Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902

User:Tenebrae

Starting at the Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Italicization of websites in citations discussion and continuing at the subsequent Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field there is a continuing issue with User:Tenebrae, who has difficulty understanding what other editors try to explain, and whose obduracy on several points amounts to a failure to WP:HEAR. (Examples listed below.)

Tenebrae's continual misunderstanding has also led him to misrepresentation of my statements and views, ad hominem attacks, and imputation of bad motives, all of this being a continuing pattern of uncivility that disrupts productive discussion.

Examples, with diffs and timestamps

From earlier discussion: 17:03, 7 Sep and following (see discussion): A misunderstanding followed by multiple attempts by various editors (17:59, 7 Sep, 20:40, 7 Sep 21:58, 8 Sep 00:48, 9 Sep 00:51, 9 Sep 23:06, 8 Sep 01:13, 10 Sep) to explain a key distinction vital to understanding the point being made, yet Tenebrae persists in his misunderstanding (e.g., 20:26, 10 Sep). 20:26, 10 Sep: More persistence, sliding into incivility: "Try and WP:HEAR this ...", followed by "Now stop making false accusations." 23:23, 10 Sep: "Don't you dare accuse me of uncivil behavior, when you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours must, of course, have "faulty" reasoning. And you compound your incivility by falsely claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate." From RfC: 01:30, 10 Sep (after I said his "opposition is faulty"): "No. Just because you disagree with me does not make my position faulty. I am not misunderstanding anything". Also: "... you want a field that italicizes it in footnotes. That's ridiculous." 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance ... in a false attempt at making me appear contradictory." 22:57, 21 Sep (after I said "your objections are getting tiresome, even tendentious"): "... stop with the name-calling. The only thing tendentious is your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website. That's just remarkable." 02:43, 22 Sep: "Your double-talk ...", and "your bringing in irrelevant, extraneous points to create a smokescreen because you like the field to be italicized is just remarkable." 23:20, 23 Sep: "... your baiting me with insults", "the garbled, verbose, unclear nature of your writing", "your deliberate dissembling", "stop your smoke-screening", and "Your ridiculous argument". 22:36, 23 Sep (following my attempt to explain a point to him: ... don't you dare make up false claims and accusations, and dissemble like that." 22:37, 23 Sep: "completely disingenuous to claim...." 03:43, 30 Sep: "Only someone who knows he has no valid argument is going to start insulting another person, since that's a form of misdirection, and you've been smokescreening for most of this discussion. You're clearly so angry that rather than read thoroughly and think straight, you evidently only skim what I've been writing here." Misrepresentations by Tenebrae: 23:23, 10 Sep: "... you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours ..."; "claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate". [23:48, 11 Sep] 01:30, 10 Sep: "You are claiming that corporations and government agencies suddenly transmogrify by magic into publications." ("Transmogrification" first introduced by Tenebrae at 19:43, 29 Aug where he imputes it as a premise. SMcCandlish commented that "[n]o one made any such argument of "transmogrification".) [22:47, 10 Sep] 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance...." [22:47, 15 Sep] 22:57, 21 Sep: "... your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website." [00:08, 22 Sep] 22:37, 23 Sep: "Why you want to encourage editors to wrongly italicize ...." [02:47, 30 Sep] 20:05, 6 Oct: "I never said anyone "is forcing you to use 'website='" ...." [00:12, 7 Oct] 19:54, 8 Oct: "refusal to respond ...." [01:00, 9 Oct]

I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to refrain from and/or apologize for misrepresenting my statements and views (22:47, 10 Sep, 22:11, 24 Sep, 02:47, 30 Sep), which he has ignored, or dismissed as "smokescreening" (02:43, 22 Sep, 23:20, 23 Sep, 03:43, 30 Sep, 18:53, 7 Oct). As he refuses to voluntarily refrain from misrepresentations and general incivility I request that User:Tenebrae be topic banned from Help talk:Citation Style 1 for 30 days, a period comparable to the duration of his intransigence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reading the discussion on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italicization_of_websites_in_citations. Fascinating material; never heard that many words from Trappist the monk since their RfA. and what I'm reading--but I'm only in early September--confirms quite the opposite: every chance you get you seem to play the man (Tenebrae), not the ball (italics). If I were Tenebrae, I would have been really pissed by 01:13, 10 September 2015. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• I mean holy shit.com, even at the RfC your very first comment is about Tenebrae's supposed misunderstanding. With italics. And bold. And those fancy green italics so loved by ANI regulars. Now, I wish that Tenebrae hadn't responded to your persistent goading, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you started it. Hell, you even use highlighted italics in the most patronizing manner. Yuk. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In my initial comment at the RfC I briefly and neutrally noted what I believed to be the basis of his and my different positions, namely, that he misunderstood something. I am a bit surprised that you take objection at such an attempt to clarify and focus, or even the use of italics to emphasize which terms I used. I can't speak for whether "ANI regulars" love "those fancy green italics", but hopefully you have no objection to the common use of the {{Talk quote}} parameter to distinguish words not one's own. As to the use of the yellow highlighting: I am all for any aid to understanding. If Tenebrae had any objection to that then he was free to raise it with me. But in fact my first use of highlighting at the RfC was for the benefit of different editor, who raised no objection. Nor has Tenebrae ever objected, until you suggested it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate the other editors here understanding what I've endured with this editor, whose default tone appears to be patronizing and insulting — see exactly such comments to an editor here. Contrary to J. Jonson's assertion above, I understand other editors and they seem to understand me. But with J. Johnson there's clearly something happening beneath the surface, since he will say something I agree with, and then I'll say that I agree with it, and then he suddenly disagrees with it. I gives an example here.

As other editors seem to find, whether they agree or disagree, my suggestion was simple and I believed non-controversial:

1. In the template "cite web", a field's name is "website=". It automatically italicizes whatever is put there.

2. Yet some websites, such as the aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and the Grand Comics Database, by consensus are not italicized,

3. Logically, editors will places websites in a field called, well, "website=".

4. And by doing so, this forces italics on non-italicized websites.

I suggested one thing in the RfC, plus a compromise: Make "website=" non-italicizing, so that editors can easily italicized website that need it; or, a compromise, keep the field italic but just call it something less confusing than "website=". But the obviously angry J. Johnston would even brook the very idea of compromise, instead making off-topic points in green text, yellow highlighters and other distracting gimmicks. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to consider my attempts at clarification to be "distracting gimmicks" I will not longer trouble to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Before you do — since no other editor here seems to agree with your attacking characterization of me, and indeed finds you to be the one at fault — perhaps you should withdraw this pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods before it may WP:BOOMERANG on you. As other editors note, I haven't misunderstood the situation, and your falsely claiming I have in order for you to back an untenable position is really kind of an irresponsible thing for you to have done. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a frequent contributor to Help talk:Citation Style 1, where we try to keep, and are usually successful at keeping, discussions civil, on-topic, and focused on improving Citation Style 1 templates. The discussions linked above went completely off the rails, to the point where each one became primarily two editors sniping at and talking past each other rather than trying to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. If you follow the flow of both talk page sections, you will see that each one starts out being a discussion about issues, but by the end, all of the constructive contributors have retreated to the sidelines to let two remaining editors argue. Neither editor comes off looking good at all. I encourage both editors to take a break and work on other stuff for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I also keep a watch on H:CS1 and have to agree with Jonesey's summary. I also might suggest that the entirety of the back-and-forth on the talk page be collapsed given the toxicity, and a trout for both of the contributors. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing restriction on J Johnson to prevent him using highlighted italics on talk pages? That really is annoying. Otherwise people need to go away and have a cup of tea before smacking themselves in the face for arguing about italics. Italics. FFS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that a lot of highlighting can be annoying, but hadn't reckoned it as hanging offense. I had hoped that more emphasis (judiciously applied) might possibly focus attention and reduce ambiguity. (I was obviously wrong there.) As to other approaches please note that I asked twice for comments from other editors, but no one responded. If anyone wants a third chance at advising me please explain how I should respond to Tenebrae's "pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods" and innuendos. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

possible personal attack detected

after noticing OP edit reverted by knowledgebattle, OP reverted that revert and also posting a message on person's talk page. person removed message from talk then post message on OP talk page in tone that feel attacking/threat. OP maybe paranoid, but feel need to post on adminboard, request oversight.

proof in contrib log, history log, talk page of OP and mentioned person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2015‎

Who is OP? Can you provide a link to what you are talking about? HighInBC 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Mahfuzur is talking about himself in third person here, and this is the revert history being brought to discuss at this august forum and this, the removal of the talk page post. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that may be the case, but try as I might I could not find any personal attack. HighInBC 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, yea, that's because there was no personal attack. I'm guessing that @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: is embarrassed, and is trying to get his way here. On the page, Avijit Roy, Mahfuzur went and removed a reference to The Independent right here, and changed the other reference up. I reverted his edit, especially because he removed the reference to The Independent, the news article about Avijit's death. It's still a working link, and it mentions his book. He responded by giving me a cute "warning", using ALL CAPS as if to yell at me. I removed the "warning", and responded for him to keep his warnings to himself here, then explained to him why his edit was undone. He went back and undid the "warning" removal from my own talk page, and @GiantSnowman: undid his re-add of the warning to my talk page.

As you can see here, he keeps going through and trying to change up the references, and people keep undoing it. He's now also got @MarnetteD: telling him to cut it out with the history revisions.

To clarify, no, I didn't personally attack him. Yes, I told him to keep his warnings to himself. He apparently doesn't know how to convey a message simply and respectfully. Nor does he seem to understand how to justify the reasons for his reference removals. So... we're here. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (Completely missed that the conversation continued on below, sorry.) Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

moved from below as OP, article discussed and issue are the same. Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP notice misformatted writeup and misplaced ref in Avijit Roy so tries to use cite book refstyle, change works to bibliography and remove misplaced ref. OP gets own edit reverted, accused of disruption and threatened with block. OP post to admin talkpage and then to noticeboard cause OP fear abuse, maybe OP paranoid. OP want all to have good faithMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What you did was incorrect. The Works section of the article refers to the publications by the article subject. What you were trying to do was convert it into a Bibliography, which is generally considered a list of references. You should not be doing this. Also, when you made the edit you removed the reference for the book on the next line, hence the revert by two editors to restore the source. You should not have edit warred with them over it and should have gone to the talk page to discuss it. You are lucky Giant Snowman did not block you for edit warring. Also, I have notified Giant Snowman and Knowledgebattle of this thread. Blackmane (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane:check talk page of them, check time of my posted message. removed ref is NOT a ref of the mentioned book. think "are false refs preferred or no ref"?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting valid references from an article = no no, simple as. You removed (three times!) references including this which does verify what it is meant to verify i.e. that Avijit Roy "wrote several books including his last works Obisshahser Dorshon (The Philosophy of Disbelief) and Biswasher Virus (The Virus of Faith)." Your edits have no justification, and as Blackmane says you are lucky you have not been blocked yet. GiantSnowman 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: The ref pointed to an article, where if you read to the bottom, indicates that Avijit Roy is the author of the book in the Works section. The point of the ref was to show this. There is nothing wrong in using this as a source. Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is also up above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible personal attack detected. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Spaceman:manual readding of ref do better instead of revert, OP think, OP find location posted as haka instead of dhaka and use of cite web instead of cite book syntax more "eye hurting".Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to move this thread up, but got EC'd. Blackmane (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that, with their last post, M-r-s is referring to the fact that there is a big red "cite error" message at the bottom of the references at the moment. Any help in fixing it by those involved will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the ref error, something that was not affected at all by the content that Mahfuzur rahman shourov deleted! GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I try fixing only bibliography, had misspellings.cite link 72 is better placed elsewhere, now i put link back and my correction together.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now been reverted again - please can an uninvolved admin block Mahfuzur rahman shourov? BOOMERANG etc. GiantSnowman 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks GiantSnowman. Sadly it looks like M-r-s is going to edit war over this. I agree that a curved stick may be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I not remove ref this time, why I get threat now?my new revert has all 72 ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP think MarnetteD should have look well into OP latest edit, OP kept all 72 refsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again you changed the "Works" section into a "bibliography". Please reread Blackmane's post above as to why you should not do that. Also be aware that WP:COMPETENCE is required in editing. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally your edit did not do anything new or different from your previous ones. It only "undid" GiantSnowman's previous one. That is not the way to go with this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP want know why book published by chomsky, hawking, dickens etc are tagged under bibliography but not avijitMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-naming the section from 'works' to 'bibliography' is not a problem - what is a concern is a) your removal of valid references and b) your edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP use small phone, hard typing editing, so revert then small edit to make as admins want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @MarnetteD:I not remove ref, I keep works as works this time so what clue to get you speak of?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are having trouble editing while using a phone such that each time you save an edit it causes the removal of the source, you should not be editing until you reach a PC. Mobile editing often has glitches that cause unintended edits to occur. As it stands, your phone editing is causing disruption because each time you save your edit, which is still wrong by the way, it removes the source for the next entry in the Works section. Until you get to a terminal, I suggest you stop editing before an administrator blocks you for edit warring and disruption, potentially unintended disruption and edit warring but it is still disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed the fact that the conversation was continuing on here. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

it was a new thread but I combined the two so there wouldn't be 2 simultaneous discussions.Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP understand problem and correct mistake fifth time but admin revert again, why?i not remove ref now,i keep works as works, what go wrong now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Why don't you leave it alone? How about that?

First of all, you keep changing the Ref to be "Cite book". This website isn't the full book. That's an excerpt. If you look at the web URL, it says "Articles". /Articles/avijit/shomokamita1.htm

Also, you keep removing the Location. Avijit was from Ḍhaka, located here.

I'm not sure what your motive for editing this page is, but if you're going to edit, do it correctly. I will try to incorporate your edits. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Okay, check the Avijit Roy Works references now. I've gone through and tried to incorporate your edits into the references, and cleaned them up. Is that what you were trying to do? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan disruptive editing on Ramana Maharshi´s article

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.

