Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921

Adequately protecting articles from the kind of Israel supporters who threaten to rape and kill

A number of requests for article protection were submitted yesterday. They were declined with what I think was questionable advice for the requesting editor, @Huldra:, to warn the IP. The various editors who receive death threats and threats of physical or sexual violence from Israel supporters should probably not be advised to contact their abusers, but that's another story. I have requested protection again here because in the WP:ARBPIA topic area inadequate protection has predictable consequences e.g. [1][2] (threats suppressed). I'm posting at ANI in the hope it gets the attention it deserves so that at least some articles+editors receive better protection. In ARBPIA, the 30/500 rule is and will continue to be enforced, regardless of whether an article has extended confirmed protection. If the 30/500 rule is not enforced by the server, then it will be enforced by people spending time performing a task that can be more efficiently and effectively performed by a machine. Editors who enforce the 30/500 rule are exposed to the worst Wikipedia has to offer. The ARBCOM authorized 30/500 rule is going to be enforced in ARBPIA either way so please let the server deal with the crazies. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If we don't allow legal threats, why do we not treat physical threats similarly? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They are treated similarly in terms of blocking despite their very profound differences. This something that perhaps Hulda is more likely to have an informed opinion about than me, having had discussions with the legal people I believe. Threats are normally interleaved with the usual ethno-nationalist POV pushing disruption that is common in ARBPIA for accounts/IPs that do not meet the 30/500 requirement. Admins do a good job blocking IPs and suppressing threats. But again, the server can already make that unnecessary via extended confirmed protection. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For everyone else's ease of access, the pages in question are:

• Mobile, Alabama - which only connects to the issue in a single line (sister cities), but was previously protected for a year over this issue.
• Ariel University - which was previously protected for a year because of vandalism (which I get the impression has to do with this), and which has a notice on its talk page regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Hamat Gader - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Canada Park - which has a notice at the top regarding ARBPIA3
• Talk:Two-state solution - which I've already protected, because that should've been protected the second ARBPIA was passed.

I was hesitant to protect them (and am still arguing with myself about shortening the Mobile AL one, or just putting a hidden note explaining ARBPIA3 between every single letter of the one line related to the conflict), and have italicized my reasons for protecting them. If someone shortens or undoes the protection, I'm not going to wheel war.

I was on the fence, and rather than post about how I sympathize, I figured it'd be better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There is apparently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended_confirmed_protection_and_arbitration_enforcement that I haven't read yet but assume is relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I've glanced it over before. An' holuh shi', wuz Ah realluh thuh one da applah tha' pertecshun ta "Two-state solution"? Ah'm ol fer cuttin' admins slack ol thuh tahm, b'cos we gaht laves 'n' stuff, bud'if tha' ball 'ad bin drop't inee 'arder it'd'a wip't aht thuh dinasores. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Southern American English sounds like a contradiction in terms _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The scary thing is the Bard's actors would've spoken something similar. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the Great Vowel Shift, of course? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an Israel supporter. It's Grawp. 172.56.36.137 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The edits are indistinguishable from those of an racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporter. They are also characteristic of Grawp or a Grawp-like sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like you, yourself are pretty racist.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to believe that, go ahead. I don't care and it won't change anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not "our old friend", this is the Telstra, Australia-sock, which I first became aware of at AN/I, August/Sept., 2015. User:Drmies asked me to collect some of the IPs in order to see if he "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page. I did that here: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks. Besides Telstra, Australia-IPs, I believe the same user uses Optus, Australia-IPs, like here. And they typically stand for opinions which are to the right of the Israeli government; typically they say that places on the occupied West Bank are "in Israel", a view which is not supported by the Israeli government, only by the extreme right-wing Israel supporters. For a start: I believe Ariel (city), (on the occupied West Bank) and its University, and its "sister-cities", all have to be permanently protected: they have been favourite targets for years. Huldra (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not yet read ANI this afternoon when I took two of these RFPP reports, the two for the talk pages of Canada Park and Two-state solution. I increased Ian's regular semi-protection to extended-confirmed protection. I have not looked at the other three pages but I'll say right now that I don't believe the Mobile article qualifies for it. If someone wants to take the protection back down, I won't object. Katie^talk 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll ask the obvious question: What does Mobile, Alabama have to do with Arab-Israeli conflict? Why would this level and kind of protection even apply to an Alabaman city? I can see there is edit-warring going on in the article but it is ridiculous to argue that Mobile, Alabama is an article that is concerned with the Arab-Israeli conflict and covered by 30/500. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz....because Mobile, Alabama is sister city with Ariel (city)...an Israeli settlement on the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Certain editors have tried for years to have it say that Ariel (city) is in "Israel". It is the same problem for Heredia, Costa Rica; also a sister city of Ariel. (Yeah, I know: it is crazy to protect a 140 K article just because of -one- sentence, but heck, what else its there to do?) Huldra (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that Mobile had an Israeli sister city but that one note in a long article doesn't justify saying that the article involves the Arab-Israeli conflict. If there is edit-warring or vandalism going on, semi-protect the article. Same goes for Heredia, Costa Rica.

Given that invoking 30/500 usually results in a permanent state of protection that prevents any editing by IP accounts, I think we should be conservative when applying it, only when the articles/pages are clearly covered by the stated topic area mentioned by ArbCom or admins at AE. We can't have every edit-war over an sentence concerning Israel result in 30/500 protection when the article is clearly not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that semi-protecting also stopped IP-editing? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Observation: Eh...regardless of the edit-summary attached to the protection, I'm fairly sure it's actually just plain semi-protected. "12:39, 12 April 2016 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) changed protection level for Mobile, Alabama [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)". That, or the difference between semi-protection and extended-confirmed protection can't be seen from the logs (if so, that's something that should be fixed...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, extended-confirmed protection is visible in the logs. The Mobile article is only semi-protected; look at the protection log for Talk:Canada Park and you'll see the difference. Katie^talk 22:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I´m fine with having "only" semi-protection on most of these articles. Most bad "new" editors, *if* they can edit semi-protected pages, then they do not go for any articles. Instead they go for one of the editors who edits in the area, and who have their user-pages semi-protected (like both Sean.hoyland and myself, and virtually everyone else who is not considered pro-Israeli enough). Apparently it is even more fun, telling us how we will be murdered, than making edits like "Ariel is in Israel"..... Huldra (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You will never stop us. Ariel, Israel is a city you can never take! 49.188.4.238 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please block the above Optus, Australia-IP ASAP; thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Huldra, the account has been blocked. The difference I see between 30/500 and semi-protection is that I haven't seen an article with 30/500 protection had that protection lifted. It seems to be a permanent state. Theoretically, it doesn't need to be indefinite but in practice I don't see expiration dates. With most pages with semi-protection, it is only applied for a few days, a week or a month. It is not usually indefinite. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops, my bad on semi- instead of 30/500. Meant to do the latter. Been a touch sick the past couple of days (still don't have my voice back). Ian.thomson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh you will never stop us! Blah blah blah. Yes, that's a lot of words over Mobile, and rather than argue that this troll has made Mobile, Alabama, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I applied regular semi-protection. Because the troll is still also just a troll, so semi-protection is valid to begin with. I'm not a big fan of this 30/500 thing but hey, it's there, and it's templated, so why not. I just applied 30/500 protection to an article for six months. Protection needs to be applied to articles that need protection for as long as they need protection, which isn't necessarily indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, if you check my request, I requested indefinite semi-protection for the Mobile article rather than 30/500 in an attempt to avoid this kind of discussion about that article. While it's true that this is also just a troll, it is a troll engaged what is, in principal at least, criminal behavior with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years in Victoria state facilitated by the Wikimedia Foundation's infrastructure and a failure to protect content and editors from racist ultra-nationalist Israel supporters like this one. Since far-right racism+ultra-nationalism are almost mainstream in Israel nowadays the situation is likely to get worse rather than better in terms of exposure to and abuse by this kind of pro-Israel, pro-settlement extremist. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like a legal threat. I don't think it actually counts as one, but it's definitely meant to have a chilling effect on this.

I'd also like to address your problematic language. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I don't think you should be editing Israel-related articles.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I posted this thread and several reasons why I use the entirely accurate language I use to describe this person as a racist, ultra-nationalist Israel supporter who by issuing threats of physical and sexual violence is, in principal, breaking the law in Victoria and could go to prison for 10 years. Naturally a reliable assessment of accuracy requires the ability to see or have seen the threats that have been suppressed, threats that this person has been issuing for over a year now I believe, perhaps more. For example, perhaps you didn't see that in this particular instance this Israel supporter threatened to rape an editor and their daughters, included racist abuse and a celebration of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian men, woman and children in the Gaza Strip by Israelis as part of their combat operations against Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip and oddly threatened to rape my 'whore mother' despite the fact that my mother died many years ago. Of course I could go on at length so that you and others gain a better understanding of the nature of this particular pro-Israel extremist. But as I have already told you, you may think whatever you like, I don't care, and it won't change anything. Threads like this are multi-purpose. While the priority is to ensure that editors and articles receive adequate protection, something that I think is very important indeed and a very serious matter, it can also help to flush out people who have a compulsion to defend/excuse/deny absolutely indefensible behavior and are stupid enough to break cover when it comes to defending/excusing/denying the behavior of editors who are supportive of Israel and their occupation of Palestine. This generates useful data. So feel free to continue to communicate with me but it is not you who benefits. As for whether I "have an axe to grind", that is not something I can reliably assess or necessarily even transform into things that I can measure in an evidence based way. But anyone is free and welcome to examine and evaluate the evidence in my ~30k edits, and take the appropriate action if they see fit. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Creating an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities simply to prevent the IPs particular additions would be a fairly trivial task? The articles could be unprotected then. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking 49.188.4.238, however 121.219.241.132 just continued. Some of the articles that IP touched also needs protection, I suspect. Deir Yassin massacre is already protected, but the others are not.

Also, is User:Huldra/Telstra-socks soon "qualified" for a WP:LTA-page? It would help when reporting vandalism, I suspect. (Hopefully they will grow up...eventually....)

And I have no idea if it is possible just to create an edit filter for the American and Costa Rican cities, and if that would work. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw's-endless disruptive edit war against the consensus:

See also: § Harassment getting worse

It is true for every page he is editing from his last appearance on wikipedia under this name . Below only several examples: Please pay your special attention on his meaningless revert argumentation.

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

[1)] exposed sockpuppetry by his anonimous IP. You can see his self exposure here

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

The user constantly distorts RS he cites or reverts without meaningful argumentation.Please help Неполканов (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[| This page ] might shed some more light on this issue. It looks to be a long term issue ! KoshVorlon 18:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please look at this edit in particular [3] these meat-puppets gang up on anyone who touch their turf [4]. Also pay very close attention to the evidence where Неполканов exposes himself as a puppet presented on this page [5]. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. There are also several ANI cases to read through to catch up. Неполканов is an archetypal boy who cries wolf. YuHuw (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First you claim that some conspiracy of missionaries is active in the articles, now you're claiming that a post where Неполканов lists the members of a consensus is him confessing to meat puppetry? That's just asinine, and yet another instance where you clearly are not assuming good faith. Please, show all the times where I've come to Неполканов's defense before you came in with your disruptive editing. If you can't provide such evidence, then don't make such accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw has a recurring problem where he ignores any consensus that he doesn't agree with, handles points raised for that consensus by either ignoring it, pretending he has already addressed it, changing the subject, or attributing (if perhaps pseudo-civilly) unevidenced bad-faith motives to others. This can be readily seen on my talk page and at Talk:Karaims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, I have apologized for inadvertently upsetting your religious conviction s so many times [6] I am losing count. It was the week of Purim vacation and I was a little high spirited. I am really embarrassed and sorry about it. Everyone makes mistakes. There is no need to bare a grudge on the matter. You have in all innocence taken the wrong side on this matter. I am indeed the one who encourages WP:BRD discussion to reach consensus (extensively) just as you recommend, while the meat-puppets who WP:CANVASS each other blatantly (as noticed by another editor here) -and have sadly duped you- are the ones who don't if you could only get past your anger at my comment on Christian missionary activity then you might be able to see that more clearly. I sincerely wish you all the best Ian. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Ian, you have not read carefully the edit he made which exposes him but if you follow the instructions posted you will discover as clear as day. I will post them again for you here. Неполканов must be considered to be either a clumsy meat-puppet or a sockpuppet of a clumsy puppet-master, as justified by examining the third occurrence of Неполканов (use the find function) on this page. It all brings into serious and justified question whether there is any sincere motivation behind complaints against me by those three extremely close friends. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.P.S. concerning WP:NPA every time one of them calls me Kaz it is a Personal attack for the resons specified in the history of their case against me. You can see the results of that personal attack in the history of my talk page[7]. Three months of asking them to stop dozens and dozens of times when we all know what that means is why the wavering of WP:AGF in my attitude is justified. Nevertheless, I am still cordial and welcome input which is content based as long as there are no personal attacks like calling me stupid. [8] YuHuw (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, my convictions (whatever they are) do not play into this. Whether someone is claiming that Muslims, Masons, or lizard people are taking over, I have a problem with any paranoid rant claiming any sort of editorial conspiracies as you have proclaimed. That you keep insisting otherwise, especially since you have no evidence, is a sign that you are not assuming good faith (and without the assumption of good faith, all pseudo-civility is worthless). Here we go again with you attributing bad-faith motives without evidence.

You cannot pretend to be engaged in BRD when you are continually reverting to your version and consider any consensus that disagrees with you to be the result of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no rant, there are only mistakes and apologies. Everyone makes mistakes Ian. Perhaps your conflict of interest in this matter makes your comments unhelpful. The discussion pages are proof of my frequent requests for sources and discussion to reach consensus whenever there has been a revert as per WP:BRD. I reverted you twice in a row but explained with good faith here [9] and your current version of that page remains to this day after you ignored the discussions which led to that originally accepted version in the first place [10]. Instead of taking us forward, you took it backwards but nevertheless I supported you in good faith. You just have a grudge against me which is very unfortunate. And I even supported you against that IP editor remember as a sign of my good faith towards you. [11] You blocked that editor with no evidence besides two edits on Karaims as a puppet of Kaz remember? YuHuw (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, this IP [12] was yours too wasn't it Ian? YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? The IP editor behaved like Kaz and his IP address is located in the same place as other proven Kaz socks. Perhaps your agreement with him is clouding your judgement.

And what exactly would my conflict of interest be? If you are going to once again suggest religion (which again, would be assuming bad faith), then the only non-hypocritical course of action would leave the articles on Karaites and so forth to atheists and pagans.

As for the IP, that's obviously Kaz, and for you to say it is mine is a damn lie and a sign that you not assuming good faith. There is no reasonable way you could make such an accusation in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian wrote: "You call feeding Kaz's accusations of admin abuse support? " I am sorry I do not understand your meaning in this sentence. YuHuw (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC) And how can someone be a duck of an editor which has not been on wikipedia for probably years? Which proven sock of Kaz was not based in Cardiff? I have read through all the case history while I was accused and I do not recall the evidence you are referring to. If you have a fact to state please present it clearly. And I agreed with you not that IP remember that is why I reverted him and restored your version[13]. Leaving the Karaites articles to atheists and pagans might be a good idea. :)

But why do you assume the IP I asked whether was you is obviously Kaz? I only asked because it looks like you had similar interests. Why on earth would it be bad faith? I see no similarity between Kaz's edits and that IP's edits. YuHuw (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I am not calling you any kind of puppet Ian. Everyone edits accidentally when signed out from time to time. It is no crime. But as it offends you so much I take back the question. Jeez YuHuw (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I forgot to respond to your question in your edit summary [14]. The thought had not crossed my mind. Meanwhile you on the other hand who decided to get involved after the matter was closed did call me Kaz after I was vindicated remember? I wrote to you about it[15] and your disagreement with the admin decision is the source of your conflict of interest in this matter. As an admin yourself you should already be aware that the Kaz puppets are extremely cold. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned behaves the opposite of me in this matter, and behaves like you and Kaz (and it locates to the sort of ISPs that Kaz has been known to use). You asked a question that insisted that that was my IP address. Doing so by accident would be incredibly stupid, which is why I cannot imagine that it was an accident. Having calmed myself down, I still cannot see how someone could ask such a question in good faith. Trolling is unacceptable here, even if it's to try and have your way in an article.

I was going to just suggest that maybe you need to be topic-banned. But if you keep trolling, I'm going to push for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly have not calmed down and perhaps you never will with regards to me which is extremely unfortunate. Nevertheless, and in all sincerity, please provide one example of me trolling in this discussion above as you claim and tell me kindly in all good faith please as I have been very cordial with you, what exactly I said why exactly it is trolling and how exactly I should have expressed the concept in a way that you would not have considered trolling. Considering your conflict of interest concerning the matter one would expect there should be a Wiki policy against you being involved with me again. If however, you have nothing constructive to say and will only try to threaten and intimidate me again then I would prefer you simply do not post anything in response to this at all as I will find it yet another example of harassment from you which I have to remind you I have already asked once you to stop. Take it easy. YuHuw (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You said that an IP address that clearly behaves more like you or Kaz belonged to me. How is that not trolling? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not say that. And sadly no-one involved in this behaves like me. If they did we would all be enjoying pleasant discussions on talk pages sharing knowledge like gentlemen about content and there would be no ANI postings, no insults, no attempts to extract personal information, no canvassing, no-edit-warring by meat-puppetry, no attempts to identify each other, no blocking IPs for 2 reasonable edits, no harassment and definitely no threats of any kind. That is what I imagined could happen when I signed up and that is what I was still hoping for after a month of signing up despite having suffered all of the above which has continued to now nearly 4 months down the line. I am not so snowy white anymore and have become more cynical about wikipedia but have not given up all hope yet. P.S. if you want some examples of trolling take a look at some of these edits [16] especially [17][18][19]. You should also know that Kaz is their code-word for calling someone a Pedo. It might be best to stop calling people Kaz and unravel yourself from their dupe until you have become familiar with their whole game first. If I knew 4 moths ago what I know now, I would never have signed up to defend User:Wbm1058 in the first place [20]. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can you stop these unsubstantiated allegations that other editors have accused you of sexual offences. This kind of trolling by YuHuw is a breach of of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, here you said "By the way, this IP [21] was yours too wasn't it Ian?" That IP address is one that obviously behaves like either you or Kaz. Now you are straight up lying when the evidence is on the very page, in this very conversation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has no behavior comparable to me. Your spin-doctoring, harassing, personal attacks, breach of assuming good faith, trolling, etc. are all too much. I have tried to be cordial but this conversation is going no-where. You should simply be saying sorry for calling me a "Kaz" and we will leave it at that. But you won't so I am taking a break. I am not going to respond here again unless someone neutral with some knowledge of the history @Someguy1221: @Liz: @Zzuuzz:steps in to try and mediate between us. Take care. YuHuw (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of the two of us, who has been reverting Toddy1 on topics relating to Karaites, Keraites, and so forth? The IP is closer to you than me, and denying that would just be further trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at YuHuw edit history, and I see a lot of reverts with no explanation, claiming that people are lying or sockpuppets, etc. In the discussion above he flatly refuses to accept that he did anything wrong, and the accuses somebody (unclear who) of harassment with no evidence. This has to stop. If YuHuw does not stop accusing people of bad faith and reverting without explanation admin action is necessary IMO. YuHuw should focus the energy in a more constructive way. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Keraites, I am really turned off by the edit summaries: "lying in edit summary to pretend he is removing something", "This is the 4th or 5th revert of this issue by this user since he has re-signed to WP with a new ID", "undo restoration of User:Ancietsteppe's POV by Meatpuppet", "incessant edit summary insults is very disparaging and harassing", "revert edits by "YuHuw". If you read the new source he added, it does not support the statement he cited it for. Typical of Kaz", and on and on. But I can't see how we can single anyone out for sanctions without sanctioning the whole lot of you. So the seemingly endless drama-board threads related to this have gone on for too long. The above is for me, too mind-numbing and TL;DR for me to slog through it all. I'm going to try to take this to Talk:Keraites and attempt to sort out the most recent two-edit revert war on that page. Y'all should focus more on content and stop disparaging each other. wbm1058 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw is editing as an IP editor again. He is "answering" a question raised at Talk:Keraites#"Molokan" heresy. His "answer" consisted of rehashing the statement in the article and then changing the subject.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's increasingly bizarre that someone who objects so vehemently to being called Kaz should then proceed to act exactly like... KAZ. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

He is still editing as an IP editor. I guess he will start logging in as YuHuw once this item on WP:ANI has been archived.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geolocating to North Israel... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack and abusive vandalism of my user 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.

---

This was just done to my personal page...by 189.28.161.3 [[22]]

Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 09:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, IP warned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• My thanks, as I find it about as insulting as it could get.

Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 09:31, 18 April 2016 (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.

Socks #4 and #5

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 Sock #3, we now have User:Monkonaskateboard and lurker User:Sictransitvan per this dif. M.O. of Monkonaskateboard is the same as the last ones, messing with new users I am trying to help get oriented, per its contribs.

Please indef Monkonaskateboard; Sictransitvan is already blocked. Sorry for the trouble, as always. Jytdog (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2016 (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.

Rudeness and anti-English comments

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.

---

@Catlemur: has been commenting on the Sheep shagger article, which was on DYK yesterday. He was not in favour of it being on there with this comment He then commented on Wikipedia talk:Did you know with what I viewed to be an argumentum ad hominum comment about me He then went on to call me a "bigoted, two faced, sheep shagger" then stated I "come from the same ethnic background as those who invented the insult". I do not believe this is appropriate for Wikipedia as before that last one, I had already pointed him towards WP:NPA twice. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Casual observer. I'm Welsh, I'm running a national contest about Wales. I'm deeply grateful of The C of E's work to the project, including the Sheep shagger article, which is very relevant culturally and probably the most used perjorative term towards the Welsh in the UK. He's putting in some sterling work on this, and I'm sure if he was really bigoted he'd have absolutely nothing to do with a Welsh contest. In short, Catlemur, shut your trap and get on with building an encyclopedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never once seen it used in the UK specifically in relation to Wales. It is just an urbanite slur/joke addressed at anyone who lives (or, especially, works) in rural areas where sheep outnumber people. And I expect it is used worldwide in that way - I've encountered its equivalent in Turkey used in relation to rural Kurds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia's front page is not the place for ethnic slurs, blithely repeated without acknowledgement of their offensiveness. Catlemur created the article, nominated it for DYK, and chose the flippant wording, knowing it to be offensive. He's got the response he asked for, and if anyone deserves any admin sanction, it's him. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify User:Nicknack009, User:Catlemur did not create the article or nominate it for DYK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Yes, I just noticed that. I meant to type "CofE", but had a brain fart. Apologies, Catlemur. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Can I point you towards my comment below regarding the precedence for controversial articles running on DYK? After all the article does go on to say that it is being reclaimed by those whom it was originally aimed at. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:@The C of E: It is royal to do good and be abused.--Catlemur (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is "Englishness" somehow special when it comes to cultural protection? Tony (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Looking at the nomination, the DYK hook was reviewed by Edwardx and promoted to a queue by Cwmhiraeth, and the queues are open to all to view, so blaming The C of E alone for the appearance on the main page is hardly fair or accurate. Having said that, I do wonder why no one appears to have thought to modify the hook by adding the word "derogatorily", a topic better suited to a discussion at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my DYK review. It is a common usage in many other places where sheep are plentiful, such as New Zealand, and is only sometimes a term of abuse. It did not need to be qualified. Edwardx (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

To directly quote the article: "It is often viewed as offensive in Wales. The insult is also used by Australians to refer to New Zealanders for the same reason[ as it is in South Africa to refer to Australians." Is this sentence so ambiguous?--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2016 (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.

