thomas Piketty, and Criticisms of Marxism I think were well-sourced and they eventually were accepted. In the Paul Singer article I linked to a NYT article amongst other sources. In the Piketty article I linked to another NYT article and a study Piketty wrote with Emmanuel Saez. In the Criticisms of Marxism article I linked to books by Thomas Sowell and Bertrand Russell and an article by Mikhail Bakunin. Can Rhododendrites tell me why he feels these sources are inadequate? Perhaps Rhododendrites is POV pushing and he doesn't like my well-sourced additions because they conflict with his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Laughably, Jimjilin just got blocked 5 minutes ago for exceeding 3RR. The block is just a routine 24 hours. Meanwhile, based on the overwhelming evidence above and the incredibly long rap sheet of warnings, I Support a block, length to be determined by community consensus or closing admin. Could be anywhere from two weeks (escalating in length if problems continue after it expires) to indefinite. Most folks here, and those who have dealt with him all these years, appear to favor indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC); edited 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I checked the user's talkpage and saw our past discussion regarding his POV-push on an article. I was struck by the fact that he wouldn't budge from his POV despite evidence to the contrary from reliable sources that I provided to him. The sources were easy to find but he refused to check further once he had made up his mind. This rigid stance coupled with longterm POV editing and edit-warring is very disruptive to a collaborative project. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment An assumption of good faith isn't applicable, and if for some reason it is, the other issue then is an incurable competence issue. Evidence of this: Here Jimjilin attempts to add a POV and decontextualized Piketty paragraph in the Karl Marx article. Here an editor puts the Piketty comment into context, pointing out that Jimjilin ignored or missed the context of Piketty's opinion and was decidedly POV pushing. One month later Jimjilin then moves on to Marxism and attempts to add this, the same exact thing, proceeding as if his attempts to pull the comment out of context in the other article never happened. The same editor essentially had to repeat what they wrote before. Jimjilin responds as if this was the first time this came to his attention. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough. Indef seems suitable as they have not improved with warnings. They continuely add poor quality sources that support a specific POV and they have tried to remove high quality sources that don't.[296] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, it seems several of you are more upset about Jimjilin's personal views rather than his conduct. I haven't been involved enough to comment fully, but it's just an outsider's observation. Ideloctober (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the level of cluelessness and disruption displayed in that statement says a lot more about the reason you should be sanctioned in the above ANI about you than it says anything at all worthwhile about this case. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you don't really know what you or he is talking about. Ideloctober (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support any increase in block length. Jimjilin has contributed good content before, but he seems to have a serious ideological ax to grind here. The fact he spent nearly a year at Michael Kempner adding the same disputed content over and over again I think shows a complete disregard for dispute resolution and consensus building. Given this sort of behavior is very old, and still occurring, I think it may be time to show Jimjilin the door. Though I would support his continued presence under strict conditions. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I propose this: An indefinite topic ban from political ideologies, broadly construed, an indefinite 1RR restriction, as well as an indefinite allowance for uninvolved adminstrators to use blocks or bans of any necessary length or type for further violations, including indefinite blocks or bans, warnings about copyright as last warning from the community, and a block of sufficient length to ensure that this user reads the warning, this time.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with this is, admins don't have time to babysit individual editors, and the problem/pattern is intransigent, years-long, resistant to a multitude of warnings, and completely unheeding. At this point, it's a NOTHERE situation, and the only remedy is a long long block or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Müdigkeit: I hope you don't mind; I've added a bulletpoint and unbolded your post above. I did so just for clarity, because by not indenting and bolding everything it could give the impression that people below are specifically supporting what you've framed as a "proposal". If you would really like to propose something specific like that, it may be most clear to open a sub-section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Actually it occurs to me that since I'm not sure which "this editor" Xcuref1endx means, he/she may indeed have been supporting what Müdigkeit proposed. Pinging to make sure I didn't make this more confusing rather than less :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support What this editor has said. I believe competence to be a serious issue here as to which I am not certain what a temporary ban will achieve. Despite the constant warning over and over again, the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion. Those that suggest otherwise he interprets as having some sort of conspiratorial tendency to censor information or trying to "suppress information". The editor probably suspects that is what this ANI is about, note how he chose to defend himself here above, he still is working under the assumption he is doing things correct and Rhododendrites is attempting to "silence opinions" he doesn't like. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The first idea I had was also "siteban". However, the user has not been blocked since 2012(ignoring the recent block that is still in effect). Most of the warnings came later. The user has probably ignored further warnings because no action was taken. I also mentioned a block of sufficient length, that doesn't have to be a short block. Probably at least a month.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support long-term block. I recommend at least six months. I would hate to see someone permanently blocked, but conversely a block of a few weeks or a month or two doesn't send a strong enough message of "change your behavior to align better with Wikipedia's policies". I spent some time on Jimjilin's talk page suggesting better ways to get results at Wikipedia, but it appears that he or she is fairly intractable. Jimjilin could potentially contribute in the future, but without a strong message, his or her actions will not change. Jimjilin's talk page shows that clearly enough. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx writes: "the editor is still under the idea that if "someone wrote something somewhere" it is a valid secondary source and its existence provides it with enough weight for inclusion." This kind of vague blanket criticism is of course silly and unhelpful. Xcuref1endx and I have differed many times in the past and he is anything but neutral, see my Talk page. Xcuref1endx has made many accusations against me, most of which lack any merit. At times, for example in the Criticisms of Marxism article and the Piketty article, I think Xcuref1endx has been less than cooperative - he has engaged in what appears to be disruptive editing, deleting well-sourced facts which did not suit his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, I think the extreme hostility of a few editors is driven by their eagerness to cover up facts which fail to buttress their ideology.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I broke the 3RR rule in the Jerry Coyne article. Editor David Gerard kept insisting on a point for which he offered no proof. I should have been more careful.Jimjilin (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are past the stage of trying to determine if there is a problem or not, however, since Jimjilin has claimed that I have made many meritless accusations against him and points to his Talk section as proof, for clarity, here are my edits there: 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6. These have all been responses to the editor ignoring conversation in article talk sections about controversial additions, engaging in edit-warring over contributions that consensus was clearly against, and many instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (see my post above for an example). The editor often interprets demands to proceed along the lines of wikipedia guidelines (such as gaining consensus) as ad hominem attacks against him or attempts to "suppress information" along ideological lines. Though, other editors already pointed that out. Being an involved editor, I will not participate in determining what the appropriate way forward is, the evidence has been put forth, some uninvolved editors should take a look and determine the best course action. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• support long term block i looked at Jimjilin's edit history - their focus here is politics (including social conservative politics) - a topic ban from politics is essentially all of WP for them. Politics is hard enough without this kind of non-collaborative POV-pushing. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx: "Jimjilin and I have some overlapping interests it seems, because I keep coming across a reliable pattern of POV edits followed by edit warring over those edits, sometimes over the course of many months." Note Xcuref1endx's dishonesty at the start of this discussion. He tries to cover up the fact that we have argued for a long time. He didn't "come across" edit warring he constantly made inappropriate accusations of edit warring against me. Please note our discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Piketty) where Xcuref1endx proclaims an addition is "cherrypicked" and then refuses to say why he feels that way or provide evidence for his belief. I think he has been less than cooperative. As always Xcuref1endx accuses others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". lol In this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticisms_of_Marxism Xcuref1endx again refuses to answer straightforward questions, proclaims without evidence that well-sourced additions are "cherrypicked", accuses others of engaging in an edit war. In this same discussion Xcuref1endx dishonestly claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors". He also resorted to ad hominems. Perhaps Xcuref1endx should be honest, seek consensus, stop making baseless accusations, and stop POV-pushing. In both the Piketty article and Criticisms_of_Marxism article I listened to other editors and changed my additions which were eventually accepted.Jimjilin (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So...If anyone wanted a prime example of the WP:CIR and WP:DISRUPT that is at play here, the above response is typical. Editor attributes a quote to me, that was really someone else. Has completely ignored the concerns of EVERY editor here. Still doesn't get the fact that accusations of edit warring against them are in fact legitimate. Forces editors to repeat themselves over and over again. Misinterprets being told to comply with wikipedia standards as ad hominem attacks against him. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, when jimjilin says I accuse others at the drop of a hat of starting an "edit war". Here is the hat dropping: 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block this user clearly doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia (to expound on whatever THE SOURCES say) nor the method (collaboration with OTHER EDITORS) and I'd say they're abusing the site and the goodwill of fellow editors. In my opinion they should be banned permanently. WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND --Jobrot (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose all Draconian sanctions as a general rule, and noting that having multiple noticeboard complaints on the single editor is pretty much a poor idea. Also noting that I do not see any strong consensus here - other than in the Dodge City vein. Let this go now - if the editor is a real problem, he will show that soon enough. So far, IMO, he hasn't. Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to close and enact the consensus. There's a clear consensus that this years'-long intractable behavior pattern despite numerous warnings merits a long-term block. Move for an admin to close this thread and enact the consensus, if their perception agrees with this summation. Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx doesn't seem able to understand that I made many changes to my additions in the Piketty article. I responded again and again to the concerns of editors. Xcuref1endx's dishonesty, as when he claimed I "responded to no concerns of any editors" in the Criticisms_of_Marxism article and his constant inappropriate accusations of edit warring are only part of his hostility towards those who fail to push his agenda.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I haven't violated the 3RR rule in some time (since 2012). I hope Wikipedia is hospitable to editors who have a point of view not shared by the majority of Wikipedia editors.Jimjilin (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block I know I said I wouldn't vote but I kind of had to. However, it should be noted that I am an involved editor. I say indefinite because there is a WP:CIR issue that I do not think an extended amount of time away will fix. I second Softlavender's move to close and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin is not getting the purpose of this encyclopedia. Are there any admins there that can wrap this up? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Requesting closure - It doesn't seem like this thread is drawing any additional participation. To me, consensus seems pretty clear, but either way this could use a close. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is my show trial over? Am I guilty of thoughtcrime? lol I'm guessing the admins understand that disagreeing with Rhododendrites/Xcuref1endx does not = edit warring.Jimjilin (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinite block This editor has engaged in extensive edit-warring, despite warnings and blocks and has not changed. And their comments above about a "show trial" and "thoughtcrime" show a derision for other editors. TFD (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Call for a Close

Nothing new is being added, an Admin should take a look at it and enact consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I need more context before I can make an informed decision. Can someone please explain to me in detail what the problem is? I read the above discussion and it sounds very confusing. It probably seems similarly confusing to other editors who are not directly aware of this story. Thank youZigzig20s (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As a thread that's been open for several days, awaiting closure, which includes the opinions of 16 editors (excluding jimjilin and me) and references a lot of diffs, a request for more context kind of needs more context (not trying to be difficult ... I just don't know what you could want). Can you be more specific about what you don't understand about the claims made (or the claims themselves)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. you were canvassed. Jimjilin found a back-and-forth between Zigzig20s and I on my talk page over the White genocide article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What is the main beef against that editor? Multiple reverts happen by mistake sometimes. Is it a matter of conservative-leaning content? If so, what is it precisely please? (I would strongly oppose a block for "conservative bias," as an encyclopedia must remain fair and balanced...)Zigzig20s (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It is not a matter of conservative leaning content. The reasons for this have been documented above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, you are an "involved editor," as you put it. I also read above, "in the Criticisms of Marxism article and the Piketty article, I think Xcuref1endx has been less than cooperative." I need more context/specific details here from a neutral editor to be able to make an informed decision.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption, Racism and BLP violation by User:Mrandrewnohome

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am bringing this here primarily because the user in question has chosen to upload a file Jews_own_media.png to the commons which is a chart entitled "WHO CONTROLS YOUR MIND" which lists on the order of 300 living people, some 200 or so of whom are marked in red as Jewish. The file's sole use is here where it is meant to elicit comments on Jewish control of the media. The user has previously been warned that the reference desks are not a forum.

The file itself is synthesis, and is neither sourced nor neutral, and is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have nominated it for deletion from the commons, here.

Prior recent posts by the user (contributions) also include:

"Final Solution" and

Why are European Jews White which was created by IP User:69.121.131.137.

My concern is that the current file and question at the Reference Desk be deleted. Whether the user is here to contribute to the project is a secondary question. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Judging by that final solution thread, it seems the user is here to try and conduct some research. However, the image itself seems offensive. I assume someone has requested deletion by now at the Commons. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a request for deletion at commons, in the meantime someone else has deleted the thread. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am Jewish by ethnicity and feel a cultural connection with the Jewish people. I have no hostility to the Jewish people and posted a question which many people have, which is why are so many people of Jewish persuasion or dissent in high profile positions. I'm intending to make it the focus of my undergraduate dissertation about anti-Semitism in the modern world. I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media. As my post on the humanities reference desk made perfectly clear, I am not hostile to Jews or Judaism. What I asked may well have cause offence to some, but I feel that it was a perfectly legitimate question - why Jewish people appear to be so proportionately influential and if any peer-reviewed research had been done on the subject. I'm sorry if I uploaded the file in the incorrect manner - however, just because the file could be considered offensive is no reason not to upload it - we have dozens of images which may be considered offensive that are considered legitimate. My interest in the final solution stems from the fact that over 80% of my family who lived in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were killed as part of it. The question asking why Jewish people are white is, I feel, a legitimate one given that they derive their heritage from areas in the Middle East; however, I am prepared to concede that it isn't the finest or least controversial thing I've ever written and I apologise for that. Once again, I'm sorry for any offence caused and if the image has been improperly uploaded or is considered inappropriate then I have no objections for it being speedily deleted and I apologise for uploading it in the first place. However, I would like my question to be re-uploaded onto the reference desk as I feel it was tactfully worded and legitimate - the reality is that as a tiny minority, the Jewish people exert considerable influence in numerous fields, often for the benefit of humanity - I'm just curious as to why this is the case when they make up a tiny proportion of the world's population; I can think of no over group which has been so successful that is so small in number. Andrew 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain why you claimed that an image widely found on far-right websites (e.g. Stormfront) was your own work? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That file can't be relied upon as accurate, if it's indeed from the fringe. I've voted to delete it. GAB^Hello! 00:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are all aware that Stormfront and the like aren't reliable sources - that isn't the issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake for not clarifying, that was the claim made above: "I'm well aware that the file was contentious as I pointed out it's obvious bias - irrespective of that, it doesn't stop it from being an accurate illustration of Jewish presence in the American media." GAB^Hello! 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The chart is titled "Who Controls Your Mind? 2013". How is it determined that these people—both Jew and non-Jew alike—"control your mind"? That part seems to be left out. Are we to assume that all the people listed (Jew and non-Jew) are of evil intent? Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's conspiratorial nonsense. Note the speculation on whether certain media figures are gay, and the idea that having a "Jewish connection" is somehow sinister. This has no place here, that much is clear. GAB^Hello! 00:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The label you misread said "goy" (non-Jewish), not "gay". I'm not taking any position on the chart, but I did want to point out that there's nothing about sexual orientation in this chart. General Ization ^Talk 01:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I uploaded it as a self upload because it seemed the easiest way to do it. At no point did I infer that Jewish influence in the media was a bad thing, just that they are influential. Note also that the people listed in the table are either Jewish, or of Jewish descent. I didn't find the table from what I would consider to be a racist or far right-wing source, I found it on metapedia, their list of Jewish media executives in America page. I was unable to post the link on the reference desk so chose to upload the file instead, and I admit that I didn't follow the correct procedure. I refer to my previous point that just because an image or visual display of something is objectionable is no reason to censor it, particularly if it could be used to illustrate a point. I acknowledged that the source was potentially shady - however, after doing google searches for most of the names on it, they were, lo and behold, of Jewish persuasion or descent. I was also careful to phrase my question delicately and gave no indication that I held racist or anti-Semitic beliefs towards the Jewish people - I even put a header at the foot of my question that I wasn't looking to inspire racist rhetoric. I may not have followed the correct upload procedure for the file, and recognise that it is a contentious issue, and for that I apologise. However, to use that as a basis to assume that I hold racist beliefs is idiotic and potentially libellous. --Andrew 01:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I never insinuated/assumed anything about your beliefs, and I'm not going to get into whether or not the content is even accurate. Regardless, metapedia is by no means a reliable source. GAB^Hello! 01:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote this headline used the word racism. Also the chart is clearly labelled who controls your mind as a way to entice readers into viewing the image. The same, or similar, expression is used in reference to other people, notably Rupert Murdoch in the UK. Perhaps if you'd researched some of the names on that list, despite finding it objectionable, you'd realise it is on the whole accurate. And as an encyclopedia that promotes democracy of knowledge, accurate information shouldn't be censored. I admit that it was unreferenced, but given that it wasn't used to illustrate an encyclopedic article, renders that point mute. --Andrew 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going, against all my instincts, to assume good faith here, and take you at your word that you are actually asking a question because you are writing an undergraduate dissertation on "anti-Semitism in the modern world". And on that basis, offer a few sage words of advice: Get a fucking clue. Don't use crap from Neo-Nazi websites as authorities on who is or isn't Jewish. Don't use Wikipedia as a source for information. Use your fucking College library. Act like a student, not a clueless internet troll. Even if this achieves little in the way of results as an essay (which frankly I have my doubts, if you really are that stupid), you might stand a slight chance of learning something about your heritage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you'd bothered to read my response it wasn't published from what appeared to be a far right internet source. You claim to be assuming good faith, yet appear to strike a particularly angry tone in your messages. I never claimed that it was authoritative either - I claimed that it was an easy way to illustrate a point that I conducted prior research upon. I see that you've failed to applaud me for using the referenced wikipedia and external articles that also illustrated my point. Instead you use the table that I didn't know was used by right wing propaganda sources, which I then verified was largely accurate, as a basis to illustrate a point that I am a racist - which you infer by the phrase going 'against all my instincts'. If you'd also read what I wrote about my dissertation I was referring to Jewish people who held influential positions in society in general - i.e. the basis of my original question. I wasn't overtly concerned with the Jewish presence in media outlets, I was using that as an example to illustrate a point. The fact that Jewish people are perceived to have so much influence is, by the use of far right sites, clearly a bone of contention for those of anti-Semitic persuasion and conspiracy theorists. Therefore, it would be a suitable topic to see whether this perceived influence is one of the many causes why anti-Semitism proliferates in so many cultures. Referring to somebody as stupid for raising a question that has been postulated by potentially millions of people frankly says more about you than I - perhaps a dissertation on the subject would have disspelled these myths in an academic and peer reviewed forum. If it were up to you, we'd never know as you seem to want to stifly objective, impartial research based enquiry on the subject. I doubt you even read the question that I posted on the reference desk, which I consulted on the basis of seeking out whether it would be a feasible dissertation project by asking if there were any published academic materials on the subject --Andrew 01:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in engaging you in debate. Posting racist crap on our reference desks can't be justified by claiming to be a student writing a dissertation, end of story. If you are too stupid to understand why, that is your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fact that you don't seem to understand that the general intent of the question was not in the slightest racist is unbelievable. I've given an account of my actions and attempted to justify them in the best way that I knew how to. I acknowledged the source was biased and used to push a controversial point. That doesn't make it in any way racist. Far-right media outlets use KKK images which, while racist, are used to illustrate points. And how can it possibly be racist if, after conducting a search of the majority of names on the list, possibly be racist. Also if raising a point which many people consider to be valid on the reference desk constitutes racism, even if written in an impartial way with a specific request that racist rhetoric be avoided, then sue me --Andrew 01:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Stop digging yourself further. Unless this is some experiment to see how far you can make a distinction no one cares about, User:Mrandrewnohome, we have an image on commons and a discussion here that no one wants to have. The image is up for deletion there. The discussion is a closed deal, we can move on. Otherwise, we can't read your mind here but from a conduct perspective, that's two huge strikes in the "we're not interested in you here" column. I don't see any indication that this is solely a problem editor so as long as the stick is dropped NOW, I'd chalk it up to an abhorrent, emphasis abhorrent lapse in judgment for today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would like Jytdog to leave me alone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About three months ago I started getting involved in the acupuncture article, which has been a very contentious page. I ended up writing everything from the History section down. During this time, I started receiving emails from other editors, often subtly (or not so subtly) encouraging me to support the author's point of view. I told them to "knock it off" here. Jytdog either didn't see it or ignored it and sent me more incredibly loaded emails. For example one email contained the text:[[297]]

"I thought you were a pretty clueful editor. I am really blown away by this and this. How can you let yourself get involved in a health-related article, much less a controversial one, when you are this clueless (and I mean that) about how we source health content in Wikipedia? You are destroying your credibility, in my eyes at least. I can only imagine that other Project Med editors are thinking the same thing. I am at least telling you."