---

Use WP:Dispute Resolution for content dispute (non-admin closure) --AmritasyaPutraT 06:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to raise my complaint about the conduct of User:Joshua Jonathan regarding the article `Ramana Maharshi´. His actions clearly fall into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I dealt with User:Joshua Jonathan some time ago (2013), in relation with an old threat on the page `Ramana Maharshi´, please see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramana_Maharshi/Archive_3#Suggestion_for_lineage-section Facing his obstinate opposition to every opinion not in line with his I already complained: “...you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions which only distort the debate. You spend so many time criticizing other people´s work and putting down their words saying there are just opinions with no steady information behind them when, indeed, you are the first one bringing here opinions, not facts or reliable data.” In relation with this conversation other users raised complains about Joshua Jonathan as well. I gave up then, feeling it was impossible to deal with such attitude, I think user Iddli did stop editing the page about the same time for the same reasons. I came back recently trying to make some adjustments on the page only to find even fiercer opposition from him. User:Iddli summarized the situation in a recent conversation in the Talk section of the page: “I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate.” From some time now Ramana Maharshi´s article is being overruled by User:Joshua Jonathan. He is pushing harshly his POV promoting his preconceived assumptions on Hinduism, the colonial era in India, and the relation between religion and politics in that country, adding information not directly related with the article in order to uphold his postulations, changing the very nature of the article, that is a biographical one. He is constantly putting down every commentary that doesn´t fit his agenda, treating them with disdain and asking constantly for justifications and evidence, demanding editors to defend before him such changes while he himself feels free to make any change without asking. He demands as well any data to be strongly supported by sources while he again feels free to introduce his own changes without any backing whatsoever, bringing third party opinions or information that is not even directly related with the person of Ramana Maharshi or his life for the sole reason that “is useful”. He even goes further than that and when the sources that support a particular position he´s not comfortable with are presented, he questions the sources, stating that they might be biased. He is reacting negatively again and again to each and every change not coincident with his political and religious views. Since he started editing the article there´s no room for opinions that do not tally with his, making it impossible to edit the page anytime he feels his position endangered. I believe this conduct throughout this years is being discouraging and disheartening and keeps new editors away from the page. Mauna22 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Reply by JJ: Regarding WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6: you haven't given an explanation or clarification for this allegation, nor any diffs. let's go through them anyway: 1: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." - please make clear which POV, and where. Show disruptive deletions. Show deletion of reliable sources. 3: "Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." - show diffs lease. 4: "Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." I've extensively partcicipated in discussions at the talkpage; please substantiate. 5: "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." - I've answered and explained extensively at the talkpage 6: "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles." - that's a harsh allegation, which you really have to substantiate. otherwise it's a baseless allegation. Take note of the many Barnstars I've received for diplomacy. Regarding the 2013-thread: that's a rather long thread you're referring to. The allegation you make, "you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions", is not supported by by any diffs or examples. I give my own opinions there: "So, to my opinion, this subsection is well-placed, well-organised, and highly relevant to the article." I also agreed with some suggestions: "I have no problem with the lashram-section. You can re-insert it - in the original section." I've also reaised my concerns with he edits discussed there, cocnerns which apparently were not satifactory answered: "Basically, it comes down to ignoring the discussion, and simply pushing your point of view. Unacceptable for Wikipedia, and very poor behaviour."; "We've discussed this list of qualities before; most of them are unsourced, and were removed for that reason. The present discussion is not a valid reason to bypass WP:VERIFY and reinsert them; they are still unsourced. The subsection that is now in the article is sourced, even without the disputed lines. Replacing sourced info by unsourced info is not an option." So, I think that you're presnetation of that thread is not really accurate. Regarding Iddli's complaints, I've answered those at Talk:Ramana Maharshi#User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article. I'll repeat them here: "any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible" See the thread above, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Questions cropping up, which contradicts this statement. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Journey to Tiruvannamalai, Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Stillness - samadhi, and Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Jung-quote for some other examples. "Impossible" seems to be a misplaced qualification. See, on the other hand, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Bhakti before Awakening, where I wrote, in response to Manua22, "I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article?", to which Mauna22 responded "How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in (sic) the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?" Not exactly an example of a collaborative spirit, was it? It's in a thread where Prodigyhk and I agreed after some discussion; "Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him" - I've made over 500 edits to this page; most of them were additions of info, and meticulous work on details such as the publications. I also provided sources for unsourced info provided by Iddli. A good example of collaboration and constructive improvements; "rules the page with an iron fist" - that's a subjective statement, which needs explanation and explication; "makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors" - the normal procedure is to edit the page. When you object, you can start a discussion at the talkpage. If you think I've failed here somehow, you'll have to provide diffs; "aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda" - there's a long series of edits I haven't touched upon, nor objected to. In case I've got objections, I do voice them; that's the normal procedure. Regarding the term "aggressive," it seems an apt qualification of your own tone, as exemplified by your response quoted above, and this thread itself; "his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors)" - if you mean that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of webpages written by devotees, yes, that's an agenda - which fits in with the objctives of Wikipedia. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3#Neutrality, where this issue was raised before, by another editor; "The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem..." - a talkpage is intended to discuss the article; looking back I see a lot of discussion. If the problem is that I don't agree with some of your edits or POV, no that problem won't be solved if you expect me to simply agree with you. Nevertheless, many discussions have been resolved at the talkpage, as can be seen at the talkpage-threads which I linked to at "problematic." Apologies for the long response; I prefer to give an accurate response. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Input from Iddli: Everything that Mauna22 has said above tallies with my own experience of attempting to continue editing the Ramana Maharshi article after Joshua Jonathan began editing it. Mauna's description is thorough and accurate. I have no doubt that Joshua Jonathan can and will go to great lengths to try to prove that Mauna22 and I are completely wrong, and he will no doubt endlessly cite wikipedia rules and cherrypick past examples of his generously allowing another editor to insert a line or two in order to back his point of view but the fact remains: attempting to edit the Ramana Maharshi page with Joshua Jonathan is so frustrating and his level of control is so intense that he is driving away good editors who would like to improve and collaborate on the article. His response to Mauna22 is just more of the same. (Iddli (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)) Input from Dseer: I concur 100% with the complaints by Mauna22 and Iddli about Joshua Jonathan's heavy handed and non-collaborative editing of the Ramana Maharshi article. His reply is cleverly legalistic but in reality it is is just so much smoke screen for his agenda driven and disruptive editing rather than collaboration. He is not really serious about collaboration as a close review of the record shows. As a typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views, see this statement he recently back put in after being challenged: "Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students. That is of course total opinion not fact that "neo-Advaita" conforms accurately to Ramana's teachings since Ramana even had a problematic relationship with traditional Advaita let alone neo-Advaita, and it is a claim widely disputed as well as conflicting with the rest of the article. A close reading of Ramana's words in context shows little evidence that would support such a claim that neo-Advaita actually popularizes his teaching rather than modifies them at best. Poonja himself dismissed the neo-Advaitan's claims of enlightenment in an interview with David Godman. His personal views should not be the determinating factor on what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dseer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Dseer (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Comment from Uninvolved editor: Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Reply by JJ: typical responses: no diffs, no examples, only accusations, and rejecting my response as "cleverly legalistic." I have provided "a close review of the record" above which shows multiple examples of "serious collaboration." This comment by Dseer is also typical: ""Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students.["] That is of course total opinion not fact". This comes from two academic publications from Philip Lucas: Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93-114), JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2011.15.2.93 Lucas, Phillip Charles (2014), "Non-Traditional Modern Advaita Gurus in the West and Their Traditional Modern Advaita Critics", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 17, Issue 3, pages 6-37 Lucas nor I do say that neo-Advaita teachings 'conform accurately' to Ramana's teachings. Neo-Advaita is being mentioned in two different sections; the "devotees" section also provides criticism of neo-Advaita. Dseer failed to notice this? Far from being a "typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views," it shows a serious problem in the understanding of plain text, the contents of the article, and the usage and value of academic sources. This sort of misunderstandings may be the causes of the prolonged discussions with these editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss with you JJ; your relative knowledge gap is evident. You have only a small fraction of the knowledge on this subject and of the sources I have and it shows which is why your friend Victoria's endorsement as "the best editor in the Indian religion pages" carries no weight with those who actually have that knowledge. That sources claim Ramana Maharshi's rings teachings have been popularized in the west as neo-Advaita is not in dispute but that is imply their opinion and yours. The objection is not to the source but to the implication that these represent Ramana Maharshi's teaching and your refusal to work with editors more knowledgeable on the subject disputing that. A more accurate way of putting it in the article is that this is a sourced claim that is disputed not written as a fact. Since Poonja is on record in an interview denying any of these neo-Advaitans were even realized although he told them so (probably a test of ego they failed) and the teaching lineage is self-claimed, the so-called popularisation [sic] can be seen as selective distortion instead; a sourced view BTW. As I said to you in the talk pages a month ago, you can find sources for all sorts of claims, that Ramana was deluded, insane, nihilistic, possessed, political, a supporter of Hitler, uninterested in combatting evil, etc. I don't care if you dredge up a list of such sources as long as it is clear these are simply opinions. What the other editors do not appreciate is the way you interpret things out of context without discussion. As I said as well, David Godman is probably the leading expert on Ramana Maharshi alive today. We would appreciate a little more humbleness in your confidence in your own interpretation and more deference on details to such a recognized expert easily accessible in illuminating and weighing the evidence in conflicts. BTW the claim of single purpose religious account is absurd. I have expertise on NRM cults and non-dualism, and various related practices. I confine my editing to where I have special expertise, unlike some others commenting here. And I am only concerned with those who foster misinterpretation that could be avoided; not creating a artificial haliography. 72.220.97.195 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I raised my complaints about User:Joshua Jonathan behavior in relation with the Article `Ramana Maharshi´. He had tyrannized that page for several years already, keeping editors away and carrying on his personal agenda. Two others users (whom I don´t know!) supported my claims.

Today I came here and instead of editors investigating the case to the detail I found that right away its me and the the users that support what I said those who are under suspicion: that´s outrageous. “religious single-purpose accounts”. Really? What´s next?

An “uninvolved editor” appears all of a sudden claiming litteraly that “Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages”. If that is not WP:PEACOK please tell me what is...

Can please some editor that is not friends or has any relation with User:Joshua Jonathan check this whole thing out. I will really appreciate that.

Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute it seems, as was already pointed out. Time to use some form of dispute resolution. ANI is not for content disputes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -Serialjoepsycho-. This is not about the particular contents of the page in this or that point but about one user trying to keep his political agenda no matter what, using disrupting behavior throughout the years.

Please inform me if there´s gonna be a investigation or if you need diffs or something. In this case is difficult to provide diffs because is a procedural that has been on for at least two years now and is difficult to see it references in different places and times.

Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, I doubt it. There's not alot in the way of diffs and everything makes look like a content dispute. With a content dispute, if you've reached you peak in discussing it on the talk page, you move on to some form of dispute resolution to try to build a consensus. You might consider a WP:RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your time and attention.

Please take look at [1] is a good example of Joshua´s behavior. It is from two years ago. Its not like things were ok since that discussion until today, the thing is -and this is my claim here- that he got rid of editors with his disruptive actions during this time, and that is why there has been no much fuss during such period in that article or its talk secction.

In WP:RUNAWAY we can find different tactics disruptive editors use to evade detection as is the case:

• Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
• Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.

I would add that he produces protracted commentaries to defend his position (when he can actually use links and diffs), which is another way to discourage debate because few people have the time or the will to engage in so very long disputes, see: [2] [3] [4]

Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way I would like to ask someone to investivate User: VictoriaGrayson conduct. User: VictoriaGrayson entered this debate yesterday with a rather awkward commentary [5]:

“Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.”

Which is disrespecful and clearly WP:PEACOCK

S/he also started to edit the talk page or Raman Maharsi´s Article, Saying twice the same thing at different points [6] [7]:

“I agree with Joshua Jonathan”

Period. No explanation, no elaboration; only unswerving support to Joshua Jonathan

Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) For the record: I do not consider my queries answered in the least, in fact I don´t think there has been an investigation. Otherwise, can someone show me the report?

As I pointed out this is a complicate issue, its not gonna be solved in few hours and is definitely not gonna be solved ignoring it. Disruptive conduct keeps going on. In fact I got the impressin that such conducts, when they come from regular editors are indeed encouraged foro the rest of WP crew.

I took note on how useful this Notice Board is Mauna22 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

talk page comment needs addressing

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 comment is pretty much completely unacceptable. Considering it was made by an IP, it might be useful to see if it can clearly be identified as an IP sock of some sort as well. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked and revdel'd, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think the edit history of the IP in general here might be seen as maybe indicating that the IP is being used by someone who is involved in other discussions with those editors, particularly the comments here which indicate that the IP with very little history thinks DeskOS has previously edited in a nonproductive manner, here in which s/he seems to me anyway to be calling DeskOS a troll for some reason, and here where s/he insults DeskOS again. I don't know what User:DeskOS may have been editing to earn such a description, but it is hard not to see some sort of hidden agenda here. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously a sock. GAB^Hello! 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but I'm a verbose bastard. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And I just repeat obvious facts to sound intelligent. Sorry about that, too. GAB^Hello! 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP 173.24.226.12

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.

---

Hello. There is an IP who is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia after final warning. He was been given 4 level 4 warnings, and still has not stopped vandalizing and blanking pages. He was reported on the admin inversion against vandalism page, but somebody removed him and he still hasn't stopped. I don't think he's a sock IP. Why is he still not blocked? I am not an administrator, so I am unable to block him. I gave him a level 3 warning for removing info. Spike789 ^Talk 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Has he edited since he received the final warning at 01:01 yesterday? I actually don't see any edits from that IP at all since then. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, I believe so. But shouldn't he/she be blocked with vandalism after final warning? Spike789 ^Talk 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's obviously the same person and since they've been introducing hoaxes for over a month, I've blocked for a month. Incidentally, that IP address does not appear in any AIV revision going back to September 19th. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for letting me know. Spike789 ^Talk 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

100.2.244.59 at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

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.

---

100.2.244.59 (talk · contribs · logs) has been an awfully stark defender of Caitlyn Jenner and the LGBTQ community, though probably a little too stark. Lately, at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, they've been complaining about the current image of Bruce used in the infobox as "icky Bruce", and any attempts to point out that a photo of Caitlyn cannot be added unless it is free have been shot down by them making accusations about editors being transphobic, and have recently threatened to message Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger about the matter, refusing to assume good faith and communicate, even despite the messages on their talk page. Zappa24Mati 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Perusing through the IPs edits, it really doesn't seem like Wikipedia is a suitable place for them. They seem to basically have no capacity to have a civil conversation with someone they disagree with. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has a point, in that the image of Jenner does not match her current assigned gender, and could very well be interpreted as a deliberate snub. It would be better to have no image. Guy (Help!) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That isn't exactly a point. Many biographies have older images. Right now the only image of Caitlyn available to use is the Vanity Fair image. It is Non Free and generally we do use the best free image for the infobox but...it is not strictly prohibited. Its a local consensus. I have no idea why it hasn't been suggested. Perhaps a bold edit will help in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How many of the older images have the wrong gender? Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder? I can think of only one...and we deleted it. Surely there are those we are not aware of. one...maybe two. Images of living people rarely get updated if there are no free images to use.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Guy, that observation is less than pointless in this context, as having a point does not in any way excuse bad behavior. To even bring it up here sends the message that it does. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't excuse the IP's behaviour. However, I also don't excuse having an image of a living person in their former gender as the primary identifying image. This should not need to be explained, it is ordinary common decency. Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand you, but you don't understand me. The point is Wrong Venue, with results detrimental to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is just trolling (Godwin's Law and all) at this point. Last five edits as of this posting: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Needs an immediate block. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps but I trust that Guy has raised the validity of the actual point. While it was not done gracefully by the IP, it does have the fact that Bruce is the male ID and Caitlyn the female ID. I just removed the image for now as that make the most sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, Softlander has reverted that. For the moment I have changed the caption for clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently consensus to retain that image. To remove it, there would need to be a consensus to do so. Feel free to start a WP:RfC on the matter. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the consensus is to retain the Bruce image itself but that there has been no other alternative besides using the Vanity Fair image as was suggested (on the talk page) but no one responded. Clearly this is an issue on the talk page with 4 sections on the page right now trying to get that image replaced...but no one has suggested, removing the image entirely until now.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I still suggest an RfC. You may find therein that there is indeed a consensus to have no image in the infobox rather than a male image. But until there is a valid public RfC of proper duration, it will always be a subject of edit-warring, because the status quo and current consensus is to have that free image of Jenner in 2012 in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A valid ANI discussion can do the same thing as can a valid DR/N or other venue, but the talk page is still the place to discuss and form consensus. An RFC could be next, or this ANI could sort things out...or other optional form or DR.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No on both: ANI is for editor behavior that needs intervention; DR/N or 3O is for resolving entrenched disputes between specific warring parties that are completely stuck and going nowhere, and it is not binding for longterm decisions, especially not on such a public article, and one that is on DS. Only a public RfC of 30 days' duration will resolve the situation so that it does not have to be revisited in 5, 10, 20, 30, 50+ days. RfCs are held on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, so the venue is the same. (I'm not going to respond on this further, as I'm repeating myself across two venues.) Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolution of content disputes, widespread abuse notwithstanding. If you don't believe me, expand "Are you in the right place?" at the top of this page. The last bullet is: To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution. (Perhaps that could be clarified by inserting "content" before "disputes", since a behavior issue could be considered a dispute. But the meaning is clear enough for our purposes based on the target of the link.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE also unambiguously supports this. This is part of WP:DR, a Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, uhm...this thread is actually a conduct issue that may need intervention. It is based on content that could be discussed as part of the conduct issues here, but are not the focus of the board. DRN is not for just entrenched battles between specific warring parties. Its for content disputes. Some content disputes have some conduct issues that can be mentioned if need be and the guidelines mention this there. As for whether or not to intervene, perhaps. But as was pointed out, this is attracting a lot of this conduct issues so...maybe the content issue is the source of these conduct issues and maybe there is some logic to the reasoning...as Guy mentioned. Just a thought. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As that leaves me utterly baffled, I'm unable to respond and I concede defeat. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you have indicated that you do not understand my point, let me clarify. This ANI filing was made by User:ZappaOMati (a school) about an IP user they felt needed admin to look at for possible intervention. The article falls under sanctions imposed by Arbcom. It is a controversial article with many content disputes but they all seem to be handled on the talk page. However, the image issue continues to draw unneeded attention due to the lack of an image to illustrate "Caitlyn" and not just the old "Bruce". Guy suggested just leaving the info box empty and that suggestion seems to be aimed at that attention issue. I agree and believed that a bold edit could be done but it was reversed. Intervention has been carried out by others who have removed the post on the Caitlyn Jenner talk page and a content based discussion has begun on the article's talk page. Part of what I was speaking to was the idea that DR/N is for a specific type of dispute mentioned above. It is for content disputes that have had extensive discussion and continue to be unable to come to a consensus on their own. DR/N is a mediated discussion and is different from AN and ANI but it can touch on conduct as an inhernet crossover with some rare cases. We have written the guidelines at DR/N to address this.