Heavy boomerang

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'm appalled by The C of E. The user creates a strongly derogatory article [24] and somehow manages to get his/her ethnic slur into the frontpage. When User:Catlemur reacts, as would any decent Wikipedian, The C of E even has the nerve to complain here as if Catlemur were the problem! In a heavy boomerang I suggest a long block on The C of E. Users who create racist articles and push them into the front page are the very least thing Wikipedia needs. Jeppiz (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

May I point out that Paki (slur) once appeared on the front page of DYK, should the person who did that get blocked too? I feel I also should direct your attention to WP:NOTCENSORED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on various ethnic slurs here on Wikipedia. I don't see how this article is itself derogatory, as opposed to being on a term that is viewed that way. That said, the DYK wording was quite provocative, and it's not surprising there has been some blowback there. Trouts for User:The C of E, but anything more is an overreaction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC).

Sure, a trout may be enough, though I think coming to ANI as if C of E were the wronged part is rather rich. Jeppiz (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reason why I did was for the "bigot" comment and the ethnic comment, I hardly think that is language that should be glossed over here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Catlemur's comments just turned your wording against you to make it clear how offensive it was. And, hey presto, when you're the target it's offensive! Point made, I think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(drive by comment) TheCofE, given that the nominator of Paki (slur) previously renamed Simple's page on Mohammed to "Camel raping paedophile cunt", I'm not sure he's really someone you want to claim for your side. ‑ Iridescent 12:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, can we just lay off the camels, already? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: We have a complete category with subcats of racial and ethnic slurs. Does that imply you wish any editor to any of these articles to be subject to action? If not, why would this be an exemption. @The C of E: is this worth an ANI write-up? Come on... I propose to close this thread as meritless and urge both of you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Kleuske (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Agreed, this is going nowhere. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Long story short. I protest the promotion of a racist out of context DYK blurb, The C of E accesses me of using ad hominem and racism, all while trying to get me banned. Dr. Blofeld tells me to "shut my trap", while The C of E gets boomeranged and desperately tries to close the discussion in order to avoid punishment. Is this really a case of WP:STICK?--Catlemur (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You have protested, the DYK ran its course as the community, in its wisdom saw fit. Mutual banning requests do not help in any way shape or form and can easily be construed as disruptive. Yes. This is a case of WP:STICK. Kleuske (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand CoE baseless accusations of racism and Dr. Blofeld's unprovoked verbal harassment are going to be left unpunished despite the lengthy previous history of similar behavior. We are also going to overlook the fact that a bunch of people on DYK did a pretty bad job and forget that this disastrous event ever happened? If that is the case then I guess that I have nothing more to add to this discussion.--Catlemur (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Catlemur, if you feel that way, perhaps you should consider raising a separate ANI but one which does not conflate the DYK submission and acceptance (but perhaps the Talk surrounding it). DrChrissy ^(talk)

Comment There should be no thought of a boomerang here based on CoE getting an article to DYK. CoE submitted it according to process, and it was evaluated in a legitimate way. I personally would not have wanted it to go to the front page, but those users which acted upon this obviously have different opinions - to which they are perfectly entitled. It is the community's responsibility this got to the front page, not that of CoE. This is not a comment on other aspects of CoE's behaviour. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue here if you ask me (which nobody's done but I like the sound of my own voice) is not the fact that this article got featured on DYK but instead the hook that was featured. It just said "... that Welshmen are sometimes called sheep shaggers?", nothing about it being a derogotary term and racist insult or anything like that. Just "LOL WELSH PEOPLE ARE KNOWN FOR SEXING THE SHEEP!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!". DYK hook approval is known for extreme shoddiness so I'm not surprised the hook was approved, but the fact that it was proposed in the first place shows what can at best be labelled a severe lack of judgement on CoE's part. Brustopher (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But there are many articles started each day on WP which are speedily deleted or dealt with in a similar fashion. These could easily be judged as a lack of judgement by the uploading editor, possibly severe, but we do not request sanctions against these editors. If DYK hook approval is known for being shoddy, that is the issue we should address, not the actions of a single editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain people get blocked and penalised for repeatedly uploading dodgy articles that get speedy deleted. Also a systemic problem existing doesn't mean that people who are part of the systemic problem, should be left to their own devices. CoE made wikipedia look like a farce (which I guess it is to an extent) on its most viewed page. However this is resolved he shouldn't just get a pat on the back and a "sorry people people were mean to you."Brustopher (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do get blocked for repeatedly uploading dodgy articles, but has CoE repeatedly uploaded dodgy articles to DYK (I don't know the answer to this question)? I am not suggesting for one second that CoE gets a pat on the back for sending the article to DYK. Perhaps a warning is appropriate, but we are seeing sanctions suggested such as long blocks which IMHO are totally over the top. The community is responsible for this happening. We ALL could be monitoring the nominations and making comments about the suitability. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Getting wool from sheep so it can be made into comfy clothes is honorable work and I can't see the objection to an article about such fine people. EEng 19:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Wales is alright. It's not shit any more. We've done it up." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• That reminds me of the best come-back I have ever heard from a comedian. Rob Brydon (a Welsh comedian) was getting heckled by an English audience with people baa-ing like sheep. He dealt with it be saying "Will you stop it! It's hard enough to do this without getting an erection!" - pure comedy genius. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• A very risky game. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2016 (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.

Sheep shagger DYK fiasco

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.

---

Before reading this you might consider taking a look at [this ANI incident, during which the following events took place.

I was subjected to unprovoked verbal abuse by @Dr. Blofeld:.

I was accused of being racist and making personal attacks by @The C of E:.

During both the ANI and the events that preceded it @Martinevans123: flooded the discussion with off topic comments that contributed nothing to the resolution of the issue: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I am not entirely sure if this an example of WP:DISRUPT or just an attempt at making a joke.

Last but not least this "DYK... that Welshmen are sometimes called sheep shaggers?" blurb got into the front page. There are too many people to blame for this, but I guess that a fish rots from the head down and everyone is going to get a pat on the back.--Catlemur (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• I thought all of my comments were completely on topic. Sorry if you consider six comments "a flood". But, if you're really not sure, why not just WP:AGF? How do you yourself propose to "resolve" this issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. quite happy to help with improvements to "Fish Heads".
• It still rings true Catlemur, shut your trap and get on with building an encyclopedia. I know a drama queen when I see one. You're wasting everybody's time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• The DYK & hook met all the criteria, and so no reason why it should be used. Also, it got 7k views, which is better than most DYKs. You cannot oppose a DYK just because you don't like it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, "met all the [explicit, written] criteria" isn't the end of the story, because we're also supposed to use our good judgment, and we shouldn't be giving real, unnecessary offense -- but doesn't seem to be the case here. # of clicks tells us nothing at all along those lines, since almost certainly the most patently offensive hook will get a large # of clicks. EEng 10:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should suggest it for the front page over at Hafan where it might get more attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• It might (might) have been better had the DYK been ... that Welshmen are sometimes derisively called sheep shaggers?, but as someone pointed out elsewhere, it's such a childish slur to which no one (well, almost no one) would actually take offense. (And ME123's links, especially at the earlier ANI thread, help make that clear -- humor does enlighten, you know.) You need to accept that the community does not see this as a serious problem, even if you do. EEng 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Catlemur's initial post on the DYK talk was I have seen ridiculous DYK before but this a whole new level of incompetence. Therefore, I don't consider describing what occurred after as "unprovoked." Discussion of the DYK should continue at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Sheep_shagger rather than here. NE Ent 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Catlemur is a prime example of how Wikipedia consists of mostly humourless and politically correct people who can't contribute to a building an encyclopaedia, so they resort to bitching about little things that might be considered offensive. The C of E is doing a good job with the Wales contest, and the DYK met the criteria. If it was considered grossly offensive then it wouldn't have gotten through. I don't think it's offensive one bit. I'm friends with Welsh people in RL and I call them "sheep shaggers" as a joke. JAGUAR  11:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} = 116,651 -- which doesn't even count unregistered editors -- should tell us Wikipedia mostly consists of people who manage to build the encyclopedia without very much drama. ANI is a highly skewed sample and best not used to draw inferences about the project as a whole. NE Ent 12:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Catlemur, I find your comments regarding MartinEvans very interesting. The first time I encountered MartinEvans' apparently off-topic interjections, I was here at AN/I discussing something that was VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I did not find it in the slightest bit funny at the time and I felt like posting a message to state that. However, since then, I have encountered Martin's "asides" frequently and because I was not not emotionally involved, I saw the humorous side of them. Perhaps such a strongly negative reaction is an indication to take a step back? Just a thought. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Your fiver's in the post). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• At least you are not paying me in sheep, again. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree, I may have overreacted, I do not want @Martinevans123: to be punished in any way even though I find his comments to be disruptive and unfunny. I just want him to leave me alone unless he has something meaningful to say. Today I learned that I am humorless and PC, as well as that I am a drama queen (who has not contributed to the encyclopedia any way) who continuously provokes good people into telling me to shut my trap. I now know that Jaguar's Welsh friends, officially represent every single Welsh person to ever walk this planet. I must now apologize to everyone involved and get back to silently writing articles like the useless subhuman wikislave I am. This whole thing is a Zugzwang for me.--Catlemur (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • As a mark of respect, I refuse to even respond to you. I just wanted to thank you for sparing me the punishment. Martinevans123 (talk)
      • And now Martinevans123 has crossed the line from good natured attempts at humor which we can laugh at and/or ignore to being behaving like a jerk. Some folks find humor okay, Catlemur obviously does not, so please don't specifically antagonize them. NE Ent 14:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Fixed. NE Ent 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am Welsh (and fluent in the language) and am not offended at the sheep shagger DYK. Just a bit of humour, and many Wikipedia readers (not just editors; this is the front page we're talking about) will find humorous facts interesting. On a personal note, I'd like to commend The C of E for his successful DYK. At the risk of appearing contentious (and this is most definitely not my intent) I think perhaps "lightening up" is within the best interest of the counter-filer. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Chesnaught555:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, The C of E. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• I declare this thread be renamed "The ANI sheepshagger fiasco", be closed, deleted, salted and henceforth only recalled with a furrowed brow by the PC brigrade who are actively seeking to excise the freaking soul out of the place. Otherwise known as: close this thread and move on to something productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (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:Easter126

There is a massive Sockfarm around the Topic Stuart Styron.

In the Table only SUL works fine...

Ulla1956 is allready blocked on en:wp (legal threat), user Patriska2601 Helde43 Schitty666 Schmidtrach2 are bloked od de:wp ((Personal attacks or harassment))

The Easter126 was blocked infinit (Personal attacks or harassment), but the Admin reduces it to three month until jun. I suggest to set it again to infinit, cause this is a Sockpuppet / DUCK Schmitty (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Stuart Styron has come up before, Schmitty. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Bert_Martinez_.282.29 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Stuart_Styron, you might like to check these out. The Stuart Styron page itself has been salted so nothing much is going to happen there. As it happens, I have an IP on my user page today asking about Stuart Styron, I've not responded yet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2016/04/10#Benutzer:2.243.198.61_.28erl..29_2 Banned for 1day in de:wp. He is trying to stalk me in german wikipedia, look at my userpage and userdisk https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Schmitty&action=history Schmitty (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

His contribs were fully deleted: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/2.243.198.61 Schmitty (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Those were my listings at COIN.
  • User:Fasterthanyou123 self disclosed as Stuart Styron, so a sock of User:Styron111 . Dormant, but both still should be blocked indef for socking/promo only IMHO, plus this widespread abuse from a big sockfarm.
  • User:Flashfox7 account name appears to be a play on my account name, and a clear sock. Dormant but should be blocked. Widefox; talk 09:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of those listed by Schmitty, four have created pages (all deleted) about Stuart Styron: Ulla1956 (blocked indefinitely), Flashfox7, Easter126 (blocked 3 months) and Nature024. Fasterthanyou123, who has as you say self-identified as Styron, also edited the Stuart Styron page. Was your conclusion that there was meatpuppetry/paid editing at play here? The others are not registered, have not edited or, in the case of Styron111, made only two edits in 2011. None are currently active on en.wiki (in the cases of Ulla1956 and Easter126, this is not voluntary). Schmitty has opened a checkuser request on de.wiki and we can see how that pans out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thought we indef blocked socks? This is quite humdrum and melodramatic but not over yet: AFAIR, one person with at least three accounts, possibly with other accounts being meats from a promo company (use of "we" is probably not a English translation artifact but may be more of a royal we than a hint at group accounts/meats). Now, add IP duck sock of Styron User:2.244.158.181 - broken English, style of choosing the good path(TM), etc. COIN can be a bit toothless, but this drama keeps giving despite it being belatedly salted... Ad hominem and legal threats towards Schmitty and disruption of my usertalk [25] Widefox; talk 08:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-mit-benutzer-schmitty-ganz-weit-vorne Stalking in a bad way, in this PR you find a link to:

http://www.amazon.de/Die-Akte-Wikipedia-Informationen-Online-Enzyklop%C3%A4die/dp/386445123X/ref=pd_cp_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=19PY5TE21NHKGG28C81B

Amazon has already deleted this "Post", stating me as a Psychopath. The other PressArtikel is also deleted now.

You find the Links in conrtibutions of de:Benutzerin:Ulla1956; en:wp already blocked for legal threats, is now blocked on de:wp

Schmitty (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an English translation of the www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com link which is a dead link today [26] .Widefox; talk 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.pressemitteilung-verteilen.com/wikipedia-deutschland-polizei-ermittelt-gegen-benutzer-schmitty Stalking again Stalking at its best Schmitty (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Stuart Styron has now been deleted. Seven times. Salt? (No idea who they are, but with the article gone, we don't have to do anything at WP:COIN). John Nagle (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Krisreeder10

Krisreeder10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have my concerns about the editing of Krisreeder10. He seems to be almost only editing an article about himself in a promotional way. I have also found hime to be gaming the AFC system by creating and submitting drafts while logged out and logging in shortly afterwards to immediately accept the draft, as seen for instance here, here and here. Tvx1 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I have started having a heavy-handed go at weeding this garden. I have a lot of real-life stuff to do in the interim and so I may not be finished in one sitting. I could cut lots more information given the utter absence of third-party sources, but I will leave that for someone else, not to be lazy but so the author(s) can potentially recognize that I'm not on a one-human vendetta against Mr. Reeder (and that, at some level, I'm trying to help him out by making the article less off-putting for AFD reviewers). It will be interesting to see who reverts my changes. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Is User:Krisgrayer10 the same editor? Dbfirs 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely. But I think it would need a SPI to confirm that. Nevertheless, these users don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia but only to promote him/themsel(f)(ves)Tvx1 23:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Tvx1 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think the article is Notable. It's specifically localised to a parish church in England. The source material is from the local newspaper only. AfD section. Nuro msg me 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on a situation re: Anmccaff

Could an uninvolved admin please have a look at a situation for me? Recently I've been working on Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) and it seems that User:Anmccaff has rather taken a dislike to the article in its present form, since its recent promotion to GA status by User:Keilana. I won't go into the arguments he's made, they're all available to see on the talk page and in the edit history, but I will say they are largely petty and/or obtuse. This, however, isn't my problem.

Anmccaff's attitude has made it very difficult to find consensus, if not impossible. He has insulted every editor on the talk page, even User:Bradv who appeared completely uninvolved to mediate. I'd be quite happy to list the insults if it helped, but I think anyone who pops to Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist) will see what I'm talking about. He's also been tagging other unrelated articles I've written in an apparent attempt to bring the fight there too. This is despite the fact I've kept almost completely out of the discussion.

I nearly brought this here a few days ago due to the legally charged statements he made, "... are you refuting your borderline libel ..." and "made assertions about one of the cited authors that, in another context, might be actionable", creating a chilling effect, but my comments on his talk page appear to have stopped that. Whilst there, however, I found a long list of similar issues where the individual worked in a manner that discouraged collaboration, this isn't new behaviour.

Any eyes on the situation or suggestions for ways to move forward would be much appreciated. Worm^TT(talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll check it out.--v/r - TP 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you like a response to this now, or do you want to look over the interaction history unfettered a bit first?

Just keep in mind as you do that I'd disagree with most of the assertions Worm That Turned has made above. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Well, that was a lot of reading. I'll be frank with you, WormTT, I'm not seeing the actionable item. I saw you say you'd take action if you weren't involved, but I don't see to what. I'd definitely agree that Anmccaff's participation has been aggressive and confrontational and I'd strongly urge them to adapt a more collaborative editing behavior. But, I think this is largely a content issue. I think Anmccaff brings up enough of a concern to warrant questioning the GA status. But, I also think the dispute comes down to a difference in perception where I believe Anmccaff is simply wrong. Anmccaff appears to be approaching the article from something of a historical relativism point of view. What were Elizabeth Alexander's contributions at the time, how have they persisted, and what were her intentions at the time? To be honest, I don't think that matters in the context of an encyclopedia article about her. If you wanted to write about whether she has the moral right to claim the accomplishments that historians grant her, well, then we can discuss that. But, Wikipedia's point of view should be about what happened, and how did it have an impact on history. That's it. Whether she intended to be a radio-astronomer at all is immaterial. So, I'd agree with you on those points. Anmccaff spends a lot of time arguing about the meta-properties of this article and not much time discussing actual changes they'd like to make (short of repeated rants about the GA status). The comment on Headbomb recanting "libel" is purely disruptive and nonsense. It's not libel to consider the reliability of a source. That's some serious POV pushing and Anmccaff should be well warned to steer clear of that sort of rubbish argument. Another instance can and should be seen as making veiled legal threats to win a content dispute. But, short of that specific case - nothing actionable springs to mind. Sorry, bud. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for you.

(edit conflict)@Anmccaff: Based on your argumentative approach to the article talk space, I suspect that any response you have to this is going to hurt your case rather than help it. You'd be wise to accept my outside perspective and take the advice I've made above.--v/r - TP 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking over it TParis. Perhaps a bit jaded and have read a little too much into things. I'll defer to your judgement, for the time being at least. Worm^TT(talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've just read through the Talk Page, and were as Anmccaff is being excessively obtrusive & recalcitrant, followed by sarcasm that is completely irrelevant to the issues raised by Headbomb, I'll give them the 'good faith' required for now. They need to take the advice of TP on board, I would further suggest and strongly encourage. From my perspective of reading the argument, it is about semantics on her name and on her involvement, or lack there of, in one specific field of Scientific Endeavour. As I'm not going to put myself through a Degree in Science to familiarise myself with Radio Astronomy, one of my oldest friends is an Astrophysicist for the CSIRO (look it up) in Australia, formally of the Smithsonian and Harvard, so I will ask him at the football this afternoon. Nuro msg me 00:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(Re "Semantics") no, not in the least, unless you are using the word in the original sense. A person who publishes a certain way, like J. B. S. Haldane, should be prominently noted as that, even if his close friends might have called him "Jack." Dr Alexander had a long and varied career, heavily involved in geology, & soil science, but with notable wartime work in radiometeorology, radio antenna design &cet, and, briefly, investigating solar interference with radar. Almost all of the article is concentrated on a very small part of her life, and mostly from a Guinness-World-Records viewpoint, with a little gender wars thrown in: was she the "first woman in radioastronomy?!!!!?" This is like writing an article on G. H. W. Bush, and spending most of it on when he was shot down, mentioning in passing that he was "involved in business and government service." Anmccaff (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point, but you should have been as concise in the Talk Page. I would also agree that the persons Professional name should be the Title of the page. I would then suggest that the article be expanded to cover the more relevant Scientific parts of her career/life, if the primary element of the content is about the GBoWR, which to me is bizarre. And if this has been attempted, which is not how I read the arguments in the talk page that have been raised (though I could have misread that) , well........ Nuro msg me 01:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nahh, the GBoWR is a figure-of-speech, not literal. The article concentrates on an episode where you can make the case that she was the first at something...or the first woman. Bar-bet history. I think another big problem is that too many Wiki writers are about...12, by the look of it, and only know online resources, really, so the only info they'll see is online stuff, which does generally use her familiar name, Elizabeth.

Do you mind me moving this to the article talk page? Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but the original person who posted here may have a different view, as they are looking for oversight. But if you are asking me to come over to the talk page and contribute, then yes, that's fine. Nuro msg me 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: when you run into the fellow from the CSIRO, mention to him that Wiki doesn't even have an article on Bob Unwin. Or Alan Maxwell, or.... Anmccaff (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Weird goings on at Edward Beck (psychologist)

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.

---

Edward Beck (psychologist), as an article, has had issues, including a history of CoI editing by the user Dredbeck (talk · contribs), who seems to be affiliated with or is the subject. We were able to get it cleaned up and expanded enough to avert my AFD request, but there's other suspicious activity going on. Prior to the AFD, the article was moved per an OTRS ticket, only claiming that it is "illegal to use the term psychologist" (although, contravening the OTRS request, the article was moved back to using "psychologist" as disambiguation). And now the user claiming to be Beck left a paragraph calling us out for "mis-editing" the page and so forth.

Anyone want to take a closer look at this? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how using psychologist as a disambiguation has any legal ramifications? We call him a psychologist in the first sentence - is that illegal too? Sam Walton (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It is unlawful for anyone in the US to call themselves a psychologist if they do not have the relevant qualifications Psychologist#United States and Canada. And, since someone (presumably Beck) regards it contentious to call Beck a psychologist, WP:BLP tells us to removed any unsourced claim immediately. I understand that people should not be making legal threats but we should not be maintaining the description "psychologist" unless it is cited in the article. The categorisation is also inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the claims that may be incorrect but I hope someone can now take the article forward. I have left title in one of the references describing him as a psychologist because I dare say that is a correct citation even if it is an incorrect claim. Thincat (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh, wasn't aware of that. Fair enough then, this seems reasonable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat 2

here? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(Just noticed the report above- this is connected to that.) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a legal threat. "I may sue if he she/continues." Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, clear legal threat. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Aside from the clear legal threat, does his underlying complaint have any merit, are there sources to verify that he is indeed a psychologist? This is self-published, but it doesn't indicate that he has ever represented himself as a psychologist, but rather a professor or assistant professor.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like the concerns of the subject have been address already through editing. I recommend E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) NOT move the page back like they did previously. I believe the confusion arose because of a citation from the Cleveland Jewish News citation referring to the subject as a 'psychology professor'.--v/r - TP 21:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I just added his degree to the article. He got an Ed.D See Training and licensing of clinical psychologists. He's not a psychologist. I find it ironic that this mediator person went all nuclear on us. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I turned it into a redirect since all the sources are about the organisation not about him, and frankly we don't need this shit. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 18 April 2016 (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.

Crazy socks

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.

---

Note:

• Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wumg
• Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wung
• Special:Contributions/Andy M. Wank
• Special:Contributions/Andy M. WangAndy M. Wang
• Special:Contributions/Endy M. Wang
• Special:Contributions/Endy M. Wank
• Special:Contributions/GeneralizationAreBad
• Special:Contributions/Sollte das Vereinigte Königreich ein der Europäischen Union bleiben oder die EU
• Special:Contributions/Indien die Verenigde Koninkryk bly 'n lid van die Europese Unie of verlaat EU?
• Special:Contributions/Beharko Erresuma Batua Europar Batasuneko kide izaten jarraitu edo utzi EBko?
• Special:Contributions/Brexit referendum Brexit referendum Brexit referendum
• Special:Contributions/Nëse Mbretëria e Bashkuar mbetet një anëtare e Bashkimit Evropian ose të BE-së?
• Special:Contributions/如果英國仍是歐盟的成員，或離開歐盟？
• Special:Contributions/Campaign for a referendum Campaign for a referendum Campaign for a referendum 2016
• Special:Contributions/Kodi United Kingdom kukhala membala wa Union European kapena kusiya EU?

Socks of this guy

Thanks for your help!— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they're all blocked, Andy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2016 (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.

Shashohag

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 getting to be tiring fixing Shashohag's repeated removal of speedy templates.... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

ALl their pages and reverts are gone, thank you admins.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2016 (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.

New socks of Special:Contributions/United Kingdom referendum on the British membership in the European Union

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.

---

• Special:Contributions/Reino Unido Unión Europea membresía Referéndum Jueves, 23 de junio 2016
• Special:Contributions/Royaume-Uni Union européenne adhésion de référendum jeudi, 23 Juin 2016
• Special:Contributions/Regno Unito dell'Unione europea appartenenza Referendum Giovedi, 23 giugno il 2016
• Special:Contributions/Europäische Union Großbritannien Referendum Donnerstag 23. Juni Jahr 2016
• Special:Contributions/英國歐盟公投週四，2016年6月23日
• Special:Contributions/Reino Unido União Europeia Membership Referendum quinta-feira, junho 23, 2016

— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's  Done Thanks — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 21:33, 18 April 2016 (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.