This is just a sample. In other cases he said he was "disappointed" in me shortly after I disagreed with him. After a bit of a spat on my Talk page, I closed the string, since it was only going to produce more drama and I thought that was the end of it.

Afterwards, Jytdog started stalking me to pages like Natera and Greenfacts. These pages were not advertised on any noticeboard and the only way for him to come across them would have been by stalking my contribs. He started arguments related to the Greenfacts page,[298] but also seemed to want to start arguments everywhere about everything. Sure he does normally patrol COIN, but does he normally respond literally within minutes[299] [300] with pretty much the best comment he could say to goad me into argument?[301] I didn't even want this article to be created, but since I was out-numbered and the page was created anyway, I spent more than a dozen hours adding 244 sources and now he wants to delete it. (BTW, there are plenty of sources that do discuss McKinsey alumni as a group). In other cases I'm having a civil discussion about a heated topic and he parachutes in with more drama[302] with comments like "You have nothing to gain from this and respect to lose"[303]

These are only examples I have on-hand. When this behavior is taken as a whole, it shows a pattern of stalking, harassment, revenge editing and intimidation. We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation. This kind of behavior has a chilling effect on open discussion, among other things. I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your concerns with Jytdog? Sam Walton (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Jytdog from all articles related to alternative medicine until the time comes that he can behave himself and act like a kind, compassionate editor who is here to help others and improve articles. Bad behavior from this user has been going on for years and it's time to nip it in the bud. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jytdog, this is the same pattern of behavior that he has exhibited numerous times with numerous editors, including Atsme and PraeceptorIP to name a couple. Viriditas is correct on their view. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm dense, but I see no evidence which would remotely justify a topic ban. It seems both Viriditas and GregJackP have had numerous editorial disputes with Jytdog in the past, which would likely explain the rush to sanction on their part. Sad, really, but probably par for the course on the dramaboards... If you have a chance to get rid of someone who's challenged you in the past, you jump at it no matter the evidence, right? Yobol (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want, either Viriditas and I can provide diffs showing this behavior. Why do we put up with it? GregJackP Boomer! 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please notice the little game Yobol is playing. He has ignored all of the evidence of bad behavior by Jytdog offered by CorporateM at the beginning of this thread and instead blames those who have addressed it. Responding to Yobol will only encourage more of this kind of intentional red herring distraction. The fact remains: based on the evidence offered by CorporateM, a sanction is required. We should only be addressing this evidence and not indulging Yobol's strategic, tactical distraction from the topic at hand. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Except that I specifically said that the evidence presented did not merit a topic ban on all alternative medicine articles. I'm dropping out of this conversation now, as the stench of the predictable drama board antics of enemies calling for blood has me a bit nauseated. Yobol (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wish that Jytdog had some speed between idling and 80 mph. He does so much good in pseudoscience areas, weeding out the garbage from the science. I just wish he was a little less zealous, that he acknowledged that some grey area exists. You don't have to challenge every new editor. Assume good faith and all, not everyone is trying to destroy the project. But, I'll admit, this is my general recommendation to every editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose a topic ban but would definitely support an interaction ban based on this set of circumstances. An editor who has made it clear that he wants to be left alone by another specific editor should have that right. If CorporateM is making disagreeable edits (and I am not assuming that he necessarily is), there are plenty of other editors in the area who can discuss this with him. bd2412 T 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would support an interaction ban per BD2412. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose that someone will point out there have been issues between Jytdog and myself, and there have. But, after I started involving myself in sections on this page I also received an email from him. It was about a section he had started on Doors22. The emails were an attempt to get me to change my mind on supporting a ban that Jytdog wanted but I felt a lesser sanction was more appropriate. I still have them, and while I thought they were inappropriate off wiki communication, I chalked it up to a one off thing. This section has me wondering if they were not. AlbinoFerret 02:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here's a thought. CorporateM started this thread by writing "I'm not sure admin intervention is warranted yet, but I wanted to voice my concerns and start a discussion on this issue." How about doing that first, and then deciding what to do about it afterwards? You know, as in hold the trial first, and then bring out the noose. Or is that too radical an idea for ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: When I posted this just a couple hours ago, I did notice that Jytdog has previously been warned at ANI for incivility,[304] but I was not aware of what other editors seem to be depicting as a similar behavioral problem in engaging other editors on alternative medicine pages. Back when that page was hot, I actually spent a lot of time discouraging administrative or COI sanctions against editors from both sides; many of those sanctions were being lobbied for by their political opponents. This was the only editor I felt actually engaged in inappropriate conduct. A few comments I have in general (not directed at Andy specifically):

• I'd like to re-emphasize this part of my post: "We need Wikipedia to be a drama-free place that fosters open discussion and encourages participation." This is true here as well.
• In almost all cases where two editors don't get along, an IBAN is a very low-level sanction. Wikipedia is plenty large enough for editors that don't get along to just avoid bumping heads
• A topic ban I see as a more severe sanction and given a history of politically-motivated block-attempts in this subject area (and a lack of familiarity with the accusations flying around), we do need evidence that similar behavior has previously occurred and that prior warnings have been ineffective at preventing the behavior from continuing. Links to prior ANI strings, diffs to similar abusive comments, etc. are needed for folks that are not familiar with the context. CorporateM (Talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see my fan club has come out to play here. CorporateM, I don't agree with all of your description of our history, but I am not going to take up the community's time sweating the details. Big picture - I am sorry for bothering you; I do understand that my email to you was unwelcome (you too AlbinoFerret). CorporateM, I will not interact with you going forward, unless you ask me something. I apologize for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog:. That is very mature of you. I recommend we close this string as resolved with a voluntary IBAN. I do hope at some point this will be ancient history and we'll be able to work together again, but I'm glad you agree right now the best thing for us to do is simply avoid each other. I did end up at Uber (for example) without realizing you were previously involved, so if something like that happens, you can just give me a polite ping and I'll go away. CorporateM (Talk) 04:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Concern about how it was logged

I looked at the log of the IBAN, and I am concerned, mostly procedurally, about the way that it was recorded there. It seems to be a one-way ban, placed on Jytdog. That is not how I read the discussion above. It seems to me that a plain reading of what CorporateM says in the final post of the discussion is that the voluntary interaction ban is agreed to be two-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, I missed CorporateM's statement about "avoiding each other". I'll change the log, and the closing notice. BMK (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Isapk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer.--Cahk (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Umpire Empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Umpire Empire is a new editor(in fact he used to edit as an unregistered user before creating this account)He readded the Vlach claim about the origin of Spata family(it was deleted by another user). The used source doesn’t mention any Spata family.I deleted his edit and explained the reasons at the article’s talk page.He readded the Vlach claim without any clear explanation.Then I tried to give him some advice about this case at his talk page and his answear was:” Unlike you, I'm here to build an encyclopedia, which includes replacing pseudo-history with real facts per the very same Wikipedia policies you ignore when it suits you”,” you give Albanians a bad name”.This user said :” I'll take a look at the Spata article and correct it if there's an error” but he didn’t.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard Rolandi+'s immature behavior. First and foremost, it's really insulting for Rolandi+ to be giving "advice" to me about following Wikipedia policies when he blatantly and consistently defies them ([305] [306]). The user has an Albanian ultranationalist agenda (thus giving Albanians a bad name; see [307] [308], etc.), which is why he doesn't show the entire discussion he started on my talkpage where he first threatened to report me and even ignores the fact that I improved ([309] [310]) the Spata family. Also, it's acceptable practice to replace pseudo-history with accurate facts on serious historical and biographical articles per the Wikipedia policies that Rolandi+ ignores (like WP:RS, WP:V, etc.). I urge the administrators here to simply ignore Rolandi+ and spend their efforts or more worthwhile things. Umpire Empire (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn’t improved anything at Spata family article.You just deleted your edits after I reported you.You continue offending others and saying that “I give Albanians a bad name”.You claim that I have an Albanian untranationalist agenda because I edited at Spiro Koleka.Now it is clear that you have problems with the Albanian history.Just see your words:” replace pseudo-history”.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lying won't accomplish anything Rolandi+ since I told you I'd work on the Spata family and also told you to stop harassing me. And it's obvious that you're an Albanian ultranationalist, because you behave like one by conveniently ignoring facts and rules that don't suit your pro-Albanian worldview and reporting anyone you see as a threat to your agenda. I'm done feeding the trolls and at this rate, you won't have me to kick around anymore. Umpire Empire (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unjustified deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've copyedited material in All Along the Watchtower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding its relevance to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Music of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Most of the work consisted of copyediting, not insertion of new material. Doniago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted both sections I edited claiming lack of citations, throwing away both my work and that of previous editors. The generally accepted way of handling such cases is tagging with "citation needed" or a similar template, allowing for further edits without destroying potentially useful material. I approached the user on their talkpage, but they disregarded my comments and continued to remove the sections. Deleting relevant, informative and well-phrased content merely for lacking citations (which, by the way, there's more than a handful of in the articles those sections link to) is a lazy, uncooperative act that results in a net loss of good Wikipedia material, and should be the last resort where other means (tagging, checking linked articles, contacting the relevant editors, doing the work yourself) have failed. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No administrator action is necessary here; the simple solution is to add a source to the information when you re-add it, the text is still available in the page history for you to use. Maybe a citation needed tag would have been better, maybe not, but at the end of the day the information needs a citation and Doniago was perfectly within their rights to remove the text given the lack of sources. Sam Walton (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added some sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today's featured article is Departures (film). I made a change based on the MOS for large numbers and the current consensus of the film's infobox and a grammatical change too. This was reverted by User:Curly Turkey with the edit summary concluding with "take it home". I changed it back (per the MOS) AND raised this issue on [CT's talkpage pointing him to the MOS of large numbers and the film infobox. I was then greeted with this reply. Being told to "fuck you", being called a troll and an asslicker. I can let alot of things slide, but these personal attacks are not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Context is everything: Lugnuts has a known history provoking these things with me. The important issue is that he began an editwar and at no time tried to deal with the alleged "issues" on the talk page—nor is this the first time he's pulled this kind of thing with me. In this case Lugnuts has targeted the TFA to invoke a maximal reaction. The editwar itself is a Personal Attack in this context, and by a repeat offender aiming at causing maximum distress while the article in question is in the spotlight. Put another way: Lugnuts' behaviour is openly disruptive in article space; my behaviour is restricted to my user page, and was the response he was trying to provoke. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The only past dealing I've had with this editor was several years ago (I had to look at their block log to remind me - I thought the name was familar). Regardless, that is no justification for the attacks. How did I "target" TFA? I'm a very active member of the Film Project and saw a film article on the main page. I made improvements based on the current MOS. And for my trouble, I get those comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put up with editwarring from this Lugnuts on two occasions at How a Mosquito Operates (leading to a block), agressive behaviour at WP:TFD, and more editwarring and aggressive behaviour at Talk:Main Page in the past. This is the fourth editwar Lugnuts has tried to provoke me into, and the editor has more than enough experience to know that such disagreements must be discussed on the article talk page, and not through multiple reverts. Check out Lugnuts' blocklog, primarily for editwarring and personal attacks—he knows the rules, so can only be deliberately breaking them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know the rules, and I know that it's simply not acceptable to make the personal attacks that you did when I made those edits in good faith. I had no idea you had any edits on this article. Is it your article now? Does that make it OK to call another editor all those things you posted in reply to a geninue question? It's not an editwar when I conform to the long established MOS and invite discussion from yourself on your talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There we have it, folks—he does know the rules, and simply refuses to follow them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I do follow them. You asked Crisco 1492 for help on the matter, saying that (I'm) "this fucking wrong", and yet Crisco agrees with me and the MOS. Does that mean he's also "fucking wrong" too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He said "we should round up if we're going to round", which is not what was disputed (I wasn't rounding). The primary dispute is over "over" vs "more than" (as you're aware—you quoted my "take it home"). So why are you ignoring my invitation to take it to the talk page? Just as I suggested—you're looking for drama. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Context: Crisco accidentally "restored" the number 69 with the edit summary "source says 69 million, and MOS:LARGENUM says implies that rounding to the nearest million is appropriate in this context", mistakenly believing the dispute was about which way to round, and then corrected himself by rounding up to 70 and leaving the comment "the source gives 69.9 million, so Lugnuts is correct that we should round up if we're going to round." I never rounded either way—I restored the original, unrounded number. Lugnuts is aware of this context and is trying to take advantage of Crisco's mistake. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Curly, there is nothing you had to say that could not have been said without name calling. To be 100% clear you may be blocked for engaging in personal attacks even if you feel that you have been provoked. If you think Lugnuts is acting inappropriate then draw attention to it, or express yourself in a manner that does not constitute personal attacks.

If you are being baited then you are taking the bait, don't take the bait. Chillum 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I lapsed for a single posted comment and my pottymouth has since ceased. Lugnuts' behaviour, on the other hand, has not—he is clearly unwilling to discuss the issue, continued his editwarring, and is clearly continuing to bait me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is possibly the only time in my life I will ever type this sentence: Chillum is talking sense and you should listen to him. (FWIW, I actually agree with Lugnuts here; we shouldn't have an overly-precise dollar gross, since much of this film's revenues will have been in Japan and fluctuating exchange rates will mean the dollar figure will never be that accurate.) ‑ iridescent 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • So Lugnuts has succeeded at his game: the primary issue is not over the number, but over the grammar, which he refuses to discuss despite an invitation at his talk page. Am I free, then, to revert the grammar issue if I don't touch the number (which I never considered important, just pointless, and not the MOS:LARGENUM issue he misrepresented it as)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to discuss - hence why I posted on your talkpage in the first place! But when I was greeted with the gross personal attack, I decided to back away from this foul-mouthed editor and wait until he calms down. WP:NPA means just that - no personal attacks. There's no excuse for your outburst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no excuse for editwarring, which preceded the outburst. If I apologize will you do the same and revert? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) Two wrongs dont make a right. The issue at hand is your behaviour. The comment linked is way out of bounds. I suggest you apologise and dont put conditions on it. AlbinoFerret 16:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No, my behaviour cannot be removed from the context of his behaviour—otherwise this turns into a race over who can file at ANI the fastest. The most important thing is: whose behaviour is disrupting Wikipedia? Mine sure wasn't. Editwarring always does. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) May be I'm missing something but I don't see any attempt at discussion until after this thread was started [311]. Perhaps WP:BRD would imply Lugnuts should have stopped after being reverted and perhaps there was personal contact on user talk pages, but I always find it difficult to give either side much credit in WP:Content disputes when I visit an empty talk page (or would have if I'd seen this discussion earlier). It's far better to actually try and discuss disputes, which for disputes surrounding articles should nearly always be on article talk pages, than to say I was willing to discuss but the other editor wasn't. Ultimately whoever should start a discussion, someone has to so it's far better to start the discussion yourself on the article talk page rather than to insist you would have taken part in the discussion, if only the other editor had started it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nil - Yes, you missed the conversation I started on Curly's talkpage straight after the edit on the article in question and before coming here. That's when Curly stooped to going straight to the personal attack instead of discussing this like an adult. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nil: there's context here—this is the fourth edit war Lugnuts has started against me. Tell me how coolheaded you'd be. Regardless, I did start a talkpage discussion. Lugnuts' "response" is totally divorced from what it's responding to. He's obviously not interested in participating in the discussion in a good-faith way. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Two reverts is not an edit war, its a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken: 3RR is not what defines an "editwar", and context is everything: this is an editor with a history of editwarring who was clearly showing the familiar pattern. It ceased before 3RR because I refused to be baited again. Ignoring context will only show these situations to proliferate---please don't contribute to that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, context matters. Looking at the last 100 edits, it was two reverts on it. That is no indication it was an edit war. If it were, you also would be guilty. In fact, you are guilty of violating the WP:3RR [312][313][314][315]. AlbinoFerret 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Come again? Those last two are reverting clear vandalism by two IPs, and the edits are entirely unrelated to Lugnuts' edits (they have to do with the age of the main character). What are you trying to pull here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting is undoing another editors edit. The IP editors are editors and the edits dont appear to be obvious vandalism. If we AGF the IP editor could have thought the age was correct, are you claiming another of the exemptions? There is also no requirement that the reverts all have to be of the same editor or material. The top line of WP:3RR states "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." AlbinoFerret 18:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to read through the guidelines again. Under no circumstances can those edits be interpreted as "editwarring". If you don't believe me, then go report it here now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And this is now being discussed on the talkpage in question. Now that Curly has side-stepped the personal attack issue, please can an admin review this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An observation: Lugnuts edit wars almost every day. Sometimes gets on your nerves. 117.216.148.48 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to prove that? AlbinoFerret 17:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You can find plenty if you scan through his contribs. This one is funny (not an edit war though) and proves he craves credit and attention. 117.216.148.48 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not up to others to back up your accusations or go looking. Accusations must be proved WP:ASPERSIONS. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and removal of comments at Talk:Departures (film)