My point is, the thread is not really about the content dispute but the continued content disputes this attracts. I suggest closing this now as "community intervention is underway".--Mark Miller (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal threat made on Thor Halvorssen Mendoza against article subject

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.

---

Greetings,

I am hoping the administrative community takes note of this rather alarming incident. A User:HRFDN has certainly been making disruptive edits and potentially malicious edits.

Here are the vandalizing edits on Halvorssen's page. They attempted to say Thor Halvorssen had been shot and killed on September 28, 2015 in New York City - which is not true. But this does appear to be a threat. Also considering the next edit stated "Halvorssen is a dead man".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza&diff=684096085&oldid=672659489
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza&diff=684096546&oldid=684096085

This almost clearly is a threat. Halvorssen is involved with the Human Rights Foundation and has undoubtedly made enemies internationally. Interestingly, they made edits on the Human Rights Foundation page to call it a "corporation" rather than a non-profit, and that it only serves the Americas - hinting that HRW is some American weapon.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684094785
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684277910

They also made several edits to add external links to a site (https://humanrights.foundation) which is not the Human Rights Foundation website and appears to be hastily created to deceive viewers.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_human_rights_organisations&diff=prev&oldid=683817028
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_human_rights_organisations&diff=prev&oldid=683818264
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Internet&diff=prev&oldid=683953296
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684095212
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684277315
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Bahrain&diff=prev&oldid=684279000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Day_in_Support_of_Victims_of_Torture&diff=prev&oldid=684279524
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_human_rights_instruments&diff=prev&oldid=684280087

On the surface this is blatant vandalism that is non-constructive to Wikipedians. On a deeper leverl, a malicious threat such as this against a human rights activists is not to be taken lightly. I hope the administrative community will take the appropriate steps to reverse this damage and ensure that it stays off of Wikipedia. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User is indeffed, and his website blacklisted. I've also informed the Wikimedia Foundation about this. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

extensive vandalism with multiple accounts/IPs

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

---

Firstly, I'm not really sure how Wikipedia works 100%, so please bear with me on this one...

This article:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YK_Pao_School has been vandalized extensively, but various accounts/IPs, that I assume are the same person.

Banning these accounts would not really help, as new accounts would be made immediately to continue with their vandalism.

I am very willing to do a little research and restore the article to it's pre-vandalized state, but this seems worthless at the moment, as it would be vandalized by the previous accounts or new accounts.

Is there some way to lock the article, while allowing certain users to restore the article?

If no one can edit it, it will remain vandalized, if it is left as it is, it will be vandalized as soon as decent editors try to remove the vandalism.

thanks

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy, I've protected the page with wp:Pending Changes so from now on edits by IPs and newbies have to be checked before they go live. That should fix this page, if you get other ones like this then WP:RFPP is a page dedicated for requesting protection. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was both quick and awesome ! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

found someone use talkpage as file/datahost

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 talk:ShankarSG1 check pleaseMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP edit-warring over copyvio material and hurling insults

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 wording is very similar to its source: [13]. However, 31.51.20.183 has edit-warred to maintain its presence on the article. I've tried explaining that to him but he instead hurls insults at me. There needs to be serious oversight over this article. Copyvios should not be tolerated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That small amount of similarity doesn't remotely amount to copyvio, Étienne Dolet. I also notice that you have repeatedly edit-warred to restore ungrammatical English, i.e. "has denies". I've rephrased the sentence, added the exact quote attributed to Perinçek which was that he called it "a great international lie", and referenced the quote. The angry and insulting edit summaries by the IP were uncalled for. However, you are both guilty of not calmly discussing this on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Voceditenore for your edits. I thought that this sentence:

Doğu Perinçek is a Turkish political activist who has repeatedly called the Armenian genocide of 1915–1917 a lie on his visits to Switzerland.

Is strikingly similar to this sentence:

Dogu Perinçek, a Turkish politician who repeatedly called the Armenian genocide during the years 1915 to 1917, a lie on his visits to Switzerland [...]

And in my own AGF understanding, I've always thought copyvio's should be removed immediately on sight. But I completely understand why a discussion at the talk page should be a better venue to address the issue. At any rate, if this problem persists, I'll open a discussion at the talk page of the article. But for now, I think your editing has solved the matter, at least temporarily. Thank you, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Lorindrew

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

---

I am here to write about someone who has frustrated many WikiPedia editors; Lorindrew. Lorindrew is a very strict editor who claims to correct vandalism, but really just wants to revert everything to the way it was. He constantly reverts correct edits and other efforts made by users who are "improving" the WikiPedia experience. While he is a very decorated WikiPedia member, he is not a fair one. He believes he has supreme authority over other editors and that their edits are inadequate, even though they improve the page quite a bit. He reports people for the smallest things and will not give them the freedom to write.

I wanted to draw your attention to this and I hope that you will see to my accusations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THGFangirl (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We have also noted that you did not notify Lorindrew Loriendrew of this thread, as required, and that this complaint is your first edit under this account. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC) modified 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :(Non-administrator comment) @THGFangirl: Your account was only created today, have you had any interactions with this editor? Lor^Talk 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - @THGFangirl:, do you have specific examples to support your claim? Remember, editors on Wikipedia are volunteers; without links to specific edits, discussions, or articles to support your claim, it's unlikely that anyone is going to look very closely at the supposed issues you claim to have taken place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this nonsense. Loriendrew is an excellent editor, and the OP has not bothered to try to discuss whatever the issue is with Loriendrew at all before filing this ANI. So this is either socking, trolling, a new and clueless account that used to be an IP, or some combination of the above. THGFangirl, you need to discuss matters thoroughly with the other editor and try repeatedly to come to a resolution before filing here. Also, if you need help doing that, the proper venue is WP:DR, not here, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I recently came across Loriendrew over a minor disagreement over sourcing. We came to an agreement. People don't always agree - but there is absolutely nothing I have seen in interacting with this editor that deserves bringing him here. Four years, 22,000+ edits and a clean block log! Throwing my support behind closing this. Scr★pIron^IV 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Violation of 1RR on Levant by Debresser

Here Debresser reverted my edit, re-instating a claim not supported by sources. Here the user removed the {{cn}} tag I placed on the unsupported claim. The two reverts happened within 40 minutes, on an article that clearly falls under WP:ARBPIA.

I pinged the user on the talk page and explained the problem with the content they restored, but got no response so far. “WarKosign” 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I agree with you, both edits inserted a fact with no sources that's in contention , at the very least between you and DeBresser, and on the first edit, he's basically saying it's common knowledge. Not a great move. KoshVorlon 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the Sabbath, so Dovid won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening, even if WarKoSign's complaint is correct.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not addressing the matter of the real dispute itself, but might this not be better discussed at WP:AE,considering the existing sanctions? John Carter (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: WP:ARBPIA sanctions can be applied by "any uninvolved administrator", and I figured I can find a few of these here. WP:AE form is quite tedious to fill, the process there is quite slow and I do not know the user enough to decide that an AE case is needed. I just want someone to give Debresser an authoritative reminder that WP:RS and WP:1RR should not be ignored. “WarKosign” 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, I agree with you, and, actually, have, in past, made comments here on much the same basis. When I did so, I was told that it would be best to take the comments to AE by some of the administrators involved. And, if you look at some of the threads above, it can reasonably be argued that this requests on this page can take longer than requests at AE. I've tended to find that to be the case myself. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for pointing out that I couldn't come here any earlier because of the Shabbat.

As to the issue itself: because these were two different edits by WarKoSign, it didn't trigger my attention to 1RR. Also, I thought this was simply one of the many politically motivated edits in the ARBPIA area, so I reverted it as such. We have such editors, mostly IPs, the whole time, and they are nothing more than political vandals.

In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed. I mean, if that logic can not be disputed.

However, I now understand the issue under dispute is whether it should be "territories" or "state of". The addition of {{Cn}} didn't explain what the issue was. This template takes a |reason= parameter, which was unused. In any case, I still think this was a pointy edit, and don't think there is any chance that a discussion will come to any conclusion other than reinstate the previous version.

I would self-revert my last edit,to avoid the impression that I take 1RR lightly, but WarKoSign already made a new edit. I recommend WarKoSign to open a discussion about this issue on the talkpage, since I think his edit is in violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on my part is not an excuse to violate policies. My edits were not by an IP editor nor can they be considered obvious vandalism (even if you disagree).

Both your arguments (1,2 above) are again relying on the unsupported claim that State of Palestine is in the Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that Palestinian Territories are in the Levant, but as of this moment State of Palestine has no physical location, it is a de-jure entity without defined borders that claims the Palestinian Territories. It is very likely that it will be there one day, but wikipedia is not the place for speculations. I provided the source for SoP *not* having defined location on the talk page, please prove me wrong there.

You are still able to re-instate the {{cn}} tags (or better yet, provide a source that supports the statement I claim invalid). Failing to do so you are still "enjoying" the results of your violation of WP:1RR.

I did open a discussion on the talk page, one where you did not respond until after I opened this discussion on ANI. So far I provided a source to back up my claims, you did not. “WarKosign” 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And after the Shabbat ended, I joint the discussion.

After your edit, I also edited the article. The result of your edit was that there is no point to undo my old edit any more, since we both made more recent edits.

Even if the borders of the State of Palestine are not clear, the above arguments prove irrefutably that in any case the area of the State of Palestine is in the Levant. Your source does not dispute that, just as it doesn't claim other absurd things, like that it would be in the Americas. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i'm not sure 1RR applies for the article Levant, because it has no direct relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not marked as such with proper page notices.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of State of Palestine or Israel on any article, especially in relation to the territory disputed between the two, certainly falls under WP:ARBPIA: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". “WarKosign” 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd Editing

This is a strange bit of editing. User:Jandown and User:Desklin appear to be the same person. This history of Jandown shows them going through and deleting archived comments of other editors. Likely one of the comments is related to this user. Desklin also changed the name on some of Jandown's edits to be Desklin. Perhaps someone that is more used to handling SPI cases can take a look. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The two talk pages have been notified, here and here. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And ANI is here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strange indeed. I reverted a few edits where Jandown had messed with an archive. Desklin has been adding questions to an archive that were asked at a refdesk and removed here, by Baseball Bugs. Perhaps BB can shed some light on this matter. Yes, Arzel, odd, and worth another look, though not (just) necessarily from an SPI perspective--but it's a bit late here. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Desklin is a sock of an editor who has been bothering the RD for a while, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. I think this was obvious to most regulars at the RD. Edit: And I remember now that I left a hint on the the WT:RD then a week or two later someone else brought it up. So I've been removing any of their contribs which haven't had replies on sight. (I've left those with replies given the history of concern over such removals.)

I probably should have filed an SPI, but first I was hoping the reversions with convince them to at least abandon this account (and they did seem to disappear for a while, but they are often irregular), or that one of the admin regulars would block them. Also recently BWH2 semed to have taken to serial sockpuppetry (perhaps with a very odd IP or two) meaning a checkuser didn't do much. Edit2: In fact, I remember now that the hint I left was at a discussion where someone complained about the editor being blocked by an RD regular based on behaviour, without a CU although after an SPI. Which may not have helped encourage such IMO very useful blocks, not that I'm faulting admins for not blocking without an SPI, whatever the case.

I don't think I noticed Jandown, or may be I did but just reverted or ignored the edits on the RD and didn't check the history, can't remember for sure. Edit2: Their Jandown account does suggest CUs may be useful, although it looks like it was only created after they were bugged enough by me and I think others deleting or reverting their contribs. So if the SPI had been filed and CU run early enough it also would have come up fruitless.

Deleting archived comments, normally IIRC replies to their questions which they didn't seem to like for whatever reason is another historic behaviour of BWH2 although I don't think they've shown that for a while, at least AFAIK.

BWH2 also has a history of causing some problems on the encyclopaedia proper, mostly in creating useless redirects, but also sometimes in questionable edits to articles. Although when I checked Desklin's edits to the encyclopaedia proper, many of them didn't seem so bad so I left them, even if I technically could have reverted all. Last time I checked which was over a month ago, I did revert any that seemed inappropriate although IIRC most were minor.

P.S. Just checked the history SPI history which confirmed most of my memory. P.S. 2 Seems they tried to delete this discussion [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I've seen enough. They're the same--their way of editing the refdesks is exactly the same--and they're not doing anything useful here. There's a couple of useless redirects and then a bunch of messing around in those archives. Nil Einne, feel free to start reverting those edits. I'm going to block for NOTHERE, and whatever the kids at SPI wanna do is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and soap articles

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) has made a large number of requests for page protection, (eg: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) all of which are on soap opera characters, and most of which have had barely any edits this month and hence in my view do not meet the semi protection guidelines. The apparent cause of this, according to Cebr1979, is that a single editor has been undertaking slow-moving disruption (their words, not mine) across many articles, as documented here. A look through 172.0.210.68 (talk · contribs)'s contributions though, suggests to me that this is a good-faith editor and if there was any problem, I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE related. Therefore Cebr1979's protection requests are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. What should we do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have anything to do right now. Between your post at 0:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) and your request above, Cebr1979 hasn't resumed the disruption. So, since he hasn't continued the problem, I don't know why you think admins need to step in and use their tools. Give him a chance to actually do the right thing before demanding Admins step in... --Jayron32 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting blocking or anything, rather it seems this issue has been going on in various places over the past few weeks, and it's probably a good time to bring it to a central place to get some more views. I realise it's a bit odd to have an ANI thread when I just want a discussion, but there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, there is absolutely no disruption from me. I have been in contact with many admins about this guy (something you know because you linked to one of the conversations yourself) and, you are wrong. This is not a good faith editor, it is a sockpuppet using multiple different IPs to make his nonsense edits. I'm not going to bother explaining the situation to you since you can't be bothered to take two seconds to look it up (even though you claim to have "looked through..." like, I just don't even know). Some of those IPs have been blocked for nonsense edits/vandalism and you definitely knew that before you came here so, common sense should have dictated there is more to this story you are clearly unaware of (especially when you were actually aware of it because this conversation was right there in front of you and there's no way you didn't see it). The next time you have an issue with something, my advice to you would be to ask some questions instead of immediately running around to the nearest place you can to instantly cause some drama. I'm not talking to you anymore.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't talking to you anymore, Ritchie, I hadn't seen this yet. Don't you EVER come to my talk page and put something back I have removed. EVER. You wanna talk about disruption? Go read talk page policies. I don't wanna see you at my talk page again. I shouldn't need to be schooling administrators on how wikipedia works.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, since you don't want drama, what is your suggestion for dealing with this problem? Given the range of IP addresses you list here, I don't know if a range block would be useful. Let's try to resolve the underlying problem rather than the symptoms of too many page protection requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I have already linked to conversations I've had about this guy (there are many more but, now I just don't see the point in even trying). You and I even (indirectly) had a conversation about him on my talk page just days ago. I have already attempted everything under the sun I can think of and it's gotten me nowhere. If you have suggestions, feel free to toss them out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at a random sample, I see a whole bunch of editors getting angry and upset at IPs on their talk pages, and a random spot-check of them here, here and here reveals a completely clean block log. To pargraphase Willard Duncan Vandiver, "you gotta show me". Where is this disruption? I think if you keep raising frivolous requests to WP:RFPP (all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins) somebody's going to think about ways we can keep the backlog down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins"