Sock #6

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 the last report, a new sock, User:Tedsmobilepulpit. Per contribs, behaving just like the last. Please indef. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Might it be smart to file this at WP:SPI as well? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an open case already, tangled up with another. I am in the process of splitting it out manually now. SPI seems backlogged, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha, I noted that SPI seemed a bit backed up at the moment as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now split out: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biscuittin. I am also filing these ANIs because this sock is causing acute disruption and ANI is generally the fastest way to get them blocked. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmmm, clearing some. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's like playing whack-a-mole, and this one has been whacked. You can report these at AIV for faster action – that's where most of the vandalism admins prefer to see block evasion/socking. Just link to the SPI report.  :-) Katie^talk 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate seeing block evasion / socking at AIV FWIW. AIV is for rampant vandalism / spam in progress. It isn't a one-stop-block-shop. SQL^{Query me!} 04:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please pardon me. Will file there in the future. Closing. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2016 (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.

Copyvios and/or Spam, edit-warring & aggression

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.

---

Native Eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has repeatedly added probable copyvio images and definitely copyvio text to the Dreamcatcher article:[27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. The text and images were clearly copied from http://dreamcatcher.com/. The copyvio text is from the various sub-pages on that commercial site, such as:[32]. Commons admins have now deleted his uploads as copyvios (a handful of them - but you'll have to be able to see deleted contribs to see the whole list; here's one of the AfD's:[33]) and flagged his newer upload for missing permissions. But now the user is beginning to simply upload them again. I would appreciate a Commons admin taking some action on this in addition to the deletion.
The User has been asked multiple times what his connection is to the commercial site he's taking text and images from:[34], [35], [36], but refuses to answer the question,[37] instead responding with aggression and personal attacks:[38]. As the uploader refuses to answer about connection to the website, and continues to re-add the questionable content after several warnings, I am asking an uninvolved admin for a block. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. No objection to an unblock if the editor can convincingly agree to abide by our policies and work with us to improve articles. Given the history available, however, I'm not optimistic. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. IMHO it's a case of WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my guess. But I'm not around all that much and don't want to hold up an unblock if it turns out we found a unicorn. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 18 April 2016 (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.

Reporting User:Brahmin girl

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.

---

Whoever that is, Wikipedia will be better without him/her? So far have a single edit but not a very good start. Someone please block User:Brahmin girl! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2016 (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 editing from IP address

Beginning at 9:28 CST and continuing thru 10:13 CST on April 17, User:121.111.96.88 posted disruptive edits on numerous articles that I have written. These edits can be seen here: [39]. These disruptive edits totaled more than 14, by last count, and are too numerous to issue individual warnings on the user's Talk page. Requesting some relief. Woodlot (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted most of his/her contribs so far, and warned - seems to have stopped editing 4 hours ago. SQL^{Query me!} 15:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SQL, I was going by local time; so, the disruptive edits were fairly recent—between 14:28 and 15:13 UTC. Woodlot (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything other than reverting/blocking that can be done?

Hi admins, this is about the persistent sockpuppetry of User:Yourname that has been a long-term issue. The user has been using proxies to repeatedly post offensive images on the Sandbox, and on user's user/talk pages until the IPs are blocked. I became aware of this issue in early April, and noticed almost consistent daily behavior on the sandbox since late March.

• Sockpuppet investigation (see also, this diff)

Many admins have been performing revdel and noting the offensive images at the MediaWiki bad image list.

I'm bringing this up now because it is still ongoing. (Best seen on the history page of the Sandbox talk history today on April 16.

My question is essentially, anything further the community is capable of doing to prevent the ongoing vandalism? — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, these need revdel:

• Special:Contributions/90.171.75.122
• Special:Contributions/148.101.105.159
• Special:Diff/715631217
• Special:Diff/715631205
• Special:Diff/715631204
• Special:Diff/715627785

— Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage is semi-protected, and diffs are revdel'ed. SQL^{Query me!} 01:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Tag-team reverting

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.

---

• Angrybirdt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angary bird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above two users are currently involved in reverting edits at the 2016 Indian Premier League article. There's a bit more info here. To me they look like they're one and the same editor, and as a minimum, the edits are disruptive. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I opened an SPI: [40]. Feel free to add whatever else you think is needed. GAB^Hello! 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 19 April 2016 (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.

Has spring sprung?

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.

---

Nothing to see here, move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Previous discussion is at Special:Diff/715923573#Block review:92.19.170.43. It appears from the following discussions that editors are being reverted and blocked and articles and their talk pages are being protected long - term because they have been using the talk pages to reach consensus and editing the articles accordingly: Special:Diff/715923588 Special:Diff/715884482#EngvarB Talk:Aachen#EngvarB. In a particularly bad instance, editors cleaned up Hemen Majumdar only for Favonian to add back the vandalism (e.g. changing his occupation from "painter" to "pilosoper" and replacing a verified birth date with a fictitious one) and then lock the article for three months. 90.220.101.81 (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Pretty sure you are the vandal here Mr. banned user. Go away. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC) What vandalism? Diffs, please. 90.220.101.81 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC) You are a banned editor. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. The fact that you are is vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) I see a WP:NPA there. Evidence for that allegation? 90.220.101.81 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC) It isn't vandalism. Peter James (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC) How do you figure? The IP is Vote (X) for Change, a globally banned editor. The only reason I didn't flat out delete this section was so he could be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2016 (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.

Odd activity at User talk:Niccoskyhubby

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 just saw this pop-up in recent changes, and found this very odd. The user Niccoskyhubby was indef blocked in 2011 as a sockpuppet of a banned user, yet apparently has been editing their talk page for years about a completely made-up show. I tagged the page for CSD:U5 as not a web host, however I wanted to get some eyes on the page as this seems a bit odd than 5 years after a block talk page access was still valid. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Page deleted and user reblocked with talk page access revoked. Katie^talk 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Case closed. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NADC only registered users may close discussions, and it should normally be performed by administrators. This is not the first time you have been warned about performing unauthorized administrative functions. You were blocked for it previously. Scr★pIron^IV 21:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason this should stay open though, so.... Closing. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:04, 19 April 2016 (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.

Wikipedia Concerns

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 a concern today that I want to address to the Administration team here at Wikipedia. This is not directed to a specific Administrator so therefore I have not put a notice on their Talk page in regards to this discussions. Here's the deal. I have whats called a Disability. So yesterday I decided create a Wikipedia account because I wanted to try out editing constructively here on Wikipedia. What happened was come to find out was I was unintentionally Vandalizing Wikipedia and of course I was blocked for it. I have requested and unblock which was declined by Administrator Vanjagenije. And I haven't put a notice template on his/her Talk page though I probably should have and Tagging a user I'm not familiar with either. So Vanjagenije along with the dlined unblock has posted some guidelines I can follow to put the proposed article edits on my talk page to show you all that I can be a good editor and could potentially be unblocked. So I did the guidelines as followed on my talk page with the proposed edits and requested an unblock. Ok now now let's fast forward to today. I got a notice that the block was yet again declined this by Yamla again no template again no template is on his/her talk page but is aware of this discussion. I also went on my current IP address and I understand block evasion is a big no no around here among other things. The reason I went on the IP address is I wanted to address the concerns that I had about the way I was unfairly treated especially after I said how much regret I have for even vandalizing to begin with and I totally regret that. My point is I feel that I was treated unfairly because I have a disability and I admit I'm not as good as editing Wikipedia like everyone else is. I'm not asking for special and I want to say I know what I did was wrong and I have full remorse for vandalizing and I think I deserve a second chance.

Thank you for reading and hopefully I made sense in what I said if not then tell me and I will gladly clarify something if needed.--Texas6634 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of these concerns and unblocked the user so s/he could post here. I don't really have anything to say; I declined the unblock given the edit history and the nature of the unblock request. If others disagree, I wouldn't object to them unblocking. Note that my involvement is limited to declining the unblock, then lifting the block so the user could post here. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Since it seems like your concern is with Vanjagenije, I have left a notification for that editor. In any event, it appears that you're unblocked so there's nothing really needing administrative action here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, you were unblocked to post here? That's different. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Six pages worth of mass-removal in nine minutes? What'd the disability to do with that? Sorry; but- that was (and probably still would be) a good block, according to the lights of WP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to be fair, if I'm on a phone I could easily mess something up. Wikipedia does have a notoriously steep learning curve. And sometimes you've just had a bad day. The block itself was good, but there's nothing wrong with another chance here. A reblock would be cheap. @Texas6634: If you do get another chance out of this, realize that if you go back to making the same sorts of mistakes you're likely going to be reblocked and not likely to get yet another chance. I respect you for sharing that you have a disability that is making editing difficult, but you can't be blanking content even accidentally. It's not fair to our readers to be searching for information and find a blanked page, or to our editors to have to clean this up rather than writing more articles. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I really have a disability I know it's hard to tell with the contributions but I really regret doing what I did.--Texas6634 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To explain the truth, there are a lot of editors who have disabilities, like ADHD or even autism. They have trouble from the beginning until someone else post a message on the talk page that reveals the guidelines. Everyone deserves a chance to edit even if they make mistakes. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how your disability affected your editing. Nor do I see how your behavior would be different in the future. That IP doesn't exactly have a clean record. @Bbb23:, perhaps you can add something here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1:That was because I was trying to get someone to understand me better and I was frustrated ( which is no excuse at all) and yes I spent a good plenty of hours reviewing the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.--Texas6634 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've combined these two sections that appear to be the same disruptive user. Frankly, this looks pretty fishy. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Are you saying that you believe the IP and Texas6634 are the same user? Scr★pIron^IV 21:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've separated out the discussion about ScrapIronIV brought by 50.29.199.144. They have nothing to do with each other. This is a waste of community time. Texas6634 was correctly blocked and should have remained blocked. There's nothing redeeming about his behavior, and the disability is irrelevant to their edits and irrelevant to Wikipedia. The only reason I haven't reblocked the user is because there are two many administrators involved for me to feel comfortable. Given that Yamla unblocked the user, I would like "permission" from them to reblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Once the issue is resolved, I have no problem with someone noting a permanent unblock or reblocking the user, as appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is it difficult for you to understand that I have a disability and secondly why can't you understand that I regret vandalizing? If you look at my talk page in the section Titled KEZW you will see i'm trying my best at being a good editor.--Texas6634 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We understand that you have a disability. The argument being made is that even giving consideration for your disability, you should have remained blocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• This person doesn't have a mysterious disability that causes him to vandalize articles until blocked, at which time he immediately switches into non-vandal mode. He is lying. We're being trolled. Indef block re-instated. And there's a special place in hell reserved for people pretending to have a disability in order to troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A very sound analysis. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:09, 19 April 2016 (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.

Persistent disruptive editing

Despite multiple warnings, 97.95.12.163 refuses to stop making disruptive edits. The user is an obvious sock puppet of 96.35.115.44. The user pretty much just changed his or her IP addresses after getting blocked multiple times just so they could continue doing what they were doing.

The user's disruptive editing includes unsourced changes, no edit summaries, no attempt to discuss, unexplained reversions, POV content about "stand-alone sequels", incorrect titles, listing poster taglines as the title, and more. The user has been warned repeatedly and knows exactly what (s)he is doing at this point. DarkKnight2149 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you requesting a range block? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't think the situation has escalated to the point where a range block is necessary. The user stopped using the other IP after previously getting blocked, just so (s)he could do the same at the current IP (97.95.12.163). As far as I'm aware, there aren't any others (at least, not yet).

I think that the blocking of both IPs may suffice (as there's no telling if the user will evade their hypothetical block by going back to their previous IP, assuming they can). DarkKnight2149 00:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Update (15 April 2016)

Since I had to re-add this after it was mistakenly archived before conclusion, I want to reiterate to administrators that there has yet to be official response or action to this disruptive editing report. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked your first IP 31 hours for disruption. The second is stale so I can't do anything about that one. If he resumes after the block expires, report it at AIV. :-) Katie^talk 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. DarkKnight2149 03:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Can you please provide a link? (i'm not admin but for clarities sake to make an informed opinion) Nuro msg me 03:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I probably can. What specifically do you need a link to? DarkKnight2149 03:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The article in question, as there isn't one in the post, only the complaint. Nuro msg me 03:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There were multiple articles. I'm busy at this very moment, but I'll be sure to message you the links the user's past blocks soon. DarkKnight2149 03:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No prob, just need to look at the specifics is all. Nuro msg me 03:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Is this a legal threat? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Debatable IMO. I think they're just trying to take ownership of the article, no legal phrases used. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd thing to post. I don't see a threat, just a series of proclamations. The important thing is I don't think it was meant to have a chilling effect, nor do I think it had that effect. HighInBC 14:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

I have had an SPI report against Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on their latest IP 69.178.193.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) open for five days since they sent several password reset requests my way with no action, though understandably so because there was no en.wiki activity from 69.178.193.128 until this morning when they began their usual anti-Facebook edits and North Dakota media topic edits anew. I added to the sock report but didn't send a report to AIV because I figured somebody would be on it.

This afternoon the IP used an email I never have made public and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account to post their rants on (I can provide the email proof on request). They didn't have the password but I still got the verification email about it, which I obviously turned down. This continues Hypocritepedia's past behavior of attempts to compromise my email and social accounts (which are all protected by two-factor so I'm not really worried about losing them). Please immediately block this IP and take action on the SPI; I understand there's not much that can be done for off-wiki harassment but they definitely have no intentions for positive contribs here ever (I am refusing to inform the IP for obvious reasons). Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Why did you "create a Twitter account to post their rants on"? Sounds like the "off-wiki harassment" is going both ways .... Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender--you may want to re-read the above and consider whether bedtime is here? John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There should probably be a coma between the 'only' and the 'to'; viz, 'and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) 

Drdaviddukesucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked this morning making the same edits. Never mind criticizing my grammar, can someone look at the open SPI and block the IP, please? Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - No, grammar is extremely important and you should have Proof Read your post BEFORE you saved it. Dedication to Detail. Having said that, this is clearly a serious matter and those with the authority to act should IMO. Nuro msg me 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm rusty on SPI details, but I blocked 69.178.193.128. Fences&Windows 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO and possible COI

This issue was initially raised at WP:BLPN here, but bringing it here for more eyes and possibly admin action. Two single purpose accounts were recently created, HARRYCRAIG and Vacariu.bucharest. HARRYCRAIG has only edited two articles - Markus Gabriel and yesterday created Gabriel Vacariu, the editor Vacariu.bucharest has only edited the Vacariu article (probably a WP:COI) and the Vacariu article has WP:COPVIO issues. This section in the article appears to have been copied verbatim from here. It would appear these two users are here to right great wrongs and push a POV that Gabriel plagiarized Vacariu, which apparently has already been addressed, but maybe not to his satisfaction - there are no plausible grounds to believe that Prof. Gabriel violated the standards of good scientific practice by making improper use of the ideas expressed in your published texts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Logically speaking, if an editor is adding copyright violations to an article, they do not have a conflict of interest - COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. I don't see any reasons to accuse this editor of a COI, because their username doesn't seem to give much away in respect to this. Simply speaking, if the information can be accessed on the Internet or through a book, there is no conflict of interest. I completely agree with the WP:COPYVIO observation, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. The way I interpret WP:COI is - "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." The editor's username is Vacariu.bucharest and the only article they have edited is Gabriel Vacariu, who also happens to be with the University of Bucharest, which is why I said probably a COI, if the editor doesn't have a conflict of interest in editing the Vacariu article, then they can simply declare that they don't have a conflict of interest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Isaidnoway - I completely misread and thought that Vacariu.bucharest was the name of one of the articles. That'll teach me. Of course, a COI editor is someone who edits about someone they know well, but if there is a copyright violation present, that means the violating material comes from somewhere else (i.e. a website) and therefore it isn't original research or own knowledge. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ches, no disrespect intended, but I didn't mention anything about "original research or own knowledge", I clearly stated above that the copyvio originated from this website. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, I know you mean well but please don't comment on policy unless you understand it, as it has to potential to confuse good-faith new editors who assume people making confident pronouncements on ANI are speaking from authority. The existence of a COI has no relationship to whether the author knows the article subject (although the latter can sometimes be an indicator of the former). Whether something is a copyvio or not has no relevance to whether a COI exists. Inter alia, it's perfectly possible to violate the copyright of a work of which you're the creator—in most legal systems copyright belongs to the body commissioning the work, not the author, and thus a writer contributing a piece to a newspaper or magazine will rarely have the right to upload the piece to Wikipedia even though it's 100% their own work. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent, I do mean well, and I thank you for your good faith assumption. I simply do not see a conflict of interest, only a copyright violation. Of course, as you said, I am not speaking from authority, I am simply making a non-administrator observation. My apologies for any confusion I have caused. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Returning to Isaidnoway (talk · contribs)'s original complaint, there's clearly a bit of COPYVIO going on and possibly the owners of these two accounts haven't quite got to grips with Wikipedia policies yet. That said, they seem to be fairly new here and haven't had anything like a level 3 or level 4 warning for their actions, so I'm not convinced that any admin action is required at this stage. If we get to the stage where they've been adequately warned about their behaviour and are continuing to be disruptive, then obviously a block would be in order - but I don't think we're there (yet). WaggersTALK 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Isaidnoway (talk · contribs) first thing i wanna make clear is your COI request is fully wrong now on COPYVIO . I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY COPYRIGHT DISTURBANCE I KNOW ABOUT Gabriel Vacariu WORK AND HAD ACCESSED HIS ALL INFORMATION BEFORE WRITING AT WIKIPEDIA . NOW THERE IS PROBLEM ON IT CAN YOU ALL PLEASE HELP ME TO SORT OUT IT SO THAT I CAN PROTECT HIS ARTICLE FROM BEING DELETED.--HARRYCRAIG (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 {utc)

WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response here. (1) it's not necessary to type in all caps. (2) As a new editor here, you should familiarize yourself with some of our editing policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:COI and you can always ask questions about editing at the WP:HELPDESK or me when I happen to be online. (3) Do you have a conflict of interest with editing either one of these two articles - Markus Gabriel or Gabriel Vacariu, in other words, do you know either one of these individuals, are you associated with either one of them, friends of either one of them, employed by either one of them? The reason I ask is because your very first edit to the encyclopedia was to insert an allegation of plagiarism to the Markus Gabriel article using this source - why did you do that? And then you jumped to the newly created article about Gabriel Vacariu and have started editing it now, so your editing behavior has come under scrutiny and is being discussed here. If you do have a conflict of interest with either one of these individuals, let us know now, so we can proceed to guide you on how to continue to edit the encyclopedia, especially if these two articles are the only ones you are interested in editing. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• It might be the path of least resistance to consider whether either subject is notable. If not, no articles --> no COI or copyright issues. These seem like your run-of-the-mill academics. EEng 09:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• One of the articles - Gabriel Vacariu is now listed at AfD, the copyvio has been removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/205.197.242.179/24

I am seeing a ridiculous amount of vandalism coming from this range. Could a checkuser take a look and make sure that the collateral damage wouldn't be too bad if I put a hard block on? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser. That being said... I don't know - out of the /24 (254 addresses after network and broadcast), I see about 5 1-2 edit vandals in the last few days. 1 or 2 more persistent vandals or problematic users. There seem to be quite a few useful contribs coming from there in the same timeframe. Is there a page perhaps that's being targeted? We could look at applying semi-protection if so. SQL^{Query me!} 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Six years on an entire state's educational network? I hope there was discussion on this.

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.

---

JamesBWatson blocked the State of North Carolina's entire educational network for six years and did not link to any relevant discussions. Mind you, that IP range probably includes more than just K-12 institutions; I'm sure there's at least a few colleges, administrative offices, etc within that range. Regardless, six years on an entire state's network? In my opinion, these schoolblocks are getting out of hand; there needs to be official policy on these blocks because I think it's inappropriate for admins to block hundreds of thousands of users for so long without any discussion of official policy to back it up. I'm going to start participating if RfAs and every person who says they're in favor of long term schoolblocks (especially entire states' networks) are going to earn themselves an oppose vote; this is suppose to be an open wiki, and I believe blocks should only be used when they have to be, not because someone thinks that school IPs do nothing but vandalize (they don't). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This was done in Sept 2014 not today. That said, six years is a very long rangeblock, and discussion on it is certainly appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Also note: PCHS-NJROTC did notify JamesBWatson on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• "....these school blocks are getting out of hand". Is there a pandemic of school IP blocks we need to address? Tiderolls 19:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Six years? I've seen quite a bit of gross, annoying and silly vandalism while trying to greet (productive) new users, but that is a long time. If kids are vandalizing from school computers, it's the teachers' job to stop them, not ours. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it's our job to protect the WP corpus from damage. It's the teachers' job to make the kids behave well enough to be trusted.

This is not a block "withholding WP access from the kids", it's a block on editing, not reading. I have yet to see much convincing demonstration of how either kids or WP benefit from editing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• • (E/C)I've been seeing admins softblock IPs in excess of a year for minor cases of vandalism. One admin, A. B., admitted to me that he treats school IPs differently and has an elaborate strategy for blocking them. I've discussed this issue in the past (reaching no consensus), but not on the scale of an entire state's network. One of the arguments that those in favor of long blocks use is that some of these school IPs do nothing but vandalism, well are those people checkusers? The schoolblocks also stop account creation; we have no idea how many good faith accounts were created from those IPs when they weren't blocked. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1. @PCHS-NJROTC: If you disagree with an administrative action, the first thing to do is to ask the administrator about it, and suggest changing or reversing the action. Only if a civil personal approach fails to produce a settlement should you consider taking it to other venues, such as this one. (Also, as Georgewilliamherbert has pointed out, if you do bring a case here, you need to inform ther editors who are involved. I would have thought that common sense and courtesy would dictate that, even if Wikipedia policy didn't.)
2. I never place any kind of range blcok without first extensively studying the editing history from the range. I don't "thinks that school IPs do nothing but vandalize", I am well aware that a good deal of constructive editing comes from schools. However, in this case the history of editing had, over a period of years, been virtually 100% vandalism. Numerous IP addresses in the range had been blocked for various periods, and time and time again when the blcok expired teh vandalism returned. Virtually no constructive edits existed among the vandalism edits. PCHS-NJROTC says "I'm sure there's at least a few colleges, administrative offices, etc within that range". That may be true (though "I'm sure" suggests it's likely to be speculation rather than a known fact) but even if it is true, if all the editing is vandalism, then the fact that there are people who potentially could edit but don't is not very relevant.
3. I don't know what "K-12 institutions" are. I guess that they are something American, and as is so often the case with Americans, it is assumed that everyone in the world knows everything about American institutions.
4. I agree that 6 years was a long time for the block, and I think it was probably a mistake. I am grateful to PCHS-NJROTC for drawing my attention to it, and I have lifted the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, "K–12" means "kindergarten through 12th grade", and in the US is a general term to refer to primary and secondary schooling considered, with many exceptions, the minimum necessary to enter the general workforce. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• See how easy that was PCHS-NJROTC? All you had to do was ask. I suppose you'll have to save your threats and hyperbole for another argument.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My reason for bringing this to AN/I is because I think this is a problem that many admins have, not just JameBWatson. I think this is an issue we desperately need policy on. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • AN/I is for incidents. This is not an incident. Suggest immediate closure.--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Concur. If you want to propose a limit on schoolblock length or how they're administered, you might want to start a thread at the Village Pump or someplace else. You can always do a RfC and list it at T:CENT once a proposal develops. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Spoken like a pretentious admin who is WP:NOTHERE. Please get over yourself or resign your admin bit. 172.56.33.48 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2016 (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.