This section moved to here from bottom of page. BMK (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, Lugnuts WP:CANVASSed The Rambling Man‎[316] to take part in a discussion at Talk:Departures (film). The Rambling Man responded a minute and a half later, immediately taking Lugnuts' position[317] (how could he even have read the discussion in that amount of time?). He then removed a question of mine asking why he was canvassed—not once, but twice: [318][319], replacing it with aggressiveness bordering on personal attacks, and has continued with more.[320] This is especially disturbing coming from an admin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What's more disturbing is that I've seen no edit conflicts here yet I've posted the same response twice, without it appearing. I also really appreciate Curly Turkey's assumption of bad faith by heading straight to ANI about something we could have actually discussed. I have nothing more to add, as usual this will descend into some kind of circus no doubt. All over the lamest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And that's saying something. (P.S. " (how could he even have read the discussion in that amount of time?)" it's called "grammar"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

something we could have actually discussed: the diffs make amply clear that The Rambling Man had no intention of "discussing". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems, based on your recent editing patterns, that you should remove yourself from this discussion. It's not going "your way" (tm) but you refuse to let it go. I'm sorry it's causing you so much distress, but it's better to just drop the stick. Perhaps you could explain why I saw my orange banner three times despite refreshing my talk page three times and even removing your unsigned, unheaded "warning" message? Or perhaps you don't have enough good faith left to address that problem either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll just have to let the diffs and your undisguised aggression speak for themselves. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, along with your bad faith, misunderstanding of grammar and inability to properly sign posts, create sections on talk pages etc etc. Of course, we're none of us perfect. Good luck with your journey, the remainder of my Saturday evening without pedantry and meaningless, endless discourse over the trivial awaits me, especially considering the comments directed to you and you alone in the section above. Please excuse me. P.S. As for "aggression", how does "Jesus fuck you, you troll"' and "is there nothing we can do about this asslicker" and "he's this fucking wrong—both with his ass-backwards and erroneous prescriptivism" compare, all of which you managed to achieve in a single edit? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Which had come to an end long before you were summoned (and which I'd already offered an apology for), and which was on my talk page, not the discussion page under discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Real aggression. Real personal attack. As I suggested, it looks like you need to take a long break away from this. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block of Curly Turkey

I am uninvolved in this and only became aware of it when it showd up on AN/I. Curly Turkey has made a personal attack at Lugnuts. [[321] He also violated the WP:3RR [322][323] previous version [324], 3rd revert [325] previous version [326] 4th revert [327] previous version [328]. No 3RR warning was made during the reverts, but he is aware of the rule having been warned for edit waring in the past,[329] I suggest a block of 1 week. AlbinoFerret 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After thinking about it, it deserves more than a week. I am opposed to an indef, perhaps the discussion will suggest an appropriate ammount of time. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd say that personal attack alone deserves something approaching an indef block. Unless of course, the editor to whom it was directed has taken no offence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor to whom it was directed did take offence, which is why he brought it here. For god's sake admins, you've let this slide into a long, sidetracking discussion about article content. Just judge the offender's offensive and abusive language as requested, and block. Your dithering over making a decision looks very much like you're trying to punish the objecting OP because of his past behaviour. If you'd made a prompt decision, you would have defused his frustration and made him less likely to offend in future. Akld guy (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose a block at this time. This is an outrageous edit and should never be repeated. The edit-warring is also a concern, but again FA writers are usually afforded some leeway in "defence" of their work on TFA day. I would be happy with a guarantee that there will be no more edit-warring, insults or assuming bad faith on the part of people editing "your" article. It isn't yours. [Disclaimers: I have reviewed a couple of Curly's articles at FAC and recently reverted one of his changes on the article before I noticed this discussion, see discussion at article talk.] --John (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)(struck through part of disclaimer, --John (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you John but if you read the sections above this he is defiant and sees nothing wrong with his actions. He is trying to shift the blame on the other editor and is not recognising his bad behaviour. I will also pAlbinoFerret 21:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been defiant—I even offered a truce. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that extremely unpleasant rant-edit needs some kind of sanction. There's no behaviour that justifies that kind of response, and it never, ever improves the situation. There's history here – maybe Lugnuts is a bit of a trial sometimes – I wouldn't care to make that judgement and I don't think it's relevant. I can think of several editors towards whom I'd like to direct that kind of abuse, but when the red mist descends I take a few minutes out and I can restrain myself. Anyone who can't restrain him/herself should either learn to do so, or stay away. You wouldn't say that to someone you work with because you'd get fired, so why say it here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to apologize for my personal attack on Lugnuts and promise to disengage from him. My record shows I spend my time contributing content and rarely visit ANI or any such forum—I am not a threat to the community. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I support a block. I think it this warrants it. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block; he apologized at 22:06 ↑↑ -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block - I'm not sure a block would have been warranted in the first place, but with the offering of an apology, certainly not. BMK (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block with the recommendation that Curly Turkey stop reacting. The next time this happens, take a step back, let time pass before replying or just ignore it. You can't do anything about or control Lugnuts; you are only responsible for your reaction to him, and if you pause and reflect at the moment instead of instantly replying or taking action, you will find a different outcome more amenable to both parties. Just as music occurs in the empty space between the notes, harmonious editing can take place in the long pauses between action and reaction. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block. This should never have been up for discussion. The only way to stop abuse is to stamp on it immediately. Admins need to stop playing favourites, stop harbouring old personal grudges, and start acting impartially. Akld guy (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose block -- slow down there. Curly Turkey's comment was in response to what he obviously perceived as an editor messing up an article he worked hard on (I am not commenting on the validity of that perception, as I don't know the full story). This isn't Curly's modus operandi from what I can see, so I'm hesitant to reach for the block button, as it wouldn't be preventing disruption, in my opinion, only a usually productive editor from being productive. That isn't something we should strive for. Rather, I think Curly should be strongly advised to take a breather when such situations arise, gain some perspective, let things cool down, and then come back. It's not worth a block, and I think you will agree. I accept that Curly says he will leave this thing alone, and think that his record is enough for me to trust him on that. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly do not agree. Akld guy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is possibly the silliest proposal I have ever seen at ANI, and my suggestion would be that people try to work out Wikipedia's purpose before assuming the role of hall monitor. A glance at the article shows that Curly Turkey should be thanked for developing yet another FA, and Lugnuts should be asked to avoid taking the TFA day to attack a content developer. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, it was Saturday night in the UK and I didn't get a chance to respond. I don't accept Curly's piss-poor attempt at an apology. He only did that to escape getting blocked. There was no call for the attack. Ever. So the message is clear - make a gross personal attack, say "sorry" (eventually) and it's all OK. Glad that's all cleared up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Considering you continue to be uncivil with him as well, you might want to stay your hand with those stones you've got there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A prolific and disruptive sock, returned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Yunus-bek Yevkuryan (talk · contribs)

Creating dozens of nonsense articles, the content of all of which translate as "What you Innings does not seem to understand that I will never stop destroying their heads . Temporary restrictions do not interfere one bit. Even long-term prevention is . You boys should just give up this point."2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nakon looked after this. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overly-aggressive block of User:128.177.161.187

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:128.177.161.187 (likely a shared IP) has been blocked for one month with no recent warning, by User:Materialscientist, using a rationale of (literally) {{anonblock}}. Since there appear to be no grounds for such a block, I have therefore asked them to unblock, but they have declined. I set out my reasoning in that discussion. I should be grateful if someone would review that and the block, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block - It's a soft block. Given the vandalism and prior warnings, it seems very appropriate. As usual, Materialscientist has demonstrated good judgement.- MrX 12:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What vandalism? What "prior warnings"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This IP's contribution history is not long, if you just click through them you will find vandalism, non-constructive edits and most importantly a lack of constructive edits. If you look at the talk page history you will see the warnings. This is an absolutely routine response to common behaviour from an IP. The soft block allows for registered users to use the IP. I really don't see what the fuss is about. Chillum 18:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No vandalism; just some newbie "test" edits, some failed attempts at productive edits, and indeed some productive edits with no problems. This is not worthy of any block, much less a month-long block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Problematic block Appears to only edit on the order of once per month - meaning the "block" accomplishes essentially nil. IPs with far worse behaviour get far shorter blocks (usually 31 hours or less), so - unless this block is intended to be punitive - it is not a "standard" sort of block on an IP at all. It should therefore be reset to only 31 hours maximum, as I see nothing so egregious as to warrant a full month block in any event. [330] is the IP's sole edit since 15 July. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The purpose of the block is to both prevent further disruption and make them realise that their behaviour isn't acceptable, making the fact that they on average edit only every three weeks or so a very good reason for blocking for a month, and not for just 31 hours (they wouldn't even notice they had been blocked, if they were blocked for 31h...). Thomas.W ^talk 14:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If the intent is to make sure they notice the block, then all offenders should simply get indefinite blocks in the first place - but that is not how the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this are worded. Note the post on their talk page - which did not say they were being blocked instantly. "Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Thorium, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)" was instantaneous with the block (also logged at 23:04). AFAICT, the Thorium edit may have seemed to be nonsense, but it did not verge into overt vandalism which would be a reason to block. The administrator who issued the block is "involved" on the article in question with multiple edits - some of which are reverts of non-utile edits, but others are actual substantive edits, and, if I recall correctly, a person who edits an article should not also act as an administrator regarding that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is "them"/"they" in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Whoever is using that IP. Since we can't look through the wire and see the face of the person who is typing the messages we have to go by behavioural evidence, which in this case is a comparison of the edits made by the IP. And if all edits made by an IP over an extended period of time are of the same type we assume that it's the same individual who is doing it, and act accordingly. There's no way to be 100% certain that it actually is a single individual, but from Wikipedia's point of view it doesn't really matter if it's a single individual who is vandalising or if it's two or three individuals who do it. Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • All edits by this IP are not "of the same type". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Of course support block When an IP does the same vandalism for months on end you can assume it is the same person. When a person only contributes vandalism they may be blocked without warning, though this user did get warnings. This will prevent disruptive for the duration of the block, if it is not long enough then it can be extended. This is a pretty common response to IPs that don't have positive contributions and have a history of negative contributions. Chillum 14:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What "same vandalism"? Why do you refer to "a person", singular? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ensdorse block and suggest a tap of the cluestick for Andy Mabbett.BMK (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block Are we really looking to unblock a vandal? Trout for proposer. AlbinoFerret 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that it's Wikipedia policy that good faith edits including new-users' tests, should not be described as "vandalism"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ten months of vandalism is more than enough to show this wasnt good faith edits. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good block A block is supposed to prevent disruption. I don't think it makes very much sense to go through the regular process of four warnings when the user has a history of persistent unconstructive behavior despite multiple warnings. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon) (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, you refer to single user. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Because it doesn't matter at all whether it is a single user or multiple users. If it is multiple users that have been disrupting, or a single person, is immaterial. The fact to be considered is the IP's persistent unconstructive edits despite numerous warnings. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon) (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • User:Pigsonthewing, I also want to point out that it is being decided by ArbCom the appeal needs to be from the [user]. I believe this was already the case but they are clarifying it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What on Earth does that have to do with the case in hand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • That the appeal should be filed by the blocked party, whether that is a reduction, outright vacating etc. The last few months edits have appeared to be non constructive I highly doubt they are going to change in short order but it is possible and that is one reason we suggest creating an account when there is an issue like this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • What appeal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I am pretty sure Bucket is referring to a decision that applies to arbcom enforcement, not regular blocks. Chillum 18:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with block but not with myth that four warnings are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • what "four warnings"? Prior to this block, the last warning was given on 8 June, over two months ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • He said the myth that 4 warnings are required. There is no such requirement. Chillum 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • What does that "myth" have to do with this case? To reiterate: the IP was blocked with no prior warnings in the preceding two months for a very minor transgression. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block, would have agreed if this was a short period but it appears to being misused for months. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - We don't know that there is one user behind the address. It doesn't matter. Sometimes a school has a group of vandals. This was recurrent low-level vandalism. In view of the infrequency of use but slow persistence of weird edits, a long block was in order, whether of one human or a school with a cadre of teenage vandals or what or what. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse block The tragedy of the commons in action. Those people editing constructively through this address can simply create an account. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spamming IP and their persistence in adding a non-used source into articles

This source is being continually added to articles, including FA's, where it is not being used. The IP appears to be one of many sock puppets and is adding the source into articles for no other reason other than to promote and spam. 90.201.206.155, 90.193.120.97, 86.5.179.88, 84.92.105.164 are just four of the many IP address' being used. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A source does not need to be used as an inline citation to be useful. However, I agree this wholesale introduction to every article on silent film actors seems suspicious, and should be in a Further reading section rather than shown as a reference. General Ization ^Talk 19:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That view is purely subjective as the articles I write omit sources which are not used. Otherwise where would one stop when it comes to adding books that aren't used? If we were to have a featured article on, say cookery, the "Further reading" section would run into thousands. A line has to be drawn and the earlier the better, as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, not really purely subjective. See WP:GENREF. "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a 'References' section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." This assumes, though, that the cited reference is actually used as a reference by the article's creator and/or a later contributor in the production of the current article. That does not seem to be the case here. General Ization ^Talk 19:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: If you Google the author, he's a major contributor to IMBD silent film articles[331], and the book does come up on Amazon. However, as it is already out of print, and the listed publisher on Amazon (Anchor Print Group, Ltd.)[332] is a copy shop, [333] this is reasonably certain to be the author adding his own work, especially if it's not being used in the article. considering he embellished his own IMDB bio with trivia on his grandkids only he would know, [334] I'm not surprised. MSJapan (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted also that this activity has been going on since early 2013, perhaps even longer, and affects nearly 160 articles. I haven't confirmed but have the sense that none of the edits are recent. General Ization ^Talk 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And I have a sneaking suspicion that the author's work may be at least substantially based on data gleaned from Wikipedia articles, so a bit of a circular phenomenon has occurred here. General Ization ^Talk 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason why something should be done. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Look here [335] this IP added the book to over two hundred articles. Amazon.uk says the book covers 3,700 actors in 470 pages, so that's about 8 actors per page. Hardly the level of in-depth coverage that would be useful to a Wikipedia editor. I think it would be a good idea to remove the book from the 15 150 or so articles where it's currently extant. Perhaps this is a candidate for an edit filter? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken. 84.92.105.164, for one, is quite prolifically active, and doing nothing but adding this ref book title to articles as recently as today. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this "source" be removed from all articles. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (by numerous editors), except two cases one case where actually cited as an inline ref. General Ization ^Talk 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If this source has been written based on information taken from Wikipedia, then I would question its reliability per WP:RS, so I'd be inclined to to remove that one too. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That was pure speculation on my part (though I'd be willing to wager it's correct). General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The edit filter idea makes sense to deal with this seeming abuse going forward. How does one request one be created, and what would you propose as the rationale for it? The author has (hypothetically) written several books, so what would be used as a reliable filter expression? General Ization ^Talk 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to get the ball rolling on creating an edit filter. Edit filter mavens include @Reaper Eternal:, @Ponyo:, @Nyttend: Pinging these three as potential helpers. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all technically savvy: I haven't the slightest clue on what to do. My interests with edit filters involve identifying false positives; I don't know how to prevent them or how to write filters in the first place. But Reaper Eternal should be able to help, as he's demonstrated in the past :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be of help either. The only reason I have the edit filter manager box ticked is to view private filters in relation to SPIs. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Has the user been requested to stop before? I can set up an edit filter easily enough, but if theres only 160 edits in 2-3 in years it might be overkill. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi Rich and thanks for taking an interest. There's actually been hundreds of additions and re-additions. For example, 82.4.233.181 (talk · contribs) added it 188 times in November 2012 and 86.5.179.88 (talk · contribs) added it 243 times between January and October 2013. People must have been removing the material as it gets added. Asking him to stop has been tried, for example on User talk:82.4.233.181 and User talk:84.92.105.164. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I set up 720 as a public filter. It's currently log-only, I will probably set it to disallow some time tomorrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I have also set myself a Google calendar reminder to watch out for these edits, and will remove them if any slip through. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ramzan Kadiryan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Creating multiple copies of gibberish articles.--Cahk (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:194.61.173.253 needs review: contribs show continual mix of sneaky vandal edits, and serious good faith edits, since 2011

Useful links/templates:

• 194.61.173.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 194.61.173.253 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

There's no block log, deleted/revdeleted contribs and only one talk page comment (unhelpful edits, 2013). A disproportionate number of edits are blanking or vandalism or at best dubious for a bona fide editor of 4 years standing. The latest was two section blankings in mid July 2015. Equally, a ton of edits that looked like more of the same, turn out to be apparently bona fide when I checked, and seem to show thoughtfulness, involvement and good faith. Some I just couldn't find a definitive answer. I'm genuinely confused, so I'm posting it here for others to take a look, or the user him/herself to comment. Hopefully the user will understand (if good faith) that this is part of keeping things good and will understand why I'm so puzzled by their editing history. It's also possible their IP address is shared and this is the work of two editors, one of whom should get an account to prevent this confusion? Some reverts may be needed.

Examples:

• Blatant obvious vandalism:

adds "except for (persons name)" as attack on a person by that name

attack on footballer in subject's BLP (added "a selfish, unmotivated, lazy and highly unlikeable character who is symptomatic of the modern footballer")

• Looks like sneaky vandalism:

changes named club from Southampton to SUnderland, but references show the former was correct [336] (en) [337][338]

• Blanking:

[339] (two edits, deleting sections on two of fourteen construction regulations, unlikely to be accident or have good reason.

section blanked, unlikely to be good reason

infobox items blanked

• Unclear whether or not good faith:

changes name of a museum

changes years and names in a list, could be genuine update or not

changes memorial attribution from being replica of cannons from Siege of Lucknow (India and deathplace of article subject in 1857) to replicas from the Crimea War

• Appear valid:

updating tense to reflect event has happened

changes religion and employer of a BLP, but sources appear to support the edit [340]

changes "local government act" to "local transport act" but latter appears correct

change of date, but as many reliable sources seem to have one date as the other hence AGF

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick WHOIS search will show that the IP is registered to Newcastle City Council, which would easily account for the varied editing style, given that many government employees will presumably be behind this IP. BethNaught (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you posted yours about 7 mins before I posted the above, while I was writing it. Let's close this and I'll amend my TP post to reflect that better, too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as likely to be library users and schoolchildren as local government employees. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the good faith edits on talk pages from 2013 were signed User:TWAMWIR, which given their user page suggests that the IP is almost certainly a public terminal. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Philm540

This user User:Philm540 has used multiple 2600:1002 IPs and was blocked for disruption and legal threats, as they continued to use different IPs sometimes more than one a day (refer Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philm540) a range block 2600:1002:B000::/39 was put in place for a month by User:KrakatoaKatie. A discussion was started on a proposed site ban Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891#Proposed site ban of Philm540, although supported it was archived before being formally closed. The range block has expired and the user has returned editing the same subjects as User:2600:1002:B02C:A89C:CBEA:4CB:FD93:286C.