You couldn't be more wrong, Ritchie. I had already decided to stop fixing this guy's mistakes. Let him have his free reign. This is just too much of a headache.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of RFPP I can see Ged UK and Ymblanter also declined some of your recent RPP requests and I see KrakatoaKatie had a word with you about this yesterday. So that would seem to justify my view that multiple admins have addressed this. I was really hoping we'd get to the bottom of who the IPs are, possibly someone that an admin reading this would know about, but I guess not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you were not! You're just changing your tune now! Re-read your original post right here in this thread. You defended this guy. You were not trying to get to the bottom of anything involving him.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and KrakatoaKatie actually approved every single one she looked at so, again... "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins???" You just proved you knew what you said was false when you said it. I'm off for the day. Have a god one! Cebr1979 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cebr1979, since we're having this discussion here, here's my take on this: Yes, the person who is doing this is a disruptive force, and should be reverted. However, given the low-level of disruption (a few edits a month, at what I am looking at), there's nothing we should do to pre-empt this. That is, page protection is used only when the level of disruption is so rapid or high volume that we can't keep up by reverting. This level of disruption can be managed quite easily by simply reverting and blocking if necessary. Simply: this level of disruption does not merit page protection, by our protection policy. Now that you've been informed of this, please do not continue to make protection requests which you have been informed will not be acted on; you've also been explained to why they have not been acted upon, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Just keep up the good fight, keep reverting this person, and we're sorry that we can't do more to stop them; except maybe a range-block, if that is feasible. Page protection cannot be done because the potential for collateral damage against good-faith editors outweighs the need to stop this one person. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron32: As you've already pointed out, I've already done all of that and I had already done all of that before Ritchie came here.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hours and hours before...Cebr1979 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I got you. I'm just trying to be unambiguous. So long as you've stopped, we're good here. --Jayron32 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Jayron32: Read this conversation please (which I have already linked to) and you'll see there is nothing "low-level" about it. This guy's a pro.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That article in that discussion has been edited (5 times by IP addresses in 2015) is about as low-level as you can get. Now, that doesn't mean this person doesn't need to be stopped, nor does it mean their disruption is to be ignored. It's just that protection is the wrong tool for it. 5 edits in 1 year does not need protection to stop. --Jayron32 16:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Jayron32: The article in that discussion is irrelevant. I asked you to read the discussion itself (which you clearly haven't done).Cebr1979 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Mauna22: Please don't delete comments made by me (or anyone else) as you did here.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry about that. It was an accident. Mauna22 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • I had read the discussion already. We're clearly not even discussing the same point here. You're saying the person against whom you're requesting protection is a disruptive problem, and needs to be stopped. I am agreeing with you. You also keep trying to use protection to stop them. I am letting you know that protection is not the correct solution to this problem. That is all. I don't need to be repeated told by you to agree with you when I already have on the points you're demanding that I agree with you on. We're still not going to protect hundreds of articles that get edited once every few months. --Jayron32 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • You're right, we are not discussing the same thing here. You said he was a "low-level of disruption" and I was correcting you.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, I said there was a low level of disruption to that page. I was discussing the article, you were discussing the person. I think we're good here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Jayron32 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 - that was all I was really asking for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I looked down this rabbit hole when I stumbled upon these RFPP requests last night (and I think the night before or something), but from what I can tell, it goes deep—so deep, I just went to bed instead of deal with it. Still, it looks like this might be LTA from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 that's spread across numerous IP ranges. They're all soap-opera-related articles, and they're usually mobile-web edits. If you peruse the following categories, you'll likely find instances of characteristic edits from the SPI user (some benign), which seem to have kicked up starting a little under a year ago:

• Category:General_Hospital_characters
• Category:One_Life_to_Live_characters
• Category:The_Young_and_the_Restless_characters
• Category:Coronation_Street_characters
• Category:EastEnders_characters
• Category:Days_of_Our_Lives_characters

This encompasses thousands of articles, so protecting them all likely isn't feasible. If I were to guess, the user has a true "home" ISP with Comcast but possibly travels frequently and/or largely contributes with an iPad anyway (most frequently with 166.173.0.0/16, so AT&T-US, but some appearances in other countries). The edits are disproportionately mobile web and usually revolve around changing template parameters related to sibling/parent/family crap (or trivial name changes), and will long-term edit war over them.

Furthermore, this is a recurring theme with mobile IPs. Given the ubiquity of devices, the relative ease with which they can be used to evade blocks and reassign IPs (even unintentionally), and the lack of responsiveness from abuse departments, it's clear that obsessed users—and make no mistake, this is a case of obsession—can make it difficult to effectively prevent disruption (or even get in contact with them). I'm starting to think AO+ACB blocks for mobile ranges are increasingly in order in cases like this. Even when trying to get in touch with an IP, the chances are exceptionally good that by the time a message is dropped on their talk page, they've already been assigned a new public ip (so they'll never even see it). Alternatively, we could re-evaluate the idea of per-page blocks (a WP:PEREN) but solely in the context of ip-range blocks in cases of severe abuse.

Regardless, not quite sure the best course of action in this instance.

--slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also @Cebr1979: I strongly agree with the others that repeatedly adding a bunch of pages on WP:RFPP is a bad idea. This sort of cross-page issue is better to raising here with an explanation and history of what you've experienced (or on WP:SPI). It might end up requiring a unique solution or simply more people watching the range of articles (if there's nothing else that's easily doable and/or willing to be done), so raising the issue here is more likely to provide diversified inputs. RFPP is more for one-off requests where a specific page or two is the problem (e.g., Penis being vandalized or people edit warring on a couple articles)—not dozens of articles or a whole category. :P Broad, sweeping actions, including protecting a large number of pages (if they're needed) are better suited for discussion here. --slakr^\ talk / 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation

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.

---

Thread retitled from "Question re username and userpage".

Could I ask for comments on the username Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (t c) in regards to WP:ISU and WP:IU, please?

Their user page could also need some comments; the two flags are supposedly homemade - rather odd to me is the combination of the Christian flag cross and both Muslin and Jewish symbols. The Star of David on a Rainbow flag is ... hmmm ... perplexing. I have asked for their comment re userpage, but they removed it in this diff with the edit summary "remove bullshit".

I notice that in the article Islam in Scandinavia they created, File:Viking towns of Scandinavia.jpg has been used with the caption "Muslims towns of Scandinavia". The article so far has seen some sourcing challenges giving inflated numbers for Muslim population that don't match those seen in Islam by country. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The user is also edit warring against a bot (reported here) and I'm struggling to get them to understand the concept of verifiability and the importance of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

^(ec) @Sam Sailor: personally I don't think it violates WP:ISU as it's probably not shared. I definitely think it could be classed as inappropriate given the articles they've been editing and Cordless Larry's comment above. samtar ^(msg) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the note. it is not a name of an organisation i know about Wikipedia:Username policy i just made it up. the name basically is to show my Contributions willing to Wikipedia. which is about Semitic-Germanic cultural heritage, Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc. that explain the Star of David on a Germanic flag--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation - given what you've said, would it be fair to assume you meet many of the single purpose account criteria? You may wish to read the advice given to SPA accounts here. A good piece of advice there would be "If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama." Thanks samtar ^(msg) 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i do have some interest in the Semitic culture Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc but i also do have interest in other topics, so it is just a name based on the famous (Holy state of the Germanic Nation) which itself is an inappropriate name given they relate them self's (the Germanic) to an unrelated culture! i know it is funny but in the Wikipedia article it is included.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: The word "interest" in the above context does not mean interest as in things you like. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i know.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

are you sure your name is not an WP:IU?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: Initially I was able to create my account on the English Wikipedia but not French and German because the username violated the username blacklist on those Wikipedias. However, the blacklist has been deprecated. I'm sure quite a few experienced users have seen my username and don't appear to have any problems with it. Also, it doesn't suggest any affiliation with Wikipedia or the WMF. We are all "Wikipedians". That's the term for someone who edits Wikipedia, and does not suggest official affiliation (especially with the words "The Average" added preceding the word "Wikipedian"). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

whether or not that username is inherently problematic, the user name combined with that user's edits are a pretty solid sign that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation was blocked by Bbb23 last night for breaking the 3RR at Islam in Scandinavia, and then a few hours later an IP started making the same reverts, with edit summaries such as "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh very funny jokes hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i had a nice laught" and "nigga plz". The article is now protected. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has now created Judaism in Scandinavia and is displaying exactly the same behaviour there by reverting my removal of unsourced population estimates, addition of maintenance templates and removal of an irrelevant map. Pinging Sam Sailor, Bbb23, The Average Wikipedian and TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and has now taken to trolling my user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

oh really not here to build an encyclopedia, than why i created three 3 articles in less than 3 days?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Arabic name for "Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation" is الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية. That is written on the userpage User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation and was displayed in both the flags the user uploaded to Commons, now deleted at File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg and File:מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית.jpg. I bounced this off of an Iraqi friend of mine (mainstream Shia Turkman), who said the name could, as indicated by the user above, be a play on the Arabic name for the Holy Roman Empire (الإمبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة), but that it also gives associations to

1. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, and
2. Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية‎ المقدسة, "Holy/Sacred Islamic State"),

and that it in any case leaves the impression of someone who, allow a direct quote, "could be either a radical with an agenda that serves Islam no good, or could be someone trolling to give Islam a bad reputation."

The user has added the acronym ISGN to their talk page. It is possibly a coincidental spoofing of Islamic Society of Greater Nassau, but nevertheless further implies shared use, WP:ISU, and their use of File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg in article space as quote "Muslims Swedish adherents symbol" (Diff of Islam in Sweden and Diff of Islam in Sweden) suggests a breach of WP:GROUPNAME.

Personally I have a hard time seeing why this username would not be considered disruptive and/or misleading, cf. WP:IU. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor concerned has been blocked for a second time after I reported them for edit warring, but shows no sign of acknowledgement that they are in the wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been engaging in block evasion over at the Commons. See this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block on the grounds of persistent edit warring, block evasion, abuse of multiple acounts and likely NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree indef block. --Achim (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen has now blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks, all, for helping to deal with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing

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.

---

Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for battleground editing after a report by Kudzu1,[21] and later reported again by Ian.thomson.[22] Already at that time there was understanding that the user is WP:NOTHERE, as the user has since effectively admitted to by stating that they "never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion".[23] The user constantly enters edit wars and off-topic discussions to promote Irano-Islamist views in article space and talk space.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]--Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I already admit my fault at getting caught in a few edit wars early during my past activities on Wiki. And I have done my best ever since to stick to the three-edit revert rule and settle the disputes in the talk pages as my knowledge of Wiki policies grew.

However, what prompted this user to make this complaint in particular is not really my past performance. What we have here is a clear case of diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. Andres Feder apparently comes from a very strong atheist persuasion which has already prompted him to attack and ridicule beliefs of muslim contributors several times, which has indeed caused offense in the past for some users and has apparently led to WP:CIVILITY warning for him in a past ANI.

But beyond his continued violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can also identify the very same ideological prejudices behind his repeated allegations aimed at discrediting Iranian sources such as PressTV even in subjects where having Iranian official POVs are crucial for maintaining WP:NPOV. I have already dedicated my time a few times countering his arguments such as here and here, arguing for various ideological, political and financial biases of Western sources that he uses to suppress Iranian POVs reported by the official media outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the pretext that "Iranian media are controlled by the theocracy". So here's the real controversy that has led to his complaint against me. But he apparently wants to condition the users here against me by deflecting attention from the root cause of the difference. He wants to frame a random statement of mine where I said "I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion" to imply that I want to push my personal opinions into Wikipedia content. But that's not whatsoever the case and you can clearly see that if you examine the context of that statement. There, I was not whatsoever making that statement in violation of Wikipedia policies. That was basically a statement of my personal belief that came at the end of a discussion about the legal foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a fellow Iranian! It was never made and never meant as statement standing against any Wikipedia policy. In keeping with Wiki policies, I had already explained in length by citing information and sources to counter his repeated allegations of bias against Iranian sources based on Orientalist charges of dictatorship against a very distinct form of theocratic-democratic political system that has emerged out of Shia political philosophy. Admins can already see my record on Islam/Shia/Iran-related topics to appreciate my contributions which has the effect of improving WP:BIAS against Iran/Shia/Islamic topics some of which remain highly underrepresented not just in Wikipedia but in the greater world as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul, you go beyond simply advocating inclusion of the Iranian or Shia points of view to vigorous denouncing of those who oppose you. We can include accurate summaries of any point of view regardless of how unreliable, in a general sense, a source may be. You are correct that you are entitled to indefinitely advocate for an Islamist point of view with respect to any Wikipedia policy or content, but you cannot be disruptive in doing so. You need to totally reexamine the way you are conducting yourself. Better behavior on your part will not solve the behavior problems of others or resolve content issues, but is a minimum requirement for continuing to edit effectively. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But in opposing I put forward evidences and cite information for legitimate reasons. Please note that the primary counterpart of this controversy has always been Anders Feder alone. He continues to bring up the same POVs that are controversial and he tries to render his claims as a factual, objective ground to remove Iranian POVs from nearly whatever Iran-related topics I participate in. I don't know why he is so adamantly opposed to Iran. I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel that is Iran's adversary. I can't find other explanation for a user who repeatedly desecrates my religion and attacks my country based on his personal persuasions. I'm not saying he should not disagree as he has every right to, but to fixate on repeated allegations regardless of repeater counter arguments is what bothers me and is truly disrupting. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel" Jew-baiting, who should have thunk? I have no particular sympathy for Israel or anyone else, and readily act against Zionist POV-editors such as this one too. The reliability of your Iranian sources have been debated extensively here, including by yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

His discussion of issues is also inappropriate, and he may be handling Iranian sources improperly. He is not wrong, as he strongly points out, and has good sources for, when he claims Iranian media is both controlled by the state and propagandistic. You don't have to be a Zionist to get that. The question is how to handle inclusion of the point of view without incorporating "facts" from an unreliable source. This is not easy. Denial of the unreliability of Iranian media is not a viable tactic; there are even claims, by Iranian leaders, that strong expressions of opinion by other Iranian leaders are not to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, assertions of opinion in Iranian media may be included as valid expressions of the point of view of the state. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that Iranian media are "controlled"? All media in the world are controlled but I don't see BBC for example being undermined for being funded and controlled by the UK government! And whether this or that media is "propagandistic" is quite subjective and depends on one's political stance! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the state determines the content. The content of the BBC is determined by the British state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the BBC be reliable. That is not the case in Iran. Such a determination does not depend on one's political stance but on knowledge of the international media. If you chose to edit using Iranian sources (or Russian or Chinese, or American, for that matter) you need to have some sense of what is simply factual, possibly factual, or just plain made up. We do use highly questionable sources, for example, the rate of growth of the Chinese economy, as reported by the Chinese government. Likewise, some Iranian material can be used, but not all. Determining what is appropriate is a matter of editorial judgement. It should not all be excluded, nor should tendentious assertions be accepted as reliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the same can be said about Iran. "The content of the PressTV (for argument's sake) is determined by the Iranian state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the PressTV be reliable. That is not the case in Britain...." but it seems that somehow Western governments are inherently superior to Iran even if they are lead by hereditary monarchs whereas Iran is lead by a modest religious scholar who is appointed and monitored by an elected body of legal experts. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Iran could choose to have a free reliable media. There is an overwhelming international consensus that much of the controversial information in Iranian media cannot be trusted and is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia other than as the opinion of the Iranian state. Feel free to advocate for its inclusion, but please don't be disruptive about doing so. That includes ascribing motives such as Zionism to other editors, beating on them, or repeatedly making edits against the general consensus. Please try to find the best Iranian, Islamist, or Shia sources and consistently use them. I'm not that familiar with Farsi media, but I know there are excellent, mediocre, and poor sources in English. Consistently advance the best. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, Great Britain is led by its Prime Minister and a democratically elected assembly, as is the Netherlands, etc. , with hereditary monarchs playing a ceremonial role but with no real power. And the BBC's content is not controlled by the state - it's also funded by a license fee, not the government. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But still the Monarch apparently appoints BBC's Board of Trustees in Council. The licensing is also mandatory for citizens. And there's been all sorts of criticisms of biased reporting against the corporation. The most notorious bias undoubtedly effects BBC Mid-Eastern coverage which has been the target of UK imperialist policies and its alliance with the state of Israel which has been been a source of plight for muslims for more than 6 decades. But we don't see anyone seriously questioning BBC's reliability at least on Mid-Eastern/Muslim developments. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