WP:INTDABLINK violation by User:Herostratus

I am holding back from personally blocking User:Herostratus to avoid the appearance of being involved in an editing dispute. We have a clearly spelled out policy at WP:INTDABLINK that "the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page". This necessary to prevent our disambiguation efforts from being flooded with literally hundreds of thousands of false positives showing up as errors needing to be fixed. I made such a fix at Kindred Spirit; Herostratus, apparently asserting ownership over the page, has reverted this fix twice, and has plainly stated that he does not intend to follow this policy, and does not care whether it disrupts the efforts of other. I would appreciate if someone can explain to him the necessity of avoiding disruptive edits, or at least not reverting fixes made by others. bd2412 T 00:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry to pick on this one thread randomly, cause minor stuff like this shows up here all the time, but doesn't it ever occur to anyone to take something like this to some calm, friendly nearby admin first, before going nuclear with an ANI post? This isn't an "incident" requiring broad community input. EEng 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am bringing this here because I am generally the friendly nearby admin to whom things are brought (particularly matters relating to disambiguation). bd2412 T 00:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I opened a thread to discuss the question (it is here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#This can't be right? And if it is, what do we need to do to fix it?. I'm not a programmer but even so I'm willing to write the code to prevent the false positives BD2412 is worried about. It should take about 15 minutes, since it only needs to check if the error report is coming from a disambig page. (This is not even considering that, after all, we are here to enhance the reader's experience, not ours.)

Apparently BD2412 is an admin? How is that even possible? His first communication pointing me to the rule (which maybe he is right, not sure, I'm asking for clarification, but I can't memorize every rule) accused me of "intentional vandalism" (I'm a 10 year editor with a pretty clean record and a former admin myself). This is how you destroy, not grow, project like this, BD2412. You need to stop acting and talking like this. I'm sorry for whatever is making you so cranky but please don't take it out on the editors. I'm just really really depressed if people like this are really getting into the admin corps. How could this happen? I need a beer.... Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that an error report is coming from a disambiguation page is irrelevant. Sometimes there are genuine disambiguation errors on disambiguation pages. For example, right now the disambiguation page Set in Stone is reported as containing a link to Catherine Dunne, which is also a disambiguation page. That link definitely needs to be found and fixed, not filtered out. Also, I did not accuse you of intentional vandalism. You rolled back an edit of mine fixing disambiguation links before you bothered to ask why I had made the fix. I informed you of the rule. Now that you know the rule, and that violation of it is disruptive of disambiguator efforts, there is no reason for you to undo such fixes in the future unless your intent is to disrupt the encyclopedia, in which case it is quite proper to treat future edits of this nature as intentional vandalism. bd2412 T 01:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Responding to the first paragraph) @Herostratus: There are plenty of times that a link on a disambiguation page is an unintentional link to another disambiguation page (for example, on the disambiguation page New Orleans (disambiguation), there is an entry for Rancid's song "New Orleans", from the album Let the Dominoes Fall. If that page was subsequently moved to Let the Dominoes Fall (album), with Let the Dominoes Fall turned into a disambiguation page (because of more articles created with the subject "Let the Dominoes Fall"), the link to Let the Dominoes Fall on the New Orleans (disambiguation) page would need to be fixed. Fixing this type of link is part of "enhanc[ing] the reader's experience". -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I got to say, BD, that I do generally see you as one of the more level headed around here. But your comment comes off as leaping to the nuclear option with your threat of calling Herostratus a vandal. That's quite an accusation for an editor with 35k+ edits. Curious if you could step back and see how your approach escalated this issue instead of resolved it?--v/r - TP 01:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I react poorly to my correct and useful edit being rolled back to the incorrect version. bd2412 T 01:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Can't do that, buddy. We all get rolled back/undone at some point. That's literally the definition of an edit war. WP:BRD, remember?--v/r - TP 01:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously not ripe for AN/I. Discussion is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So we have two very senior editors edit warring over a disambig page that mostly consists of redlinks with absolutely zero participation on the talk page Talk:Kindled_Spirit ... how about ya'll dial it down like a thousand degrees, drop the ad hominem nonsense, assume the other person is here to improve the project, and try to come to agreement on the talk page? NE Ent 01:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, no offense to BD2412 intended, but User:Herostratus doesn't seem pissed off at all. You generally don't make comments like "Oops" when pissed. Also, Herostratus did open a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#This_can.27t_be_right.3F_And_if_it_is.2C_what_do_we_need_to_do_to_fix_it.3F here.--v/r - TP 01:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "Apparently BD2412 is an admin? How is that even possible?" is not conducive to further discussion. Fact is, both editors were edit warring, poorly communicating via edit summaries rather than going to the talk page. NE Ent 01:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Pakistani PoV pushing in Kulbhushan Yadav

Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian national and a former naval officer. Pakistan claims him to be an Indian spy and also claims to arrest him in Pakistan. India rejects all Pakistani claims here. However, in the article Pakistani PoV is being presented as the neutral PoV. In a situation where there is no third party confirmation or neutral sources are unavailable and being such a recent news, claims of both parties should be presented like I did here with sources. Even the Iranian President termed such Pakistani allegations as remours here(Pak source) and here(Indian source). But, my edits are being reverted by Pakistani PoV pushers both by registered editors and even by dubious IPs. You are all requested to go through this and do the necessary as deemed fit to keep wiki as a NPOV platform. I can not edit war with all of them all the time.Ghatus (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have left a comment in the Talk Page of this article. I'm not Admin, but I am willing to participate in the discussion, on how to move forward with the article. It clearly needs some consensus, from others, on how to keep it Neutral POV. I agree that there has been some deletion of sections without consensus though. Nuro G'dayMate! 06:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see any POV pushing in the last week or so ever since the renowned socker/vandal Knightwarrior was blocked and booted off of wikipedia. Also your own conduct has been far, far from civil or acceptable. I see that you have reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours. Are you claiming that you are not aware of WP:3RR? You are edit warring in an article and then claiming that "others" are at fault? I mean come on! Furthermore you are the one who is guilty of pushing a pro Indian POV in the article when you used Indian sources to source Iranian claims. Furthermore you are guilty of fabricating claims. As you did with this source. You said that according to this source the Iranians had dismissed the "spy scandals" as rumour, however there is nothing like this in the source. According to the source the Iranians denied that there had been any "high level meeting" between Iran and Pakistan to discuss the scandal. This is quite clever, but disingenuous on your part. We should refrain from adding this kind of falsehood in articles. So instead of edit warring and adding false information please stay away from the article for a few days and maybe it will become better seeing that the socker has been blocked now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You are lying. Forget Indian source, even Pak sources(with video in English) here saying this "Rouhani denied having such a discussion and said, “Whenever Iran comes closer to Pakistan such rumours are spread.”" Why lying??? India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support. Hence, claims of both parties have to be presented accordingly.Ghatus (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus according to wikipedia etiquette you are not allowed to say "you are lying" to another editor. The rules are written here at WP:NPA. However if you want for us both to ignore the rules feel free to state it and I shall be more than ready to thrash you in verbal brawling to such a high degree of hurt that you will regret the day you attacked me. Anyway, moving on to your comment. Let me just repeat what I said. I'll bold it up for you so that it is clear for you to read you know. I stated that You are guilty of edit warring as per WP:3RR. I said You have used Indian websites to source Iranian claims which is POV editing in itself. While discussing your attempt to insert a hoax into the article I said Iranians have NEVER dismissed the spy scandal as rumour, rather they have denied that a high level meeting took place to talk about the scandal. I then said Claiming that the Iranians dismissed the spy scandal as mere rumour is clever but disingenuous source misrepresentation. See the bold lines, read them and then look at your "counter argument". does your answer make any sense whatsoever? No? Well that is because it does not address any of the issues I pointed out. See there are four issues and you do not talk about any of them that is the reason your answer makes no sense to anyone. So what can you do now? Well my advice is to firstly refrain from personal attacks and whatnot. Secondly try to read an argument before rushing in to defend the motherland. Thirdly try to edit in good faith. Fourthly try to give this article a breather, let neutral editors take over for a while, you do not have to protect the article now that it is mentioned here on the ANI so why don't you remove it from your watchlist and do something else for a while? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

1)You are lying again. This is the video as given in the Pak Newspaper and the Iranian President is saying :" “. Whenever we become close to Pakistan such rumours come up. I have heard this more than 20 times We have brotherly relations with Pakistan. We also have a good relationship with India, thus there is no problem,” You can hear it by yourself.

2) India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support.Ghatus (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus next time you use the phrase "you are lying" I will give you butthurt. understood? so please shut it with the personal attacks. And again you are addressing none of the issues pointed out. Iran only denied meeting with Pakistani officials. They did not say that the scandal is not true. youtube videos count for didly squat here on wiki. you are going to be laughed at if you try to insert POV text while using youtube as a source because the double whammy will be a bit to much for even the most staunch good faith assumers. So answer the 4 questions I have put to you and lets get the ball rolling. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you have some comprehension problems. Pakistan's most notable news DAWN.COM has reported this and shot this and they have published in their news portal in support of their report. Indian sources have reported it also see here(Indian source). BTW, entire article of Kulbhushan Yadav is based on recent news Paper articles and nothing more than this. And, I say it again "India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support." That Yadav is an India spy is nothing more than a CLAIM of Pakistan and they have no proof in its support.Ghatus (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang I don't know much about India and Pakistan, other than they have nuclear weapons and a tendency to get cranky with one another, so I think I'm in a good spot to look this over. There's no question that Ghatus is pushing his own POV and edit warring to do it. The content isn't the issue for us at this noticeboard, but the user conduct definitely is. @Ghatus: I'd really like you to explain why we shouldn't block you for edit warring and violating 3RR, because I'm this close to doing just that. Katie^talk 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, Ghatus really needs to start following the policies. The edit warring is unacceptable, so are the repeated personal attacks ("you're lying"). All of this needs to stop. Second, FreeatlastChitchat also need to stop the personal attacks ("I will give you butthurt"). Third, it's true that the article appears to be a constant edit war between Pakistanis and Indians and nobody else cares. It probably could do with a neutral observer. Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz my comment about giving him butthurt is not a personal attack, the next time he attacks me I will report him at ANI. Kinda tired of all this FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Report them at ANI for...a personal attack visible to all at ANI? I think you will do better by calming down and letting Ghatus' attacks speak for themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Talk on content First of all, I want to talk on content. Here is an "alleged spy" as claimed by Pakistan. India denies him to be a spy. So, when an article is written on him, will the claims of both sides be included or only one side (Do not forget that there is no third party or secondary sources) ? That's all. All others are secondary. Discuss on this. Read the article and you will find that an "alleged spy" is turned into a "real spy". This is the "core" issue PoV pushers are running away from discussing. Finally, I am not abusive to anyone and have not use any "unconstitutional" language, though some words of mine may be straight. Let's focus on "content", the heart of Wikipedia.Ghatus (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus if you want to "talk" on content you should first of all stop edit warring and falsifying sources. I know it is allowed to edit an article while discussion is ongoing, but it is not allowed to edit war whilst you discuss. So no more edit warring from you. Secondly, your language is foul and abusive, and has been so on multiple occasions. You have been warned of this before on your talk talkpage but you have always removed such warnings calling them rants. This shows a basic problem with your attitude. If there is a problem with your behavior you should just acknowledge it, apologize, say that you have recognized the problem and it will not happen again, and then everyone forgets about it and we move on with editing the wiki. This is a pretty basic way of dealing with your own behavioural problems. If you do not even acknowledge the problem, others will point it out for you and some admin may take action and you lose your editing privileges for a week or so; so why don't you just admit that you engaged in foul language, no apology required, and you show good faith by letting this thread be closed by an admin or a non admin. We then stop wasting the ANI space and move on to discuss content at the TP of the said page. In all seriousness if you just admit your abusive language I will myself be willing to close this as non admin even though you targetted me. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Abusive exchanges with user Nishidani

In an articles talk page user Nishidani accuses people of being (me I guess) 'not willing to work with anyone,' Users quoting fundamentalist pastors and calling people bible thumpers. Some language I would think could find this along the lines of bigotry.

Examples:

Accusations like bible thumping, which I have not done

Refusing to negotiate with other editors

Attacks user with language like 'biblethumping creationist'

etc.

Looks like they are a regular here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 April 2016

• This concerns Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament#Update and sources and appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute by distraction. How about engaging with what Nishidani says—surely you agree that an encyclopedic article should be based on scholarly research and not on opinions from people whose only qualification appears to be that they are religious? None of the diffs show a problem worth an ANI investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to ask having content proposed on the talk page. It keeps falling into bullying on the main article through revert after revert. I originally made a statement about discussing poorly sourced material and moving it to the talk page. I also indicated it would be through consensus. User Nishidani then began carpet bombing the article with edits and reverting the other editor. I suspect he took my offer of consensus as weakness and an opportunity. The article and environment is now toxic because of him. While other editors are very passionate about their views, the constant is nobody can work with Nishidani, and frankly their verbal abuse should not be allowed to continue. The name calling borderlines around religious bigotry. Basileias (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not admin to state.
  I have just read the Talk Page. Dontreader and Basileias are clearly not liking the fact that Nishidani is being Pro-Secular Scholarly. I consider there to be WP:EDITWARing by all involved though. Consensus is not reached at all. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 07:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Basileias, you are misreading everything, and being extremely pertinacious about my etiquette breaches while silently passing over the irrational nonsense thrown my way by the other editor.

• Reread this. I nowhere there accuse you of biblethumping
• Yes, I state I won’t ‘negotiate’ with User:Dontreader. I then gave the reasons why, which are substantive evidence of why mediation would be pointless. Dontreader wanted Walter Laqueur in (who has no knowledge of secondary scholarship on these difficult religious texts), and s biblethumping creationist, John F. MacArthur. Not one of those reasons was addressed. Both of you just read past them.
• In a compromise edit, after he began reverting me, I retained the very material he wanted in, and which I, on the talk page, was saying failed WP:RS or was inaccurate. I.e. he was using something written by a biblethumping creationist, John F. MacArthur , a fundamentalist California preacher who believes the world was created on October 23 4004 (9 am according to some accounts) or thereabouts. I regard that source as utter crap. But I retained it, while adding sources by scholars who actually are masters of Greek, Hebrew, ancient history. What did Dontreader do? He didn’t examine my edit, and see the compromise but just threw out my several new scholarly sources, and kept the biblethumper fundamentalist Macarthur, with Walter Laqueur who is no biblical scholar and, as I noted, patently misread the source, and kept a third source with the wrong attribution of authorship, again which he added and I retained.
• On a page tagged everywhere for source failings, he was keeping out my attempt to address the complaint by actually using the specific scholarly evidence for the claims the page made, by preferring to drag me in a religious debate with him dealing with the ‘the truth’.

• The truth cannot be suppressed on Wikipedia.’
• truth that cannot be suppressed is that ‘I think trying to claim that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. All you have to do is read the New Testament.

I.e. Dontreader read a primary source, grasped the truth, and now is forcing it on Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is 'forcing a square peg into a round hole.' When I provide sources I'm told I am 'totally in the Christian apologist camp despite your claim that you're a pagan'

The scholarly evidence, from Jews and Christians, is far more nuanced:

Factional agendas underpin the writing of the canonical texts, and the various NT documents are windows into the conflict and debates of that period.(Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement: An Unintended Journey, Springer, 2013 p.93.) According to Timothy Johnson, mutual slandering among competing sects was quite strong in the period when these works were composed. (Lloyd Kim Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism?, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006 p.14.)The New Testament moreover is an ensemble of texts written over decades, and reflecting the different milieux of composition.(Guy G Strousma, ‘From anti-Judaism to antisemitism in Early Christianity,’ in pp.1-26 p.5’I wish to recall that . . these texts were written in rather diverse milieus, and that therefore it is quite meaningless to speak about a single New Testament attitude.’;p.16 ‘The context and meaning of the rejection of the Jews in the Gospel of John, . .are vastly different from Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish invective. We cannot speak of a single early Christian or Patristic attitude toward Jews and Judaism, or imply its existence. Both the relationship of Christianity to Judaism and the Christians’ perceptions of Jews were totally different at the end of the fourth century than they had been three hundred years previously’.)

• to me it's a truth as big as a cathedral that the NT is anti-Semitic
• I believe it's saying that God messed up, making His inspired Word unclear enough to cause Christians to hate and kill Jews. I do believe you are claiming that God is not perfect then
• Trying to drag a pagan like myself into a faith-based discussion about the fellow with the beard who touched Adam's finger according to Michelangelo's account on the walls of the Sistine Chapel.
• He sent His Son, Jesus, to the world, but God was unable to inspire the people who wrote about him in the gospels and in the other NT books, leading to massacres and cruel treatment of His own people due to misunderstandings?
• I'm not a Jew but his writings make me want to vomit.
• This when he interpreted my abrupt no nonsensical dismissal of poor sourcing as a trace of emotionalism (Nishidani, in response to your first comment, if you are a pagan then I really wonder why you get so emotional about this topic, even using profanity.)
• All Basileias has done is sit round, observing this nonsense with Dontreader, and using it to make two complaints about my ‘failure to communicate’ elsewhere and on this page. A failure to communicate apparently means not wanting to get dragged into walls of text argufying with an editor who knows the truth, and has never read any significant books on the topic,. but has drawn his own conclusions about the subject and will use any crap he finds, even from textually illiterate fundamentalists, to back his claims. I don’t ‘negotiate’ in these circumstances. I edit. I don't believe editors like Dontreader should be touching pages as complex as this. But he has a right to do so. Don't ask me to 'negotiate' with him however. And don't make me waste more time here. The whole episode is a farce. Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• When Nishidani asserts that Walter Laqueur is no Biblical scholar, that is nothing more than his biased opinion. As I said, see for yourselves that he is cited in several related Wikipedia articles. See which pages link to his article. Also, my reflections regarding God were made when I was still assuming that Nishidani was a fundamentalist Christian. Furthermore, there are countless religious and agnostic Biblical scholars. Being religious and being a Biblical scholar are not mutually exclusive. Having said that, I don't mind if the John F. MacArthur source is removed. Nishidani claimed, referring to me: "will use any crap he finds, even from textually illiterate fundamentalists, to back his claims." That's a lie. Other than John F. MacArthur (who is suitable for supporting a simple claim that I explained above, which two scholarly sources also support), Nishidani cannot name another religious fundamentalist that I've used as a source because there are no others. Finally, while I do openly claim that the NT is anti-Semitic, I have asked Nishidani to add other sourced points of view throughout the article but WITHOUT removing the scholarly sourced views he opposes. I think that's a fair request, but no, he removed content instead, and created a toxic environment. Later on he did reinsert the removed content (as far as I can tell), but this guy is a professional troublemaker, and it comes as no surprise that he's a frequent guest here at ANI. Dontreader (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Both Johnuniq and Nuro Dragonfly have misunderstood (despite their kind efforts) what has occurred on that talk page and in the article. I actually thought at first that Nishidani was a Christian fundamentalist because he was expressing their views (a total determination to eliminate any perception that the New Testament is anti-Semitic). But based on his userpage and what I have read in the ANI archives, he just seems instead to have a massive problem with the Jews, including any notion that they have been victims of anything. It's impossible to work with Nishidani. It's not that he has a scholarly approach and we do not. Look, for example, at how he disqualifies (and even threatens to take out) the respected scholar Walter Laqueur, who is cited in many similar Wikipedia articles: [41], [42], [43]. My addition of a book source written by the pastor John F. MacArthur was merely a way to refute Nishidani's claim that "The phrase ἡ συναγωγή τοῦ Σατανᾶ 'synagogue of Satan' does not refer to Jews, but people pretending to be Jews" (that's what he wrote in the first diff I showed). MacArthur points to Romans 2:28-29 to prove that the phrase does refer to the Jews [44]. There's nothing wrong with citing a very well-known pastor with advanced theological studies (one of the "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" according to Newsmax Media [45]) to support this simple claim in the article: "In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan." The two following scholarly sources make the same claim. The difference is that MacArthur quotes from Romans to support the claim, which is informative. All I have asked from Nishidani is to add sourced content to show other scholarly views WITHOUT removing content supporting the views of those who believe the NT is anti-Semitic, but he did this instead [46]. In other words, he tried to make HIS view prevail over the view of other scholars instead of letting the reader understand BOTH views. We don't know what Nishidani's next move will be. He's erratic and impossible for us to deal with. He has created a toxic environment by refusing to reach consensus on the talk page. Please intervene. Dontreader (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried to see what the issue was in the talk-page section I linked above but there was nothing clear. If it concerns a particular source, raise it at WP:RSN if its reliability is questioned, or at WP:NPOVN if there is doubt over whether its material is WP:DUE. If the issue concerns whether or not particular wording should be added or removed, start an WP:RFC. However I have encountered Nishidani before and if he says that sources say X it is a very safe bet that X is what the sources say. In particular, if Nishidani bluntly states that "The phrase ἡ συναγωγή τοῦ Σατανᾶ 'synagogue of Satan' does not refer to Jews, but people pretending to be Jews" the best course of action would be to engage with him and ask about any concerns—why does he think that? where did he learn that? Such engagement will be profitable, and it should happen before trying to prove he is wrong. A lot of writing on historic issues is merely a repetition of earlier assertions, and people cherry pick previously published material to find something that supports their point of view (I'm talking about authors of sources, not editors). To find out what the phrase in question meant in the context that it was used, it would be essential to consult scholarly experts known for their expertise in the area. Someone like Walter Laqueur should not be relied on for such an interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq, but I must respectfully disagree with you concerning Walter Laqueur. If you look at which articles link to his page, you will find Antisemitism, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Blood libel, Islam and antisemitism, Religious antisemitism, and New antisemitism, so I think it's clear that many Wikipedians regard him as a competent source when it comes to anti-Semitism. Besides, the claim in question is supported by yet another source in the article [47], and I don't think anyone would dispute that Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz are excellent scholars on this topic. However, I have no interest in editing that article any more unless something is done about Nishidani, and I regret that you defend him despite his problematic history as a Wikipedian. Anyway, thanks for your time and for all the advice. Dontreader (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You could visit WP:RSN and ask whether someone whose main works deal with European history in the 19th and 20th centuries and whose works show no sign of scholarship regarding the New Testament or the Greek used in the New Testament would be suitable for a source regarding the precise meaning of a certain phrase. I assure you that the regulars at WP:RSN would point out the obvious—such a source is totally unsuitable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement just above by User:Dontreader is a good example of the rampant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on the talk page.

(1)A day ago I gave a list of the errors in Dontreader’s work, amongst which was the following:

• Moshe Lazar’s paper ‘The Lamb and the Scapegoat: The Dehumanization of Jews in Medieval Propaganda is ascribed to the editors Sander Gilman and Steven Katz
• Notwithstanding this, Dontreader persists in repeating his mistaken impression the paper he introduced was written by the editors of that volume

’I don't think anyone would dispute that Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz are excellent scholars on this topic.’

• As I said on the talk page Gilman and Katz are notable scholars, I am a big fan of the former, but they did not write that article and in any case has nothing to do with their areas of specialization, nor did the real author of the piece Moshe Lazar have a competence in the interpretation of New Testament Greek or ancient history. He was a very distinguished Romance medievalist, and, like Walter Laqueur, just repeated a meme,
• The proper citation should be Moshe Lazar, ‘The Lamb and the Scapegoat: The Dehumanization of Jews in Medieval Propaganda,’ in Sander Gilman, Steven T. Katz (eds.) "Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, " New York University Press 1991 pp.38-79 pp.45-46

(2)A long time ago I noted that Walter Laqueur was being used for the article Islam and antisemitism (Laqueur's fine by me if he's dealing with modern history even though he failed to graduate from Hebrew University, never obtained an academic degree and is not an Arabist). The problem was, he was being used as a source for the meaning of the Qur’an, a classic Arabic text even scholars find hard to read. Worse, he synthesized passages from two separate Surahs in the Qur’an (Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60) and passed off his synthesis as coming from the former, from just one Surah. I found stubborn opposition to this, all by editors who refused to check the error, who opposed the introduction of scholars competent in Qur'anic studies who explained those passages, and just played with policy objections. See

((1)here

((2)Recap.