Just a few questions and requests:

• The main account User:Philm540 was never blocked altough the IPs being used where, perhaps it is time to block now they have returned.
• Can somebody please set the range block again as the user is clearly intends to continue to edit despite what measures are taken.
• Do we need to start a proposed site ban discussion again?

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur that we need to set the rangeblock again, this time for a longer period. The Philm540 account is not being used, which is likely why it was not blocked. If there's a vote, count me as supporting a site ban. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for information the user has used four different IPs already today and despite the blocks for legal threats and disruption the user continues to claim he cant be blocked or reverted as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Thorne&oldid=675600944 your dangeriously close to violating my rights as a citizen of nation that signature to international aggreements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I hardblocked the /39 range for six months. I'm about to leave town for a few days and likely won't be able to check in until I reach our destination, so if someone needs to modify the block, go ahead, but we may need to manage this range with IP block exemption. I'm unwilling to tolerate the legal threats and disruption this user causes, so I also support a site ban. KrakatoaKatie 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As before we have had only support for a site ban, anybody know who needs to review this and what needs to done to record it? thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

CloudKade11

At WP:AIV, I was directed to move my report of this user here.

• CloudKade11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - performed sneaky vandalism on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. After being given a final warning based on a long history of vandalism, he then performed more sneaky vandalism and blanking of talk page comments while pretending to be incompetent. I propose the user be blocked indefinitely.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I accept the user's explanation about a misbehaving browser extension, however I suggest that they should agree to disable it while editing or be indef'd, to prevent further disruption of this sort since they edit in areas where that sort of thing is likely to happen again. I think the "blanking of talk page comments" diff actually shows that the comments were moved down the page, rather than deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may just be me, but I would call "You're clearly sociopathic" a personal attack. Also, I don't buy his add-on excuse. But that may just be me... Kleuske (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Not just you. I am on the same boat as you are. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How can you not "buy" facts? The extension is very much real. One simple Google search would help you if you need clarification. And yes I called him a sociopath but he did call me a troll first and attacked another user's work by telling him it wasn't his "personal sandbox" for him to "experiment" his "gimmicks' on when he was merely looking for opinions on how to improve the article. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

William S Saturn has been engaged in verbal arguments with other users in the past and is currently engaged in one now with another. His sole purpose is to get me blocked because I praised the other users new styling of an article. And like I said, I've disabled the extension and if you don't believe me it's called "The Trumpweb". They have the exact same quotes that were added into the article accidentally. I don't see how anyone can't believe me when you can literally go and see for yourself, or hell I'd do it myself and take screenshots of how the extension works if that's what anybody wants. Not hiding anything. And yes I have a history of vandalism but in this case it was purely accidental because I had no idea the extension would do that. Everytime I left a valid comment/response that pertained to the article, a quote would be added somewhere randomly on the page. As you can see I was legitimately confused as to why I was being called a "troll" and a "vandal". Later I responded with what I think happened and surely enough it did. But yeah I'm not taking anything user William Saturn says seriously and neither should any of you. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

From a quick test I can confirm that the quote additions are from this extension; despite only adding a short comment to the bottom of my editing window, the diff showed a whole load of quotes added down the page. This is the kind of thing CloudKade11 should be more wary of, but (without having looked at this in any detail) it seems an honest mistake. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I promise it will not happen again. I disabled the extension as soon as I realized what happened. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP: AGF is not a suicide pact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at what this guy (I think it's very obviously the same person since he copied the exact template I left on his talk page) did to my talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do anything. My I.P. is 2602:306:32da:6710:280f:2b86:51b2:ca90 CloudKade11 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that my talk page would get attacked with the very same warning template I left on your user talk page. Based on your history of vandalism, I have a strong suspicion that you did it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I just gave you my I.P. and it obviously doesn't match the person who did do it. I find it coincidental that you're so quick to put the blame on me when you're currently engaging in arguments with several other users yet while trying to get me blocked for something that was accidental as I have proven already. Also, many people easily have access to that template I believe. And my vandalism history is my fault, I take full responsibility for it, but just because I have one doesn't mean you should assume I'm at fault for everything without any actual evidence other than your "suspicions". CloudKade11 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Saturn, don't accuse him of this, I know you like accusing people of sockpuppets (me) without any basis to such accusations. There is a line of rational criticism.   Spartan7W §   05:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Except for the fact that they were indeed socking. I've blocked CloudKade11 for two weeks and the alternative accounts indef. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring across multiple pages

User:TBM10 and User:151.227.129.136 (or similar IP) have been edit-warring across multiple train station articles - Chelmsford railway station, Hatfield Peverel railway station, Witham railway station, Colchester railway station, Ingatestone railway station and possibly others. This seems a continuation of what was previously reported at AN/I. If I still had my admin hat they'd both be getting a block for edit warring. Could someone take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a great deal of my time and effort improving these and countless other articles over the years and have tried to seek help to block this unhelpful IP user or warn them over their unhelpful edits to said pages, but I have not received any help. As a long-time and helpful editor on this site I would be very disappointed and would quit WP. --TBM10 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Once again there's an obtrusive editor over on the Frankfurt School talk page causing problems. The user is Ideloctober (talk) - all the usual symptoms are present: Brand new account. Demands the article be changed without providing any sources for their arguments or referring to any Wikipedia policies. Refuses to even visit the talk page guidelines. Has decided Wikipedia is part of a Marxist conspiracy, and is now putting in repeated edit requests and generally refusing to work with others (resistant to all attempts at explaining the purpose of Wikipedia's policies, even from editors more sympathetic to their personal viewpoint). Any aid in restricting this uncooperative editor from further disrupting the talk page would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, cool, you went here too. I never said Wikipedia was a "Marxist conspiracy", I said that you being given sole editing privileges on the article, while being an outspoken pro-Marxist Liberal who stated that Capitalism would not be permitted to be discussed in a positive way, is extremely biased and unfair. Calling the article a conspiracy theory has caused mass amounts of mockery and jeering by other groups and forums, as it's one of the most blatantly biased and skewed viewpoints I've ever seen on this website in my 10+ years of anonymous or accounted editing here. You, a Marxist, are the only one allowed to make changes to a section about Cultural Marxism, and forbid anyone from calling it more than an anti-semitic racist conspiracy theory. Your bias is sickening, and I suggest your editing privileges on said article be revoked, and that you be required to follow by the same rules you preach to the others. Your personal attacks (calling me and another anti-Semites for requesting a title edit?????) as well as your overt bias are both not permitted on Wikipedia. You are accomplishing nothing by attacking me and making fraudulent edits other than proving Leftist-Marxists as yourself are entirely opposed to free, unbiased speech and, as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol, Che, Castro, Sung, Jong-il, Jong-un, and every other Communist leader in history did, you too prefer censorship and false sources in order to promote your own agenda. That much is obvious. Ideloctober (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I remind you that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a Marxist and you're not helping yourself attacking other editor's alleged bias. For both sides, diffs would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideloctober, without citing any sources, your arguments on the Frankfurt School talk page simply come across as whining. You say you have been on Wikipedia for years, so one would hope you're familiar with the concept of verifiability. And you use the phrase "neutral", so one would hope you understand that neutrality means reflecting what is written in reliable sources. Since you have provided no sources of your own, and given no serious comment on sources currently used, all you've done is expressed your personal displeasure with the viewpoints present in the article. Continuing in this manner will inevitably lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia, although continuing to assail Jobrot on a personal level may lead to that even sooner. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I never called you an anti-semite. I have in fact explicitly stated that the conspiracy theory doesn't always boil down to anti-semitism (diff of that). Also I've said specifically that I don't have any special privileges here on Wikipedia (diff of that). I was certainly never given "sole editing privileges on the article" and that's not something likely to happen on Wikipedia. Please learn to respect Wikipedia's policies and processes if you wish to contribute.

As for Wikipedia inhibiting your free speech - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX for your free speech. Speech on Wikipedia is restricted to what adheres to Wikipedia's policies and sourcing requirements... which are there to ensure accuracy and verifiability. NOT to facilitate your personal opinions - or for that matter, MY personal opinions. --Jobrot (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and Ricky81682 hit the nail on the head. The rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims made by Ideloctober here on this page are troubling. When you accuse someone of making racist (or other types of slurs) comments, you should really provide the links to back that up. I personally could not find that. And when incredibly incorrect statements like an editor being given "sole editing privileges on the article" are made, that really hurts your credibility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was contemplating coming here too about "Ideloctober"(who probably also edits logged out with 74.129.76.107. The edits at the George Lincoln Rockwell(An American Nazi) are also problematic. The sources used and edits there are definitely not compatible with Wiki policies. I don't believe any amount of discussion will persuade this editor. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic? Are we on Tumblr now? Never use the phrase 'problematic' unless you want to appear as a stereotypical eFeminist. My edits to Rockwell following a friend editing on the same local IP are sourced with one influential blog and two books both published by Universities. I know how to cite, I know how to source, and I've used them. There are articles with claims far less sourced than mine, and with all this evident Liberal backlash I'm beginning to doubt Wikipedia's true neutrality. There is no solid source that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, considering many other sources from the Right or Radical Right back it up. But you won't use those sources, will you? No. It's laden with Left, Marxist, and Progressive sources, which are all fine, but the Right is "too biased". Again, with the Liberal bias you allow to run rampant, perhaps this is why thatm ore than ever people don't take Wikipedia seriously. Sure, I think your "Progressive" agenda is the definition of backwards and wrong, but I'm not arguing to attack your ideas or include sources or comments attacking you, I just want neutrality, and you know as well as I do that passing Cultural Marxism off as a pure conspiracy theory by virtue of pro-Marxist sources alone is extremely biased, and it's befitting the agenda you're attempting to impose, Jobrot.

"Base and Sperstructure in the Marxist cultural Theory", Raymond Williams http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm The Free Congress also has many discourses on the topic.

But those are probably much too unfavoring of Marx for you to accept, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. The accusations of bias and personal attacks are out of control. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop focusing on Jobrot, start confining your comments to content and sources. You can do this, or abandon the topic area, or you can leave Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll abandon the topic area. Please wipe this section out whenever possible. I didn't mean to cause such a fight. Ideloctober (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has continued to take it upon themselves to make personal commentary/attacks against me elsewhere (specifically on their talk page). --Jobrot (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The editor continues to use blogs(anthonyflood.com) for sources on the George Lincoln Rockwell article. Using blogs to claim that the US Government assassinated the American Nazi leader here(noncounterproductive.blogspot.com), same here, adds more conspiracy claims with another blog here(anthonyflood.com) and keeps adding again and again. Claiming that JFK and MLK get conspiracy theories, why not an American Nazi(edit summary). This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia or not competent. Dave Dial (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The sources were from two University press books. If you believe Rockwell being a Nazi means he shouldn't have the same treatment other assassinated politicians and political activists do, then that does seem a bit biased. However, I've stated I'll cease editing the articles in question and have said nothing else on the matter. I'm not entirely sure what the continued ganging-up will accomplish here. I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect this is due to my anti-Liberal views on a site where Liberal bias has been accused for over a decade. Quite like going to a baking convention and stating you despise bakers. That's not to say it's the reason or only reason, but I do have a feeling anti-Liberals aren't looked too highly upon here. That being said my edits and wished changes have had nothing to do with politics, but simply establishing neutrality where I feel it isn't present. It's very hard to collaborate in good faith when off the bat it seems you're being told your opinions on a subject are wrong, and when you're outnumbered as I am now. Lastly, I have indeed stated I won't make any more edits to these articles, and apologized to Jobrot for making him feel I was personally attacking him. This really has no further purpose. I didn't intend on being disruptive or causing conflict, and admittedly I got a bit heated on the topic. Ideloctober (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to Ideloctober's problematic editing, he is clearly a WP:Sock. I support indefinitely blocking the Ideloctober account. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I've apologized and stated that I will let it go. I think this has been resolved. Ideloctober (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Comments like this do not lead one to believe that you are letting it go. Rather the opposite. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Am I not allowed to talk to other users? Am I not allowed to tell someone to not let people get them down? It didn't even pertain at all to this situation. I deleted my comment, if that fixes things. Ideloctober (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to conduct a personal political witch-hunt. You've been brought here for accusing others of promoting a political bias (whatever the bias may be, but in this case for having a Marxist and/or Liberal bias) your response to this has been to accuse others of calling you antisemitic which you've absolutely failed to prove. You've been warned several times in several places and claim to have changed your ways - yet you are still conducting an anti-marxist witch-hunt and making accusations of political bias. Wikipedia is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND - yet you continue to use it as one despite the best efforts of your fellow wikipedians to coach you against this behaviour. I believe you will continue to have difficulty understanding what the problem is with YOUR actions in favour of perceiving a Marxist bias everywhere and editing for political interests rather than for the interests of creating neutral encyclopedic content. I think a ban would be appropriate. Please keep your political views OFF Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I did. I already apologized to you and have several times stated I will refrain from editing the article any further. This is the only time I've ever gotten political on an issue, and it's only because it is indeed a hot-button topic for some, and I shouldn't have let that get the best of me. I'm sorry, really, although I just don't see why this has to continue. Ideloctober (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, a Non-apology apology (in that you apologized for my perceptions rather than your actions), and as of today (the 9th of August) you're still using Wikipedia for political purposes WP:BATTLEGROUND, as exampled in the comments Ebyabe has brought up. This process will end when the admins make their decision. --Jobrot (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way are you ever going to produce evidence that I called you antisemitic? --Jobrot (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you have really learned your lesson, please edit some different articles so you can demonstrate this. Actions speak louder. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Still fighting the good fight. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted any and all politically charged comments. I don't have to apologize for calling you a Liberal, because that isn't an insult. I thought you were one, and whether you are or not, it isn't meant to be an insult whatsoever. I would appreciate it if people could stop nitpicking comments I removed on my own accord as ammunition here. Whether or not I think the site has a Marxist-Liberal bias or not is just that, thinking, my opinion, and you have no right to dictate what I'm allowed to think and not allowed to think. I apologized for bringing in political bias, I removed my comments, and now I'm quite curious as to what else I've apparently done wrong that requires this report to be kept open while snarky contributors come in with jabs and comments unrelated to anything else that's going on. Ideloctober (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand why personal politics and ideological accusations of your fellow editors should be kept away from Wikipedia and out of the editorial process (hint: WP:GOODFAITH exists for a reason) - then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you? I hope level heads (and policy) prevail, and that the WP:DEADHORSE of explaining WP:SOAPBOX to you can be given a rest. --Jobrot (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to be serious issues here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - Given the issue stems across multiple pages and the editor claims to have been editing anonymously for 10+ years now, yet still hasn't learnt the basics of Wikipedia policy and conduct (let alone how to perform citations diff) - I'd say a ban of both the user and their IP is in order. WP:NOTHERE WP:LISTEN WP:SOAPBOX WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Jobrot (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated before, I will no longer edit said political articles nor make any contact with said users that have been involved with this. From what I read in the guidelines this is the best way to let it go and move on, and it's what I'll do. Ideloctober (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that you've edited a couple of Nazis pages (adding your own positive spin that didn't meet WP:RS and has brought you up for edit warring), the Administrators notice board, and the Cultural Marxism/Conspiracy section of The Frankfurt School page... I'd say the bulk of your edits are political articles... the only other edit you've made was for McClintic Wildlife Management Area. Even though the sample size is small - it still suggests you'll gravitate back to your interests here - which are political in nature. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - Editor seems to think wikipedia is a ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND and not certain as to why that is an issue in creating an encyclopedia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Seems wrong to silence certain voices. Isn't freedom of speech preferable?Jimjilin (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated earlier, Wikipedia is not a loud speaker for personal views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions. Free speech here is, and should be limited, held captive by policy. Particularly WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains many opinions. And who decides which facts are valid, which facts are included? Wikipedia needs a variety of viewpoints, don't you think? Not everybody in the world is a white male atheist pretending to be neutral. lolJimjilin (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block "Blocks" on users with under a hundred edits sounds more like "He annoys me" more than "He will not follow wikipedia policies and guidelines" at this point. Nor do I even see sufficient angst to warrant a topic ban here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It indeed does. However, core content policies should be always followed by editors. Similar to laws and regulations implemented by a government of a country, here on Wikipedia policies govern what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:RS is the specific policy which helps us decide which sources are valid. -- Chamith (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - There is a hierarchy of sources with peer reviewed academic sources being at the top, then credible journalistic sources with good quality verified editorial oversight, then experts and institutions, then the wider web. By now you should have known this, and the fact that you don't speaks to your incompetence as an editor and the importance of WP:CIR in deciding your case. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Your comments on the matter sound a lot more personal than a basis of rule-breaking. I've been on Wikipedia a long time, but it isn't a "serious" thing to, as in some kind of occupation or extremely strict zone. If I have a source and an article misses something, I'll add it. I haven't got all the policies and rules memorized. I'm "casual", you could say. Of course, that's not a good thing or entirely justified, and I SHOULD take it more seriously, not get angry over edits, and adhere to the guidelines once I've got them all down. However, I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia editor nor someone who takes it as seriously as the more seasoned editors may. This is why I think it's very odd that you keep throwing personal insults at myself and others, attacking some supposed "competence", and generally carrying out a very personal and belligerent attitude. You could've just pointed out the policies in simple explanation, telling me exactly what I did wrong and how to correct it; helping out the newer editors, that's been a staple of Wikipedia for a long time, and it isn't until recently that I even spent more time on Wikipedia. I'm still pretty much new. What you did, however, was throw out vague terms or acronyms with no explanation as to how they affect my case whilst sprinkling insults, sarcasm, and hostile implications throughout. I was wrong to get too emotional about political editing, but I've admitted to that. I even apologized for calling you a Marxist. Yet, you've not apologized for your comments to me, your belligerent behavior, nor have you tried to make it clear why I'm wrong. Instead, you send out long rants to me or those who support me, again tossing around acronyms and policies without even explaining how they relate to the situation, and even though this scenario was more or less resolved over a week ago, you're the only one continuing it, insisting I be blocked for a lengthy amount of time over wrongs that I've long since apologized for and not repeated. As I "let go" the topic of the Frankfurt School, perhaps you should just let it go too, Jobrot. Ideloctober (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have let it go, as illustrated by the comment I left here the other day. However my comment was accidentally deleted by another editor. I've now re-instated it, and I suggest you head my warning... and for the record I did specify which policies you were breaking, and advise you to familiarize yourself with them, providing you with direct links to the policies in question (it's up to you to familiarize yourself with them, as they constitute good quality editing on Wikipedia). I am currently still of the opinion that you don't cite sources enough, but I'm happy to see that you're still editing... and I'm also happy to let this matter go. Keep contributing productively and I'm sure things will go fine for you. --Jobrot (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact my very first comment to you of any substance was one explaining policy diff. Anyways, good luck... and remember to have WP:GOOD FAITH in your fellow editors (especially when they're talking policy, it all comes down to policy). --Jobrot (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I linked to many quality sources. And don't forget, bias and conflict of interest can undermine even the most august sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/Jimjilin (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the site you've linked to is known to conduct "post-publication peer review" and for that reason can't be considered a high quality source in of it's self (although any papers that appear on that site AND have other peer reviewed credentials may be quality sources, but that website alone - due to the nature of post-publication peer review - isn't necessarily indicative of quality). Post-publication peer review differs from standard peer review as it entails the academic findings being uploaded (published) FIRST, and then "reviewed" on a web 2.0 user generated content basis... compare this to the traditional academic peer review system (of reviewers being verified anonymous experts in their fields), and it's pretty obvious why post-publication peer review has come up for question: [341] [342] [343] [344]. Anyways, Post-publication peer review has all the problems of Wikipedia essentially. Take this example of a "researcher" who is solely targeted at having an anti-gay agenda (and even goes to the irrational lengths of reviewing news stories for some reason and claiming that has some sort of scientific validity): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cameron%20P[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=14723445

However this is all fairly irrelevant to your consistent failure to meet Wikipedia policy (note: you don't get to pick and choose which policies you follow). If you want to attempt to dismantle wikipedia's WP:RS standards, you won't find any help here.