While the Queen makes the appointments, she has no choice in the matter : "BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publicly advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments." (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html). The British constitutional monarch is titular head of state, but not head of government except for ceremonial purposes. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder, I have done what I can in the way of jawboning. As noted above, you too, need to do much better. Keep in mind that all states, and points of view, have their media voice, and that all media is in some sense biased, if only in what they choose to report. It is the controversial tendentious assertions of factual content that seek to advance sectarian objectives that need to excluded, not every fact published. Consider the objectives of the Iranian state while making editorial decisions. For example, they would like to embarrass Saudi Arabia over the Hajj, so they might assert questionable facts with respect to the recent tragedy. Obviously, if the behavior you complain of continues indefinitely User:Strivingsoul must eventually be blocked, or even banned, but please don't make him feel that nothing in Iranian media is acceptable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What about his demeaning statements against the muslim beliefs?! Does he really have to attack our beliefs for working in Wikipedia?! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, that past RfC never refuted my rebuttal of argument from control. As I also argued there and again here, if control is the problem then all media outlets are somehow controlled either by governments or corporations. There has been indeed scholarly critique of the hazards of corporate consolidation of mass media which can affect their objectivity and/or reliability. Please have a look at Corporate media. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I go by the closing comment on the RfC linked above.[31] If anyone opens a new RfC on that, I am happy to follow the outcome.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is sound, but you are twisting the knife. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What source have I opposed that I should not have opposed?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of but don't be so nasty. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, User:Strivingsoul, David Duke, and anything connected with him is a subject you should avoid. It is a hot button issue due to his notoriety; a stick in the eye does not make friends. This sort of behavior can easily form the basis of a topic ban as can any anti-Semitic editing, especially using Iranian sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith advise. But I am afraid I have to defer! First off, I perfectly knew that David Duke is notorious for his past association with the White Supremacist KKK back in 1970s. But what I also know in addition is that over the last 3 decades Duke has apparently developed a very distinct career which can be described as only a White nationalist. Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism. The reason I'm saying this and I dare to say this is that I personally read his book Jewish Supremacism and therefore I could directly learn about his character and positions from that book. And having read his book I could outright tell that a number of allegations about his views as expressed in the book are totally unfounded. And interestingly those allegations mainly come from such notorious sources as the ADL which has a long history of attacking and defaming even critiques of Zionist genocidal policies and have been exposed for spying on American activists who speak for Palestinian rights! David Duke similarly over the last three decades has been speaking out against Zionist atrocities against Palestinians and for that reason, it is not hard to tell why there is so many vicious libels heaped against him by the ADL and/or other pro-Israeli sources. I know you may find these hard to believe but please before rushing to judgment at least have a look at these two videos where he is given opportunity to speak for himself. In this interview he doesn't whatsoever sound like a White supremacist bigot. He openly rejects any form of racism but also believes that there's a dominant anti-Christian/anti-White prejudice in US media. In his Youtube channel as in this one he deeply sympathizes with the tragic suffering of Palestinians at the hand of Zionist state and is trying to raise awareness. These are some of the alternative sources that paint a much more charitable picture of this person and these alternative perspective supports my claim of bias as per WP:NPOV in the review of the book. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between "White Nationalism" and "White Supremacism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, an IP editor from the UK made the exact same distinction in this edit.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That it is possible in an abstract way does not determine the issue, the attitudes of those organized under the banner do, and anti-Semitism is the touchstone, a non sequitur with respect to any genuine advocacy of European welfare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not listening: you have your wet tongue on a 440 Volt line and you are standing in water. Given this post I would not oppose a permanent topic ban from editing any subject related to Jews or Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy which is defined as a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites according to White supremacy. In the interview I linked he openly condemns slavery and all forms of racism. So please before threatening to ban me for simply pointing out some facts, consider examining the sources that I have suggested. Have I made any unfounded claim or have caused any offense?! And what I suggest in this regard is admitting the bias by ADL in misrepresenting the content of the book, as well as, including Duke's recent positions as per WP:NPOV. And for that I can produce direct quotes from his book that disproves some of the negative allegations against what the book says. I understand these facts may contradict some of the assumptions about this apparently sensitive topic considering the alliance most Western governments have with the state of Israel and as a result a much more positive attitude towards Israel, but in Wikipedia we have to be neutral as you all know. If you have lived in the Middle East or if you were a muslim, you would see that sentiments are very different towards Zionism and Israel in this part of the world for obvious reasons. So don't just take your own perceptions as granted and universal. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made many an unfounded claim, not the least of which is Duke isn't racist just because he claims he isn't racist. He just happens to think European (non-Jew) whites are genetically superior to every other people on the planet (including your own) and that the U.S. and Europe should be white only. Visit his website where you can see how he laments that Europe is being "invaded" by Muslims. Or how European whites are more intelligent than all other races. That's racism. As of late he's just turned his racism towards Jews because it sells more of his crappy conspiracy books. Duke is a crank and a laughing stock and the fact that you in any way take him seriously shows you have a very bad grasp of which sources would be considered reliable on Wikipedia. Capeo (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He claims that every people have a right to preserve their heritage. And that multi-culturalism leads to ethnic tension and conflict and destruction of distinct cultural traits of each people. We may not agree with him but he's making a compelling case for his view, and this is unfair to rush to frame it as racism simply because he is against massive aggressive immigration into Europe and America. He also cites Jewish sources which show how multi-culturalism was promoted by Jewish organizations in order to weaken the Christian culture of America. On a related topic, here is one of the Jewish sources he directly quotes that you can see for yourself. The Jewish author admits and brags about their role in the notorious porn-industry and its dark anti-Christian goals: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. (This is really interesting for me, since this is a pattern I have myself witnessed in another case. Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu had also advocated regime change in Iran back in 2002 through cultural and moral subversion -- by advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths until they revolt against their Islamic government). Just as evident in this example, his book primarily draws from Jewish sources to present his thesis. Most of the book content are NOT his opinions but just quotes after quotes! He is not also claiming there's a crazy conspiracy theory but that Jews have an enormous influence over US media and politics and therefore deeply influence the US culture and politics. And again he backs up his claim by providing testimony from Jews themselves. Here is one of the testimonies he quotes from a Jewish author: I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood. So we can probably suggest that this guy talking about "total control of Hollywood by Jews" is a self-hating anti-Semitic Jew!!

And I'll also be happy if you show me a Duke's recent statement that says Whites are superior to non-whites. There could've been such statements coming from him during his youth where he held more radical views, but I've not seen any statement along that vein in those of his works or articles over the last two decades that I have studied. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Fred, anyone who doesn't see antisemitism in Duke's writing and views should not be anywhere near articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am simply proposing is balancing the article and admitting the blatant bias of relying primarily on Jewish/Zionist organizations. You did not address any of my evidences and arguments here but only rush to advocate restriction for no legitimate reason. This is not honest. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You supplied no evidence, just typical antisemitic conspiracy theories. Comparing Iranian state run media to western free press is beyond ridiculous. Yes, certain outlets tend towards certain political leanings but they all have one thing in common: they freely criticize or report on criticisms of their governments and state establishments and report on everything and anything newsworthy no matter how it makes their home country look. Daily. With no fear of repercussion from the government. As opposed to say, IRNA, which sets out guidelines that must be followed by their "journalists" that allow for no criticism of the state or Islam. Please. Next time a Western country throws a journalist in jail for "propaganda against the establishment" let me know. Until then, you have no point and should stay far away from away from articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Western media control is much more subtle and systematic in nature and it is because of the corporate control of the media that is interconnected with others in the rich corporate ruling class. See Corporate media for this scholarly thesis. So the real influential people in the West are not politicians but the super-rich corporations who fund electoral campaigns and lobby for corporate gain and dictate government policies through "non-profit" foundations, promote their commercials for profit etc. Western sources especially in countries like USA, UK, Canada are also notorious for preventing the public from knowing about many dark facts of their foreign policy, e.g. imperialist catastrophic wars against nations driven by corporate grid disguised under "humanitarian intervention" or "democracy promotion" or decade after decade of unconditional financial and diplomatic support for the Zionist regime despite its long hideous human rights record and several acts of massacre committed against muslims. So you can't have a correct assessment of "freedom" in the press if you are not familiar with Political economy critical analysis of the corporate media or have not followed alternative media reporting of the crucial issues that are systematically censored or highly under-represented or misrepresented by a small number of Corporate media conglomerates that control 90% of the media outlets. But contrary in Iran, big money is not dictating news and public opinions but Islamic principles of a muslim nation. In Iranian state media, presidential candidates all enjoy a free and equal time to present their platform without needing to spend tremendous sums on campaigning, but in the West big corporations can practically decide the outcome of the elections depending on which candidates they choose to financially support. In the West big money rules and defines freedom but in Iran it is the Islamic virtues of its committed leaders. And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran. Iran has a constitution that overwhelming majority of Iranians voted for in a public referendum. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why I'm responding, this will be my last, but I can't help myself. I'm aware of all the deficiencies inherent to corporate media and corporate influence on politics. Do you know why? Because these issues are constantly reported on by a vast array of media outlets and politicians in the U.S. You think you're exposing some dark secret yet these discussions and criticisms are at the forefront of debate in the U.S. precisely because we have a free press and the ability to criticize whatever we we wish. This: "And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran," displays a stunning disconnect in regards to what a free press and freedom of speech are. Capeo (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note to mention that I've opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Strivingsoul. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban

Proposing an indefinite community ban from Wikipedia or a topic ban on anything related to Judaism, broadly construed, per Wikipedia:Competence is required and based on the discussion above, especially the claim regarding David Duke that "Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism." Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And what's so terrible about that claim to deserve a topic ban?! Please cite evidence to counter my claim. I can still cite many more evidences to back up my claim. Others have presented virtually non! And what a fair way of conducting an ANI discussion indeed! Rushing to topic ban regardless of any substantial evidences exchanged! I'm not here to cause trouble but work according to WP:NPOV and to minimize WP:BIAS. Is that what warrants such an aggressive measure against me?! I recommend allowing this discussion to proceed further in the mainspace talk pages. It is too early to judge! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I also tag an experienced muslim Wikipedian that I have worked with on Islam/Iran-related topics for arbitration. Some participants in this page seem to be more or less biased against me and the topic, and ignore my explanations. @Sa.vakilian:. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I come here due to Strivingsoul's request and do not want to participate in ideological or religious discussions. @Gamaliel:, As I know, we should judge about the users based on their activities not their ideas. Let's check whether Strivingsoul or Andres Feder have violated the wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter that he is Muslim? The issue being discussed is your behavior, not your religion. Being Muslim isn't a justification for being disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder! You are the one who instigated this whole mess to begin with! You've lumped together so many different issues in your first post that can not be properly addressed here with discernment. The last time I was also banned was also for a similar reason. An administrator rushed to take an unfinished talk-page dispute to ANI while I was still defending my case.

And the reason I brought up religion because as I explained earlier this dispute started out of we coming from diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. You were strongly biased against Iran and Islamic topics hence I needed to counter some of your allegations with alternative information. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying Sa.vakilian is in possesion of some "alternative information" that will vindicate views such as: "[Jews] are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No! But probably compared to you who are driven with your anti-Muslim prejudices, he has the integrity to recognize that I was basically quoting a Jewish journal quoting Jewish porn-producers saying exactly that: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why were you quoting it? What were you trying to show?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily drag this any further! You can just scroll up some paragraphs or use Ctrl+F to locate where I quoted it and in which context and purpose. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is clear, and Gamaliel's proposal was made in response to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in evidence for my alternative view here is one from Duke's official website: "In truth, as racism is defined, if you believe in mutual respect of all peoples, and you oppose the oppression of a people by another people, you are not racist, but actually anti-racist. The truth is that any race can practice racism, not only white people.". Strivingsoul (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're so concerned about quotes being used out of context, just pointing out that you omitted The truth is that the real ultra-racists are those who control the media. The Zio Media demonizes whites and incites hatred in blacks toward whites and self-hatred in many whites toward themselves. They do this so they can divide and conquer and control us all. They especially hate whites and seek to demonize whites because they see the 60 percent of the white population as their biggest competitors for power, so they want to weaken and demoralize white people, and create a coalition against white people while they are the true masters of media, finance and government. from that quote. ‑ iridescent 08:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." No ethnic group or nation should be subjected to editing this tone deaf. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with basic policies and workings of Wikipedia. But the problem is this discussion has become too loaded with various disputes. If it was not for Anders Feder extreme opinions and his taking so many different issues to ANI, I would have been proceeding in relevant talk pages to discuss and settle the disputes with other involved Wikipedians. And I can see you yourself admitted that Anders Feder's behavior was crucial for instigating this whole unnecessary controversies. Let's us just discuss and settle the disputes in relevant talk pages. I understand this thread has already become very exhausting and hard to judge so many disagreements. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