Another (very good)editor has now asked me to be nice to an incompetent chap who has a bee in his bonnet with the thesis that all Japanese culture is indebted to Koreans. Same monomania, identical incomprehension of the scholarly lay of the land, similar googling for tidbits that prove a thesis the author is personally convinced of, dredged up, as one finds each time, from sources that fail RS. Wikipedia of course has WP:AGF, but our job here is to write competent, articles based on sound peer-reviewed scholarship. It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies, or a playpit for amateurs to push private theories. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I entered this debate because of the subject matter, even though its the missus who has the Arts (Major) degree with Honours in Medieval Studies, Religion and History, I'm the Military History dude. The author Walter Laqueur in question is not an expert in the field and I would consider biased in their views of the subject. They have their field of expertises, but I don't think is a good example. John F. MacArthur is also not a very good example of unbiased source material. Both of these authors page on WP are not well written IMO, and have serious POV overtones that are not neutral as far as I've read them. Consensus is required with some serious efforts at finding Legitimate Experts in the fields of Ancient Greek and Hebrew, not to mention an Unbiased, or not easily challenged, view. That's how I read it. It has become an extremely toxic article, and I think that the blame is shared, I'm sorry to say. I'm happy to become a contributor to the Talk Page also, as I have no vested interest in the matter. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 12:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nuro Dragonfly, many thanks. If you could help with the article then I would really appreciate it. I refuse to go back there as long as Nishidani is present with his insolence, anger and hostility. Take out Laqueur if you don't think he's qualified. Do whatever you want, but I give up. Nishidani has made me sick. Sooner or later you will probably feel the same way while dealing with him to improve the article. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall move over to the talk page. RE the Admin comments below, I concur. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• This belongs at RSN. I'm not seeing any conduct issues here that require our attention. Yet. Katie^talk 14:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Nishidani did not attack the editor as "biblethumper", but the source John MacArthur. This belongs at WP:RSN, not here. I see plenty of arguments about sources and claims in Nishidani's comments. This complaint seems to me just using this noticeboard to win a content dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

User Nishidan, abusive language.

Starting a new one because the main points of someone behavior is getting lost. New example.

"It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies... Nishidani"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs)

So you don't like their use of language. Any rules violated?--TMCk (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are not considered personal attacks? It would be in a workplace. And you would be under disciplinary for behavior with that language. Basileias (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And likely in church but this is neither of those places. I do feel that WP is indeed "a fucking nursery for tender kiddies" and I can say this pretty much in any form and language as long as I don't call someone here a "tender kiddy" (which would be a mild PA IMO).--TMCk (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And you realized you create a fuck up asshole environment people will not participate, other than the incompetent. Right? And why do we need to keep bringing up fucking church? Basileias (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Better than bringing it up in church... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't create what's already there :) --TMCk (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It is there because it was allowed. I repeatedly asked for help to get it under control. But yes, it is now past that point and the one person who started and persist in the bad behavior is now embolded to continue to do so. Nice job here. I predict you will see all other editors abandon that article and talk page. Basileias (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Fa Chrissake, have we lost a sense of proportion? I wrote large swathes of technical points on the talk page and added 20 'fucking' works of scholarship to a dumbly sourced attack page,-all met with a stony silence - and the only thing Basileia notes is a substantive and an adjective, and thinks I should be sanctioned. If I had one intelligent comment on sourcing, none of this streetwise exasperation at the sheer stupidity of trying to edit some pages in wiki would have been necessary. Anyone who's knocked around the world, well knows, that these choice epithets, at appropriate moments, are wake up calls, meaning 'focus!' (on editing issues, not on namby-pamby issues).Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - My final contribution is to agree that this not a workplace, or a church, or visiting Grandma. Polite discourse is another matter. Decorum also. Other than that, I can't see how the language used by Nishdani is considered abusive. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 00:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Whenever someone accuses another user of being uncivil and gives a quotation of them using foul language, I like to look at the context behind the comment, especially when (like here) no context is provided by the user who gave the quotation. Yes, using the F-word on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon, but generally there is some reason a senior editor like Nishidani would be (driven to) using such language, and the user primarily at fault is in my experience almost always the person who through constant refusal to read [Nishidani]'s comments apart from the dirty words, or who just doesn't get it. The question then becomes "What should we do with the user we found to be at fault?" Just my two cents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV

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 hard to tell if this user has patrolling rights, but it seems that this user has been reverting my edits aplenty. He claims that my edits are unsourced and unconstructive, for example, I've recently updated the Félix Doubront with all the season-by-season stats, but he undid it twice in almost a two-day span. I'm not the only victim around, there may be other users complaining about their edits being reverted despite some of them being just fine as they are/were before. If anyone could please help out, could someone look after this Mr. Scrap Iron here? 50.29.199.144 (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

...and another thing I would like to add on hand, the reported user might have been suspected to perform a sneak attack by telling someone else to revert my previous edit. Methinks the other user might be either friends or co-workers with the one reported here. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But you have been adding unsourced edits. It is no surprise they were reverted. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not assume that there is a conspiracy against you, but perhaps consider that your doubtless good-faith edits are not quite what is always required... especially when you say you are adding sourced material- but do not. I also note you came off a three month block thre days ago... and were warned about inserting unsourced material within hours. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A source was added there that wasn't in the other reverted edits. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment For this spurious complaint, all I can recommend is that the IP supply sources when adding content. As for accusations of collusion, they are baseless. Multiple editors have reverted contributions independently, precisely because the IP's edits are problematic. Scr★pIron^IV 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Another comment: We have been having debates about this before. Some articles, even outdated ones, are usually updated about what's been happening about these sports players and their stats. Nobody can judge or justify everything. Uh mean it's all right to put in the stats and their injury updates, but why revert if a reference is inserted even if it has a good source? 50.29.199.144 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note that this will be closed very soon. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:41, 20 April 2016 (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's with Special page creating serious issues

This IP just randomly tried to change article section names on the Bloody Sunday 1972 article, which I just happen to have on my watch list for a comment I made previously. I come across this all the time. Why does WP allow person without an active User Page and Talk Page to edit? It's getting shocking....

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 05:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Even you and even me. That's a core principle here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Your comment here on the IP's Talk Page is kind of Bitey and remember to Assume Good Faith too. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Kind of bitey? It's blatant article ownership. @Nuro Dragonfly: don't do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

And remember that IPs are humans, too (mostly). --T*U (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC) (earlier known as IP79.160.something)

In any case, it was a sensible change. 'The dead,' indeed. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SSSRVsegda2017 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.

---

This clearly is an alternate account of User:SSSRVsegda - a Russian chauvinist troll who posts conspiracy theories and now apparently also allegations about Baltic States being Nazi. ~~Xil (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The note at the top of this page says: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so. Xil has broken the rules by not doing so. He did that the first time by coming here to have me banned, meaning I was banned without being able to speak a word in my defence. I was blocked for editing the Zolitude page. I now understand that I do not have sufficient evidence so I promise I will not edit that page again. I will only add info which has sources. I could ask for the previous account to be unblocked but it wouldnt be any use as I forget the password to it.

Xil accuses me of being a Russian chuavinist troll, which is a clear personal attack and also dishonest. I am not posting that the current Baltic states are Nazi but that they had a clear pro-Nazi bias during world war 2. That is a matter of historical record. http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/18/latvia-still-honors-the-biggest-jew-killing-machine-in-world-history/# "Some 75,000 Latvian Jews were killed during the German occupation, many of them by Latvian paramilitary and police units" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17529542 "Ex-Nazi collaborators equating USSR with fascists to whitewash own sins – Jewish intl. organization" "A similar narrative can be traced to Latvia – a country that to this day does not shy away from unambiguously glorifying fascist ideology. In 2012, a video was released of two men in Waffen SS uniforms conducting a kindergarten lesson, complete with handouts, grenades and pistols. The lesson took place on March 16, the day commemorating the joining of hundreds of Latvians with the Waffen SS to fight against the Soviet Union." https://www.rt.com/news/223215-efraim-zaruf-interview/ My ancestors, Russian Jews, were murdered in the Baltic states, so I find the attempt to downplay the responsibility of local colloborators for this disgraceful.

Here is one of the pages he is concerned about: Guerrilla war in the Baltic states. Where is the source that Britian supported those groups? Does Wikipedia allow unsourced claims? The second is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latvia&type=revision&diff=716197235&oldid=716134582 Everything in that edit is clearly stated in the Guardian article. Here is the actual quote from the guardian article: "The Holocaust historian Professor Raul Hilberg writes that "on a per capita basis, the Latvians were represented as heavily as any nation in the destruction of the Jews". By 1943 there were two Latvian SS divisions and around 100,000 Latvians were in German uniform. The SS legionnaires are now feted in Latvia as freedom fighters. This Thursday, March 16, the SS veterans will march to the soaring art deco Freedom and Fatherland monument in central Riga as they have for the past seven years. Last year, the government decreed the day a national holiday."

Those facts may be uncomfortable for Latvians, but does Wikipedia whitewash the historical record because people dont like it? The last edit is to the Forest brothers article. I added that these groups unapologetically fought with Nazi Germany, with a linked BBC article as a reference. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3249737.stm Here is the quote from that article: "He makes no apologies for choosing to fight with the Nazis against the Soviet army."

So it is a simple question: am I to be blocked for adding referenced and sourced information to Wikipedia articles or for asking for sources for questionable information? Does Wikipedia allow people in Latvia to whitewash it by censor referenced and sourced information which they find uncomfortable??

No; you are (probably) to be blocked for socking. And that was before you admitted it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add talk page notice, because this isn't a normal user, but a troll sockpuppet. They say they've changed, but they still vandalized the article they got blocked for a few days ago and these new bits about Nazis also are wild misenterpretations of historical facts. All they really have learned is to add links to their statements and claim those are sources ~~Xil (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The page you link says "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies."

I read that page. I am not using two accounts at once. There is no need to admit anything, the account names are clear enough so I am not trying to decieve any one. There are no community standards which I am trying to violate. I am adding clearly referenced information to articles. If I was blocked in the first place for supposedly adding conspiracy theories, I will not do that again. The linked page says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals below)." There is no disruption to prevent. All information I will add will be sourced.

Self-admitted sock = self-administered indefinite block. Katie^talk 14:57, 20 April 2016 (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.

Block Review: 23.119.122.223

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.

---

23.119.122.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Normally IP's are not indef-blocked, so this may have been an accident... Can an admin please look into this? 2601:1C0:4901:2191:1D5E:CC5C:E0F3:BC32 (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've left note at Acroterion's talkpage, since they are the blocking admin. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that was a mistake, now the regulation 31 hours. They've probably moved on by now anyway. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Who appointed the OP the custodian of the AIV page?[48] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

2607:FB90:A502:88F9:0:3C:D175:F701 (talk · contribs) filed a similar complaint a few days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea who appointed them custodian of AIV but it's good to see an IP editing noticeboards in a constructive manner for once instead of editing them to vandalize them, remove reports against oneself or to harass other editors, even if them being on a dynamic range brings its limitations. Haven't exactly checked all their reports, but those I've seen were all pretty darn valid, anyway. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You might be surprised how many indef-blocked ip's there are! SQL^{Query me!} 03:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see whether the IP-hopping OP submits a report for each one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Again with this? There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor with a dynamic IP editing, especially when they have been helpful in identifying and reporting vandalism. If you think there is a violation of WP:SOCK then file a case at WP:SPI, otherwise your continued needling and bad faith comments are harassing in nature. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkusers won't do anything with IP's. And fooling around with AIV is not appropriate. That's an admin's job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm intimately aware of what Checkusers will and won't do. The majority of cases filed at SPI do not include a request for checkuser; any admin can review the evidence presented and determine if there is a violation of WP:SOCK. The dynamic IPs edits are helpful, and your continued casting of aspersions without any evidence is unhelpful. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In general, SPI's are a waste of time. And so is your badgering after I had already conceded this question to another user, a few sentences up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 20 April 2016 (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.

Editor will not stop comparing person to Nazi, gross insults on 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.

---

Dava4444 (talk · contribs) on the page Talk:Phil Mason made this edit. As comparisons to Nazis are not acceptable in WP:BLP, I reverted it. Now the user is warring with me over its inclusion on a talk page. I think its completely unacceptable but he apparently disagrees. Please advise/judge. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, while the word feminazi is indeed a portmanteau of the words 'feminist' and 'nazi', it isn't the same thing as calling someone a nazi. I am hoping your use of Godwin's Law via Reductio ad Hitlerum is simply misinformed instead of clever marketing to get someone to quickly act on your complaint. While I pretty much know that anyone who uses terms like 'feminazi' or 'sheeple' is someone usually too close-minded to edit anywhere outside in Conservapedia or Fox News public forums, it doesn't mark them as supporting nazism.

Maybe you might want to restate the problem? As I see it, you are miffed that someone has unrepentedly used the term in a BLP's talk page - which is very different than using it in a live BLP article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And also, I suggest, to resist edit-warring over the issue as has up until now been the case. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note that Dava4444 (talk · contribs) has 'reported' the other editor for edit-warring here; it is, however, difficult to view this as little other than retaliatory. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and are not for general discussion about the subject, the comment ought be removed anyway. And noting also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be removed and it does apply. We have a pretty good article about the term Feminazi. By Rush Limbaugh's definition ("radical feminists whose objective is to see that there are as many abortions as possible"), it's certainly extremely objectionable to call somebody a feminazi. (Read John K. Wilson's rejoinder to this definition too, at the end of the article.) Bishonen | talk 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC).

With respect, the term Feminazi may have derived from the delirious rants of Rush Limbaugh, it has a broader meaning now. Merriam-Webster defines it as; "an extreme or militant feminist" And while I agree it is a pejorative word that should be avoided in an encyclopedia, I don't think anyone would mean "abortionist radical feminists" when it's used, (except for extreme right wing loonies of course) and it's not very productive to bring up the abortion to the discussion. Just as it is not very productive to imply the word feminazi is actually related to Nazis. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The word "feminazi" is a play on the word "Nazi." The word exists to compare feminists to Nazis. If an editor calls someone a feminazi, they might not be claiming their target is a literal member of a National Socialist movement, but they are absolutely comparing them to Nazis, in every case, and in every situation. We know this because they type the letters that form the pejorative "nazi." 76.72.20.218 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The term NAZI has evolved to have the emotive 'Extremist' attached. NAZI's were not Socialists, they used the term to differentiate from Communists, their actual enemy. 'FemiNazi' is, however, a term used by people who don't like it when Strong, Feminist, Voices call for the abolition of Patriarchy or similar such modern social views.

Nürö G'däÿ 04:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Or alternatively, used to describe feminists with authoritarian, pro censorship tendencies (and at least one feminist who, in jest, suggested men should be put into concentration camps.:))

The point of the discussion is though; No we should not use the word Feminazi to describe anyone in wikipedia, just as we should not use "right wing loon" to describe anyone. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuro Dragonfly, our articles on National Socialist Party and National Socialist Movement (United States) might help you understand the terminology in use, here. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have a look at them to see if I can contribute anything, but I don't support the linking of Socialists and Nationalists, as the exception to rule is the NSDAP. It ends up trying to link Nazi Sympathisers and/or Fascists with Socialists, which is completely incorrect. Marx didn't like Fascists. (Military History and Political/Military Conflicts being my thing).
But as to the subject at hand, I think the person lowering themselves to these types of replies, when debating consensus, are not attempting to maintain the level of decorum required.

Nürö G'däÿ 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's unacceptable for any editor to refer to people on Wikipedia as "feminazi". I see the editor has been warned, so hopefully that's the end of it. If this or something similar happens again, blocks need to ensue to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I should say that, technically, asking for "advice" on a BLP issue and whether a talk page comment counts as a BLP violation is probably the job of BLPN, and so, technically, this thread was a misuse of ANI. I felt the need to point this out because the title led me to believe that a Wikipedian was getting accused of being a Nazi and I had to spend a good minute trying to wrap my head around what had actually happened.

That said, of course this was completely unacceptable. Criticisms of named LPs should only ever be made when backed up by reliable sources, and no reliable sources use words like "feminazi", except perhaps feminist authors using the word in an ironic sense.

Hopefully the warning will prove to be enough.

On a largely unrelated note, the page in question has serious, probably unresoluble, issues. It was deleted by unanimous consensus in 2012 before being (apparently) unilaterally recreated in 2013. It's possible he suddenly met GNG after he started attacking Sarkeesian and forming conspiracy theories about why his social media account was suspended, but people who are only notable for doing things like this tend to be almost impossible to cover in a neutral manner. I already stated my view of almost-notable topics that we can't cover in a neutral manner because not enough third-party reliable sources have covered them in a neutral manner here, and that page got deleted like I predicted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I read that edit as describing third wave feminists (as a group) of being 'feminazis' rather than specifically a person. But then went on to talk about said person. Mountains-molehills. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Now that I think about it, that interpretation is probably correct. But while BLP does not apply to "third wave feminists as a group", it does apply in the context of things like "third wave feminists like Anita Sarkeesian" or "Anita Sarkeesian and other third wave feminists". I would say "comparing other Wikipedia editors to Nazis is bad; comparing named living individuals to Nazis is bad; using a fairly common, if offensive, slang term to describe a large group of people is also bad, but not block-worthy". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (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.

Edits at Coverage of Google Street View (Result: 48-hour block)

A slight edit war by myself and the user Eugen Simion 14.

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&diff=715435922&oldid=715415766

And: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&diff=715834071&oldid=715826889

Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So don't edit war; talk about it at Talk:Coverage of Google Street View. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I lodged a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pablothepenguin reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ) before seeing this. Grateful if an uninvolved admin could follow up on what looks to be a clear-cut 3RR violation. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This actually led to two AN3 reports, with the live one now being: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pablothepenguin reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:Nick-D (Result: ) Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sock doing random vandalism

I suspect that Freddie123lol (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is creating a number of new accounts to vandalise pages, often in quick succession to vandalise one and the same article. Connected vandalism of the same nature has occurred by Claudiagharrison (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Brownie2feb (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). If I'm correct, then blocking the creation of new accounts would be in order. Schwede66 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Both Freddie123lol and Brownie2feb had account creation blocked and any IP addresses used autoblocked. Claudiagharrison has not edited since 6 February. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Creative gossip ignoring WP:MOSCAPS on Manit Joura after warnings

Hi, Creative gossip ignoring WP:MOSCAPS on Manit Joura after warnings. Here are some diffs. Special:Diff/715913221, Special:Diff/715911856. I'm unwilling to undo a fourth time. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from User:206.207.78.112

206.207.78.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly and recently added unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content to a BLP, Jermaine Dupri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The user has been warned several times within the last week. The user's talk page illustrates both his/her unwillingness to cooperate, as well as the aforementioned warnings.

The user's last warning was a UW-biog4, which threatens a block without warning following the next unsourced BLP edit. That warning was posted 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC). The user has since made at least 5 more edits of this type, all of which can be viewed here. I would list diffs, but there are 18 of them, so I would recommend for you to just look at the article history or the user's contributions, both of which are linked above.

This user has shown unwillingness to cooperate with policy and other Wikipedians, as well as deliberate and repeated ignorance of warnings. I request that the user be blocked. Amccann421 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Amccann421: Since warnings were given, WP:AIV would be the next step usually. It has faster results than this noticeboard. If a reviewing admin at AIV doesn't want to block based on the behavior, then here at ANI would be the next step. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I was unsure whether to go here or to AIV. I will try AIV. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've left them a real human generated note explaining the problem with their editing. Hopefully that will be a little more helpful than just repeatedly telling than they can't do it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday article - historical and political bias, inaccuracies and key important facts left out

I would just like to put on the record, that Wikipedia continues to experience and allow a political and historical bias to creep into articles and moderators with a heavy and blatant political bias to moderate such articles who are clearly unsuitable for that role.When dealing with any articles of historical or political significance, it's vital that anyone in a position of moderator is dealt with and ultimately removed if they shift from a neutral position and demonstrate continued bias.

I just posted on "Talk" my opinions and assessment of the Bloody Sunday incident, offering 5 key facts which were missing, along with the "other side" of the story connected to these facts, which would make the article not political biased as it clearly is. It would also help people unfamiliar with the history (and in particular the incident itself) to understand how and why incident occurred, the events leading to it prior and the evidence which emerged after. It would offer a clearer and more accurate historical version without the heavy political bias and historical skew. The incident is described as a "massacre" which is simply absurd and wholly inappropriate, it even goes against the trial and witness testimony in the aftermath.

My post was immediately deleted (entirely) and no explanation was given. I was "logged out" of Wikipedia and a comment appeared on the Talk page (at the top):

"it's best not to feed the trolls". 

So I'm "a troll" for offering an unbiased academic assessment of a key historic event in my country's own history I have studied? I didn't even alter the article, nor add to it. This was merely opening a discussion and I merely put forward an opinion, backed by some facts from a reliable source, and offered some suggestions on how the article could be more balanced and historically accurate.

It's this type of conduct by political biased or agenda driven moderators (and little groups exist like this all over Wikipedia unfortunately) which means Wikipedia is not taken seriously as an academic reference source by leading universities, such as my own. We're actually discouraged from referencing to Wikipedia or using it for any research for this very reason.

It's a great pity, because Wikipedia is a fantastic project and concept. It has a wealth of information (and granted not all of it is politically biased, inaccurate. However some articles most definitely are being lawed over by individuals or groups of individuals with a specific bias or agenda and are simply getting away with using Wikipedia as a platform to push that agenda and remove any opposition or counter-argument that is purely academic and factual.

If this type of conduct goes unchallenged (and I've reported several incidents, but nothing has been done to remove or oversee those moderators) then people like myself, that is academics, who have time, money and willingness to participate in the Wikipedia project to help make it into a serious and credible academic resource that is properly moderated and peer reviewed, are unlikely to attempt to try and simply will not support or use Wikipedia, beyond entertainment value or looking up trivia occasionally.

Let's see some proper moderation and strictly adhered to academic discipline brought to Wikipedia which after all does present itself as serious academic resource. Not doing this is severely undermining everyones efforts in the project and limiting its credibility and value to the world's academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.26.204 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a bit of clarification. (a) The "troll" comment was at the top of the talk page before you started editing it. (b) No "moderators" were involved in removing your arguably inappropriate talk page comments, just another user (c) Nobody "logged you out" of Wikipedia; you weren't logged in when you made those edits, and nobody has the capability to log out other editors; (d) article talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not for expressing our own points of view. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, a fact isn't a fact on Wikipedia unless it comes with a source. I imagine if you return to the discussion with sources, other editors will be more open to your suggestions. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• You should be clear to which "Bloody Sunday" you are referring... I was initially wondering whether there was Russian nationalist howling about Nikolai II or something... I see from the disambiguation page that there are actually more like a dozen "Bloody Sundays" out there... This is about Ulster/Cúige Uladh 1972. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• 89.241.26.204, looking at the edits in question, you explicitly say that you want to discard the academic sources currently used and rewrite the article based on a work of fiction. Yes, it may have been rude to summarily remove your comments, but this is a suggestion which is never going to gain traction, and thus really isn't worth discussing. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• In my Military Conflict/History capacity, I state that you have written about (after reading the edit you made finally) issues that, were as have some legitimate elements to the interests of Neutral Article policy on WP, have not been sourced with Reliable Third Party material. Belfast live? Youtube? WTF are they? I have an Historical opinion on The Troubles and can argue various actions by the IRA or UDF or the Royal Regiments involved. What you are trying to do, in the way you have written your concerns, is attempt to say that the British 'acted reasonably', which nobody agrees with. You have attempted the 'Excuse' the actions of the 1st Paratrooper Regiment, which nobody agrees with. You have entered 'evidence' that their was IRA gunmen at the rally, which is not what the 12 year long inquest (that was completely contradictory to the original Whitewash by the British) report finally found. Yes there are various factors about the lead up to the rally, and I do think that this should be addressed, somewhat at least anyway. But the manner in which you have entered you concerns, it reads as a British Army, British Judicial System, British Establishment, Apologist. And that's NOT Historically accurate. I'm Australian by the way and have no personal connections to the issue, other than drinking in a pub somewhere, sometime with an Irishman watching footy, at some point.