Also, please visit the Talk Page Guidelines and format your comments on talk pages properly by indenting your comments. You have been here too long for basic formatting issues like the nesting of replies to STILL be an issue. I believe this demonstrates your consistent failure to WP:LISTEN. --Jobrot (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So by my count that's 4 supporting a block (Flyer22, Ian.thomson, Xcuref1endx and myself) 1 opposing (Collect). However Ideloctober has said they're willing to stay away from political articles (although how that'd be policed I'm not sure). I guess if anyone has further troubles with this editor, or if they find themselves back here for political edits - further action should be taken. For now I'm fine letting this editor off with a warning. Ideloctober DO NOT follow the lead of Jimjilin - or you will share a similar fate. Wikipedia is about collaboration and bureaucracy. If you understand the processes and policies here, particularly on how to perform good quality citations - and if you keep making constructive edits - then your time here will go well. But if you don't, then you'll continue to find trouble until you find too much. Be careful with your edits, and I wish you continued success in your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope you understand this result as tough but fair. This is not a political forum, or a place to trifle with. Good luck. --Jobrot (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing statement Anyone interested in continuing with this case, feel free to open it back up. --Jobrot (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring, violation of sanctions, BLP violations

User:JudgeJason has been involved in edit warring at the BLP of British politician Jeremy Corbyn, by repeatedly inserting statements without consensus, using excuses such as " no reason given to exclude". The information is not relevant as it relates to unsubstantiated claims that Corbyn has received financial benefits from a legal charity. I have not reverted his most recent change to avoid a permanent edit war. I have repeatedly asked the editor to take the matter to talk. User:JudgeJason has already been warned by User:John over his edit warring and also advised of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions.

• User:JudgeJason is repeatedly inserting disputed material without consensus, such as here and here, despite this matter having been taken to talk with no consensus to include.
• These matters relate to WP:ARBPIA, and his conduct is in violation of those sanctions
• The information being inserted is a possibly violation of WP:BLP. The High Court has found claims that the legal charity support Hamas are seriously libellous. The Court found the Sunday Express guilty of libel for the same allegations now being made in a BLP.
• User:JudgeJason has used edit summaries such as "stop censoring inconvenient facts" and "and supports Hezbollah. don't censor", in further violation of BLP, when refusing to discuss this matter with other editors
• User:JudgeJason has a history of edit warring and politically-motivated edits, as his recent edits prove
• In addition, despite the High Court judgement, User:JudgeJason initially sought to link the charity, and Corbyn by association, to Hamas in Corbyn's BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have already sought to discuss this with JudgeJason on his talk page, however he has refused to revert his edits. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I have warned the user for continued aggressive editing. If he continues there will be a sanction. Should it be a topic ban or just escalating blocks? I lean towards the latter but I am open to others' opinions. --John (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure. As far as I can see, AusLondonder is on a whitewashing exercise, repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content ([345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]) and adding unsourced positive statements ([351], [352], [353] (source doesn't support most of the added sentence), [354], [355] (not supported by the source), [356], [357] (all apparently to a primary source, may be okay for this use I guess but RS would be much better), [358] (first part of sentence), [359] (UNDUE, and the Islington Gazette is, at best, on the very border of RS), [360] (last para unsourced), [361], [362] (marked as minor!), [363] (several portions not supported by the source, though probably all true enough)), not to mention one of those really, really WP:LAME slow-motion edit wars over whether it is necessary to mention that England is in the United Kingdom. I'd suggest that, at the very least, this complaint is brought with unclean hands, if not grounds for an outright WP:BOOMERANG. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing, what an extraordinarily dishonest and disingenuous exercise in abuse.

• The first four of six items you mention as "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content" relate to this very issue being raised! No consensus had been found to include. With regards to the last two issues of "repeatedly removing negative but well-sourced content", that related to sensationalist wording taking the source out of context.
• Regarding "unsourced positive statements" I fail to see how #83 is unsourced - it is an article written by Corbyn himself! #84 was a reinstatement of removed content that I did not originally post, and not unsourced. #85 was, as my edit summary made clear, simply a revert of unexplained removal of content that I did not post
• With regards to #88 and #89 they are sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF and come from Corbyn's website. I cannot understand how #90 would need a direct source, as it is a summing-up of existing content.
• The Islington Gazette is a reliable source, and the local newspaper for Corbyn. Many MP articles have commentary on their expenses. The "parsimonious " comment was widely used in other sources. #92 is not unsourced, it comes from the interview cited in the paragraph directly above.
• Regarding #94, I think that was an encylopedic sentence putting the views into context. Not every single word needs a source directly next to it.
• I'm wondering whether #95 is a mistake, all the issues are clearly sourced. The "lame war" regarding England/UK relates to the repeated unexplained removal of UK birthplace without consensus and against convention
• Your personal attacks on me are very disappointing, given your misleading statements here. Other editors have clearly supported my position. I am not seeking to whitewash anything, the article contains details of his support for Sinn Fein and Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands. I'm seeking to ensure the article remains neutral and meets the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have commented regarding this on the Corbyn talkpage.
• The issue here is not about inclusion or not - it's an editor violating sanctions to push for the inclusion of material AGAINST talkpage consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm glad you brought that up. What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion and three (including myself) arguing for inclusion, but that discussion is a loooong way from 'consensus'. Or did you have something else in mind?
• To respond to your specific points:

• Since when did we need to seek consensus before including material? |This is what WP:BOLD is about, and reverting on the sole grounds that it lacks consensus is disruptive.
• 83 was a copy-paste error - should have been [364]. "however Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstances" is unsourced. 84 ("Corbyn opposes segregation at such a young age") is not supported by the source cited, whether you inserted it originally or not.
• 88 and 89, well I think we more or less agree on this, though a secondary source would be better for someone who is going to be contentious.
• I'll cede the Islington Gazette, I'm not going to get into an argument here about whether it meets WP:RS. 92 - fair enough. It looks unsourced, my apologies.
• 94 - it seems a pointlessly positive addition to me. If it was on its own, I'd say meh, but as part of a pattern it's worrying.
• Your defence of 95 is a doosy - the source cited does not call him a socialist, does not mention poverty, does not state that he voted against introducing tuition fees, does not mention railways, and does not discuss taxation. What's left in your insertion that is supported by the cited source is that he voted against increases in tuition fees and supports nationalisation of some sort. If this is your approach to sourcing BLPs, we have a problem! Whether to mention that England is in the UK is one of those issues that has me saying, "Why do either of you care about this???" but I'm sure it has its place.
• I'm sure you are very disappointed - pointing it out here wasn't enough, apparently, and you felt the need to repeat your disappointment at my talk page - but, given the above, I'm happy to disappoint. Criticising your approach to sourcing is not a personal attack. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Another deliberately misleading series of statements. "What talkpage consensus? I see two editors (including yourself) arguing against inclusion" - you didn't come until after I posted this issue at ANI!

• Consensus is required when a change is opposed by other editors - several editors including myself opposed the addition of this material. That is not disruptive.
• "Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons in all circumstance" is paraphrased from his article and his stance is well documented anyway in other sources at his BLP.
• Regarding 95, all the statements are important and factual and discussed in other sources. Most importantly, it is not libellous or in violation oof sanctions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivial issue - in what specific way are the edits which are presumably about Iran related to ARBPIA? I note the Raed Salah BLP has mentioned Corbyn for some years now, so the claim is not apparently regarded as contentious there. If the claim were that contentious, I would have thought someone would have removed it years ago. Nor does the editor at issue appear to make vast numbers of edits - surely the "problem" is not very great - nor does it appear to relate to ARBPIA with regard to the claims about Iran. By the way, by using the term "libellous" are you in any way implying that a lawsuit could or would be filed? I trust you have read WP:NLT which some might unfortunately applies whenever the clarion cry of "libel" is made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect, I'm quite baffled by your comments here. The WP:ARBPIA complaint relates to matters concerning Hamas and Hezbollah, not Iran. WP:NLT makes abundantly clear that " A discussion of whether material is libellous is not a legal threat" and "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation or copyright infringement, is not a threat and will be acted on quickly". I cannot comprehend how you suggest I am in breach of WP:NLT. It seems you are trying to use WP:NLT to shut me down, the precise opposite of what is intended. AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can't understand how it is trivial to violate sanctions, insert disputed material without consensus, violate WP:BLP and engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You asserted something about a specific edit [365]. ARBPIA does not prohibit the edit in question as far as I can tell. You asserted that the edit was specifically "libellous" as determined by the "High Court" and that the specific claim was a libel by the Sunday Express. ARBPIA is primarily about reverts - a 1RR restriction for "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." I fail to see this BLP as falling into that category. Further, of course, you may ask that this BLP be so labelled, but note that the revert rule would apply to anyone there at all. Including many editors at this point, including yourself. In fact, it appears you likely violated the revert rule, had it existed on this article, more than the editor you here complain about. The claim retracted by the "Sunday Telegraph" was that a charity specifically funded "suicide bombers." The edit you assert is "libelous" does not make that retracted claim. Collect (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Waenceslaus reverting edits made in line with an RSN decision they disagree with

As a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables it has been determined that [366] is not a reliable source. This webpage has been used extensively in longevity related articles. The (lengthy) process has now begun to remove any Wiki entries based solely on this source. User:Waenceslaus has reverted a change, made also by IPs, in direct contradiction to the RSN decision [367] and also the appropriate change to WP:WOP with a spurious edit summary [368]. See also the user's entry in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Where do we go from here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Waenceslaus demands that only those who are members of the WOP be permitted to change their guidelines. It's an odd contention since incorrect guidelines are meaningless overall and only serve to mis-lead its own members. We're having similar arguments at Talk:List of oldest living people#Removal of unverified claims. It's approaching WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory to just keep on arguing the exact same arguments (which were made at RSN) and ignoring the discussions that have been going on for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

_____________________

Greetings,

I must say I am surprised by such agressive action done by the users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682. I do not understand, why users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are so upset, that they turn to the Administration noticeboard for a single change revert. I did only one edit, which in fact, was reverting a previous destructive edit firstly done by user User:Ricky81682 and later continued by User: DerbyCountyinNZ. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&action=history). Both these users have deleted loads of sourced material. The source was Gerontology Research Group, considered by world's press and scientific circles as recognized authority in respect of extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. It is recognized by American, European and also Brazilian press. Here are just a few examples of press citations:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html

http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html

http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/

The users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 base their statements on a basis of a discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gerontology_Research_Group_.28GRG.29_tables), which concluded, that some of the material developed and presented by the Gerontology Research Group is reliable, while other material is not. In my honest opinion, this assumption belies the facts, expressed above by the citations, I have presented. Because of the fact, that the Gerontology Research Group, considered as whole (and not just parts of it) is the recognized authority on supercentenarians, all its tables and its content are to be considered as such with no exceptions.

What worries me, is the fact, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 have controversial history of contributions in respect of longevity articles. They tend to delete large amount of material without slightest effort to strenghten it with more sources. If they cared about the content of Wikipedia and felt, that the current sources are not enougth, which in fact isn't a case once the Gerontology Research Group is used as a source, then in my opinion as a constructive Wikipedia editor, they should put an effort and reach more sources. It is obvious. Instead, they threaten to continue their destructive actions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here).

Regarding the Wikipedia World's Oldest People group, it associates Wikipedians interested in the topic of extreme longevity and supercentenarian study. It has created its own guidelines for its members, who are inspired by the topic and edit the articles, listed in the topic of "Longevity". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Longevity). The fact is, that neither User:DerbyCountyinNZ nor User:Ricky81682 have joined the Wikipedia WOP project hence they are not listed among its members. Yet they continue to force their "rules", which only would legitimize the destructive edits done in this section by the users. In my opinion, before any user starts to force such controversial edits, he/she should communicate with the other members of the WOP group in the first place and express her/his good will and be accepted by the team of Wikipedia editors. Instead, User:DerbyCountyinNZ has written a notice on administration board on one of its members, namely me, without any justified reason.

In my honest opinion, the actions of users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 is dangerous and destructive for English Wikipedia and should be stopped immediately by responsible administration units. Their contributions should be listed under observation in order to make sure, they won't keep on erasing important and sourced material from the English Wikipeida.

With kind regards, Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the approval of the WOP editors. Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project. The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here. You expressed your opinions at the RSN discussion and the consensus there was that those weren't appropriate. Re-hashing it again and again for years is the problem here. I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived as a whole and the discussions be moved to the main WP Biography page where more editors with experience can discuss these articles in line with our policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We must defer to the WOP and stop this vandalism. The GRG is a reliable source and Wikipedia suffers when we let violent abuse over take sense. The wop's guidelines have been in place since it was just a yahoo group and wikipedians must understand that only the GRG really understands longevity issues, no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.19 (talk) 10:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

___

Greetings, I feel the need to comment some of your statements.

---"We don't need the approval of the WOP editors."

Oh really? I'm afraid, that you have completely missed the issue here. You say, that you don't need the approval of 34(!) other Wikipedia editors associated in a Wikipedia group, being yourself not a member of it, to change the internal guidelines of the Wikipedia project's group? Ricky81682, you have learn to respect other people and their work. Your actions are considered by the members of the group as destructive and controversial. By what law, you claim, that you are the one, who has the right to judge, which sources are reliable and which are not, if 34 other users relies on that sources to keep the articles updated and clear. Face it: you a self-appointed, single Wikipedia editor and you must respect the Wikipedia rules exactly as the members of the WOP group do respect them. You have no right to delete sourced information from English Wikipedia on that scale.

---Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve the WOP project.

You misunderstood how it works again. It is the WOP project, that does exist to serve Wikipedia. And it does so in order to enlarge the level of the common knowledge and educate the society. Wikipedia is a free encyklpedia, that anyone can edit. That means, that also anonymous individuals like you can edit it. However, these edits must be constructive. Deleting the sourced material from English Wikipedia is a destructive action, which is called vandalism.

---"The fact that the WOP has created its own guidelines and wants to ignore the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines are the problem here."

Ricky, it's just the opposite. The WOP group does not create rules. You need to distinguish the word "rule" and "guideline". Guidelines are advises for contructive editors how to edit the articles dedicated for a particular topic and how to find a reliable source to base the information, which is added. However, the Wikipedia rules are broken, when a little group of single, anonymous users continue to delete the reliable, sourced material from Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry to say these words, yet I can't allow the English Wikipedia being affected by such actions.

---"I'm getting close to propose that the WOP project be forcibly archived [...]"

From the one hand you wish to force your own rules for the WOP project, being not a member of it; and from the other you want it to be forcibly archived. I truly do not understand the amount of nastiness from your side. I fear, that we deal here with a little, but somewhat "determined" users to disturb the constructive work of others. I fear, that users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 are the example of users, who are exceptionally negatively prejudiced towards a particular field of science, which in this case is longevity and supercentenarian study. The existance of such negative emotions on Wikipedia, I consider as highly undesirable for English Wikipedia, which mission is to enlarge the knowledge of the society in multiple fields.

Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that members of WP:WOP are operating as their own insular walled garden with their own guidelines that conflict with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When something like this happens it's absolutely the duty of members outside the wikiproject to bring these articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WOP's local consensus does not trump broader consensus regarding policies and guidelines or reliable sources. Information sourced to Table EE is no longer reliably sourced because that table has been found to be unreliable by the broader community. Therefore, if a reliable source cannot be found to support that information, removing it is absolutely the correct thing to do. Blocking that removal is disruptive. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been reading within WP about WikiProjects that went off the rails and were disbanded through MfD. It may well be time to see if the community is ready to disband that project and start an MfD on that.... The attitude of project members posting here makes it seem that that they have lost their way. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There was an Arbcom case back in 2010 and one of the key issues was that it was clearly just a transfer from the Yahoo! group with similar insular logic. However I'm not sure there's a policy for disbanding projects like this on second thought. Either way, the point is, the walled garden local consensus approach isn't a resolution here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a definite problem with this project and its members. Members of this project are almost all SPAs who edit on nothing but articles related to the project and who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Moreover, they are highly resistant to having their articles brought into compliance with policies and guidelines, choosing to edit-war their preferred, non-compliant version over discussion. List of oldest living people has been protected for 24 hours due to this edit-warring, and now members of this project are using that protection to argue that other changes - which describe the recent consensus on GRG tables determined at RSN - should not be made. This change has also been reverted because I'm not a member of the project,[369], because the change isn't "correct",[370], and for no reason at all.[371]

Concur with it being to Mfd this project. It appears clear that it is operating against core Wiki policies and too many of the most active members appear resistant to attempts to bring them inline. The lingering influence of those that began it continues, to the detriment of Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree closing down the project may be a reasonable option. The level of ownership behaviour displayed by its regulars is just breathtaking. When they were fighing over that addition to the project guideline, they weren't just arguing that only a "project member" could make such a change, but in fact even that you'd first have to "apply" for membership to become one! [372][373] That IP was even striking !votes of other editors from a RM discussion in article space because he felt only WOP members should be allowed to decide on articles in the scope of the project. And now that I implemented the topic ban against Waenceslaus, the next day I get another IP telling me on his talkpage that I can't take such admin actions against a project member because I'm not one [374]. Unbefuckingleavable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you're new to dealing with WOP. We veterans aren't surprised by anything like that. EEng (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. According to MOS:UNBEFUCKING, the approved form for use on WP is unfuckbeingleaveable.