People can have a look at my recent useful contributions to Houthis to get an idea of my good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews." is not ambiguous. See your edit here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't cover up the full facts! Why do you need to cite out of context and ignore alternative POVs already covered in that page which reject the literal interpretation of that slogan?! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban, will accept topic ban from any content relating to Jews or Judaism as a start if necessary - Per [32], [33], and his repeated bigotry throughout this thread. StrivingSoul is either incapable of understanding what antisemitism is, or is here to push an antisemitic POV. Either way, his presence is a net loss to the site. He's repeatedly been told that that's unacceptable, and it's time we show it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is you who doesn't understand what anti-Semitism is! Please stop pushing for your accusations and have a look at Criticism of the Israeli government#Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism! Considering our unresolved dispute here, you are by no means an impartial arbitrator! Anders Feder has only canvassed biased users against me to corner me by completely ignoring any of the extensive explanations I have offered so far, and repeating baseless accusations! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that most users on this site are similarly "biased" against antisemitism or any other sort of bigotry. There is a huge difference between criticizing the policies of the Israeli government (something Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, does fairly often) and pretending that a known neo-Nazi is somehow not a bigot. If you can't tell the difference, you don't belong here. That dispute was resolved, and everyone found that you were wrong. The only thing that was left unresolved was that we failed to block you as a troll for pretending that a man who headed an organization dedicated to violence against blacks and Jews is somehow a spokesperson for tolerance. When you said that you never saw any evidence of racism on his part, you were lying either to us (as a troll) or to yourself (as a bigot). Either behavior does not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true! Did you honestly read my explanations for example when I said: I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy. Furthermore, I linked evidences that he openly rejects racism in his statements over the last two decades. My argument is that the charge of racism is true only for the period that he was involved with KKK in 1970s. But at least for the last two decades he does no longer harbor racism against any group. And I have already provided sufficient evidences to back this up if only you care to study them! The problem is this dispute should've been resolved in the book's talk page and not dragged here. This whole controversy started from a disagreement on reliability of Iranian sources. Completely irrelevant to the accusations you posed here. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not like your efforts to bog down constructive editing in rants regarding how mainstream sources are controlled by the Rothschild family, the British queen, etc. are any more helpful to the project than your defense of the views of David Duke.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't twist, generalize, falsify, lie! Have some shame! Produce evidence, context and link for anything you attribute to me next time! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef. WP:NPOV doesn't mean being obliged to give every racist crackpot theorist equal airtime to mainstream views, and given the responses in this thread, this editor is never going to understand that. ‑ iridescent 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef. per above. — Ched :  ?  08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Let's just halt this mess for a second, Users here drop in and are simply provoked by the gross appearance of the charges against me and ignore my extensive explanations. But this whole accusatory mess against me started when Aders Feder dragged a dispute over reliability of Iranian sources to ANI and lumped it together with many other unresolved issues in the past such as the dispute over neutrality of David Duke book' analysis to condition the users against me. I should make it clear that I do not advocate anti-Semitism but it is vital to allow legitimate criticism of Israeli government or Jewish pornographers from a Christian point of view such as that of David Duke to be properly represented in the articles as per WP:NPOV, and we can resolve and decide this in the relevant talk pages as I had once attempted here: Talk:Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. This has really become an unnecessary loaded fuss and unfair accusation game against me over so many unresolved issues. Let's us just proceed to settle them in the long run. I apologize for my part for indirectly having contributed to this controversy but like I said I was not the one who started this but Anders Feder! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No one are "ignoring your extensive explanations". They read your extensive explanations and conclude that they amount to nothing.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not "ignoring your extensive explanations". Your "extensive explanations" are predicated on the assumption that the ultra-marginal views of David Duke are mainstream enough that NPOV mandates they be discussed. For anyone unfamiliar with David Duke, just reading his official homepage should speak for itself. ‑ iridescent 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What if those "ultra marginal" views such as ones expressed in his book are exhaustively backed up by +600 scholarly references?! I think WP:BIAS warrants fair representation of his views especially when they are properly backed up. His views are also not ultra-marginal and not even quite marginal! There are many left-wing, right-wing and even Jewish critiques who concur with many of his points in regards with Zionism. Example: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Robert Faurisson, Norman Finkelstein and Neturei Karta. There are also many Christian Conservatives and Palocoservatives who might not be as outspoken or well-known as him but still share his views on emigration and/or defending Christian values against liberal/Jewish cultural war. Examples E. Michael Jones, Neal Gabler, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and more. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Christian" is not identical to "Right-wing," and many of the authors you list as "Christian" derive their political philosophy from this Jewish atheist instead of the Beatitudes. Most right-wing Christians in America are extremely pro-Israel. Quit trying to play the "you're protecting Christians" card, because you're only going to annoy Christians (and probably atheists and agnostics as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef, or ban (although that seems unnecessary), or topic ban (although that would probably just move the advocacy elsewhere). Supporting Duke is one type of problem, but making the statement quoted above indicates a much deeper issue because editors have to be sufficiently competent to understand basics, particularly when engaging in these areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban (first preference) or topic ban (second choice). Among the things Wikipedia does not need, unashamed apologists for white supremacism and antisemitism must surely rank near the top. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whatever has the greater consensus. Although topic ban should really be attempted first. Reason: RE David Duke, sheesh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I was waiting till I saw their responses to me from last night before I proposed a siteban myself. Now that I see them this morning. Just... wow. David Duke and the word "scholarly" in the same sentence? There is nothing good that's going to come from Strivingsoul's continued presence here. Capeo (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You just like pretty much everyone else in this page, have no idea about Duke beyond than ADL/Zionist propaganda or his past KKK association back in 1970s! You don't even know the guy has a Phd in history! You have not read his scholarly book that contains 600+ references! So you just jump in the bandwagon to spew out "Ban ban ban ban!" You seem so biased and misinformed about this man that you apparently even can't believe your eyes when looking at several pieces of evidences that I have offered in my lengthy discussions! ### for everyone else supporting "ban ban ban ban"! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case with your continued insinuations about Zionist propaganda. In any case, people with advanced degrees and published books can still be bigots. One only needs to look at David Duke's website to realize that while he's shied away from the overt bigotry of his KKK days, he still harbors a lot of the same feelings towards Jews. clpo13_(talk) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke got his "Ph.D" from a Ukrainian diploma mill know for its for virulent anti-antisemitism. They handed it to them because he supports their views. He's not a scholar and his book's supposed scholarly references are quote-mined bullshit taken out of context. He's never published in any journals, never cited by actual scholars and is a complete joke. Not to mention he went to jail for bilking his followers. Your "evidence" is, again, quote mined bullshit that in no way examines the context of the quotes and tries to paint said quotes as speaking for an entire people. It's disingenuous trickery used by people with no argument. Can we just ban this person at this point? Anyone seriously arguing that Duke meets reliability criteria or is a scholarly source lacks the competence to edit here. They're here to push their POV and that's it. Capeo (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Known for its virulent anti-Semitism" Yes! Dare to criticize Zionist genocidal policies or point out things like atheist Jewish pornographers' self-declared agenda of weakening Christianity by moral subversion, or US unconditional support for Israel's occupational apartheid, and then be branded as "anti-Semite" by ADL's Stalinist thought policing, to the point of even making the absurd claim of Self-hating Jew for decent Jews who point out the same injustices by their fellow tribesmen! And my evidences prove that there are perfectly legitimate grounds in David Duke's or (others', for that matter,) criticism of extremist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian elements with Jewish background, unless you're advocating the view that once someone happens to come from a Jewish background, he or she somehow miraculously becomes infallible and should not be criticized for anything wrong! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (community ban) While I agree with most of the above discussions about lack of competence regarding the David Duke and related issues, there is not enough evidence of Policy violations. Therefor, I think "topic ban" is enough to punish him and community ban is not justifiable. I wonder how the above comments are made in support of the proposal without trying to show how the editor has violated policies and which policies have been violated. The discussion, despite being full of hot comments, is not what an ANI discussion should be.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for some little sense! But about "lack of competence" what's that?! And the only policy that seems I have grossly, badly, awfully violated is ADL's political correctness!! But I didn't know that's part of Wikipedia policies, you know! Nobody even told me that! But maybe you can guide me to the relevant Wiki help page! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is enough. There need not be specific policy violations cited for the community to decide that an editor is a net negative to the project due to soapboxing, POV-pushing and overall lack of a clue. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This editor, while making a few constructive edits, has engaged in repeated disruption that results in a net negative for the project. Mamyles (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Net negative indeed! I had planned to work on multiple Iran/Shia/Islam-related topics and help other Farsi-speaking editors with English language! But apparently the net negative is really worth it for God forbid disagreeing with ADL or Zionist political narrative! It's you know such an irredeemable crime against humanity! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything relating to Jews or Judaism. His continued assertions that David Duke's reputation is merely the result of the "ADL or Zionist political narrative" indicate an unwillingness to be neutral when it comes to this topic. With regards to policy violations elsewhere, I'm not convinced this editor is enough of a problem to justify a complete community ban. clpo13_(talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Merely a result of..." when did I say that?! I already admit that Duke deserves criticism for his past association with KKK! But that's not justification to brand him as anti-Semite for criticizing the grotesque crimes of the Zionist state, or the influence of Zionist lobby on US foreign policy, or atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture in American by promoting moral degeneracy! And it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as facts! Please show me where I did or said anything of the sort. clpo13_(talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:STOPDIGGING. Support topic ban at least, as per Onel5969. GAB^Hello! 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The David Duke comments seem to reflect a deeper inability to look at sources/issues and be able to discern propaganda/conspiracy from actuality and that is a massive competence issue. The "... Zionist political narrative!" bit does it for me Jbh^Talk 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban as per Gamaliel's nomination. Editor's continued responses to each vote only confirms the underlying assumption which prompted the ban suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban per nom; nothing more to be said. BMK (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban -- WP:COMPETENCE, complete cluelessness, quite possibly being a troll ("Atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture" -- how tired), etc etc. EEng (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part about that, which shows how incapable this editor Strivingsoul is at parsing sources in an unbiased manner, is that they are using this quote mine: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion to justify the statement. The quote is from an essay exploring historical and current Jewish participation in the US porn industry. The essay, as should be clearly obvious through "by this argument", puts forth multiple arguments to explain said involvement but of course this editor settles only on the one that supports his Zionist-conspiracy-to-ruin-everything theory. Capeo (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part is that you are quoting selectively to obscure what that article definitely suggests. So here's a veritable testimony: Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Still more laughable (or maybe sad) part is your implication that even if some of these people were not promoting porn with that explicit purpose, that would somehow discount the heinous nature of their occupation and its inevitable harmful impact on the society. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, since you're accusing me of discounting something that is immaterial to the point I'm going to respond to you though I said I wouldn't earlier. Again, your comprehension of the essay is lacking. "Pornography thus becomes", makes clear this is a presentation of yet another view, among many presented, that MAY contribute to the understanding of the historical participation of Jews in pornography. You seem not to comprehend that the essay makes no definitive statements and draws no conclusions but only points out what may be contributing factors. You are the one making definitive statements based on the authors hypotheticals and a quote from a Jewish porn producer and trying to paint all Jews with that broad brush as part of a conspiracy to destroy society. I note from your response below you've now moved your target from "Atheist Jews" to "Atheist/Liberal Jews". Well, though you've tried to paint me in a bad light, this Atheist/Liberal non-Jew isn't going to share his personal views about pornography with you as it has nothing to do with your inability to put a source in its proper context. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm NOT and never been "painting all Jews as part of a conspiracy to destroy society" for that's just an unwarranted, unfair generalization! I already have much praise for many decent Jews who have spoken out against the criminality of the Zionist state or the vehement Zionist propaganda and cultural war against muslims and Christians. I have named some of these commendable Jewish personalities earlier above. Furthermore, it is useful for you to know that I personally come from a country where anti-Semitism is banned by state religious law and is home to the second largest Jewish community in the region. Jews have been living in Iran peacefully ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran except for a very short-lived wave of emigration to Israel before Iranian revolutionary leaders had still the chance to publicly declare their acceptance and recognition of the Iranian Jewish minority. See: Persian Jews#Islamic Republic (1979–present). Strivingsoul (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, just for the record, could you modify your comments to make it a bit clearer who "this editor" is? I'd hate for anyone to mistakenly think you were talking about me. EEng (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, EEng. I corrected the above to make clear I was referring to Strivingsoul. Capeo (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I realized that eventually, but for a minute I was trying to figure out how to reach through the internet and smack you a good one. Thanks for clarifying. EEng (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol. No problem. It was rather clumsy wording on my part. Capeo (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban Just keeps digging. Irondome (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I see nothing to suggest Strivingsoul has any interest in following Wikipedia's principles, either in his contributions history or this very ANI thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Racism is against Civility, without civility, Wikipedia would be a battleground of war and rage. As evidenced by his behaviour, I can tell that he wages frequent edit wars and does frequent personal attacks with anyone he opposes, especially Jews. I reckon that a topic ban would not stop this carnage, as one day, he could abuse us as well. A site ban should be more appropriate for him. Support per above. DSCrowned^(talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Racism is of course abhorrently uncivil! But even more uncivil is to vilify someone as racist for pointing out things like, the widely recognized racism of the Zionist state, or its hideous oppressive policies or promotion of grotesque moral depravity by Atheist/liberal Jews, or, as also basically relevant to our work in Wikipedia, questioning reliability of a Jewish/Zionist partisan thought police organization such as ADL for presenting a book that criticizes that very partisan organization and its shameful practices! Sounds like racism indeed! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin close this? There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban at the very least. GAB^Hello! 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is in dire need of a close. I personally see a clear consensus for a siteban but obviously that's up to the closing admin to judge. I would note that, in my view, a topic ban would be woefully insufficient. From all Strivingsoul's responses it would seem they'd need to be TBed from anything related to Judaism and Israel for sure but they also seem to use pointed descriptions of Jews in a context that implies they have an issue beyond just Jews. You'll note descriptions like "gay Jew", "atheist Jew", and "atheist/liberal Jew" where the description is completely unnecessary unless the intent is to vilify homosexuals, atheists and liberals as well. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with a topic ban "related to Judaism and Israel" is that since, as everyone knows, Jews control everything anyway, that's the same a complete ban on all topics, so let's save time and just go with that. EEng (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) ;)

Ironically, when you actually read the source used for advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths, the hedonist and degenerate Hollywood production in question turns out to be that hotbed of depravity, Beverley Hills 90210. ‑ iridescent 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair I'd be ready to revolt if I were forced to watch "Beverly Hills 90210" ;) In fact if it were actually "hedonistic and degenerate" it might have been an interesting show. In all seriousness though, I don't think Strivingsoul's connecting "hedonistic and degenerate" to the producer being gay was unintentional. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what qualifies as hedonism or degenerate in your mind, but to me as a human being and a muslim, a TV-series that features "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... [by] wonderfully wicked people" produced by an "openly gay Jews" is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Practicing Muslims and Christians (as well as practicing Jews for that matter) would also find it totally inappropriate for their families to watch a TV-series that portrays youth getting involved in things like alcoholism, pregnancy and AIDS. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooo.... can we close this now? We're at the point where the idiocy of Melrose Place is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Capeo (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume someone must come from a very terrible upbringing and a very dangerous worldview to question the evilness of "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ...". I think that also makes it clear why admins don't heed your relentless agitations, for attitudes of this sort have no place in making decisions in Wikipedia! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And now we've moved onto personal attacks. I guess I've had a terrible upbringing because I'm able to separate a trite 90's melodrama from reality. Oh, and having the basic faith in humanity that they can do the same. Capeo (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a fun thread, but we really should close. GAB^Hello! 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know of a way to facilitate that though. An admin made the proposal and at least one has voted so there's definitely some admin eyes on this thread. Capeo (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know but maybe that's because they don't see how it is fair and correct to ban a judicious Muslim user that defends his position by citing information and evidences against a majority that just advocate ban based on their preconceived biases. Maybe admins see how this is clearly a case of someone being the most hard hit by Wikipedia systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. A topic ban is not enough to stop the feuding, personal attacks, and POV pushing. This user is not here to write an encyclopedia. I wish them well in their future pursuits. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Site Ban I don't think that this is going to turn around. I echo Viriditas and wish them well at other places. I'm certain the Farsi Wikipedia could use their help.--Adam in MO Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban - Why is this still open? I don't understand how anyone can read this thread and not know for 100% certain that this editor is not here to benefit the project, and/or able to do so. Please close and institute the site ban. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tried to read this rather long thread and also paid attention to the comments by participants. To me, some of them think we have a voting process here and almost few of them could say according to which policy and diff they thought he should be banned and why they are supporting a proposal which is based on an "essay" having "no official status." However I do admit his committing in edit warring for example here where I warned both sides (Shazaami was enclosed to be a sock-puppet). Please note that, accepting or denying Anti-semetism (or any other things such as Flat Earth) by editors is up to them and we can't punish them for having a particular belief, unless they try to push their wp:pov. Also, consider that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing," and POV-Pushing "generally does not apply to talk page discussions." Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• My two cents Since there has been so many votes for "site ban" my vote wouldn't count either way, as such, I'm offering my two cents. I'm the one who figured out and got Shazaami blocked as sockpuppet[34] I must say Mhhossein is a great editor, as he has plenty of barnstars on his userpage. That said, Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar userpage (except no barnstars on Strivingsoul's user page yet). Yet Strivingsoul's userpage was nominated for deletion. Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar beliefs, editing pattern and often supports each other during conflicts. That said, why is Strivingsoul always being targeted negatively? Mhhossein is getting praised, as evidenced by the barnstars on his userpage--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm being targeted for Anders Feder's continued unnecessary agitations against me as you can see in this case as well. He tries to frame Muslim editors by appealing to the cultural and political biases of mainstream Wikipedians. He had also tried the same thing against Mhhossein in the past but miserably failed to the point of getting WP:BOOMERANG. I also hope he fails this time too. And I wish he is willing to drop or at least moderate his extreme biases against us who are making positive contributions to Wikipedia on one of the most underrepresented civilizational areas. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation is indeed an "underrepresented civilizational area" and that is just how it should remain.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only real similarities between the two users is that they are Muslim, edit in areas concerning middle eastern politics, and possibly share some broadly similar political views. Those are not the reasons why people are suggesting that Strivingsoul be blocked. While I've only made a cursory glance through Mhhossein's contributions, even if he does things I would not recommend, he seems to understand that one does not misquote figures neo-Nazi conspiracy fantasies as if they are facts. Editors are welcome to believe whatever they want outside the site -- but attempting to change article content based on those beliefs (especially ones as delusional as David Duke's) is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. StrivingSoul still does not understand that that is a problem.