Nürö G'däÿ 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: I went to post a comment on the Talk Page but someone interfered with it...

Nürö G'däÿ 00:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Repetative disruptive editing on Battle of Lang Son (1979)

An anonymous editor keeps using various IPs to create disruptive editing on the page without explanation. Here’s his last editing [49]. Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP 153.19.171.18 has made another disruptive editing on the page [50] Dino nam (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP 94.254.225.68 has made another disruptive editing [51] I think it's sufficient to block all these IPs. If you don't have any method to deal with this, then surely I will have to deal with it by myself. Dino nam (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've requested semi protection at WP:RFPP. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Shared account User:JackWoodley93

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:JackWoodley93 is a shared account. The userpage says "I'm Jack and I share this Wikipedia account with my friend Marcus Gallagher." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Block modified; they are not criminals, they're productive editors who violated a well-buried (and, frankly, stupid) policy. At the very least, blocking without allowing account creation is too harsh. If you must block, at least, you know, explain to them in a semi-polite way what they did wrong, and what they can do to fix it. Maybe even thank them for their edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The account creation checkbox is a default that I overlooked. Please don't assume malicious intent. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been some kind of software glitch, maybe a bad spellchecker or something; your "Thanks for fixing that for me, Floq" got all twisted into "Please don't assume malicious intent". Anyway, you're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I was going to give you thanks, but I couldn't reach the top of your high horse. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, not bad. A bit of a stretch, but to be fair you're still waking up. Jack and Marcus aren't on high horses, though, and would probably appreciate an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I edit conflicted in removing my above comment, with the edit summary "this issue is resolved and the thread does not need to continue." Whatever your feelings on WP:NOSHARE and the standard block templates are, the matter of the shared account has been resolved, and it has been established that the account creation issue was an accident (something that should have been assumed from the get-go). I plan not to respond any more, because continuation of this issue does not help the encyclopedia any. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2016 (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:Ngk44 reverting genre again after multiple warnings not to....

Ngk44 has been editing genre's again when they have been expressly told on numerous occasion to stop.

Nürö G'däÿ 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• This user periodically comes onto the pages I'm working on to WP:EDITWAR with the genres, without going for a consensus on the talk page. Please interject.

Nürö G'däÿ 14:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ahh, hello? I put this up yesterday and still nobodies attended?

Nürö G'däÿ 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatchu might wanna do, if you want a better response, is add [users contributions], with selected difs of what you see as edit warring, and mention a couple of genres, and groups/artists, so that an admin can look at the thing and rapidly decide if they have the background. Going in cold, the learning curve for figuring out what is rightly in what genre can be high, and so some people don't wanna touch this kind of thing unless they are halfway familiar with the genre, and also with the other editors involved. Anmccaff (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted. This user profile has form, lots of form. And continuously has done so. Their entire page is full of Stop warnings.

Nürö G'däÿ 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalist clearly WP:NOTHERE

The user Bolter21 is repeatedly showing that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. After a long discussion resulted in an overwhelming consensus [52] after two months, Bolter21 immediately went against the consensus by twice editing State of Palestine completely contrary to the strong consensus [53], [54]. As Bolter21's attitude to other users is to declare that others aren't worth answering [55] and openly declaring they won't respect WP:CONSENSUS [56]. The whole edit history of this user suggests WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE. I'd suggest a topic ban from everything related to WP:ARBPIA as the user clearly cannot edit constructively in that topic area. Jeppiz (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bolter21 is also quick to invoke 1RR policy against others in a way that is, frankly, intimidation: [57]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You simply blame me for WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, there is no problem in quetioning a poorly sourced consensus, even if a million people agree about it. I did not violate the consensus in any way, I only stated that there's a discussion about the definition in the lead section and I said I don't have any respect for this consensus. What is this? Soviet Russia? are you not allowed to say you don't agree with a consensus?

Of course I will go against the consensus! -(some of you understood it as if I am going to violate the consensus, but I meant I will continue the argument)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Me and another user, presented over 15 reliable sources who contradict the consensus.

I have placed the "Dubious" template on the article becuase a user changed the content of the lead section and while he was backed with a consensus, there is still an ongoing discussion about it.

And I told OpenFuture he doesn't worth the answer becuase he continued to avoid the problem. If he was deeply hurt by this, I am sorry, but that doesn't justify a topic ban. You are saying that my whole edit history suggest I am not here to make an encyclopedia.. You clearly havent seen my edit history. That's, in my opinion, worse than saying to someone "you don't worth the answer" in a ridiculous conversation.

Isambard Kingdom, the law in WP:ARBPIA says that who ever violates the 1RR rule is subjected to a ban, so I warned you so you won't quetion it. I didn't knew who you were and what is your background so I talked to you as if you were a day old user, to make sure you will self-revert it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems Bolter21 has been having this argument for almost a year now, when they quite cautiously and conservatively called a name change a "crime against humanity". Per their user page, item one on their to do list is "Remove the claim the PNA was transformed to SoP in 2013." So seems an awful lot like they don't care about the consensus because they've already made up their mind, not because they have better sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This "crime against humanity" statement was made when I had less than 100 edits on Wikipedia, so I'll ask you to ignore it. About the the PNA subject, it's already over, I "won" simply because there were no sources to support the claims of the opposing users while I brought over 40, so I don't see the relevance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to be admin action is urgently required here. Bolter21 is openly admitting he intends to continue to disrupt the project by editing against consensus by stating blatantly "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus". This editor is very clearly here for advocacy and as they so openly admit on their own userpage, to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. At the very least a total topic ban from this area is required. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where did he say that "I will go against consensus" as far as editing against the consensus, and not just commenting about it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please read before commenting. It's there in black and white. "Of course I will go against the consensus!" Ctrl-F is your friend. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason you deleted my comments? And again, you can't bring someone to ANI for commenting about how the consensus is wrong and he will comment against it. Did he edit the page in violation of the (non) consensus? Again, since you deleted my comment, the RFC was on how to describe the recognition of Palestine, not on if it's a state or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I didn't delete your comment. Check the history. Please strike that false allegation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment I said I don't respect, but I didn't violate it nor did I had any intention of changing the content of the article without a consensus although I cant allow it to remain as a "state" when clearly I and another two editors presented sources who contradict the consensus, so insteed of editing by reliable sources, I just added a template implying this is debatable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you say then "Of course I will go against the consensus!" above? AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Because in my retarded semitic language, the literal translation of "go against" is "to speak against". As I said, you misunderstood me and you have no proof to claim I had an intention to violate the consensus since I didn't nor I said I will. Although now I discovered I was mislead and the consensus wasn't even about the topic we talked about--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (ec) I guess one issue here is what to do when consensus of the masses is wrong. This is the inherent problem of a democracy. In this case, Palestine is not a state, the same way all other countries are states. So I do agree that there has to be some notation or citation to clarify what is meant when you write Palestine- State. It is not a de facto state and we should not be writing as such no matter our biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: B21, you noted that there is no problem with equating your fellow editors' problem that you "don't have any respect for the consensus", with the censorship of Soviet-era Russia. First of all, that is hyperbole, and I think you know that. There are two problems I see here. First is your apparent willingness to argue forever against the consensus. While you don't have to agree with consensus, once its formed, you do have to accept it until new information comes to light sufficient to challenge it; its part of the social contract we agree to when editing Wikipedia. If you choose not to accept viewpoints that are different than your own, you do not have to edit here. It's not like you are getting paid or receiving college credit for being a contributor.

Secondly, you should address how you deal with your fellow editors. Reminding them of violating 1RR is a bit disingenuous. The way you are proceeding is a sure path to topic ban. Ease up, give it a rest, and use that time to construct a better argument for change. The ones you are presenting aren't gaining traction here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did I violate the consensus?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You stated your clear intention to do so, Bolter21. If someone shouts in a crowded theater that 'of course they will shoot everyone in the theater', people are going to presume that you are going to act on that and act preventively. To me, stating that 'of course you don't agree with consensus' would have been a better tack to take.

Something that just occurred to me - are you a native speaker of English? I've noted some grammar issues that tend to suggest that you aren't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I am a native Hebrew speaker.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• More filer is also misleading us with regards to the consensus. The consensus through a RFC was not how to call Palestine, it was whether or not to say Palestine is partially recognized or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 4:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• Comment Please note Bolter21 edited his initial "Of course I will go against the consensus!" comment, in violation of WP:REDACT in this edit AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

However, merely objecting to a pre-existing consensus formed amongst certain editors, and saying you oppose it, is not "going against consensus". Neither is stating that you intend to speak against that consensus some mortal sin on Wikipedia, or indeed any sin. Bolter21's words are open to various interpretations - if there has been real disruption by content editing against consensus there will be diffs showing it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Bolter21 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 6-months from any edit that relates to Israel and Palestine statehood or the legitimacy of Israel and Palestine.--v/r - TP 19:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose and you might want to spell Israel correctly when you're trying to ban someone from talking about Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: No idea how someone can !vote "snow oppose" as the very first !vote AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a grain of salt to be had here somewhere, given the user's personal connection to the topic per their user page. No accusations. No salt trucks. Just a single lonely grain. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also Oppose - I get that y'all are pissed at B21 for his behavior; the good lord knows I've dealt enough with that sort of behavior before, and wanting to toss the editor in question into a box with nails on the inside and toss the box off a cliff can seem extremely attractive. But its wrong. If we don't start rehabilitating these editors, we lose the ability to define what is and isn't acceptable. Guide Boltor21 into being a better editor; that way, if they choose not to accept the help, its all on them. Topic bans aren't helpful, as you are still left with an intransigent editor who will just muck something else up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A 6-month topic-ban from a very narrowly defined topic is just about as easy as it gets while also ending the disruption. And frankly, if the editor goes and mucks something else up, then perhaps this isn't the project for them. Also, FYI, I'm not "pissed". I'm not involved in the topic area.--v/r - TP 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: six months? for what? What have I done? Disagree with you while bringing dozens of sources? I did not violate any consensus and I did not start an edit war. I only said I don't support the consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You are misleading other editors. You didn't "only say" you don't support the consensus. You stated above in this very section that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Restoring my comment removed by Bolter21 AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't say I will go against the consensus, I "stated". Did I violated the consensus? I"ll explain for the observers again: What I meant is that I do not agree with the consensus, but not that I will violate it. I am here for almost a year so I do understand the consiquences of violating a consensus (although the consensus was about the adjective "Partially-recognized" while the conversation was about "de-jure" status). I didn't violate the consensus, I only said what I said and you interpreted as if I have an "intention" to violate it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're unequivocally stating here that you will abide by the consensus of the RfC when editing the article, then there is little need for this proposal and I retract my support for it. But, you really were not as clear as you think you are. A reasonable person would interpret that as your intention to disregard the consensus when editing the article.--v/r - TP 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Listen. There was a consensus not to use the statement "partially recognized" in the lead section of the article. The discussion was about "de-jure" status.

I have no problem saying "I will not call Palestine a "partially recognized state as the consensus in the RFD says", because the argument in the State of Palestine's talk page wasn't even about this subject. I can also say "I have sources that call the State of Palestine a "de-jure state" and therefore I am trying to seek for a consensus for that". You see that there is a difference between what I tried to achieve and what was agreed on the consensus? I honestly say I fully disagree with the other users opinions about what should be written in the status and also with the consensus, but I did not violate it and belive me or not, I did not have the intention to add the statement "partially recognzied" to the article while knowing there's a consensus against it. I don't remember even mentioning it in the talkpage.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems the answer to me. The statements by Bolter21 that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" bodes very badly for me. It shows a refusal to respect the community and proper consensus building. I don't agree with Jack Sebastian when they state topic bans result in an "intransigent editor who will just muck something else up" given that the editing of Bolter21 is problematic in this area because they are openly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding Palestine's statehood. Immediately after the RfC, Bolter21 disrespected and disregarded that result as shown above. This editor can use the period of a topic-ban to demonstrate competence outside of this single topic area AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you misunderstood my statement, because never have I ever violate this specific, not-100% related consensus. I meant is that I want to argue about it. And the consensus was about "partially recognized", not about "de jure" which is what we were debating--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• As the subject of a couple of topic bans myself, I disagree with the claim that topic bans "don't work." They do work, IF the subject of the ban understands the issues and cares about Wikipedia as a whole. Of course, if the subject is a single-purpose account, a topic ban is less likely to work for the subject, but it will work for Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 13 April 2016
• Oppose: Wikipedia:Mentorship Give B21 to me for three months, if User:Bolter21 is amenable. Strongly agree with Jack Sebastian here. There is much WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on both sides, if we are all honest. B21 just needs to learn to temper his POV and learn the steps to the elaborate I/P dance, and stick to the rules. Consensus can change, Bolter 21. Irondome (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Bolter21, please do not remove other peoples comment as you did here AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Look at the diff a bit more closely, AusLondonder; you both posted at approximately the same time. I've accidentally tagged out someone else's post in EditConflict before. How about a little AGF, eh? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment More seriously problematic behaviour by Bolter21. Now inappropriately WP:CANVASSING an editor they believe will support them. AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that ""Of course I will go against the consensus!" was followed by the statement "(-(some of you understood it as if I am going to violate the consensus, but I meant I will continue the argument) To continue to quote it here without the qualifying phrase does not seem fair. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) .

@DGG: This "qualifying phrase" was added at a later date in this edit which per WP:REDACT is not entirely proper or fair as it makes the replies of other editors look misleading AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I"ll be honest, I added it after I realised the language barrier. Even if I did meant to violate a consensus, I didn't do it nor did I say "I want to violate a consensus" so the statement "I will go against the consensus" (Which literally means in my language to "speak against") can be interpreted in many ways and AusLondoner of course decided "I want to violate a consensus".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I interpreted your statement as stating you will go against the consensus. That was what you stated. I think you do have some things to learn. For example - don't edit your comments, don't delete others comments, don't engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding a topic you are obviously emotional about. If you learn those things you could be a great, productive editor AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove your comment on purpose, I now made my edit of my comment clear that it is a note I added after I posted the comment, and I don't think what happened in the talk there was a battleground. I was involved on WP:battlegrounds in the past and I am not willing to do it again. My arguments in the talk page of the State of Palestine were backed only by sources and the argument was not about something existing in any consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonable reply. I do personally think, as someone who edits relatively little in this topic area, that you are engaging in battleground behaviour on Israel-Palestine issues. This is evidenced by the statements on your userpage. The most obviously problematic statements for me are the ones, including the ones in diffs posted by the OP, that show disregard of consensus. Finally, what about the WP:CANVASSING of another editor you assume will agree with you and support you here? AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Who was supposedly canvassed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't really thought about the consiquences when I asked WarKosign. I didn't take this conversation seriously becuase I was blaimed for talking and it felt like it's just an extention of the original argument but in an ANI.. So I really have nothing to say about that "votestacking", if you want to call it by this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:CANVASSING applies to content disputes. This page deals with user conduct, and consensus is achieved by admins, not by obviously involved editors. “WarKosign” 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I said this above. Here is the diff AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Obvious, really. Since the ANI report, Bolter21 has continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA, and showed no inclination to even listen to others or admit any wrongdoing. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Now you are just lying, or I am drunk and I don't know. Can you prove it please?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, apparently my computer and phone show different times for edits. That part struck, the reminder stays. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to topic ban a normative editor for a rather small issue like this. From my interactions with him, he is fully capable of reason. Which is what I think will solve this issue as well. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a proof that this whole issue is people who take advantage of the complexity of the topic to ban me. All the editors who are slightly to the Israel side have oppsed sanctions against me, one of them even mentioned here that my statements on the State of Palestine talkpage were right, while those who are on the Palestinian side (AusLondoner and Jeppiz) want to topic ban me. This is just a POV debate, not a debate on a problematic user, regardless of me being problematic or not.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- He said he would not respect the consensus in word only. He actually did nothing to disrespect the consensus that I've seem. None the less, Bolter21, as the old redneck phrase goes, "You need to slow your roll." You can take this as a warning and adjust your behavior accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

B21 has just noted that English isn't his/her first language, so I think it beneficial to Assume Good Faith that the editor, in stating that they would 'go against consensus' might be a translation error when what they meant to say is that they would speak out against consensus - a completely different thing.
This is how I see it:

1. This article has a lot of overtones involving nationalism and the legitimacy of such - opinions are going to be very strongly endorsed.
2. We have one editor with a substantially different viewpoint than that of the consensus.
3. That editor has stated that he has brought numerous references in support of their position, but they haven't convinced the consensus.
4. The editor's stated intention in disagreement with the consensus has been (innocently) misinterpreted as tendentious editing.
5. The editor doesn't have the experience necessary to understand how consensus works in consensus, or communal editing. This is a critical skill necessary in all aspects of editing within Wikipedia.

With the above in mind, I would suggest the following:

• If reliable, well-supported and mainstream sources exist, an RfC should be created to consider the weight of those sources (or, of course, via RSN).
• Bolter21 is in critical need of mentorship. This should be a condition of his moving forward from here. If he's not just ranting and spouting propaganda but instead bringing sources, that should be interpreted as being useful to the project.
• Bolter should voluntarily avoid this topic during the period of mentorship. If he can do so, it will only help him as an editor, and his realization of this would only help the Project. If he agrees to this and violates it anyway, I'd fully support an indef topic ban (not temporary).
• Consider that sometimes the consensus is wrong, as per Biggleswiki. This is why we rely heavily upon sourced material from outside Wikipedia and not opinions from within it. Neutrality os key here.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all the above points. We are looking at at primarily a confusion of semantics, and minor behavioural issues which can be fixed by mentorship. I believe this editor has excellent potential to be a great editor (Palestinian workers in Israel is an example of the editor's ability to create good content) and I further believe that Bolter21 will be a net plus to the project after some additional guidance. Irondome (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I always appriciate a good word.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not willing to avoid this topic, since I havent done anything wrong in the topic in the past few months. I still have things to do such as expanding the history section of the PA article and update new information about the Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process which no one seem to do. I still don't see something I did wrong in the topic, since the last time I was blocked for violating 1RR which was in last [User_talk:Bolter21#1RR_violation_again september] and I"ve "grownup alittle" since. About mentorship I have no problem. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• well are you ok to accept mentorship while editing this area for a few months, so you can co-operate more effectively with other eds? Hint. The correct answer to that is yes. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I already use some degree of mentorship from another user whom I have contact outside Wikipedia. The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic, and as long as mentroship doesn't prevent me from extracting basic information from reliable sources and placing it in a lead section to prevent a POV and/or misleading statement in an article visited by 50,000 people in a month, I have no problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you should absolutely take a little time to consider this proposal; your stated unwillingness to avoid this topic during mentorship gives credence to the RIGHTGREATWRONGS arguments being put forth in advocacy of your being banned from editing there at all. I'd urge you to consider displaying some discipline here; it will count greatly. Consider the alternative to taking a short break from the article to taking a permanent one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I assume by the "topic" you mean the State of Palestine article? Because I don't really have an intention editing it beyond that lead section issue. Cuase I don't have a problem avoiding what I bearly edit anyway. But I can't avoid the whole conflict topic becuase this is my main focus in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic" - these remarks are not remarks from someone planning to drop the stick and contribute constructively to the project. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You again take my statements and use them as arguments to determinate I am "NOTHERE", go look at my contributions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I think it's interesting and concerning that Jack Sebastian seems very keen to criticise and undermine consensus. I also see no reason why the interpretation of most editors of those remarks by Bolter21 critical of the consensus is "incorrect". We now see editors conceding more ground and Bolter21 openly stating they will continue on this crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not much progress is being made here. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with withholding judgement, as long as you don't withhold WP:ROPE.TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I will not participate in this conversation until tommorow becuase I really got to sleep.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment & Explanatory - I have just read the entirety of the Talk Page and this discussion here. It is quite clear that there is a VERY serious language barrier in terminology. It is also quite clear that some of the 'commemorators' have used this to further their own POV. The status of Israel and Palestine are very emotive subjects, as is known, and obvious, to any person that is up to date on the subject. I see a lot of POV being masked behind 'source material' as well. The primary status of Neutrality on WP is not being accurately, and I would say intentionally, adhered to by some. I support Option 1 for the record (as a military and political historian). AusLondonder has repeatedly used the Language issues as an example of Bolter21 having a recalcitrant attitude. I find this to be problematic and not coming from an UN-emotive state, but I do support some of hers/his comments on the issues raised. Various commentators have tried to bring the topic back to the issue at hand, but this has been ignored by multiple participants, including Bolter21.
  

The Israeli Lobby and the Palestinian Sympathisers are clearly present and accounted for also. I very strongly don't consider the consensus to have been Appropriately reached either. Quite specifically, 2 of the options given (3 & 4) were completely ignorant of the historical facts; though I'm not condemning the person who attempted to make a compromise, in their efforts of finding a consensus, it is just a perfect example of the side of the fence certain parties, with a vested interest, are going to promote, hence my wording. I also consider Option 2 to be supportive of one side more so than than the other, which is not a neutral stance.

I feel this needs some very serious, large scale efforts by people that do NOT have any Israeli or Palestinian backgrounds. It also, the article in general (IMO), needs to reflect the literal, actual position held by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the issue as a whole, which is not flattering for either side at all.

I've avoided the Israel/Palestine topic so far, because neither side get away with the publicly aired views from their respective propaganda machines, as being true, accurate (or even factual a lot of the time, IE propaganda), when it is scrutinised against the Purely Militarily Historical Evidence of Mandatory Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the historically proven way 'it all went down' from the fall out of WWI and then again after the effects of WWII.

As a very neutral party I am willing to participate in any such discussion. I also realise I slightly strayed form the ANI, but I felt some context was required. Nuro msg me 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. Conciseness. Gotta work on that. TimothyJosephWood 02:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that was very concise for the topic being presented.--v/r - TP 03:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TParis, and Timothy I don't do 'small talk', as what ever it is by Concise that your looking for, sounds to me like using 'little words' and not much substance, which I find abhorrent and disrespectful to the reasons behind commenting on anything in the first place. Make a defined and factual statement is the only way to go. If/when that an be achieved with few words, I will do so. Nuro msg me 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Voluntarily avoiding the topic during the period of mentorship and no restrictions are not the only solutions. We could allow the edits but require pre-approval from the mentor. Or require that edits be in the form of proposals on the article talk page which anyone (including the mentor) can implement. The goal is to lift any restrictions as soon as possible, and this would help to make the case for removal. I think that Bolter21 can do a lot of good in these topic areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Language issues aside, I fear nothing Bolter21 has written does anything to disperse my WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE concerns. Quite the contrary, all well-meaning suggestions above that would hinder his activities in the WP:ARBPIA area are rejected. Jeppiz (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, but I find your statement confusing. Are you supporting his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from the page, or are you saying that he/she should be banned from the topic permanently. Nuro msg me 12:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Either. I'm not interesting in "punishing" anyone, just to make Wikipedia work. If his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from ARBPIA subjects work, then all the better. If he does not accept that, or if it does not, then a topic ban from ARBPIA. Given his behavior, and his attitude towards others (see RolandR's comment below, I fear he is WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that, in a comment on my talk page[58], Bolter21 has very strongly implied that I am an antisemite. I question this editor's ability to interact collegially with other editors who do not share her/his viewpoint, and suggest that they are advised and warned that such comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you are anti-semitic (which will be wierd since you are a Jew), I said it seems you share ideologies with anti-semites, I didn't spsify which. I am not stupid enough to call a man who calls himself a Jew an "anti-semitic".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been my suspicion. That it would come down to this level; Pro- or Atni- Israeli, or more importantly the accusation of, which I consider a pointless attitude and alters my opinion. Nuro msg me 13:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I posted my response at the same time as Bolter21 - to which I will add that this has become the 'argument' that I feared. I think Bolter21 is acting like an Ultra-Nationalist, and this is not acceptable. The rationale used a moment ago is a condemning example; "shares the views of an anti-semite, even though they are a Jew". This is quite extraordinary, and is clearly the opinions of someone not accepting the facts, that many parts of the world, with large Jewish communities in them, like here in Australia, are not supportive of the Zionist attitudes towards the Palestinian question. This does not make someone an anti-semite. Bolter21 I don't know your age or education or background professionally, but I would advise you undergo some mentorship if you want to contribute to the debate, because you come across very one sided; this may be unacceptable to you, and you may feel aggrieved, but it is my advice. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist...... Wow. Now that's a title I never got from anyone. I am not sure how to react to someone who called me an ultranationalist to be honest. You clearly distort the words I said to RolandR in an ugly and dirty way, becuase I didn't even talked about his opinions on the conflict or critisized him for not being Zionist. You now assuming things about my political opinions on Jews oppsing Zionism. I live in Tel Aviv, I am serounded by anti-Zionist Jews who generally vote for Hadash and funny enough most of them are my friends. All the users who critisize me, do it becuase of statements I made in talks, while it was a pretty long time since I made disputed POV statements in articles whilie dispiting other peoples opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support - WP:ARBPIA volantary hiatus with mentorship, or if unwilling or unable to accept, total topic ban. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now completely disruptive. Admin action needed

In the "best" possible display of his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, Bolter21 waited barely 24 hours before going back to his edit war, even writing "24 hours passed" to show how he's gaming the system [59]. This renders moot all the concerns above that it was about Bolter21's language skills; Bolter21 claimed he would respect no consensus and by returning to edit warring, he shows that he ignores the consensus. So what we have here is an aggressive WP:SPA who openly declares he respects no consensus that doesn't suit him, accuses people who disagree of being like anti-semites, and despite this ongoing discussion, he still continues his edit war against a clear consensus. I respect those who assumed good faith but now more than enough WP:ROPE has been given. By blatantly continuing the edit war in an area under heavy discretionary sanctions, Bolter21 shows he will not listen to anyone else. I move the user be either topic banned or indeffed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This user brings nothing positive to the project. Jeppiz (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I made this revert. The template says "This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts", and this is the reality, I presented reliable sources with contradicting facts. So until the dispute is settled, this statement needs to have the template. Now could you leave me alone already?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You knew the consensus was against it, but of course did it anyway to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are lying about me accusing people of being Anti-Semitic just like when you claimed yesterday I "continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA". I did not violate a consensus and a consensus is always subjected to conversation. Just find someone else to harras for moses' sake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the consensus, there are new sources, that were not presented during the conversation of the consensus that are presented now. According to WP:TALKEDABOUTIT I did nothing wrong.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You also claim I bring nothing positive to the project.