When discussion does happen, it's like that which appears above: denying broader consensus because the GRG is the most awesome expert ever on the subject of longevity and no one should ever doubt their words or tables. Quite frankly, the edit-warring, lack of discussion, and denial of consensus suggests that some of this project's members are WP:NOTHERE. If members of the project are unwilling to work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then shutting this project down seems like a good option to avoid the kind of disruption that is occurring now. Ca2james (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You already deleted all the personal tables we had on our personal pages. We're just trying to teach Wikipedia about how the GRG works. Wikipedia should be happy that the GRG users are willing to help here. Would you want to live in a world where Wikipedia doesn't have all those articles on the supercentarians?166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors react to elimination of longevity fancruft. Click here for audio.

It would be a kind of paradise. See right. EEng (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at Waenceslaus and the IP's behaviour as they are continuing to revert changes to bring the articles into compliance with MOS:COLOUR and the recent RSN consensus.[375][376] The IP has also reverted changes to the project page yet again because apparently an admin has ruled that my changes are wrong.[377] I think that admin is MusikAnimal and I'm not sure that this is the right reading. Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  See below, I didn't rule any version as the right version, just wanted to stop the edit war. That is the extent of my involvement — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, I may have unknowingly gone against procedure (I've received conflicting advice before), and for that I apologize. I've reverted back to the state the article was when I went to protect it. This does not mean it is the right version, and I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am not choosing sides. Sorry for the confusion, and my best wishes that this will all get sorted out civilly — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Desysop Needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin MusicAnimal specifically reverted everything Ricky did at the oldest living people article and protected it. His disruption is obvious, no one agrees with him and he shouldn't get to keep misusing his powers to attack everyone. It's time to discuss Desysop procedures. We need mandatory admin recall for precisely this kind of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

@MusikAnimal:, can you protect every WOP page from this vandalism? We can't let them disrupt the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk • contribs)

Let's be frank here, that is absurd. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to Desysop more admins who abuse their powers like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No, he meant your claim was absurd, and he's right. It does look from the evidence above that there is a serious problem with the WOP project, and it may be necessary to take some action on that point if its members continue to be disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

why? Because the cabal doesn't believe in consequences for one of their own?

I don't have any idea what "cabal" you're talking about, but from reading your notes on MusikAnimal's talkpage ("we have consensus", "we are right", "we don't care about your noticeboards") I'd suggest that if you carry on along that road, it will not end well for you, and quickly. There are previous examples of WikiProjects deciding that their own guidelines overruled Wikipedia policies. They were soon disabused of that notion. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quickly stating what I did: I responded to a RPP request about List of oldest living people, observed edit warring with multiple confirmed users on both sides of the content dispute. So procedurally I reverted to the state prior to the edit war (likely the wrong version). This is the extent of my involvement and is the general workflow we take when dealing with an edit war. If there is consensus for changes to be made please make an edit request on the talk page and a patrolling admin will implement it shortly. Sorry I can not be of further assistance, I'm afraid I'll be signing off soon for the weekend. Admins are free to override my actions. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct. He protected the right version. The rest of the pages need similar protection to prevent more disruption.

I didn't rule any version as the "right" version. I just put a stop to the edit war. Please seek talk page consensus (or here at ANI, I guess?) and make edit requests accordingly. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

yes you stopped the edit warring by Ricky and the other disrupters. Things were fine when the WOP was left in control. Please protect the remaining articles the same way.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop Black Kite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Black Nite commented here before closing the discussion above. He is involved and his misuse of his powers should be taken from him. Admins must be held accountable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Continuing with this course of action is likely to get you blocked. I suggest you cut it out now. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

166.171.121.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just committed canvassing here. I am not sure if this belongs here. If it doesn't please move it and let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The canvass is to User:TFBCT1 who similarly just reverts edits to restore the GRG's prominance without discussion. [378][379][380]. The editor also "updates" the tables without providing any change in the actual sourcing which makes it impossible to determine its accuracy.[381]. Frankly canvassing the least problematic part of the IP's antics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban for Waenceslaus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's another day that ends in 'y' so I see I'm up for another desysop complaint here. To summarize the issue, oldest people article use a source (the GRG) which on its own calls certain cases "verified" and other "pending" and "unverified". It started off as a Yahoo! group and I believe it is using Wikipedia as a webhost for all its data instead (see this kind of thing). The biggest disputes are whether (a) to include the pending and unverified listings here (I believe so that the GRG members can have easy access to that information) even though that information is, as stated, not verified by the GRG [and in particular the use of coloring and the like to make the pages all fancy and the like) and (b) whether we should not include anything that the GRG has not verified/pending/whatever (regardless of other sources).

1. It's been a long dispute but a discussion at RSN was closed that said the GRG pending and unverified claims shouldn't be included here. Of course there are other claims that come by way of other reliable sources (e.g. newspapers for example). Waenceslaus did comment there I note.
2. This was attempted to be incorporated into the WOP guidelines section but User:Waenceslaus kept warring to revert it in place of a vague "no consensus" (and oddly to reinstate the old language that the GRG should only be used as backup.[382][383].
3. Waenceslaus's arguments at WPT:WOP show that it was based on a belief that only WOP members could determine what the guidelines are and all RSN and other Wikipedia discussions were going to be ignored. The same arguments were rehashed yet again as seen above.
4. There has been similar edit warring at List of supercentenarians who died in 2015[384] and at List of oldest living people[385]. The basis here is again that the pending listings have been verified in some way (which was brought up at RSN and rejected).
5. Waenceslaus's editing is entirely related to oldest people article. The editor has been active at List of Polish supercentenarians and when there were disputes there, just copied and made their own personal table at their userpage (deleted after being mentioned at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waenceslaus). This was an issue for more than two dozen userpages of oldest people members.

I've requested page protection on the articles (the WOP page shouldn't need it) and hopefully that should calm down later. As such, I suggest we consider a topic ban for Waenceslaus from all longevity-related matters. We shouldn't have to re-hash and rehash the same arguments over and over again with editors who refuse to acknowledge that consensus does not support their position and who refuse to act civilly with other editors. Other editors can be brought up separately but I just want outside opinions on this situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not only support that, for the reasons you mention above, I would look into resurrecting the ArbCom sanctions in the topic area. Being able to clear the SPAs out without the rigmarole of these sorts of discussions would be supremely helpful, and willingness to use said sanctions would make it a lot easier. At the time of the ArbCom case I had only been here for 10 months or so, so I was very tentative, but now I'd be willing to help you and others run at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any resolution that doesn't bring up back to ARBCOM. The incivility and repetitive arguments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People#Where_do_we_go_from_here are clear. When questioned, there's too much insider baseball responses. Nobody from the WOP crowd has yet to explain how their allegedly scientific system of verifying the oldest person lets them demote and remove names years after the fact without explanation. Any legitimate organization that had to rescind a claim about the first oldest living person in their records would give something more than just a deletion in a line in an Excel spreadsheet and yet we're in round 10 of the "Newspapers are garbage for birth and death ages but are RS for things like what the person ate at age 115 when we want to create an article about them." Ironic that the edit warring was to put back the guidelines that the GRG was only a secondary source (which was ignored). If we had that guideline, then we'd be eliminating everything that we couldn't find another source for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Concur completely with BOTNL, both re the topic ban for Waenceslaus, and revival of ArbCom sanctions. The WOP project and its IDHT SPA horde have been one of the most colossal sinkholes for editor and admin time in Wikipedia history. Yes, that's saying a lot, and no, it's not an exaggeration. This crap has been going on for a decade. Here's just a recent taste‍—‌dip in just about anywhere, at anything WOP is involved with‍—‌for more of the same:

User:Ca2james, I am very sorry, however, before you edit any of the WOP group guidelines, you have to be accepted as member of the World's Oldest People group of Wikipedia. Before that happens, I can't acknowledge any of the edits done by you. Please, apply for the membership in the first place. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 3:49 am, Today (UTC−4) [386]

Oh yeah, see the edit summary here [387]. EEng (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Was a problem back in 2011. Some things never change. Anyone want to explain the concept to Waenceslaus? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't. There is not a single reported case of this monomania being cured, ever. As provided here, "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page." Well, the antics at RSN, at the WOP page, and here, plus the editwarring, certainly qualify. EEng (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban Waenceslaus per the evidence laid out above, but I think ArbCom has to be he way to go here. The problems involved in this set of articles are so deeply entrenched, I don't think we'll be able to work them out here and the participants certainly aren't listening on talk pages or at their Wikiproject. AniMate 14:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. User:Waenceslaus' claim that "Yet, before any change in the WOP guideline can be done, a user is to become a member of Wikipedia WOP group" seems odd and a bit grasping since on 15 May 2015 all Waenceslaus did was add his name to a list.[388] Both Ca2james 30 December 2014‎ and Ricky81682 24 January 2015 have been using the Wikiproject World's Oldest People talk page in a constructive manner for quite some time. Hardly the "deliberately want to make chaos by edit-warring"--types. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

____

Sincerely, I do not trust User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682.

And here is the proof: Ca2james's talk page, where they are plotting against Longevity-related articles. As user Ca2james, uses much more proper language than user Ricky81682, he is also involved in anti-longevity front on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ca2james#Wikipedia:WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People

I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ricky8168, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't rescinded the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you plan to explain yourself? Not to mention the unscientific language, that you use in your statements. Both users: User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 deliberately want to make chaos by edit-warring, trying to change established consensus without discussion (WP: OWN violations). As I said, this proves, that we deal here with the example of users, who are exceptionally negatively prejudiced towards a particular field of science, which in this case is longevity and supercentenarian study. The existance of such negative emotions on Wikipedia, I consider as highly undesirable for English Wikipedia, which mission is to enlarge the knowledge of the society in multiple fields.

Therefore, for the sake of the English Wikipedia and richness of its articles, I'm asking for an ArbCom discussion and I'm asking, that the proposed plans of users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 be frozen until the separate issues that they present be worked out, as their contributions are controversial, ruin the established order and the members themselves do not show any will to socialize with other members, who are particularly interested in the topic. Instead, they act agressively - change the content of whole articles without any agreement with other editors of longevity articles and attack another user (me) without any justified reason. I consider this as a personal attack. Yet the users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682 are not alone on Wikipedia and before they force their "rules", and edits, they should in first place act in an agreement with everyone else. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That, right there, is as good an example of the total self-unawareness that pervades this topic area as you'll ever find. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please‍—‌it's not even in the top 50. Don't you remember when a now-indefinitely-blocked user declared that he was "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet"? EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough; let me modify that to say about the best example from one of his acolytes out in the open. At least they usually pick obscure places to post these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Waenceslaus, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is that way. It's probably a new case but someone else can re-open the old one about discretionary sanctions. I await the notice that you've started it. Thanks! By the way, are we still doing this topic ban thing or not? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and other editing restrictions as need to be applied to the area. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume this is for both Waenceslaus and for Ricky. Both made need to go for the good of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment about the anonymous user under the IP: User166.170.48.19.

We must defer to the WOP and stop this vandalism. The GRG is a reliable source and Wikipedia suffers when we let violent abuse over take sense. The wop's guidelines have been in place since it was just a yahoo group and wikipedians must understand that only the GRG really understands longevity issues, no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.19 (talk) 10:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs don't represent the GRG. This type of comment may actually be made by an anti-GRG person trying to undermine the GRG's credibility, which can only be beneficious for users users User:Ca2james and User:Ricky81682, who break more than one Wikipedia Policy with their edits in longevity related articles. I hope, that you are not the ones standing behind this. Waenceslaus (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please review talk page layout. Your comments are all over the place. This character may be concern trolling though. Waenceslaus, you'd do better to focus on responding to the actual concerns people have rather than arguing that everyone else is part of a conspiracy against the GRG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Waenceslaus since he is acting according to the three Wikipedia policies and has not breached any of them. 930310 (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Waenceslaus proposes topic ban for Ricky81682

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A topic ban is something, that would be recommended for the User:Ricky81682 for targeting articles and deleting sourced content from it, ruining the established consensus and provoking edit wars by wrongful undermining of recognized sources (GRG) as proven below. I am also very worried about the unscientific language, which the user Ricky81682 uses, that can betray, that he is not acting in a good faith and is negatively biased towards a particular science.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ca2james#Wikipedia:WikiProject_World.27s_Oldest_People) I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Such action is undesirable as it prevents the society from learning the facts from reliable sources and weakens the amount and quality of the content of English Wikipedia. It is unseen, that a user is taken to the admin board for one reinstatement of the content, which was vandalised by the users, who began this thread here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_living_people&action=history)

The edits of users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 in the article above, that are the reason for this discussion here, are destructive, they ruin the established consensus and provoke edit wars. In my honest opinion, they are fairly not acting in good faith.

I would like an independent party having a word. I'd like to ask User:Kudpung to express his mind, as he is the one, who has already seen some member's negative action towards the articles on longeivty and had a final word upon some previous AfD, done by one and the same users. In both matters, I strongly supported to keep the articles untouched in order to protect the sourced content and richness of the English Wikipedia and in each case, it turned out, that my view was fair and the article has been kept untouched. Sincerely, Waenceslaus (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Eliminating sourced content and mixing unverified with verified claims is a very disruptive action considering Wikipedia's importance, many people seek out Wikipedia as their primary source of information, and the only thing the user User:Ricky81682 is doing by removing sourced material and mixing validated with unvalidated cases is turning the supercentenarian lists into a "free-for-all" in which anyone can put any claim they want with no scientific consensus at all, which is undesirable if we are to achieve any informational value

Also to note, the issue is not wheter or not User:Ricky81682 is a WOP member but the fact that he violates wiki policies with his behaviour, including:

No Original Research, Assume Good Faith, Wiki:OWN, Verifiability.He is also responsible for initiating this "edit war" and, as seen above, plotting to start it. .LegateMaximus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — LegateMaximus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

___

Greetings. I need to complain here about the action of user User:Eeng. Hiding my explanations will not help to solve this matter. Please, don't do that. Everyone can speak out his mind. My statement also contained an invitation for another Wikipedia admin. By an insight of more people, a greater objectivity can be achieved. Kind regards, Waenceslaus (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, fine. I've moved your call for Ricky81682 to be topic-banned to its own section, where its merits can be properly considered. Your ping of Kudpung was not affected in any event. EEng (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Madhouse of arguments about how awesome the GRG is." Hell, I may just join in with this as we now have another argument at RSN that newspapers are no longer reliable sources when considering the birth and death dates of very old people (in response to the GRG issue). As ARBCOM stated back in 2011, the WOP needs more experienced editors, topic banning them is not helping their cause. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After this, we can go after James and Commander. Nobody voted to let them into the WOP project here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — 166.170.51.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is anyone interested in doing a sock investigation of this IP and others used by, apparently, the same editor? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they're actually socking, they're simply moving from one IP to another in that range. I don't see any evidence that they're trying to give the impression of being more than one editor (unless I've missed something). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

They have said previously "You already deleted all the personal tables we had on our personal pages", this indicates that the user has/had a login, they are either deliberately avoiding using their account or have been banned from doing so. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more appreciative if someone could oppose topic banning me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's such a stupid idea it's not even worth wasting the boldface. EEng (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You give some people too much credit. Anyways, moving on here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you would like to edit in this topic you should stop making bad faith accusations towards users who care about WP:Verifiability. Ollie231213 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There's no opposition so let's get this topic ban on Ricky86182 imposed before he disrupts another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.66 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Troll. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously as this is ridiculous. AniMate 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

::::Don't worry, it's such a stupid idea it's not even worth wasting the boldface. EEng (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, because this members' actions in the longevity related articles are controversial and there are voices of support from members, that are regularly making good contributions for the article. Therefore the topic ban for user User:Ricky81682 is defenitely worth consider. As for you, User:EEng, please try to use more scientific language when you engage in an important discussion. Thank you. Waenceslaus (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. There's support from you, an IP that has been consistently warned for making disruptive edits over the last 24 hours, and an account with 5 edits. I'd suggest this be closed as ridiculous before it gains even the semblance of credibility (I'd close it myself, but I've warned the IP editor elsewhere). Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

topic ban for Ca2james

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We need to topic ban User:Ca2james from WOP articles as well. Non-WOP members shouldn't be disruptive the way those two are. 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

James is being disruptive at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oldest_people_in_Britain. Every single citation is being managed and watched by the GRG's UK correspondent, no one else needs to make a mess of their work. This is why the non-WOP members should be banned from these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.185 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban for DerbyCountyinNZ