Also, the barnstars themselves are not protection, but the actions Mhhossein took to earn his barnstars does protect him somewhat. His contributions appear to be overall positive and useful. StrivingSoul has been problematic from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke is controversial but unless and until we have conducted an objective study of his works and articles we can't dismiss what he says as "conspiracy fantasies" and just opt for the ADL's position on him and his works -- which by no means is a neutral party. And I don't know where I misquoted Duke? To the contrary it seems that Duke's views are heavily misquoted and even falsified by ADL in order to keep up the image of a persisting anti-Semitic bigot, and deflect from many reasonable points and viewpoints that he espouses. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UT

Strivingsoul, you need to completely drop David Duke as a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. If you do not, you will indeed likely receive a block (probably an indefinite one) for disruptive editing and/or incompetence. I've been willing to give you a lot of rope on this thread, but if you don't learn from your mistakes and drop these WP:FRINGE-pushing behaviors, you will be blocked. It's just that simple. People are tired of arguing with you. I'm sure you believe you are right, but that doesn't matter. You need to abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I am very grateful for your fair judgement. I understand that this controversy has grown so tiresome, and this apparently because of the very controversial character and career of Duke. Anyways, I thought I could back up my case with reference to WP:NPOV. But if there's no way David Duke can be relied on for anything (even his own opinions!) then I willingly drop this whole case because, then, as you also say, there would be no gain in dragging this any longer other than just more tension. And I'm already sorry for this unintended consequence. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Mhhossein doesn't have the same fixation on Jews Strivingsoul (and a certain other wikipedia editor[35]) has. Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a fixation on Jews. I'm just discussing a controversial topic that happens to be related to Jews. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)C)

• Oppose. The above-espoused views on David Duke are at least partly wrong and moderately offensive but mostly just foolhardy. One can be an anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. I have not seen clear evidence of antisemitism; the opinion on Duke alone can't vouch for that. The discussion here got off-track quickly, partly because of StrivingSoul, no doubt (though Anders Feder is good at it too). It should have been a discussion about the edits cited in the very first paragraph of this thread but no one is talking about that. From those diffs one can make the case for a ban on Iran-related topics. The talk page discussion on Jewish Supremacism isn't all that disruptive; if we can't handle that on a talk page with a number of decent editors than it's looking bad for all of us. And their editing on Houthis, when they removed "antisemitims" as one of the group's ideologies, wasn't wrong: it's in the article again, with this as the only source, but a careful reading of that article proves this wrong: "Houthi supporters and leaders stress that their ire is directed toward the governments of America and Israel...rather than Americans or Jews as individuals....Anecdotally, at least, this would seem to prove true.

  So no, I cannot support such a topic ban, let alone a site ban. I understand y'all are having problems with this editor, but if they're a troll, not feeding them is helpful. Removing/hatting talk page forum posts is helpful. If they're edit warring, report them for it--they've been blocked for it before. Nothing that normal procedure can't fix. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"though Anders Feder is good at it too" What are you even talking about? Almost all of the few comments I've made are two sentences or less long, and most are replies to comments Strivingsoul or others directed at me. You are the user who closed my report regarding Mhhossein too - I am not surprised you would be so indilligent in processing this one also. As for your wishing others well putting up with Strivingsoul, why don't you do yourself? I sure as heck won't, but then again I guess that is your goal?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with the close of that discussion, feel free to put it up for review. My close is here, and comments addressed to you by Ravenswing, Kingsindian, and Brustopher make for helpful reading--particularly Ravenswing final comment, made a month before I closed the thread, itself a clear indication that no action was to be taken. I'm not processing anything here, just giving my opinion, and I clearly won't close it. Note that it's just me and a few others who are going against the tide, but I don't mind disagreeing with them--and I'm not disagreeing because you have something to do with this. If the community decides to ban this editor, so be it. My opinion of you is formed in part by what happened in the Mhhossein thread but again, that has no bearing on this case. (Note that, for instance, I quick-failed one of their GA nominations: I try to be an equal-opportunity offender.) As for me dealing with their disruption, well, I had to look at a bunch of their stuff plowing through the diffs, and I'm not happy with their behavior, as I indicated above; if I were more active in that area I might take action, or I might have taken action already--but it kind of begs the question (one I cannot answer) of what means of dispute resolution were sought earlier. I mean, WP:AN3 is just around the corner, and previous offenders are not typically regarded kindly there. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity, then his anti-Semitism isn't really in question regardless of his beliefs on Israel or its government. Someone who defends an obvious anti-Semite by playing the "you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic" is treading in dangerous waters as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there is strong consensus for a site ban based on your comment. It boggles the mind and begs credulity that at least one admin thinks otherwise. While good people can disagree, this seems more of a case of bias, insensitivity, and disregard for the facts. If there isn't a site ban, we are only going to be back here in a few weeks. The facts show that most editors are indefinitely blocked for far less (see the recent block of User:MusicAngels for only one recent example). I think we are dealing with a small segment of the community that are unable to clearly recognize racism, disruption, and deliberate trolling when it stares them in the face. Clearly, adminship and the responsibility it requires isn't for everyone, so we need to hear from other voices who have a better reality-based view of the situation. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not wanting to ban someone doesn't mean one defends them, Bobby Tables, and I suppose the reference to Malik Shabazz's evenhandedness went right over your head. Viriditas, your vitriol is well known and it really doesn't bother me, though I do wonder in hindsight why I stuck my neck out for you long ago. That you are calling me not good people, but rather biased, insensitive, and whatnot, that's par for the course. Go ahead and call me an antisemite too. No, adminship is not for everyone, but perhaps if you're admin material you can try communicating via Bradspeak and clarify whose comment you're talking about, and if it was me you wanted site-banned. But you have enough !votes to get the site ban you so dearly want, so why badger the poor schmuck who disagrees with you? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I miss Malik <sniff>. EEng (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bobby Tables: "When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity," Seriously, if you can so shamelessly pretend that those are what "I think" and deliberately ignore that those are acknowledged, reported facts that I have basically just referenced and quoted, then that casts serious doubt about your integrity and credibility in having any opinion in this ANI. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thank you @Drmies: for your courage to point out the obvious fact that I'm being unfairly framed here for no real offense. The fact is, if some people are not willing to judge objectively and neutrally, there's no way they can be persuaded otherwise. Despite my persistent patience and restraint here in assuming good faith and supporting my case with facts and references, I continue to be attacked by allegations of anti-Semitism which is obviously unfounded. And when they charge me with being disruptive, they are mostly unaware that the disputes I've been involved with have been mostly with one or two editors who hold very extreme views and have a history of attacking me personally in talk page discussions with the inevitable result of repeated controversies. One can have a look at Talk:Houthis#Disruptive editing/reverts by an "Israeli Jew SunniWarrior" to see what kind of users I have to deal with in areas of my interest in Wikipedia. And this is now ironic that a "ban support" has just come from a Pro-Israeli partisan POV-pusher (masquerading as "SunniWarrior") that I have been dealing with fortitude in that talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this is a massive pile-on bandwagon and witch hunt based solely on knee-jerk reactions to the name David Duke and the idea that someone has read his book and found some of it compelling or credible. This is not a reason to site-ban someone. Everything here is totally out of process. The user has not even remotely reached WP:BMB, and we should not even be considering that. As Drmies has said, everything here can totally be resolved via appropriate process. Extreme measures are not needed. The user needs to be given the opportunity to prove he can edit competently, collaboratively, and within policy. If he can't, then there are policies and sanctions in place to handle that. At this moment, this reaction is way over the top, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Softlavender. You know, let me say (not so much to you as to the supporters) that I don't think that Strivingsould is not disruptive. And they're shooting themselves royally in all their feet simultaneously by turning every little think into some enormous discussion of political positions, as if everything is just about content and the opponents' POVs. I just don't think we need to go to this extreme measure. This is another one of those occasions where I sorely miss the presence of Malik Shabazz. I don't really know what Malik would say and I don't presume I can speak for him, of course, but one thing I learned from him is to be very careful with jumping from "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionism" to "antisemitism", and I found that confirmed at least to some extent in the source cited for the Houthis case, linked above. To put it another way, I fear that if Strivingsoul continues to act they way they do, they will run into an indefinite block followed by a half dozen lengthy and bitterly argumentative unblock requests followed by the removal of talk page access. But for now I prefer to hope that this very discussion (are you listening, Strivingsoul?) will help them reconsider their style of editing, and that it will encourage them to keep more of their opinions to themselves. In yet other words, I think ROPE applies here, and that an indef block, if it happens, will clearly be their own doing. Thank you all, and all the best to those who are dealing with Strivingsoul's disruptive behavior. One way or another there will be an end to it, but I'd rather it be done differently than via a site ban. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban Editor is basically acting as a proxy for the Iranian dictator, Khamenei. Maybe working for the Iranian regime--SunniWarrior (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Says the Zionist, crypto-Jewish, "SunniWarrior". Strivingsoul (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Both editors blocked--the one indefinitely for being here only to disrupt, the other for 72 hours for personal attacks. If anyone feels the need to remove Strivingsoul's insult (the one after "Zionist"), go ahead. Or you can choose to let it stand, because if you support the (topic or site) ban, it sure helps your case. Hard to find a clearer case of someone shooting themselves in the foot. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Drmies, I'm not yet convinced that a community siteban is warranted. I do think that Strivingsoul is being disruptive, and there are few surer ways of cementing a reputation as a POV-pushing jerk than to rebut everything everyone posts with "But you're just not understanding that the Zionists are ***RACISTS!!!!*** nonsense. However: it is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy to be anti-Zionist or even antisemitic; it is just one to push a POV along those lines in defiance of NPOV, and it sure as frigging hell NOT a ban-worthy offense to hold a view about David Duke that you find disagreeable. Has that level been breached here to the point of warranting a site ban? I don't see it ... yet. For another, I'm bothered that this is the second time in a month that Anders Feder -- a POV warrior in his own right -- has sought sanctions against someone who disagrees with him politically. I don't know about you, but I don't care for ANI being used as Anders Feder's catspaw against editors he dislikes. Ravenswing 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair and objective, especially for appreciating that this is yet another unnecessary fuss resulting from Anders Feder's agitation and framing. But when you so confidently declare my characterization of Zionism as racism as "nonsense" you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a popular view that has been even once adopted by a UN Resolution! Please also have a look at Israel and the apartheid analogy. So you see my friend, most of what I have been saying in this thread or elsewhere are backed up by facts and evidences, yet I don't see why there's so much hostility against me other than for a general bias that seems to be common with many Western Wikipedians on Mid-Eastern subjects and views. Don't you think this is a case of Systematic bias against me as per WP:BIAS?! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The determination that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", contained in the resolution, was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86. So you could just as well say, "the UN refuted the notion that Zionism 'is a form of racism and racial discrimination.'" GAB^Hello! 20:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, it's comments like those that will get you banned, indirectly (as in this thread, since I think a lot of what underlies the support for the ban is irritation with your tendentious commentary) or directly, from some admin who has seen enough of it. Perhaps Anders Feder is agitating and framing, but you should be the last one to comment on it. What the UN has to say on something is of no relevance here. If there's BIAS here, and maybe there is, your combative edits and entrenched position are doing little to overcome it. Most importantly, constantly turning everything in some interminable political discussion may feel good when you're 16 and debating with your parents, but here--well, it may still feel good, but you'll find your audience turn rather to an admin asking for a block per FORUM or something like that. And if you keep this up, should it be me blocking you for persistent disruption? Because that is quickly becoming a valid block rationale. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me what I truly think, Strivingsoul, I said a bit of it above. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a discussion forum, and ANI isn't remotely a venue (nor, as to that, is anywhere on Wikipedia) for you to wage war over your political beliefs. I oppose a community ban because it's a knee-jerk, disproportionate reaction to the situation, and that as far as I've found there aren't any Wikipedia policies requiring the permaban of people who don't think that David Duke sits at the right hand of Anti-Christ, but I freely confess I'm not going to lie awake in anguish if the Supports win this one. Your best move right now is to sit down, shut up, and accept that you've already said everything you wanted to say, ten times over, without continuing to comment on everything every editor posts. You'll ignore my advice, I expect, as you'll ignore Drmies', and if you possess a soupçon of self-examination, that you're getting this from two editors who oppose banning you should be the Mother of All Wake-Up Calls. Ravenswing 07:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban, at this time, largely per Ravenswing. However, I would support an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to this topic area, the scope of which should be discussed if there is some support from other editors for one. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I support an indefinite topic ban for this topic area. GAB^Hello! 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban Valueless nonsense. WP:NOTHERE. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Changing to support: Per Strivingsoul's talk page and his appeal of his temporary block. While I dislike the precedent that someone can be blocked for unpopular views, and greatly dislike handing Feder more reason to think he has a hunting license against editors he dislikes, it's plain that Strivingsoul just can't wrap his head around the need to refrain from insulting other editors, no matter the alleged provocation, no matter how justified he believes he is in doing so. Ravenswing 13:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban - Duke apologetics above are evidence that NPOV isn't on the agenda. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Carliertwo untruthful accusations, unmerited warning sign on my 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.

---

Carliertwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently left a warning on my talk page here accusing me of edit warring. This began after I commented on the talk page of the article Siouxsie and the Banshees expressing my dismay that the genre punk rock was left out of the artist page genres on 4 October 2014. I then placed the genre in the article (WP:BOLD!) Another user (User:GentleCollapse16) then corrected the capitalization, but did not revert my edit. I then corrected a genre capitalization she missed and had admonished me about. User:Carliertwo then reverted my edit and placed warning on my page accusing me of WP:EW, following one edit revert, accusing me of WP:GWAR in their edit revert on the edit history page of the article. WP:GWAR states: "A genre warrior is an editor with a single-purpose account (or IP with no account) that spends most of their time on Wikipedia altering the genre field of music infoboxes, changing genre categories, or changing genre-related prose." One only has to look at my contribution page to know that does not apply to me and is untrue, as I (mostly) link internal links into articles. I have been on Wikipedia for over ten years and dislike confrontation, but I feel as though this user is trying to intimidate me because they are the main editor (for years) of the Siouxsie and the Banshees article. I left a very terse message on their talk page as I was astonished that they would leave a warning sign on my page. There was no edit war, I was merely placing a genre on the article's page after talking about the inclusion of the genre on the article's talk page -- which no one replied to. I should have been more civil, however the sign on my talk page (for all users to see) after one edit revert and the accusation of WP:GWAR made me quite angry -- I did hope to engage them on subject, but they did not respond. I did revert their revert of my edit and explained to them it was not out of spite, but because I believed it to be factual. My edit was then reverted again, with the accusation by User:Carliertwo that: "disruptive edits and genre warring going on from the same user since several months." This is another untruthful accusation. One only has to look at the article's edit history to see that prior to this, I have not made an edit on that article since 2012. I have not reverted their edit.