I created this article, and in the article Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) I made edits like this, this, this. In the article Palestinian National Authority I made this section, this. On the article State of Palestine I rearanged this section. So please, can you leave me alone with you stupid accusation cause I am really starting to loose it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel you are starting to lose your cool, you might want to sit back and read WP:TEA. Editing while frustrated or angry has never - in the entire history of Wikipedia - ended well for the person unable to stay calm. Take a break. It's Spring - go and smell some flowers or listen to kids play. Seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a short 48-72 hour article ban might help cool heads a little. Is too much WP:SANCTIONGAME. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Will an article ban prevent me from participating in the talk? cause that's the main problem..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I'm not an admin, but my understanding is that the two pages are specific. Maybe someone with more rights can clarify. Regardless, I think at this point, the responsible thing to do would to be to let someone else make the change to the article that you are pushing for. It's always a good tactic to avoid the appearance of impropriety in matters like this. TimothyJosephWood 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy has given some good advice Bolter21 and as I have now read all the articles that you've been editing, to clarify myself further with the situation, I strongly suggested you take it. Your continued Recalcitrance on the advice and the suggestions that have been given to you is not helping your cause. Living in Tel Aviv doesn't change anything. You continuously maintain a Nationalist attitude (yes I used the term Ultra-Nationalist for a reason) towards the entire affair. Look at some of the Eastern European WP articles for some insight as to what is expected of a contributor about conflict zones, IE Crimea, and the required Neutral Stance expected of an editor. Citing new source material doesn't mean that you've 'proven' your point of view is the correct one. Look, I've been in trouble for reacting badly to article debates and issues involving myself since reaturning to WP. I'm a very Heavy person in general and in my daily existence, but in the written word I'm a ******* nuclear weapon in responding to criticisms made against me in a 'perceived attack' or if I consider someone as being 'disrespectful', when they may not be. I've learned some hard lessons. You need to also, mate. Your not correct about everything. Seriously 'eh. Nuro msg me 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy, for now I was engaged in a talkpage discussion, so I really don't see what a page block will do and since I barely edit the SoP article, it would really do nothing if you"ll block me from that page and I don't see any reason to block me from other articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the "ah ha! 24 hours have passed and so I'm technically not violating 3RR" edit. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Condemn - And now you dare edit my own User Page? Are you for real!? I advocate total ban for being such an obvious WP:VANDAL Nuro msg me 01:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a misktae you know, I self reverted a minute after, spesifyig it was a mistke.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And it is clear mistakes like this that have fostered a lot of people's unwillingness to offer you the benefit of the doubt, Bolter21. I urge to you to agree to mentorship and voluntarily withdrawing from these contentious articles until you can learn how to interact more cooperatively with your fellow editors. If you are convinced that your actions neither require mentorship or self-restraint, I am afraid your next misstep will result in you not only topic-banned, but blocked as well. Towards that end, I will state this as such: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: Recommendations

Recommend: I recommend a two-pronged course of action as well as its more draconian alternative. First, Bolter21 is in dire need of mentorship; the contributor is unaware how their missteps with actions both on and off the pages in contention are shredding the Assumption of Good Faith that other editors are obliged to offer the contributor. If (s)he continues on his/her current trajectory, it will see the user expelled from the Project.

Secondly, Bolter has clearly noted a RIGHTGREATWRONGS viewpoint that is 100% counter to the efforts of editing within Wikipedia, especially within the article in contention. Therefore, he should voluntarily withdraw from this (and related) articles for a period to be determined by the community, Bolter21 and his/her mentor.

Alternatively, should Bolter21 refuse to accept either of these suggestions, a topic ban as well as a 1RR editing modifier. If (s)he is unwilling to address how their behavior is currently a net negative to the Project. I realize this is harsh, but we've debated this topic for almost a week, without any discernible relenting by Bolter21.

Arguments in support or objection should be addressed below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I agree to withdraw from the State of Palestine debate (although this is pretty much killing one side of the argument and leaving WarKosign to ask users to go by reliable sources) and remain on low profile in regard to extremely debatable subjects? I still need to work on the Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation process as well as continue my work as mainly someone who include current affairs over outdated topics. Remaining outside of "related" topics seems a bit vague to me and I would to have an explaination. I don't want to agree to something that will cut off pretty much 90% of my work on Wikipedia, cause I will just quit.

Just explain what I"ll have to avoide, becuase this is a single incident, in which I was engaged in a debate on a talk page and it is still absurd to me that people want to topic ban me for it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't about a single incident, or a few articles, Bolter21. It is about how you approach these articles (and to some extent Wikipedia). You've edited another user's talk page - a move that never ever has them turn around and say, 'gee, thanks. I didn't know what I was saying, and now you've shown me the error of my ways.' Your approach to editing seems more confrontational than collaborative - hence the recommendation for mentoring.

As well, i recommended a voluntary stepping away from these contention-riddled articles because of your approach to them. You just stated that, if you were not around, no one would oppose the wrecking of the article. This is - by any measure - the absolute worst way to approach editing. There are millions of users within Wikipedia, and you are but one. There are over 330 editors watching the article in question, and four score editors actively working in it. At the risk of sounding rude, it is arrogant to the point of stupidity to assume that only you cares about the neutrality of the article. Might some of these editors be biased? Sure. But you need to trust that the rest of us are going to see through that nonsense. Nothing will ever work for you here without exercising the assumption of good faith; it is the essence of communal, collaborative editing.

This is why, imho, that you need mentorship, and why you need to stop shredding your credibility in articles you enjoy editing in. I'm guess your new mentor (if you so choose the best path and get one) would have you edit articles you don't know a lot about, so you can pick up on that joy that most of us feel when editing an article about something we know nothing about. There is no internal drive to push an agenda or to right great wrongs. It's about retraining yourself to write articles and collaborate with your fellow editors, despite their personal viewpoints. It will make you a better and more focused editor, in my opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This editor is either the most recalcitrant person I've ever come across or the most belligerent, I can't decide. They have no respect for the views of others, hence my Ultra-Nationalist comment. Editing another persons Personal User Page is not an innocent mistake, as any editor who knows anything at all about using this website will know. The continued Refusal to even understand the facts put before them by various others is also indicative of the Mind Set they hold, which is utter contempt, or complete ignorance, of the community at large who don't share their POV. Nuro msg me 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I find that Bolter21 has been unnecessarily aggressive in his/her edits, as per: [60] and [61]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't know that a TBAN is appropriate since it seems the issue has to do with one or two articles in particular. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a decision to let a family member change my password until I"ll feel like returning to Wikipedia. This whole issue begins to interfere with my personal life as I already screwed up a day in work and didn't do other important stuff.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user states that they have lost direct control of their account, and given the password to a third party. If this is true, then it becomes a de facto compromised account. The account should be blocked for this reason. It "interferes" only when they get taken to AN/I. This whole thing looks like just one more case of an editor in hot water retiring just in time to stay out of trouble. Scr★pIron^IV 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Calm down, that sounds like you're gaming to system to get your desired result out of this. If he's asked someone to help him take a break, then let it be.--v/r - TP 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block - per ScrapIron, this is a self-admitted, compromised account. Time to move on. Jusdafax 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - indef blocks are a clear stigma, but the user is new enough to not be aware know that they shouldn't have given access of their password to anyone else. I think the user was trying to indicate that they were handing over the keys so they wouldn't drive angry. That doesn't mean that we should penalize them by totaling their car. A block is indicative of wrongdoing, as well as a protective measure for the wiki. I don't know what the stats are about whether blocked editors return, but issuing an indef block here will only be seen as punitive. Is there a less stringent solution? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block or topic ban from ALL WP:ARBPIA articles There's a limit to good faith as well, and Bolter21 has long sinced passed it. I should point out that even if the acount Bolter21 is blocked, the person behind the account should be topic banned, either indef or for six months. As several users have pointed out above, it's clear this user cannot contribute constructively. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support block or indef topic ban from all WP:ARBPIA articles As discussed in detail in above sections. Since this discussion first began, Bolter21's behaviour has got progressively worse and more unconstructive. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You know AusLondoner? You really have the nerve. You are also editing while pushing POV and unlike this spesific incident of me, you have indeed violated a consensus FIVE times on the course of two months. The consensus was reached in 2015 By me and another two users and it stated that because there's a dispute about the sovereignty in the West Bank, no flag should be there. This was true for lands under Palestinian control and for East Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty by Israeli law. In Jaunary you have violated this consensus, saying "West Bank is part of Palestine". After I reverted your edit, stating there was a consensus, insteed of asking me where is the consensus, you just violated it again without asking. Then you violated it again without asking why - although for your defense you didn't know the consensus was reached in another talk. A day after this mess, I explained to you what was the consensus so you couldn't say anymore you don't see it. Then on February you violated it again and just 10 days after you violated it again!.

Now I ask you and Jeppiz to leave me alone for having an opposite opinion of yours. I have agreed to mentorship and to withdraw from disputed topics because it seems no one here is hearing my voice, not because you don't agree with me, but becuase you blamed me for talking against a consensus as if I was violating it. I will not be near a computer until the 21st of April and I hope not to edit again until that date, cause I really need to clean my mind from this conversation and if this conversation will continue, I might get banned.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You also say my behavior went more "unconstructive" - what article have I edited since the discussion begun in an unconstructive way?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A total misrepresentation of this matter. I had no idea the "consensus" of you and two other people suggested that the Palestinian flag should not apply to areas administered by Palestine but the Israeli flag should apply to Israeli administered areas. That is absurd. I suggest this personal "consensus" is in serious dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I stated at the time "flags are not included in Palestine areas with de facto Israeli sovereignty but with Hebron no excuse can be made". The Hebron describes the city in the lede as "Palestinian" AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This seems to be an overreaction to a heated talk page discussion, in which Bolter21 misstated that they would "go against" consensus when they meant "argue against". They are discussing dispute resolution now, discussing mentoring, and also say they are now on vacation. I think this thread is sufficient to put them on notice of how to edit and debate in this area, and only a recurrence of problematic edits would need admin action. I propose archiving this thread. Fences&Windows 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Consensus is clearly forming up for a block or topic ban. The subject's comments just above demonstrate a deep emotional investment in the topic that is unlikely to change anytime soon. The case has been made convincingly that this editor is unable to contribute constructively, in my view. "Sweat promises" to finally behave don't mean a whole lot. Jusdafax 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Indef block I have taken a decision to let a family member change my password until I"ll feel like returning to Wikipedia. Assuming that this is true we're left with two potential outcomes: WP:BROTHER and failing to resist the temptation to get the password back quickly so that they can rejoin the conversation. That Bolter21 refused to accept any voluntary restrictions on their editing privileges or modifications to their posting suggests that RIGHTGREATWRONGS is in effect with is incompatible with the purpose of wikipedia. If/when Bolter demonstrates that they understand and agree to standard operating policies (Pillars, Rules, Policies, Guidelines, Consensus) including not re-calling the same question over and over to try and get their way then I could see rehabilitation of the editor, but not before. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the calls for an indef block and complete topic ban - at least to an uninvolved eye - appear to be motivated by the same sort of nationalism and emotional investment in the topic as they are claiming Bolter21 has. To his credit, he has voluntarily withdrawn himself from the argument (something no one else appears to be doing in the article, if the page history is to be believed), and is willing to volunteer for mentorship, to address his editing style.
Our actions in this noticeboard are meant to protect the encyclopedia; this seems punitive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

My call for an indef is to prevent the obviously disruptive editing that at least a half dozen editors take issue with. I have never edited the article, and have next to no involvement in the topic. Your characterization of my motives therefore becomes, in my view, a personal attack, and subject to sanctions. I strongly suggest you strike the portion of your comment in question. Jusdafax 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I also take umbrage at your implications that I am somehow involved nationalistically with the conflict area. My call for indef stems from a hybrid of WP:COMPROMISED and WP:CIR in no way did I make my judgement on the actual content of the disputed edits, but on the way Bolter has conducted themselves here on the community discussion of their conduct. We aren't punishing Bolter, we're preventing disruption of the community and the article by revoking the ability for the user to participate and contribute is good for the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. Bolter only has accepted these "restrictions" after being threatened with wiki-capital punishment and miraculously contracting "ANI Flu". We do not let editors escape responsibility for their actions in this way. I also invite you to strike your attack on the motivation of editors you disagree with. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I accepted the restrictions because I saw that any other word I'll add will get me banned. I didn't oppose them initially, I repeatedly ask what those restrictions include.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

While I guess my assessment characterizing some of the other editors in this matter as based in either nationalism or emotional investment were too much of a blanket statement; for that, I am truly sorry. However, it seems clear to me that too many editors have already made up their mind about Bolter21, and the complete lack of AGF is pretty disappointing - that's what prompted my statement. He might not be the best editor (yet). He might not yet realize that they are being exceptionally unwise (yet). The comments I am seeing only reinforce the idea

I'd ask you all to remember back when you were starting out: how many mistakes and grievances you all blew out of proportion. You picked up experience and you (hopefully) became much better editors. Bolter21 - for whatever reason or motivation - is trying to be a better editor. Many of us start doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Sometimes, some of us fake it until we make it. Others take to it like a duck to water. In the final analysis, what does it matter, so long as the end result is the same?

Instead of disposing of editors, let's take the ones who come here and train them up. I'm tired of working in an environment where editors are considered disposable; its an ugly outgrowth of internet forum culture where anonymity equals ass-hattedness. I reject the idea that if a user pisses us off, then we simply say 'fuck them' and eject them. We are better than that, or at least we should be.

If Bolter21 is willing to work to be a better editor, it's simply wasteful to not give them a chance to be better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jumping into one of the most charged conflicts in wikipedia without taking advice from other editors, announcing an "ANI Flu" time off with forced lockout only to turn back and reply again, and the curious acceptance/non-acceptance of consensus suggesting willful disruptive editing.. AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor, through their own actions has burned through their AGF good will like vaporized ethanol, we shouldn't grant them more AGF. In short this editor has the hallmarks of a vexatious disputant who will grind the wheels of consensus building to a halt to try and get their POV inserted. Hasteur (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur Last time I actually violated the 1RR (without self-reverting) was in September, when I didn't quite understand the law. I don't remember a time when I violated a consensus while knowing it exists. As far as the discussion in talk:State of Palestine went, I did not violate the consensus, I simply argued against it. You can't ban a person for not understanding Wikipedia right away and so many people started their editing career on highly disputed topics and survived. There are users more expirianced than me who I've seen violating consensuses and using bad tounge against others. This whole topic is a huge overration to an argument.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Easter126 (cont)

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.

---

(continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User:Easter126)

The de checkuser completed, results de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Benutzer:Styron111,Patriska2601,Helde43,_Benutzer:Schitty666,Schmidtrach2. Ping User:Schmitty to notify thread is here. All the accounts were blocked on de. I suggest blocking the IP User:2.244.158.181 that was making legal threats. Site lock/ban for the accounts? Widefox; talk 10:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The checkuser request on de.wiki has concluded with the result that the following are confirmed as sockpuppets:

• Schitty666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (not registered on en)
• Helde43 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Patriska2601 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Ulla1956 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (blocked indefinitely on en)
• Easter126 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (blocked 3 months on en)
• Nature024 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Schmidtrach2 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (not registered on en)
• Artgirl501 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Schmittyistbaldweg666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (not registered on en)
• Deathof6schmidt (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (not registered on en)

There were no data for the following but they too have been blocked as sockpuppets:

• Styron111 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Fasterthanyou123 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Flashfox7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

For our purposes, the master is Styron111. I have blocked those on en.Wikipedia not already blocked and amended the blocks of those who were blocked. Unregistered accounts are not able to be blocked.

On en.Wikipedia, two IPs in the 2.244.x.x range and one in the 2.243.x.x range pass the duck test. They are dynamic IPs on the Telefonica Germany ISP so there is little to be gained from blocking them now. I'll note that one IP made an allegation that had to be revdeled.

If I've missed anything, let me know. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume "Deathof6schmidt" and "Schmittyistbaldweg666" ("S.. is soon gone") "Schmidtrach2" ("S..hunt") are username violations aimed at the de editor. I'm concerned about the paying for press releases to make personal attacks on that editor. Can't we site-wide ban/lock? Widefox; talk 12:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they would be username violations, however there is no way of blocking accounts that don't exist. If they do pop up, then they can be very swiftly blocked. A global lock might be possible but a request for that would probably be better coming from de.wiki where they have much more evidence of abuse. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'll just drop in another name here: Hollenderek (talk · contribs) created a draft page for Stuart Styron. I don't know if they are related to those above but in any case they are already blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My original COIN investigation appears to have exposed two socksfarms that overlapped (at the time I incorrectly assumed it was one). One appears to be Styron only (above), the other paid editing and possibly largely unrelated. Can't remember which cluster that account was in, but seems per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hollenderek/Archive to be the latter. I can only speculate a connection being Styron paid someone which failed and then attempted himself (if the timing supports that model). Widefox; talk 17:53, 21 April 2016 (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.

Continued vandalism

Two IP's appear to be linked and are making the same disruptive edits at Trans Pacific Partnership and auto-related articles:

Edit history of IP #1
Talk page warnings for IP #1
Edit history of IP #2

The vandalism at the TPP article is exactly the same for both IP's:

IP #1
IP #2

Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Might be better to just WP:WARN the IPs. Two edits, though the same, doesn't require admin intervention imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

IP #1 has been warned multiple times by multiple editors (pls see their Talk page).CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC) I'm just monitoring the TPP article, but a quick glance indicates that the editor (with the 2 sock IPs) is inserting a lot of spurious information in a lot of auto-related articles. Since it doesn't seem to be a concern here, I'm not planning to spend additional time on it. Cheers.CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion (hopping) by IP vandal

There has been a lot of recent vandalism and content blanking on pages related to Top Model (e.g. America's Next Top Model (cycle 1), America's Next Top Model (cycle 2), America's Next Top Model (cycle 3)...) by numerous IP addresses from the IP range 2604:2D80:C007 (which I believe to be used by the same vandal). Today, 2604:2D80:C007:A4CD:30FB:522:594B:B4F3 was blocked for one week for vandalism (falsifying info; e.g. here, here and here) and blanking of content (e.g. here, here and here). Two hours ago, 2604:2D80:C007:A4CD:D0F9:1DF1:11B4:7B5C began vandalizing pages in a similar way (seen here, here and here). Linguist 111^talk 18:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the same guy with an IPv6 address. 2604:2D80:C007:A4CD::/64 blocked two weeks. Katie^talk 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Article about User Ram-Man written by Ram-Man.

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.

---

Ram-Man has created the article Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian), which is about him and entirely written by him. I started to write up an AfD, but I'm not sure what to do. There are clear problems... states an xkcd comic was created because of him, but there is no source for it. States a painting was created from one of his photos by a 16-year old with cancer, but there is no source for it. States his photos have been in several publications, true, but some come from commons and one has a ref to the homepage of a group. Wikipedia and interviews are used as sources. Hope the "smarter" brains here can help. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

An impressive autobiography. Maybe I'll go polish up mine... Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the article appeared to pass the AFC process. Also Ram-Man should have been notified of this discussion on his talk page. I added the notice to his talk page. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A few of the sources are to Wikipedia, but apart from that they look okay. Would pass AFC I believe. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Above comment struck as I no longer agree with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

But fails notability rules, surely? I have never read such a load of old self appreciating claptrap in all my life! Other users do what he does everyday, why should he expect to have his own article? Imagine my disappointment to find that this was not an article about the other Ram Man. Now that would be worth reading! Cassianto^Talk 07:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I'm taking this opportunity to ping The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) properly. Your previous attempt to do so almost definitely didn't work, because it modified an existing comment and signature. (I discovered this while removing some stray text which you'd also added in that edit). Graham87 08:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It did work, as did your ping Graham. Two pings for the price of one, both from an ANI thread entirely unrelated to me for a change! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it would work Graham87 as I replaced my signature with four new tildes. Just so you know a ping only works with four tildes. As for the stray text, I left it behind not added it so you're wrong on both counts I'm afraid. But thanks anyway for your contributions. Cassianto^Talk 15:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean you modified your response and accidentally left a few characters behind? [62] I guess we can trust your memory of how it happened but despite being a master nitpicker on details, this seems excessively so to me. Either way your edit resulted in stray text which wasn't there before you edited. It's not like it was text someone else added that you didn't remove, as a simplistic reading of your comment may suggest. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal. I think you should move on. Cassianto^Talk 17:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Who said it was a big deal? No one in this thread did. And why are you telling people to move on when the whole reason for this discussion is because of an offensive comment you you made about an error you made. You made a very minor error when modifying your comment and left extraneous text. A very minor error and not something anyone would normally care about and which normally would have ended with someone correcting it. But when correcting your error, someone noticed what they thought was another error (a ping that wouldn't work) so probably mostly for this reason they commented. As it turns out this second error wasn't an error, and there was nothing wrong with you explaining that. But for some reason you also choose to respond in a fairly offensive way about the thing which was an error on your part, rather than simply accepting you made an error. Or if you really felt the need to explain how your error came about, offering a simple explaination instead of implying there was something wrong with someone not realising how your error came about. This still isn't a big deal, but it's a bigger deal than it needs to be. And there's no reason why someone can't call your out for that particularly since, getting back to what I said earlier, the only reason we're here is because your unnecessarily chose to call someone out who corrected your error just because their imagination of how this error happened was slightly wrong. (Which ultimately is largely irrelevant as I hinted earlier. The fact that you made an error is what's relevant even if not something that really matters.) Anyway I'm done with this discussion since I do think it's a very silly thing, but sometimes I just can't stand when I see editors being treated unfairly especially when they did little wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Also I let DGG know about this discussion since he/she was the one that passed it through AFC according to the article's talk page... --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Look out for an autobiography of Roxy the Dog, who has a star studded wikipedia career, but has never been an admin. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I passed it at AfC on the basis that approval at AfC means only that the article is likely to be accepted at AfD. Thee is no fixed standard for "likely". In accepting it, I advised the editor that "I have accepted this despite my misgivings, after making what I consider the minimum necessary changes based on comments at previous AfD discussions. I estimate it has about a 50 - 60% chance at AfD , but afd can be unpredictable. If it is challenged at AfD. I shall let the community decide." This is lower than my usual 80% level for "likely" but I think it is reasonable not to insist only on my own judgment. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt the article needs more eyes. I only had two users help clean it up, so it's obviously not done. I've checked numerous policies time and again, and I think it qualifies. Both myself and DGG assumed that it would be challenged out of the gate, just like nearly every Wikipedian is. See the list: Category:Wikipedia people. My attempts at trying to do this the right way can be found here. -- RM 11:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

He's got a few valid sources listed, but, really, this should be summarized into one paragraph and added to List of Wikipedia controversies. I tagged both pages and started a merge discussion at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies#Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:COISELF springs to mind.