Another proposal from the topic-banned Waenceslaus to topic-ban someone else

User:DerbyCountyinNZ, who initially created the thread on my matter in the admin board - for just one revert of a negative change done by him in an longevity related article, now apparently feels too confident and continues to make destruvtive edits. I can't allow this to happen for the sake of the quality and richness of the articles of English Wikipedia. The user User:DerbyCountyinNZ is fairly negatively biased towards the particular field of science, which is longeivty. His negative and controversial actions regarding the longevity-related articles have prolonged over the years now, yet everyone of the valuable contributors for these articles wished to avoid the direct confrontation with the troublesome user. It's time to end this now. I apply for the topic ban of the longevity-related articles for the user User:DerbyCountyinNZ. Firstly, the user does not seek any way of solution of the problem with the other, constructive contributors for the longevity-related articles. It's true, that no one has to be a WOP member to edit a topic in the area, but they do have to follow Wikipedia's own policies. Users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 haven't. Neither of these user, however, have applied to become members of the Wikipedia WOP group, which associates 34 other members. There are no problems at all among the members of the Wikipedia WOP group, because they follow the established order. Users User:DerbyCountyinNZ and User:Ricky81682 intend to ruin that order by undermining our sources, which reliability is beyond question, and, turning those, who oppose their destructive action, namely me, to the admin board. (cur | prev) 21:57, 15 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,973 bytes) (-28,633)‎ . . (→‎Japanese supercentenarians: As per talk page. It's a start...) (undo | thank) Here is his "explanation" from the talk page: Main list is too long[edit] I see no justification for listing every supercentenarian, verified or unverified. That seems to violate WP:LISTS. Even if it does not, it is not encyclopedic to have an open-ended list. Other stand-alone lists typically have a set limit, the greatest of which is usually 100 entries. Unless there are sound reasons, backed up by wiki policy, for keeping the current list I will be WP:BOLD and make the list a top-100 instead. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The self-appointed user User:DerbyCountyinZN has just erased 28,633 bytes of the article, which has been constructively edited by other users, also those associated in the WOP group, for years. That is ONE THIRD of the entire content of the article. What is his explanation: "the list is too long."(?) Should we erase the the entries from the list of cities of Germany, or should we erase the entries from the list of notable people born in 1903 just because the list can't contain more names than 100? The answer is no. That is the destruction of significant amount of knowledge, especoially considering the fact, that the erased material has been sourced. User:DerbyCountyinZN violates Wiki policies arbitrarily, including WP:No Original Research, WP:Assume Good Faith, WP:Wiki:OWN, WP:Verifiability. What is more, he betrays himself, that he is not willing to end on just this one destructive edit. As he says himslef here: "It's a start...". Such attitude raises my worries and the initiative should definitely be taken - topic ban from longevity-related articles for DerbyCountyinNZ. Because the thread was initially created in my matter, in order to prove, that I act in good faith, I undertake not to edit any longevity-related article until my matter is (hopefully) concluded with a positive result for me. However, I would like to continue participating in this discussion in order to point out the users, who are truly a problem and deserve the topic ban. I am ready to sacrifice for the sake of the quality and English Wikipedia and for the sake of protection of our knowledge. These are the examples of destructive edits done by the user User:DerbyCountyinNZ, which have never been consulted with other, more experienced editors and breed controversions, as they are highly destructive and harmful, deleting the sourced content and year-long work of other contructive editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Japanese_supercentenarians&diff=676270260&oldid=676267519 The user has deleted 1/3 of the entire article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States&diff=676318211&oldid=676293353 Again, he has vandalised annother article in the same way. (cur | prev) 05:48, 16 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (105,774 bytes) (-28,027)‎ . . (→‎American supercentenarians over 112-years-old: Refactor to oldest 100; no justification for open-ended list which will increase ad nauseum) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:57, 15 August 2015‎ DerbyCountyinNZ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (61,973 bytes) (-28,633)‎ . . (→‎Japanese supercentenarians: As per talk page. It's a start...) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waenceslaus (talk • contribs) -- see [389]

Personal attacks and bad faith editing.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I think it's time that an uninvolved admin look into the behavior of User:Alakzi, there are extreme cases of assumptions of bad faith and also personal attacks. Odd for somone arguing for civility to think it's ok to tell someone to fuck off, intent on showing offense, like to deliberately offend people, disgusting individual, |selfish, and the last fuck yourself although there are probably a couple more. He has a history of two prior short term blocks for NPA and the disruption is related to WP:POINT editing for the reason "The only admin who blocked me, said to me, and I quote, "I'm going to give you some rope". Another admin referenced WP:ROPE in discussing my block with the blocking admin on their talk page. (And this seems to be quite typical behaviour of admins.) I don't understand how I could possibly not feel offended". They have the history of the recent blocks, they were warned by myself and Beeblebrox and now a third editor has templated them. I think it is time for a longer block or possibly a topic ban from civility related discussions as this seems to effect their mental health ie panic attacks and inability to control oneself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the reaction to the discussion about this essay, I'm guessing that Alakzi is the hypothetical editor who this has offended, and does not care to share the personal circumstances surrounding why. While I'm not excusing the behavior shown here, it should be kept in mind that this essay can be quite offensive to some people. Throwing around suicide references will inevitably result in a poor reaction when you find the person who's recently dealt with that sort of thing. ~ Rob^Talk 13:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's above in black and white they are mad because it was a rationale used for unblocking them. Sad thing is they were blocked for attacks and they are using that rope up. It's the whole reason for the eswsays existence to describe the behaviors they are exhibiting now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi states that they were made aware of it when it was used in relation to them, but does not say they are only mad due to the unblocking. We simply do not know the personal context on why this may be particularly offensive to any given editor, and we can't expect to. ~ Rob^Talk 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket needs to be careful of a boomerang here; he's more than once impugned Alakzi's competence, for no apparent reason other than an disagreement over a content issue, doing so in "mystery meat" links (diff), even doing so again (difff2) after being told that to do so is "unacceptable and unwarranted". Such provocation is a breach of WP:NPA and utterly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing I have referenced WP:CIR, absolutely I have because it's a valid reference in this case. I'm also going to reference the two subsections specifically, grudges and social. As an added reference I'm going to throw Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in the mix too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOOMERANG should be something you keep an eye out for @Hell in a Bucket:, since you seem to be quoting "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door" and you do not seem to be trying to collaborate with any stretch of the imagination unless they are supporting your ideas. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You know if the admin ruling on this thinks I'm the problem block away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

More offensive bullshit then. Alakzi (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if you start behaving that way here there will be loads. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to feed your sense of entitlement, I suppose. Alakzi (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I believe that my comment of "I'm going to give you some rope" was callous and tactless. I have obviously offended Alakzi, and for that I am sorry. My comment was made in good faith, but with very poor eloquence. With this in mind though, I cannot, in good faith, recommend Alakzi is allowed to continue on throwing vicious personal attacks and pointy behaivior unscathed and without admonition or sanction. In addition to Hell in a Bucket's diffs above, Alakzi said, just above, that, "A consensus among spineless, insensitive and domineering admin wanna-bes is no consensus I care about," in reference to the people in a MfD who disagreed with his point of view. So, he went ahead and moved the page to his desired location, disregarding the consensus of "spineless" and "domineering admin wanna-bes". This is not the first instance, but a pattern of behaviour. When users disagreed with him on the coloring of some infoboxes, he labelled them "pathetic" and "spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders", and threatened to use AWB to impose his will on just over a thousand articles. He made good on that threat, which got his ability to use AWB revoked by me. He maintained that the changes he was making with AWB were obvious "to anybody with some sense," and continued his personal attacks (check the previous link). I blocked Alakzi. However, I later unblocked him. Why? The reason for that dispute was that the colors in infoboxes could have hurt the eyes of visually impaired editors. As I said on my talk page, "Both sides [of the dispute] bring reasoned and actionable points. Their methods may be worthy of question, but they're intent is good, as far as I can see." I thought Alakzi was acting in good faith. I no longer truly believe that now. What was the turning point? This. There is an argument to be made that fighting for visually impaired editors is a worthy cause. Fighting to get a fucking template moved, even though the template you want it moved to already redirects back to it, is goddamn ridiculous. There was no just cause there. Just an editor demanding that his will be done, and that everyone else's will be damned. And to make sure his will is done, and nobody else's, he closed the move discussion and moved the page anyway, even though anyone could have seen that there was no consensus, forcing another user to revert the move. When the page was move-protected by an admin to prevent another against consensus move, Alakzi's response? "Another pointless administrative action from you". That sums it up really. Anything that goes against His Mighty And Infallible Will is "pointless", and those who disagree with him are "spineless". Wikipedia is not therapy. If Alakzi has behavioral problems, and chooses to throw all his toys out of the pram everytime someone disagrees with him, we're not the ones to console him. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you enjoying writing these tirades? Alakzi (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIV is required. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. Alakzi (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Above the rules, aren't we? Case in point --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Give it a break @Ceradon:. Alakzi has now had WP:CIV thrown at him about 5 times. May have deserve once or twice, but you don't have to rub it in. WP:BOOMERANG works on Admins too, as does WP:CIV. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is in particular why this type of civility warrior behavior is more disruptive. I will point out for example Rob, his is a reasonable objection and my response was [[390]], these are the reactions that we normally see when a person is not ranting and raving. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try answering my question here. Alakzi (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have tried to several times but you chose to ignore it because you don't like the result. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Alakzi (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet again another case in point. I'm done trying to reason this through with you. Please feel free to hurl whatever hateful epithet you think will bother me most while arguing for civility and not being offensive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think it's quite obvious to anyone paying attention that Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot is speaking directly about self-harm. Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man makes the contents of the essay obvious, doesn't it? Reichstag? Reich? Hitler! It's talking about Neo-Nazism! Noooo! Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger is talking about outright murder! The horror! How heartless are we to be perpetuating such vile behavior?! You're going to click those links aren't you? You're going to see that what the titles of the essays say aren't what the contents of the essay say? No! Stop! Don't you dare! Take it at face value, and don't look any deeper! I demand it! It seems that sarcasm is the only way I can impress upon you how ridiculous what you're doing is at this point. Oh well. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Already responded to this exact same point on the essay talk page, so I'll just copy paste the diff here.[391] This is an essay used during unblock/ban discussions to imply that an editor is going to metaphorically "hang themself." The other essays are not remotely similar in tone and implication. Brustopher (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're making the same point Alakzi is, but that doesn't make it any less false. The title seems a bit off, but the message is not. Here is a passage from ROPE: "If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance. If they mean what they say, they'll be fine, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough." If you even read the first paragraph of the essay it say that there is, in fact, hope that an editor is true to their word. If there could never be any doubt that a blocked editor is lying when they say they won't do something again, what's the point of "ROPE" anyway? There is more to the essay than just the title. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to get a bit confusing. If you think the title is "off", why are you opposing a move? Brustopher (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, There are a few words missing there. "The title, by itself, seems a bit off". The title of the essay and the contents of the essay are not mutually exclusive. The content explains the title, and, in my opinion, justifies it. I see no reason to alter the status quo, thus my oppose vote. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, you don't care about offending people whom you view with contempt. Alakzi (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon, I think you could fracture your skull before making the impression you are trying. I suggest waiting for the inevitable block and note the continued character and bad faith behavior. "Hangman, hangman, Upon your face a smile, Pray tell me that I'm free to ride, Ride for many mile, mile, mile" Gallows Pole Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. Alakzi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you are doing a fine job of that yourself with your own behaviors but that comment was addressed to Ceradon and was referencing the two Boomerang threats for him and myself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- It's pretty clear that Alakzi is in the wrong here. This is an editor who got blocked for personal attacks and has continued to call people every name under the Sun, but expects everyone else to tiptoe around Alakzi's feelings. It's preposterous to claim WP:ROPE is somehow offensive. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Give_'em_enough_rope#Requested_move_12_August_2015 is ongoing, but the arguments there to rename the page does not support your characterization that it is "preposterous".—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, the current consensus does not support a move of the article, and many of the oppose votes do indeed say that the current title is not offensive. There is a type of person, especially among those involved in sociopolitical campaigns, who spends much too much time waiting to be offended by one thing or another, to the point that they lose perspective about what is and is not actually offensive. Their sensitivity to offense is set so low that practically anything becomes potentially objectionable. Were these people to have their way, our language would be stripped of all colorfulness and metaphor, one of its strengths. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken: I personally reserve characterizations of "preposterous" for snow closes, if it were to be used at all. In any event, consensus will take care of itself when that discussion closes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • An opinion can be preposterous even if many people hold it. Lots of people think the moon landings were faked or that vaccines cause autism, but that doesn't make those claims any less silly. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality across the board by many participants at Wikipedia talk:Give 'em enough rope#Requested move 12 August 2015. WP:WABBITSEASON anyone? Not too surprising when the theme is political correctness. Disclosure: I am involved in the discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

• Users Alakzi and Webdrone have been indef blocked by Nuclear Warfare. See this. BMK (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've asked NW to reverse the indef, which is completely unwarranted; doubly so on the spurious grounds he gave for making it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• I started a new subheading as I imagine the actions and discussions about this block will go past where the initial discussion has gone (which I think have resolved themselves, block or no block). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: both users have been unblocked by Floquenbeam. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Reblock needed for edit warring and personal attacks

Herre's one example of more gross personal attacks [[392]], [[393]], [[394]], [[395]], [[396]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved non admin) The first diff and other comments in this section show a total failure to follow WP:CIV. There is also no attempt that I have seen to apologise for the words used. A block of up to three months for Alakzi sounds about right. AlbinoFerret 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Alakzi is currently blocked for personal attacks with talkpage access removed. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note Without commenting on the validity of the prior "NOTHERE" block, I was going to issue a short block for personal attacks to Alakzi per their "you insufferable scum" comment. However when I got there I saw that a block was already in place. I then noticed the user was continuing to use their talk page for personal attacks while blocked and I removed talk page access. I am open to discussion of this action here or on my talk page. Chillum 17:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: editing restrictions for Alakzi

I started editing this section to get consensus for editing restrictions. That seems impossible now. Therefore, I am now advocating for an indefinite ban for Alakzi.

Alakzi has engaged in numerous behaviors that contradict Wikipedia's communal values. They has been blocked numerous times for editing disruptively, and using personal attacks against numerous editors. They were blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing by Ceradon for 60 hours, but that blocked was shortened by Ceradon. They were later unblocked by the same administrator. Alakzi was indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare, per NOTHERE, and on suspicions of sockpuppetry. They were later unblocked by Floquenbeam. Since there unblock by Floquenbeam, and after agreeing to leave dramatic situations alone, Alakzi has said to Beeblebrox, "Go fuck yourselg, Beeblebrox. [sic] What fucking gall." and has called them "insufferable scum". They have stated "You're absolutely horrible people" and has said that, "This "community" now disgusts me". They have stated that Salvio giuliano, the admin who leveled the most recent 1-week block, "sickens [them]". After administrator Salvio giuliano levelled the most recent block against Alakzi, they have used two sockpuppets, Abotzi and Alakzi1 to insert the following comment into their talk page: "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you."

Alakzi's actions have repeatedly been suboptimal, disruptive and vicious. They have been given numerous chances to change their behavior and return the community to edit in a manner suited to a collaborative project. They have, each time, failed to do so. Alakzi has rendered the time and efforts of numerous editors and administrators wasted. Therefore, they are prohibited from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior. Should they violate these restrictions, they are to be blocked for a month. Further such behavior will result in an indefinite block.

• Edit: Text was altered at 19:12, 14 August 2015 and 19:16, 14 August 2015.

Voting

• Support as proposer: No user should get to exhaust the community's patience and waste the community's time indefinitely, I'm afraid. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban is overkill and said member could still change their behavior. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket: Check again. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I am exiting this entire situation per multiple requests unless I'm brought up. Sorry but I refuse to be blocked for this and there is plenty of eyes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose. Ban the admins instead. We need more content creators not egomaniacs. The actions are perfectly normal when someone is backed into a corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am admittedly involved in the sense that this user has helped me quite a bit in the past with things related to templates and AWB, but that just goes to show that they are doing good for the project. Their current blow-up is very unfortunate and certainly warrants a block for longer than a week, but an indefinite ban is extreme. We shouldn't ignore a long history of positive contributions due to a couple isolated incidents. My hope is that Alakzi can return in a month or so and put this behind them. If they can, they'd be a great asset in the areas of template editing and accessibility. If they can't, then a ban would be appropriate, as unfortunate as that would be. ~ Rob^Talk 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Check now. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What am I meant to be checking? I'm aware of the sockpuppetry already. ~ Rob^Talk 19:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No longer looking for a ban, just restrictions and an outline on how to deal with them should they violate the restrictions. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, sorry. Missed that. Thanks for pinging me. In the short term, Alakzi has clearly blown his top over this issue. Placing sanctions is unlikely to help him get things back under control for his eventual return, and I see it as a guarantee that he'll get more upset and more likely to do something he'll later regret. I see that as a substantial negative factor to such a sanction. On the other hand, the sanctions you've proposed are nothing more than would be completely expected of him given his block log. I don't oppose admins blocking in the way you described, but I don't think they need a formal sanction on incivility to do so when incivility is always against the rules. Given that I see no real benefit to the formality of a sanction in this situation and a significant downside, I still would oppose the proposed sanction. To reiterate, though, I completely support an administrator blocking Alakzi for a month or longer if he were to return to the site after his current block and continue his current behavior. It would be disappointing, since he has been extremely helpful to me in figuring out templates and regex, but it would be the only appropriate action. ~ Rob^Talk 19:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• No. For fuck's sake, people. I am at a loss to understand how so many people are missing the basic dynamic here and just keep escalating the situation at every turn. The Rules were broken! Someone said angry things on the internet! You're proposing to indefinitely ban someone who's been a productive editor for months, who has gotten trapped in the escalation ratchet after getting a remarkably callous response to genuine feelings of offense at an essay that really does have problems. The thing you need to do now is stop. Just leave the matter alone for a while. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: First, I've altered the proposal. Not an indefinite ban just yet, but restrictions. Second, if we leave Alakzi alone, unsanctioned, and leave him completely able to go on tirades against other users, then what? We just accept all his vitriol lying down? Is that what you are proposing. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of others who are allowed to do just that, with impunity. (Reserving judgement on the proposal, for now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Very productive editor, though strong-willed and outspoken. Problems have arisen when interacting with others with different opinions, in particular with those who take exception to Alakzi's unfiltered language. The situations deteriorate when neither party follows WP:DR, a WP:BATTLEGROUND ensues, and the problem reaches the noticeboards. I'll say that having been WP:INVOLVED with some of the discussions that have gone to noticeboards, I have generally agreed with Alakzi's reasoning for the end result. However, consensus probably doesnt happen as fast or as smoothly as they would prefer, which leads to colorful language. I don't believe NOTHERE applies, as I do feel their intent is to be "here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content". However, I do realize some in the community expect to see changes in the user's reactions during disputes. They are here to contribute, but this may not end up being the right place for them. Durations of successive blocks normally increase anyways, so I don't see the need for more WP:BUREAUCRACY.—Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose He's called me before on something, which was just a misunderstanding, so I would say that he isn't into bad behaviour per se. He obviously enjoys his Wikipediaing. He makes good contributions, though I agree he needs to learn to let stuff go. I also think the abusive terms he's using, at least the ones I've seen, really aren't that horrendous. For example, calling a group of people "scum" over the internet is, in all honesty, not that bad, and would be mildly amusing in a different arena. All in all, give him a ban for week, then give him a month next time if he continues to fail to accept it when decisions go against him. Hopefully he can get onto the straight and narrow in time!! Ah, just seen some of the other comments. Well, he does need to learn to calm down. He's not threatening anyone, but yeah, needs to learn to calm it! I again express my hope he can serve out a week-long ban and come back with a new leaf turned over. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• A. Support narrower, clearer, and less punitive restriction, but absolutely not with a "swearing" ban: While I largely agree with the reasoning offered by both Opabina Regalis and Bagumba, the observations by Ceradon are clearly correct in the overall gist, though exaggeratory, unclear, and dismissive of the editor's more valuable contributions (even if said editor is sometimes problematic), and the draft remedy was vague and overbroad, even after copyediting. I'd support something along these lines: Alakzi's actions have too often been suboptimal and disruptive. Therefore, Alakzi is directed to address edits, not the editor, and is prohibited from engaging in personal attacks or other uncivil behavior, including: insulting, belittling, name-calling, or questioning the good faith or motivations of other editors. Alakzi is also prohibited from taking WP:POINTy actions. Violation of these restrictions will result in a one-month block. Further such behavior may result in lengthier blocks, topic/interaction bans, even an indefinite block, at community or administrator discretion. NB: I wrote that in a way that should preclude WP:GAMING claims that not-uncivil criticism of edits or editing behavior patterns are "insulting" or whatever; no one has a right to be free from concerns raised about what they're doing. I thus, of course, oppose an indef block/ban.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Update: If Alakzi turns out to be a sockpuppet, per the post a subthread below this, then it's a different matter, of course.

  B. Suggest a narrow WP:BOOMERANG restriction on Hell in a Bucket: To wit, Comments, accusations, or suppositions about someone else's mental health or abilities (in whatever exact wording) will normally be interpreted as offensive, and are usually unwarranted and unsupportable; yet Hell in a Bucket has used them frequently as verbal weapons. Therefore, Hell in a Bucket is prohibited from commenting on or verbally hypothesizing about the mental state or faculties of another editor, including by reference to pages like WP:COMPETENCE in a manner that clearly implies mental health or capability issues. No remedies need be spelled out or presently applied in this case. If this is thought too stringent, Hell in a Bucket should be warned on their talk page, in similar language, that such a restriction is likely if the behavior resumes. Update: And this would not be affected if Alakzi turns out to be a sock.

  I'll address issues with WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE in a subthread below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Do what you have to do. If you seriously think that this is a person that is able to productively handle disputes in a way that the essay specifically references for social interactions and grudges then there is little I can say to convince you otherwise. I have little to add to this at this point, further actions by myself have proven to be futile to try and address this so I am not going to waste the energy further. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If this is indeed Jack Merridew, the community banned editor who inspired much of an essay currently under scrutiny, it would explain a lot. There are incurables for sure, and Merridew is absolutely one of them. Doc talk 05:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's remember that Alakzi, a very skilled and significant contributor, is blocked for their - admittedly intemperate - response to a bogus socking accusation and an unwarranted indef block made on bogus grounds (for which the blocking admin has issued a half-hearted apology to only one of the two victims); both preceded and followed by goading and personal attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a very... interesting ... interpretation of events. BMK (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It's also factual. Feel free to attempt a refutation, rather than a snarky comment, if you disagree. Perhaps you an provide evidence that the person conducting the checkuser was mistaken in finding no evidence of socking? Or that the (piss-poor) apology made by NW for his intemperate block (one described as "misunderstanding; not a sockpuppet" by the unblocker) referred to some other case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Frankly, it needs no refutation, because it merely represents your very skewed POV on this matter, which has been consistently one-sided from the beginning. My comment was intended simply to flag that to anyone who may be coming to the issue without having been aware of the background, which is easy enough to find by perusing this thread, User talk:Alakzi, and the SPI. Such an examination does not support your POV. BMK (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
        • You offer no refutation, because you cannot refute what I wrote. I presented irrefutable facts, not PoV.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually, your "facts" are your own biased personal interpretation of what occurred, and nothing more. Anyone can see your POV who wishes to follow up this silly discussion. I suggest that you have expressed your opinions, and I have expressed my opinion of your opinions, and there is little to be gained by extending this conversation. Let's both give it a rest and return to doing something productive. BMK (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per Opabinia regalis. I think Andy also described the events well. I would like to see a few more people apologize to Alakzi. Floq did. NW also but not on the user's talk page. - I say this in the name of (projects) Editor retention, Freedom of speech, Quality article improvement and, yes, for civility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Hell in a Bucket's recent writing struck me as trolling/provocative. Moreover, looking at some recent edits, Hell in a Bucket wrote 'I resent that,' in a talk on 14-Aug. And he alludes to various other negative feelings. Wikipedia is not the place for resentment, rage, grudges, revenge. Whether it's inappropriate aggression, or simply an aggressive writing style, we need to stay on the dispassionate side of things. Wxidea (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you seriously can not see a difference in "I resent that" and "insufferable scum"? Context is important too go read why I said that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. It was off base and offensive accusation and I supplied several diffs of why they were off base. That would be a perfect example of good communication.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know about the rest of you, but my patience is certainly exhauseted. This is not a user whose attitude is compatible witha cooperative environment liek this is supposed to be. That being the case, there is no doubt in my mind that they will eventually end up being indef blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Sooner would be better than later, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Aww, but indeffing is just so hard on someone. He obviously enjoys editing Wikipedia, has built up a good volume of constructive edits, so it would really be the nuclear option. I agree, however, that if he does not learn to just let stuff go, he will end up indeffed. No doubt about it. Hopefully, notwithstanding your pessimism, the guy can turn things around. We'll see… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

People above are saying that Alakzi will change his behavior after the block. Honestly, I have very little faith in that. But, my proposal above is trying the make an official sanction regarding Alakzi's behavior, and to give blocking administrators a definite guideline on how to deal with such outburst in the future. I am exhausted. Beeblebrox is exhausted. Floquenbeam went out on the limb to unblock Alakzi and had his good will and his ass handed back to him mere hours later. Alakzi has a voluptuous history of outbursts, incivility, personal attacks, and disruptive and pointy editing. If the community should fancy going the optimistic route, that a leopard will magically change his spots, and that no official sanction are warranted, well, fine. But I can't bring myself to take part in such farces. --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I opposed, but I freely admit this is not going to end well without some changes. However, I don't think a ban on subjective behavior like "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors, and engaging in uncivil or pointy behavior" is the answer. Interaction bans have been mentioned before, but it's not a particular user(s) that are the issue. I don't think there is a specific page, or class of pages, that have been problematic either. I think this can organically resolve itself, hopefully one way versus another.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with or would clarify Ceradon's original editing restrictions proposal in the following ways:

1. "Go fuck yourself" is uncivil, but not an attack.
2. "what fucking gall" is neither an attack, nor unquestionably uncivil, but a strong expression of opinion about approach, and it uses language some people don't like but which others (like me) largely shrug off.
3. "This 'community' now disgusts me" is nothing but expression of frustration with process and bureaucracy (and perhaps with not getting one's way).
4. "sickens me" is neither uncivil nor an attack, but an expression of personal feeling.
5. "The unaccountable despots who run this place don't give a shit about you" is a general statement about the administrative/ArbCom/noticeboard/remedies system as a whole, and is a sentiment (perhaps unreasonably) shared to varying degrees by a non-trivial number of other editors.
6. Labeling Alakzi's actions as "repeatedly ... vicious" is nearly as uncivil as anything Alakzi has said, and an assumption of bad faith rather than anger.
7. "Shouting" is meaningless in this medium, and would be GAMED as applying to any display of strong emotion.
8. A ban on expletives would be subject to ridiculous levels of GAMING, since what constitutes "swearing" is personally subjective when it's not cultural and subcultural, and varies from context to context even to the same individual.
9. The sockpuppetry barely qualifies as such, as the names were obvious, and it (at least that I have seen so far) was done to be able to make a point on the editor's own talk page, not to vandalize or do something else genuinely disruptive. As short-term, heat-of-the-moment block evasion goes, it's a rather minor transgression.

I agree with all of the rest of it, including the general message, and the need for restrictions. "You're absolutely horrible people" was clearly a personal attack against several specific editors (that said, it was obviously predicated on the user feeling unjustly ganged up on; it's unlikely these are serious assessments of characters, but just venting). Some actions by the editor have been disruptive (e.g. tagging a WP:SPI page for speedy deletion). And the editor does generally display a pattern of quickly-heated response, and related problematic behaviors, but they're obviously not generally "fatal" to the editor's ability to contribute, nor are they a frequent source of disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:' I don't see the logic of "I failed to get a topic ban, therefore I'm asking for an indef site block." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
  

Suggest postponing discussion

Seconding motion that "It's not necessary to keep this thread alive ..."—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It hurts to do this. It was suggested to me by email this morning that Alakzi is Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit. I've reviewed Alakzi's edits, and it's pretty damn compelling. This probably better explains the 3 CU's recently run on him described in the SPI page, which certainly seemed out of proportion for the Webdrone thing. Since I've defended Jack in the past, I imagine there might be some suspicion about my interceding in his block yesterday. You'll have to take my word for it that I didn't hear about this until after becoming fed up with Alakzi, Beeblebrox, and Hell in a Bucket and blanking my talk page this morning. I'm no Javert. If this was a matter of a "clean start" (yes, I know, don't quote policy to me, I know what it says and that's why I put it in scare quotes), I'd have been more than happy to look the other way; an un-angry Jack is helpful and knowledgeable, and is, frankly, a better person than some of his long-term detractors. But he's returning to the exact same behavior that led to his previous bans, and the disruption is spreading to numerous pages, so I can't in good conscience keep silent and let people invest time and emotional energy defending someone who is likely to be banned when he comes back in a week and resumes the fight. From past observation, it is 100% guaranteed that JM/BR does not de-escalate when convinced he's right. I suggest interrupting this discussion (there's no rush, he's blocked for a week), and wait for an SPI to be filed (I'll do it if nobody else does). We already know CU won't be useful, but it won't be too hard to put together a pretty compelling behavioral case. Alternately, @Alakzi:, my email is my username at gmail.com, and you can short circuit all that work by emailing me a confirmation. Penultimately, I'm convinced (per my comments at SPI, which remain true) that Webdrone isn't the same person, just a friend. Finally, I will block anyone who gravedances on his talk page for a fucking month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Take the weekend off and get away from us. Burn-out doesn't help anyone. :( The discussion doesn't like it supports a full ban at this point so your suggestion may be unnecessary.. There is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi/Archive which seems to have ended with inconclusive but let this discussion go on a bit before we start new SPIs and new fights with that. If this is Jack (and that's a name I haven't heard in a while), the same always applies: go back to your main and request an unblock there. It's not very likely to happen but it's less drama and less of a disappointment to your (former) supporters than creating new socks to see how far you can go before old habits happen. Ah, well, we can lead the horse to water .... -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) OK. So: I haven't had much of a chance to see what's been going on here today on-wiki, because: I've received a lot of mail Some of it is of the "Yeah, I think so too" variety Some of it is of the "Are you sure? that doesn't sound right" variety More importantly, Two of them are from people who have known both editors, and are very sure that they are not the same person. These are people who I trust not to mislead me to protect a friend. One of them in particular is convincing: all template-related stuff is black magic to me, but the particular area of technical expertise with templates is apparently quite different. Two of them have had several conflicts with Jack in the past, one of whom is doubtful and the other pretty confident I've got it wrong. I saw (and still see) a lot of technical area overlap, and one or two other things that led me in one direction. But the human part of this - people I trust implicitly, and people who are smarter than me, saying it probably isn't Jack, or even flat out that it isn't - convinces me that I've probably made a big mistake, and one that caused a lot of distress to Alakzi. So, I'm: Withdrawing the accusation, and am not going to file an SPI; conflicting lists of pro and con pieces of evidence that friends and enemies can argue about will not be productive Apologizing to Alakzi. Particularly because this comes on top of an incorrect sock accusation the day before. Apologizing to everyone else for doing the same thing that so pisses me off when other people do it: causing pointless drama Apologize to Jack for dredging his name up, and giving weasels an opportunity to get a free kick in Getting back out of the sock business; I'm evidently worse at it than I thought Attempting to play The Game this weekend, except instead of not thinking of the Game, I'm trying not to think about Wikipedia Once again, sorry Alakzi, and sorry everyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) It's not necessary to keep this thread alive, and I wish you the best of luck with the Game this weekend, Floq. But just, and since I haven't spoken before, here or anywhere, wrt this cause celèbre: re your point 4, about the weasels and the free kicks. Yes, it is a pity you gave an opportunity for this attack on a long-gone editor, as are you, I'm sure. That said, do remember the responsibility for jumping at the opportunity and for the nasty wording ("incurable", with its ugly overtones) is the speaker's, not yours. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC). I can't wait for the next bullshit accusation I'm gonna have to put up with. And what's with extending my block? My, I've "socked" to copyedit my own talk page; how terrible. No, I'm not the one who should be sanctioned; it's the tyrants Ceradon and Chillum, and all of the unnamed arseholes who ran undisclosed checks on my account. Being in a position of authority MEANS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. My TE user right was removed last night by MSGJ because I apparently "no longer hold the trust required". Not so. I haven't failed you; you have failed me. It's you who have lost my trust. What is it that I'm supposed to do with yet another half-baked apology? Do some introspection. It's COMPLETELY FUCKING UNACCEPTABLE to accuse me of being Jack or whoever else it might be in public without providing EVEN THE TINIEST SHRED of evidence, all the while I AM UNABLE TO RESPOND due to being blocked. I felt like complete shit. Doing the right thing means to minimise damage to humans; it doesn't mean to follow the fucking rulebook. My God. If I wasn't insane before, I am now. Oh, and this forum is worse than the deepest catacombs of 4chan. Alakzi2 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The incompetent, hung elephant in the room

Not opportune. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have to strongly insist that both WP:ROPE and WP:COMPETENCE have to be rethought, and we should stop using them at noticeboards until this has happened. There's a stab at Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes to rewrite ROPE, but that phrasing is not really much better; that saying is rarely interpreted positively. In both cases, there is a negative presumption – of bad faith or of mental problems, respectively. Yet many admins (among others) at ANI and AE have little compunction against using ROPE to 'cleverly" imply that they're actively predicting that the user will screw up [that's vulgar swearing to a lot of people, BTW] and maybe even hoping they will. I've been objecting to this for years, but we have no other page for the concept (I referred to it the other day myself, but didn't feel good about it). The re-approach is that the concept is If an editor released from a restriction returns to disruptive behavior they can be sanctioned more strongly than they were the last time. Note the total lack of assumptions in that new nutshell. With COMPETENCE, it's frequently abused to imply that anyone difficult, "differently clued", highly emotional, or not too good with logic is "incompetent" to participate here, but that's rarely actually true. There must be a way to reword that so that it speaks directly and only to the effects on the project, the community, and the consensus process, but not the motivations or causes for individual's competence issues. What looks like crazy to you may look like stubborn to me, and what I think is stupidity may clearly map to a cultural divide in your eyes. WP has no damned [another swear-word to some people] business trying to imagine what someone else's neuroses or IQ are. We do have a strong interest in tying certain patterns of interaction and other behavior to undesirable effects. We do not have to theorize that someone is incapable of complying, only note that they are not. Competence by definition is something that one develops and exhibits; it is not and cannot be an innate trait.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) I disagree on the point of ROPE needing a move/rewording. On the point of COMPETENCE, there may be something there, but I would like to see aa draft of any rewrite before I can get behind it. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) The argument is about assuming good faith not about competency. As I suggested, perhaps something more like "Good faith applies to the blocked as well"? There was WP:SECOND CHANCES but it seemed like people were trying to ramrod the current articles there rather than build a separate one. Either way, that discussion isn't for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose: This discussion does not belong here and is a distracting hijack. Recommend this section be hatted. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Having promised to withdraw I in the spirit of fairness have to clarify that this has relevance to the situation. There were mentions of CIR by myself a couple of others and the WP:ROPE stuff is apparent as part of the locus. I have nothing to add one way or the other about the rest. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Very strongly oppose-SMcCandlish's suggestions, both that they need re-writing and that they not be used. I recommend that if he is offended by them, he not use them, and look the other way when they are properly used by others. If someone improperly interprets them, he should correct their misusage. His POV is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community. BMK (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - SMcCandish is not the new chief essayist/moral compass of Wikipedia, and despite his "strong" insistence that two more longstanding essays be totally trashed, we actually do not need any more essays that he just doesn't like to be rewritten to comply with his POV. What's next on this slippery slope? For instance, WP:TE is currently written entirely from a perspective of how describe a "type" of editor, and "labeling" is a practice which he claims to object to; yet he quotes it when it suits him. He also quotes WP:VESTED when he wants to, which is another label. His method of turning essays that effectively describe disruptive editors into his own little primers (self-written-and-not-submitted-for-community-approval) on how to "cure", or "not be", these types is neither acceptable nor warranted. COMPETENCE has been around since June of 2008. ROPE since January of 2010. Why, now, is this one editor literally demanding that these essays (among others) be sanitized for his approval? Is this a new Renaissance or something? It is not. Leave both of these essays alone. Doc talk 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose - In the last few weeks we have had as many time sinks abuse AGF as I have seen in many moons. These essays do not need to be weakened to help these WP:NOTHERE editors. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Oppose Both essays make great points. This is hardly the venue to propose such a things. Discussion is already going on at the talk page fro ROPE where consensus seems to be that it is fine. Chillum 04:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Comment. What is a "hung elephant" and why is said "hung elephant" in the subheader but nowhere else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC) When I first read that I pictured a well endowed elephant, but then I realized it was a reference to WP:ROPE. Chillum 04:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: restore Alakzi's talk page access

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I voted above in a thread that begins with proposing a ban, has a different header (editing restrictions), and I wonder what a user agrees with who just writes Agree, under my post. My command of English is limited, and I like things simple. So excuse me for starting another thread. I met Alakzi in February, and have enjoyed tremendous help and cheerful talk. Look at the difference of St Matthew Passion discography and St John Passion discography: Wikipedia has to thank Alakzi for that. (More appreciation here., you can also look for my name in the talk archives.)

Alakzi has been treated with bad faith and mistrust by the community (blocks, SPIs), and reacted in explosion. I have not seen anything that I would interpret as a "personal attack" (a statement has to be personal to be a personal attack, so I dont think this which started the sequence of sad events, is one, "spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders" not directed at a person). I suggest to restore Alakzi's talk page access, solving all "socking", with advice to use it for factual comments. I guess we have heard most of the general statements about us as a community, which makes me look critically at what kind of a civil collaborating community we are. I see restored talk page access as a first step to restore the respect of Alakzi's integrity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.