Speaking as an AfD-dweller here, certainly this is promotional, but on the other hand the person or the rambot incident might have notability. It could very well survive AfD despite of the current state of things (WP:NOTCLEANUP). This wired source (ref #3) is in my view the bare minimum of "significant coverage" but still on the good side of the line, and I would expect others to pop (I did not check). Anyways, that is a discussion for AfD... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

How fitting that the source the article relies on most heavily is subtitled How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia [63]. I'm surprised it doesn't mention the Good Posture Award he received in high school. EEng 15:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant COIN thread. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I apologize to the community for supporting, a couple of weeks ago at WP:BN, the return of the admin bit to this person, whose only purpose since returning it to write this ridiculous page, and who clearly only wanted the admin bit back so he could say he was one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  I watched that discussion and thought he would do fine if he was careful. You couldn't have seen this coming. Nobody did. Katie^talk 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  It is not some big conspiracy. You can see the rationale here. When an objection was raised, it was discussed on the talk page. I did not add it back in. Remove the statement from the article and/or remove the admin bit until the "cloud" lifts. Either way is fine. I was going to take a few months before diving into admin actions anyway, as I was suggested to do on BN. -- RM 17:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I remember long ago when I first started we simply did not allow COI editing. I really think allowing it was a mistake. HighInBC 15:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

First time I've heard of an editor creating his own biography article. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it was done by a BOT thats tasked with making stubs of barely notable people ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So let's get this straight: the editor reclaimed adminship after a five-year absence- and then within a week, published this? If so, then most of the somewhat critcal comments above are surely not without merit. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

First time? Then you have yet to meet User:Slashme. I swear, Facebook has ruined the world. Grammar's Li'l Helper 16:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC) -- Grammar's Li'l Helper 22:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It happens all the time. Writing an article about yourself or your organization is a question I see frequently at the Teahouse, and one of the cases currently before ArbCom was catalyzed by the user creating such an article. In Ram-Man's defense, although Wikipedia:Autobiography "strongly discourages" writing articles about yourself, it also says that if you for some reason absolutely have to do it, it should be submitted to the AfC process for review as a kind of quality control mechanism. That was done here. Unfortunately, as DGG notes above, a lot of AfC is just one reviewer trying to figure out the probability of whether a submission would be accepted at AfD, so it's not perfect. Ultimately, I do not see any need for administrative intervention here, and if we have problems with the content, they should be brought up on the talk page, or if we think the subject is non-notable, it should be taken to AfD, which appears to have already been done. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think I'll write an article about myself too. 50, 0, 121, and 79 are each important and notable numbers that already have their own articles, so we should obviously have one about my whole IP address. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2016 (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:Narutolovespokemon

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 found this gem. Note the Featured Article Template. Look at Narutolovespokemon's contributions, it's not the only low quality article with this template. At least the Basketball emoji article sholud not be there at all. 80.132.90.79 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, someone needs to explain to them about notability and also what a good/features article is. His userpage claims he has 2 FAs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

He also claims to have pending changes / rollbacker rights, and to have over 22,000 edits... despite the account being created a week ago. Also, a helluva lot of his edits are redirects- why? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Seen this before with userpages created through automated means. Generally its a problem with them not understanding what they are doing rather than deliberately misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

. Right- but what about the redirects? They might be of concern, since they seem to all not have a consensus (but might be non-controversial for all I know!). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• No comment as to those redirects (however that Category:Unicode symbols redirect is troublesome), but I'm going to remove the topicons and userboxes which suggest that this user is something they are not. (eg. their {{rollbacker}}) -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• User page design, individual style of English ("... was been ..."), and interest in commercial companies are all very reminiscent of user Synthelabobabe21, blocked the day before this one was created: Noyster (talk), 23:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The similarities can be chalked up to them being the same user. I've blocked and tagged Narutolovespokemon's account as a  Confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That, as they say, is that. So now we can undo all those redirects. Which is nice. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:59, 21 April 2016 (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:THXGold2004 not here to contribute to the encyclopedia

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.

---

THXGold2004 is posting repeatedly at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, asking whether they can create fiction in their sandbox. See this, this, this and this. Having been told they shouldn't, they went ahead and created User:THXGold2004/sandbox. We had the same yesterday from GoldForTheWin0000, who is obviously the same person, who is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia (and, interestingly, wrote "I just got unblocked today", despite being a new account). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This sounds remarkably similar to someone I reported here a few years ago. Can't remember the name, but they were creating fake episode lists for a purported British children's show that supposedly reworked clips from InuYasha (focused on that "Shippo" character). IIRC, turned out to be an LTA. Can't find the report, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

An SPI has been initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Though this is not a diagnosis, this person seems obsessed with creating fictional non-encyclopedic content, and has become disruptive at the Teahouse. After being told "no" many times, they persist in creating new accounts to ask essentially the same question over and over again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a block both as admin action for disruption at the Teahouse and for sockpuppetry if this is indeed a sock (as we think). In any case, block for disrupting the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Was it Bambi-something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 for convenience sake. They problems are similar but I am not sure that the one being discussed here is the same. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And that doesn't appear to be the guy I was thinking of, either. At any rate, I think it's safe to conclude there is or is going to be consensus to block at least GoldForTheWin0000 and THXGold2004, if not for block evasion as well (if a goose quacks instead of honks...). I've blocked them, but not anyone else mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GenoCool2016 (though that account is probably the same user as the two "Gold" accounts). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2016 (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.

Please 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.

---

Ok, so I´m only a "pro-Hamas extreme anti-Semitic new-Nazi whore who should have been banned from Wikipedia years ago", but could any of you please block this and this editor? And some page protects probably are also in order, Huldra (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And please keep a watch on the vandalised pages; they have been at it some time, Huldra (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2016 (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:Mad Hatter

Summary

This user has developed a pattern of splitting bibliographies and other works from writers/artists pages in contradiction to the guidance of WP:SPLIT, and without seeking consensus on article talk pages or any other venue beforehand. This could be forgiven before the user received proper warnings, but it has now continued after the receipt of such warnings and the user's promise to stop. The user's response to these warnings has been to personally attack me (baselessly) and to canvas for backup.

Note: It is not my assertion (or my belief!) that all splits of bibliographies are wrong; it is my assertion that proper procedure must be followed — beforehand — when those splits do not fall within the consensus-generated guidelines. To do anything less is to disrespect the consensus model.

(Pinging @Mirokado and Erick Shepherd:)

Redress

As my approach has not been effective (and I am open to criticism on that), I intend to extract myself completely from the matter, so I am seeking outside input to reinforce the points that consensus must be sought for controversial splits, and that personal attacks are never tolerated. If that fails to work, I seek a topic ban for this editor with respect to splits of articles on creative persons.

Supporting evidence

• From WP:SIZESPLIT: Articles with readable prose size less than 40 kB do not justify splitting on the basis of length. If there is any doubt as to whether the criteria are met, a discussion should be started and consensus reached.
• The user has never, to my knowledge, put forward a justification for splitting on any basis other than length.
• Jim Butcher, which user split on April 12, has a readable prose size of 10 kB, according to the script available at User:Dr pda/prosesize. This is one of many such splits performed before user was warned; I believe listing them all here is unnecessary.
• On April 12, at 19:52 UTC and 20:01 UTC, I informed user I had undone two of his splits, and asked him to seek consensus before proceeding.
• At 19:56, User:Mirokado reverted another split and asked user to provide explanation when performing large edits.
• At 20:03-06, user asked another editor, User:Erick_Shepherd, to interfere on his behalf, while attacking me as a "rogue editor". Erick_Shepherd agreed with me, condemned the attack, and again asked user to seek consensus before controversial splits.
• At 20:11, user again attacked me as "roguish" and "destructive" on my own talk page. (To be clear, I have never said anything about user's editing abilities; their ability to abide by community guidelines is a different matter.)
• At 20:36, user claimed that they would stop the splits. This was a lie, because...
• On April 18, at 00:06, user performed a split of Marion Zimmer Bradley, again without explanation and without any effort to seek consensus.
• At 18:23, I again warned user to seek consensus before controversial splits, after I had reverted the latest. User's immediate response was again to complain to yet another uninvolved editor, at 18:23, again misrepresenting my motives and seeking backup.

It is my conclusion that user has no intention of changing this pattern of behavior unless closely monitored or outright banned from these edits. I would like very much to be proven wrong. As stated above, I intend to remove myself completely from this matter starting immediately, in the hope that new voices will be more effective. —swpb^T 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose banning Mad_Hatter I just looked at the two splits that were commented on here ( Jim Butcher and Marion Zimmer Bradley). The splits look good, they remove clutter from the page. Even though the page itself may not be anywhere near as large as what the policy says it needs to be, there's definetly room for IAR here, and yes, Mad Hatter needs to communicate more and ease off the bold changes just a bit. KoshVorlon 17:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban. Hatter is not just "splitting" articles; they're on a weird little jihad that often results in the removal of virtually all significant discussion of a writer's work from their bio article. That is in no way constructive. And they're simply cutting-and-pasting spun-out copy, making no effort to comply with licensing/attribution requirements. Comments like this [64] just underscore the inappropriate, uncollaborative attitude that underlies the Hatter's editing pattern that swpb rightly complains of. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment That confrontational remark by Mad Hatter is way out of line, and is strong evidence of a refusal to collaborate with good faith editors. Unless that remark is withdrawn with a sincere apology and a pledge to collaborate, I support the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Defend myself I have done splits on Fred Saberhagen, Robert Jordan, David Eddings, Peter F. Hamilton, Raymond E. Feist, R.A. Salvatore, Frederik Pohl, Gregory Benford, Mike Resnick, Glen Cook, Stephen R. Donaldson, L. E. Modesitt Jr., Timothy Zahn, S. M. Stirling, Eric Flint, David Drake, Tad Williams and Brandon Sanderson. Some of those pages have talks and messages dating for years. Anne McCaffrey that became such a heated argument for discussion and I am accused of violating the rules, has discussions dating back most consistently 5 years ago. I didn't think after I am qualified librarian and writer and have read many of these authors, that 1 day, I am doing it and then I will be shouted around after being bold and thinking that these Fantasy and Sci-fi category bibliographies should be filled out and that more writers with becoming huge bibliographies and "list of works"-sections can be easily read-out in special pages in bibliographies and even with good templates like those I did on Salvatore. I never thought that I will be pursued out by distinguished, respected and awarded editors and accused that I am not following rules, since I read many of the systematic rules and especially those of splitting and have been working here for more than 15 years. I am still for Anne McCaffrey and Jim Butcher split and I am willing to do it, but I don't like my work get reverted since it is no small deed to redirect them. The last thing I want is to get confronted and to offend such distinguished editors and my flamed remark wasn't very nice, I am sorry, but I don't like to see my work reverted. Especially, on pages that have minimal user attention on articles that have 3-4 messages or they are dating 4 or 5 years ago. I am sorry to both editors and I am willing to discuss it, but I think that it was possible not to revert the redirects, but rather discuss and convince me maybe some of those authors probably doesn't have such big bibliographies to redirect them uppermost. Kindest regards and greatest respect:The Mad Hatter (talk)

User:Org.aidepikiw

All recent edits from Org.aidepikiw have been disruptive: drive-by tagging,[65] edit warring over drive-by tagging,[66] combative talk page commentary,[67] and this. The Anita Sarkeesian article had be given WP:30/500 protection due to disruption from autoconfirmed accounts, so its likely there's some sock/meatpuppetry going on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullain, that individual is circling the WP:NOTHERE drain... They might have taken their toys and left, in which case there's nothing to do. If they come back and do anything other than productive editing, it'll be worth a block or a T-BAN, which I'd be fine with doing if I'm around. Zad68 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Vormeph's continued attitude after ANEW warning

Vormeph insists that Iran is not "also known as" Persia despite the article body making that claim with sources (which Vormeph at one point removed with a dubious summary). There has been a long discussion about it.

Vormeph has been reported at ANEW by McGeddon for the continued edit warring against multiple editors while the discussion was in progress, and warned to stop it, albeit not blocked because when KrakatoaKatie looked at it, there had not been activity for more than a day.

When that was taking place, I had sort of stopped looking at the situation because I was annoyed by Vormeph attitude on Talk:Iran and didn't want to get more upset, but then, I saw a number of things that I found extremely appalling, which I brought to KrakatoaKatie's attention on her talk page. In short, Vormeph had "blackmailed" McGeddon for a compromise on the article under the condition that McGeddon rescinded his edit warring report against him, and on Vormeph's user page, there was a "Naughty list" of editors including McGeddon and myself, followed by peculiar claims of "harassment" and "bullying" from our part.

In accord with KrakatoaKatie, I had decided to say nothing further on the matter (after removal of the "Naughty list") unless the edit warring or other behaviors continued; but today, I saw another edit of the same kind as the edit-warring ones with a flippant edit summary, declaring victory because this time he had a source for the name of Iran, consiting in an article about shoes! Meanwhile, he removed actually valid sources. I think this is just playing WP:GAMEs, and counts as not heeding the warning given in the ANEW report.

So, at this point, please enforce the warning. LjL (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I previously blocked them for edit warring, and since they now added personal attacks [68] to their behavior, I blocked them for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: for some reason, and amusingly, your diff (which is supposed to be of Talk:Iran) actually sends me to a welcome message from 2006 on User talk:Henmon (?!).

Anyway, since that doesn't appear to be the one you linked to, I'd like to also point out that, together with UCaetano, I've just been called a "eunuch". What the hell? I never thought Vormeph was a very constructive editor after interacting, but we're reaching a ridiculous point. Unless tooo much internet has fucked with [our] heads, as Vormeph also claims, and I'm imagining it all. LjL (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, also, after this report was filed and he was notified of it, Vormeph continued edit warring' in the same way. Maybe i shouldn't raise the stakes after I've won, so to say, but all things considered, three days seems lenient, IMHO. LjL (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant to link to the "eunuch" diff which you already did.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruption at Bopomofo and related articles

A pair of IP addresses that are certainly being used by the same editor, Special:Contributions/209.66.197.28 and Special:Contributions/76.176.22.252, have been engaging since the end of March in disruptive and uninformed editing of Bopomofo and other articles involving the spelling and pronunciation of Chinese language terms.

For context: the edits involve replacing correct WP:Pronunciation given in IPA with meaningless "English"-like approximations (respellings without a key to give them any meaning), with unclear but certainly uninformed edit summaries such as this one (Pinyin is not a pronunciation system, and something can't be "pronounced in Pinyin"). Secondarily, there were arbitrary WP:ENGVAR changes and unjustified changes between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese spellings.

They have been warned repeatedly with detailed explanations about what they were doing wrong by me and LiliCharlie, among other people.

However, the reaction consisted in futher reverts with bundled personal attacks and after more of the same, I think it's due time to report this.

Please see the addresses' contributions for further relevant diffs: many of their recent edits are relevant to this. LjL (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I second LjL. The two IPs (obviously the same person) have already been blocked three times before for the same behaviour, but always resume their disruptive edits after the blocks expire. Time for a lengthy block, preferably 6 months or a year. -Zanhe (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

209.66.197.28 reappeared twice at Bopomofo today with their usual edit and called me (or us) stupid in one of their edit summaries. I guess Zanhe is right: Now it's time for a lengthy block. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree- I just got my fingers burnt there, reverting the addition of unsourced, and I didn't even know this thread was here. It's at least a slow-burning edit-war, having gone on since March. In fact, perhaps that woud be the better place for this? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a further reversion to this IP editor's "correct pronunciation", and earlier today another with a summary that contained an obvious persona attack ("u were stupid enough to add this nonsense"). Please don't let their continuing claims of having "sources" sway you: this is not a content dispute, it's pure disruption. WP:PRONUNCIATION is clear, and replacing proper IPA with "bopomofo (which is correctly pronounced buh puh muh fuh)" is ridiculous, even when some websites actually give that sort of respelling as an approximate English pronunciation. WP:PRONUNCIATION is a guideline, and it's being repeatedly breached, despite numerous warnings. That's a fact even if Bopomofo has now been protected (but this editor has been doing the same thing on some other articles too). LjL (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see two 209.66.197.x IPs being used by this person at Bopomofo, both are registered to San Diego County Office of Education. Having looked at the range 209.66.197.0/24, I see multiple IPs, unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, multiple warnings and multiple blocks - indeed some IPs in this range are currently blocked (one is a school block for six months). Given this and since this person has switched IPs in this range, I have placed a school block on the 209.66.197.0/24 range for six months. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: sounds good, thanks. There is also 76.176.22.252 but that one hasn't been active in a couple of days. LjL (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at the other, it appears to be a residential IP address. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: I'm not going to touch the 76.176.22.252 IP for now as it is not editing. Should the person resume editing disruptively with this or another IP, ping me or report the editor at WP:AN/EW. As this person has used three IPs, I've put together a note at User:Malcolmxl5/Bopomofo to keep track, you may find it helpful to link to this when making any further reports. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Long term pattern of problematic editing - CIR?

A quick glance through the contributions of JOE SUPPLE BRUNS (talk · contribs) shows a long term pattern of adding garbage, talk page nonsense and WP:OR to articles without much positive contribution:

• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• ...

While there have been a few marginally helpful contributions, it seems the vast majority of this user's edits have been reverted for good reasons. Warnings about this stuff go back to 2014 when the account became active. It appears that there is a WP:CIR issue here and the benefits to the project are far outweighed by this individuals's negative contributions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

96.85.50.97 at Better Off (band)

96.85.50.97 was claiming to be protecting band members by blanking large sections of text at Better Off (band). I've warned several times, and correctly reverted several times, following Wikipedia policy of course. But if there are actually implications outside of Wikipedia on the band members, as the IP claimed in edit summaries, it's not in my jurisdiction. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just removed some controversial and poorly sourced content regarding "allegations" about living persons. MPS1992 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

64.229.246.209 disruptive behaviour

Please see the IP 64.229.246.209 (talk · contribs) recently active at Talk:List of universities in Canada#Algoma and Talk:Canada Day#See also. Contributions to Canada Day and Battle of Ontario. Battleground mentality and attacks at the above two talk pages, the latter of which subject to much past battles waged by sock UrbanNerd and PhilthyBear. Edit summaries featuring "lol", "peacock terms", "nonsense" and pushing BRD. (Credits from Hwy43's response). Further, he unnecessarily attacked, with this unkind response, ElKevbo (because of ElKevbo's revert on his change to List of universities in Canada) on his talk page (and typical of a UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear) message. (Credits from Miesianiacal's response).

On April 12, after he told me to take my change to the talk page (likely out of spite and retaliation after discussions on Canada Day), which I did, he continued to make wild hypocritical accusations and doesn't seem to like discussion, as he doesn't try to aid it after constant pleas for suggestions, but rather adds fuel to the fire. After one suggested change from Dbrodbeck, I agreed with it and gave a new one. After the talk page became dormant for almost three days, I updated the article based on no further users responding. The IP was also dormant for those three days with his last edit to Winterysteppe's talk page. Within an hour of my update three days later on April 15, he was very quick to revert it which shows he was still coming to Wikipedia likely only to see if a change was made to that page. This user may be a suspected sock and clearly has not learned from the past and is clearly not here. Thanks for taking the time to review this. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, this deserves a WP:NPA block. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost positive this is UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear, who was indef blocked for a raft of reasons, This anon should therefore not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all and 3RR shouldn't apply to reverting his edits. Then there's that message to ElKevbo, which, yes, should be reason enough in itself for a block.

There's a bigger problem here, though, of UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear coming back to disrupt Wikipedia using multiple IPs--see UrbanNerd's talk page for a list. I don't know what the solution to that could be. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

For the last few days, myself & many other editors have been getting phony block warnings from an evading banned editor. It's quite possible there's a connection. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP reverted my ANI notice on his talk page (like he always does with messages) if it looks like I didn't give him one. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just found another IP sock active May through October last year – 216.48.162.150 (talk · contribs). Caught this reviewing the edit history of Battle of Ontario to determine who was responsible for non-neutral opinion at the expense of my (and his) thirtieth favourite hockey team. This "remove fluff" edit summary then reminded my of UrbanNerd's use of the same edit summary language. Also, compare this second IP's contributions with the most frequent articles edited by UrbanNerd. The interests in Battle of Ontario, Ontario, List of tallest buildings in Canada, light rail transit (Light rail in North America and Light rail in Canada), and Montreal are just uncanny. Hwy43 (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And he's now just sent me a mild personal attack. This isn't the type of behaviour we should tolerate and certainly is not learning. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Typical behavior from an evading banned editor. The best way to deal with it, is to WP:DENY the evader recognition. Merely revert, block & ignore them. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Typical sort of non-insult. Puerile vandals like these always make these sorts of insults thinking it makes them sound like a tough nut but in reality just shows how pathetic they are. Liberal application of WP:DFTT. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal

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.

---

• Support Community Ban for UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear - this is the last stage of our process. Considering the amount of disruptive socking, it appears overdue. Jusdafax 04:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, of course. But, what will a "community ban" achieve that the indef block didn't? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support community ban. As a WP:RETENTION member, this pains me to do this. But, it's necessary. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this user's sockpuppetry and disruption outweighs any positive contributions this user has made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support any and every punishment available to throw at this editor. However, what does a community ban really do? This guy just sock hops from IP to IP now. Does the ban prevent that from happening at all? Also, do we need to start a formal SPI on this as well? I'd be curious to know if a CheckUser reveals if this editor is also operating under a new registered account that has gone undetected thus far. Can't recall if a CheckUser can confirm that or not. Hwy43 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Persistent disruptive socking only has one response. @Hwy43: a community ban means that any sock account this user creates and is identified is blocked indefinitely straight away with no recourse to appeal using that account. Any edit of theirs, constructive or otherwise, may be reverted with extreme prejudice without running afoul of WP:3RR or be considered edit warring. SPI is useful for logging their socks although if their socks are obvious a WP:DUCK block may be levied without the need for a CheckUser to be run. However, it is sometimes useful to request a CU to identify any sleeper accounts. Blackmane (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackmane. Is it any worth to also consider semi-protecting articles frequented by UN/PB so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them? Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how many articles this particular vandal hits. If it's too many, it may be problematic to apply semi protection to them all as it will hamper not only vandals but also good faith IP editors. Unless an obvious range of IPs are used, in which case a range block may be possible provided the collateral damage is assessed to be minimal, playing whack a mole is usually the way to go. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support, if it's not already apparent. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:57, 19 April 2016 (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.

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, this is a notice to a community in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --

— Cirt (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That guy needs to be gone. Can non-admins participate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't see why not. GAB^Hello! 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering it was started by someone who is banned on enwiki, I think it's safe to say that everyone is welcome to participate on that RfC. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And Cirt was kind enough to inform us here because the person who alerted the other wikis also happens to be banned on enwiki. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Except now Cirt is proxying for a banned editor. Two, in fact. 107.181.21.54 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, he's making the announcement in his own capacity as a member of the metawikipedia community. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WayneRay has now been globally banned under the WMF Global Ban Policy. the wub "?!" 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)