I feel as though User:Carliertwo is in violation of WP:OWN and tries to intimidate others who edit the article. Looking over the article's edit history (and their own talk page), this user spends an exorbitant amount of time "policing" the article and has themselves reverted others who have made changes to the article, accusing others of being sockpuppets. I very much dislike the untruthful accusations this editor has made about me and feel as though this editor is simply trying to intimidate people who may wish to edit the article and has their own preferences as to what should be included. This, to me, is much less about the article (let them have it) than it is about the accusations this person has knowingly made against me. Wikpedia for me is generally a quiet, solo pursuit; usually making small fixes here and there. I dislike other editors making false accusations against me. As they have not responded to me and my two posts on their page, I have come here. ExRat (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I present my excuses to ExRat, I made a mistake: I copied pasted an old message of my computer that I used to edit for another user called Lachlan Foley last August, see here when LF did GWAR edits It was a strong issue at that time. ExRat has just made a few edits in this page and he certainly doesn't edit in any way like the other user. I was tired when I posted this message yesterday and clicked, I hadn't read the whole message that the memory of my computer advanced. Again apologies, my mistakes. I've added another message at the history of the Siouxsie and the Banshees article, saying that I made a mistake. Carliertwo (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo, I thank you for responding to me. I thank you for the apology, and I would like to extend an apology to you as well. I definitely should have given you the benefit of doubt. With a much cooler head today, I realize I may have been quite defensive when dealing with you and the issue. I should have been followed WP:CIV more closely, instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that you were trying to impede good editing. I think a calm discussion of the issue could have been of great benefit, and I should have waited and then worded my response to you. I think we could have worked this out if there was communication between the two of us. I realize you are very concerned with the article as it is an important subject to you (I am a fan as well) and you have been a steward of the article for a long time. I did feel however that your actions and some of the allegations were to try to undermine and intimidate me from making edits to the article, especially when I got no response from you after I brought up the allegations. I am honestly not generally a confrontational person, and I do wish the incident never happened. I think now, it was probably a matter of butting heads over content. would much rather now, simply let the issue go and I do not wish to besmirch you as an editor, as I take your word now that the allegation that I was causing disruptive edits for months was merely an accidental copy & paste. I also do not wish to pursue the incident any further and do not feel as though the comments left on your page should be left for other editors to see, as I now view this whole incident in different light. I consider the issue closed, and again I thank you for the apology. If, in the future, there is an issue between the two of us, please simply feel free to have a discussion with me. I am actually amenable to suggestions and opinions of other editors. Although I still feel the genre of "punk rock" should be included in the genre section, I will not pursue this.

I am requesting this discussion be closed, as I think we have resolved our issues. ExRat (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Article was proposed for deletion...

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 proposed an article for deletion Scripture Dialogue on October 8th, the message remained in place for 7 days and no objections were made on the article talk page. Now that the desired time span has passed, how do I get the article deleted? Is this something that an admin must do? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article it seems it's directly related to another article that was deleted for Copyright infringement, see World Alliance of Religions Peace Summit. Before this is deleted it might be apt to check it for copyright violations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Prodded articles are listed at Category:Proposed deletion. You'll notice that the page goes back to articles proposed for deletion on October 6th, so there's a two day backlog, which is actually pretty awesome for backlogs. The page will get looked at when admins catch up to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I just wasn't sure if there was something I was supposed to be doing. There's no hurry. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible tag teaming

I would like some advice as to whether the following counts as tag teaming, and if so how I can establish whether the behaviour is acceptable or not. On five occasions during discussions with User:No More Mr Nice Guy, the same uninvolved editor User:Bad Dryer has entered out of nowhere to revert my revert.

(1) Diffs at Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine: [36]

• 22:21, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:57, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (13,042 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 18:07, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (attribute)

(2) Diffs at Template:Palestinian_territory_development: [37]

• 22:11, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (it has been discussed before, but I don't see consensus for you version.)
• 21:46, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (2,648 bytes) (+554) . . (Undid revision 664591161 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) this has been discussed before. you need consensus for this)
• 17:52, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (removing this map for multiple issues including NPOV and RS, see talk shortly)

(3) Diffs at United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine: [38]

• 22:23, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:56, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (96,712 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 07:38, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (/* United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) */ attribute)

(4) Diffs at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument): [39]

• 22:50, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (80,739 bytes) (+71) . . (/* Transjordan */ attribution is (possibly) needed, but this text hews closer to the source, and is more detailed and accurate.)
• 21:09, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (80,668 bytes) (-97) . . (attributing to Feith, tracking his view more closely, and removing Bentwich statement taken out of context)
• 00:37, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (80,765 bytes) (-4) . . (/* Background and negotiations */ per source. how the source's "there was never any question" changed to "to many observers it seemed" is anyone's guess.)

(5) Diffs at One_Million_Plan: [40]

• 22:56, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (per WP:BRD - wait for consensus before adding this material again)
• 22:27, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (30,402 bytes) (+574) . . (Undid revision 685444238 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) I have read your talk comment. This is impeccably sourced. Your comment is both WP:OR and wrong. See talk shortly.)
• 22:11, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (rv. see talk page shortly)

I am sure there is a good reason, but in my five years editing here I have never seen such coordination.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: None of the 4-5 month old edits of his Oncenawhile mentions above has actually stuck. That in itself should tell you something. And neither will the one he made today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

They all stuck - they were all reverts of edits you had made that were later agreed on talk to be wholly or partially inappropriate. (5) is ongoing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. You snuck the map past me with a misleading edit summary that made me assume you were putting another map in there per the talk page discussion. Good one. I'll be sure not to fall for that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Try looking closer. It is a different map, from an impeccable source, but with the same data, so your well-poisoning was averted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So your edit didn't stick after all. You had to change the article per my concerns, not per your revert. Glad we got that cleared up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. But this tangent might never end if one of us doesn't stop. I hereby allow you the WP:LASTWORD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, User:Bad Dryer was the editor who caused User:Malik Shabazz to retire. (Bad Dryer was for a while blocked as a Nocal100-sock, but then unblocked.) Draw your own conclusions, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There must be some secret cabal. Maybe we can close this and assist them with a cover up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

She was not implying a cabal, she was reminding Malik's friends there's unfinished business here. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile please accept my apology. I had actually misread this while tired. I had actually mistaken that No Mr nice Guy had brought this case against you. Viewing it as such this looked a bit frivolous. As such allow me to strike my sarcastic comments.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• WJBscribe made a comment here not so long ago. Perhaps it's time to give his prophesy some serious consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan - Failure to respect RM closure and advice

Although I a loath to bring this to ANI I will not enter into an edit war with User:DrKiernan over this. The article Foreign Affairs was subject to an RM [41] initiated by User:In ictu oculi on 3 Sept. That RM was closed by User:Cuchullain on Oct 1 as No Consensus. User DrKiernan supported the move. On Oct 2, DrKiernan initiated another RM. I closed that RM on Oct 10 as not moved because there was no consensus to do so. DrKiernan initiated a WP:Move review [42]. On Oct 12, DrKiernan unsuccessfully attempted to close the MR after three editors had endorsed my close. [43]. On Oct 12 DrKiernan initiated a new RM [44] in direct contravention to my advice in the previous RM that editors wait six months before initiating another RM. Another editor in the Oct 12 RM suggested a speedy close. I closed the RM with the following comment "Closed per not so subtle suggestion in previous RM - Article is moved protected for 6 months" [45] and subsequently move protected the article for 6 months. I notified DrKiernan on his talk page of my close [46]. Within 3 minutes of my close DrKiernan reverted my close as if it had never occurred showing zero respect for the Admin decision. I have notified editors mentioned here on their talk pages. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made no edits to this article.[47] There's nothing wrong in opening a discussion on a talk page, or bringing new evidence to that talk page to inform the discussion. Move-protection is over-kill; the page has only been moved twice in the last ten years and never by me. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am uninvolved. I closed the RM, as process appeared to have taken place already. Agree with you on the lack of need for move-protection and have reverted to autoconfirmed. -- Samir 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Samir. Mike is right: 3 move requests and a move review in less than two weeks is extreme; we're just not going to come to a consensus that quickly. Revert warring on talk pages is still revert warring; DrKiernan needs to step back and chill, stat. As for the merits of the RMs, wait six months and we'll revisit then, there's no particular rush.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia talk:Move review#A withdraw that is a biased involved close contrary to the consensus of the discussion I have challenged User:DrKiernan's close of the review discussion. He clearly didn't like the way the review was going, closed it without reference to the discussion, and proceeded to act contrary to the sentiments of the review discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have boldly reclosed the MR with a procedural close which is the common result of a move review in cases like this where the initiator withdraws or another RM or similar discussion is started elsewhere. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• No one has mentioned that Kiernan is an admin and that therefore Move Protect would have been ineffective anyway. It seems clear (to me at least) from the above discussion and my read of the various RM discussions that Mike Cline was acting appropriately, the discussions were assessed correctly by Cúchullain, Samir, and Mike Cline. It looks therefore that the MR discussion is heading for endorsement and that Kiernan acting contrary to the closures is abusing the level of responsible behaviour and/or judgement vested in him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably because no one wanted to point out that move-protecting a page an admin wants to move against consensus makes the line clear where abuse of admin rights kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed contentious page move (again)

User:Film Fan continues to move articles that could potentially controversial moves (ignoring WP:RM#TR). I previously raised this at ANI and he was warned not to do this by admin User:Number 57. This now continues with the page move for Felix and Meira which includes this edit to prevent it being reverted (exactly the thing Number 57 warned him against). Please can this be moved back to the title pre-move (happy for a WP:RM to be logged, if needed).

Recently he moved the article for Point Break only for that to be reverted at a WP:RM raised. FF already has a long block history for edit warring over posters being uploaded and knows the WP:RM process, as this has been pointed out to him several times. I see this as being contined disruptive behaviour. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked a week for this. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editing the redirect is simply inexcusable, and Number 57 wasn't the only admin who warned him against that. I've blocked Film Fan for a week, but I think he might need explicit sanctions. He seems to be practically allergic to collaboration. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because "User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block", but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED

I am seeking input from other editors regarding recent actions by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Guy).

A large volume of mostly congenial discussion has taken place at two articles Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy about whether content should be deleted, split, merged, moved, and trimmed. In the past five weeks, there have been at least three RfCs, two move requests and three AfDs for these two articles, resulting in various outcomes. The biggest challenge has been to try to keep the discussions focused so that consensus can be clearly weighed.

I'm bringing this to ANI, not to discuss the content, which will resolve of its own accord. My concern is about JzG's conduct as an admin, his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement.

The following events occurred

1. October 6, 11:10 - JzG closes an RfC [48]
2. October 6, 23:10 - JzG votes in a move discussion [49]
3. October 9, 10:37 - JzG closes an AfD for the spinoff article (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy)[50]
4. October 9, 10:47 - JzG posts a non-neutral message soliciting "cool headed admins" to get involved [51]
5. October 9, 14:18 - JzG opens a poll in which users are asked to select from one of four options to move the Kim Davis biography to. Note, he opened this discussion while the requested move discussion is still running, in an apparent effort to sidestep an developing consensus.[52]

JzG has alternated between his editor role and his admin roles with respect to this content, which raises conflict of interest concerns as summarized in WP:INVOLVED. There was also concern about JzG opening what amounts to an overlapping move request during an ongoing (formal) move request. Both myself and Prhartcom raised these concerns on JzG's tall page [53] [54]. JzG's response was to delete our requests [55] without a response (which violates WP:ADMINACCT). To his credit, JzG did comment on the article talk page here, here, and here, however, it did not address his WP:INVOLVED status.

After seeing that JzG had deleted my first request from his talk page, I tried to engage him again [56] to discuss my concerns about his conduct, only to have the request deleted three minutes later [57]. His comment on my talk page also left me cold.[58]

I have other concerns about JzG's conduct in other topic areas, but those are out of scope for this discussion.

Comments are appreciated. Thank you.- MrX 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus: [59]- MrX 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Stop. The. Drama. MrX has concerns about JzG's conduct, I've had concerns about Mr.X's POV and agenda-pushing conduct at the article and article talk page in question as well as other hot-button issue articles to which he seems to gravitate. Personally, I think JzG (like other editors such as myself) are simply tired of X's penchant for drama, RfC's, opposing viewpoints at the talk page and in deletion discussions, POV pushing, and tendentious editing/discussion style. My suggestion is a boomerang at the most and a trout at the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On that accord, the multiple polls/processes = the drama, and there's several people at fault for that (one maybe more than the rest, but I'm not going to name a name). The idea that there's just one person with an agenda just doesn't square with the history on what I now call a Shenanigans Page. Rampant POV pushing has come from several editors. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And Mr.X has been in the middle of every bit of it adding more drama, more dissension, more, more, more. That's my observation, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems to me your issue is about his particular POV more than his behavior, as again, if you look into the history, you will see several people bringing up the polls/processes over and over again. It's not just Mr. X. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow me to suggest that any complaints about MrX or anyone else be addressed separately, so as not to distract from the matter at hand. I won't violate AGF and call this a deliberate smokescreen, but it has the same effect as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems that even before this admin came along, we have had one poll/process piled on top of another, often repetitive and it had already just about worked my last nerve. Then this admin comes along, and per Mr. X's description, has brought in a virtual dump truck of salt to pour on an open gaping wound. This talk page has become Wikipedia's Shenanigans Page, and someone with a big mop needs to go in there and wipe it all out. All of it. Back to Square One. And this admin needs to be told to excuse himself from this and related articles. There's a power trip or something else I can't explain going on, and if I've just violated WP:AGF, I will advise the concentrated sucking of a lemon. I am unable to put my concern in kinder words. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Not seeing an issue with any of those diffs. The last diff that is complained about actually seems like the best way to consolidate the RfM to a solid title as opposed to the mess above it. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-RFC? It's part of the same discussion. It started nothing new. It looks like an attempt to get an actual hard count on the suggestions above to finally settle on a title rather than have endless pontificating. Capeo (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Altogether, as Fyddlestix states, this is shenanigans, albeit the admin's actions were abuses on top of existing abuses. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, it may look like that if just glancing at it but, just to let you know: Guy complicated the situation by introducing an article out-of-scope to the discussion that he said we had to consider; the article (Miller v. Davis) that had almost never been mentioned in the discussions and had nothing to do with the formal RM. His attempt to take the process in a new direction was unhelpful to all the work MrX and I had spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Scroll up to the other ANI issue on this page titled "Kim Davis" for my comment to Guy, and read his response, in which he disrespectfully ignores every single point I make; instead of refuting them he simply restates his position. How could an admin behave this way? It doesn't seem possible. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, Kim Davis is notable on her own (including her life, background, and personal life) and her article cannot be disappeared without an AfD. Just a reminder, folks. We don't disappear articles without AfDs or at the least WP:MERGE proposals, but I'm quite sure if the Kim Davis article were to disappear someone would come along and recreate it, and be well within their rights to. The controversy and litigation can be a separate article if needed. Anyway, that's how I see it. RfCs do not determine these things. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Per the RFC on the page from last month, the community consensus is that we have 1 article. Davis has done nothing personally since then not related to the controversy and so still at this point, any article about Davis will be a WP:PSEUDO-biography of a controversy masquerading as something about a person. Claims that there MUST BE YET ANOTHER AFD are completely baseless.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article[s]). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day (ahem), two snow keep's in a row would have been regarded as a sacrosanct "final decision", and this is part of why I've been essentially calling shenanigans. We have two hard decisions to keep as you describe, but some editors refuse to stop re-opening this question via various crafty techniques. Then an admin comes along and essentially puts his thumb down on a position in opposition to the double-snow-keep. This. is. maddening. And should alarm anyone who cares deeply about the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that states an AfD can't be overridden by an RfC? Particularly for a merge. Because an RfC is going to get a lot more editors involved than an AfD in most cases. I'm not saying you're wrong but you keep tossing out these rules as though they're some policy that could trump consensus. I ask because merges are done all the time without either an AfD or RfC. Capeo (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, from what I've been seeing these days, for years actually, RfCs usually don't get that much traction, not unless they are about big events (or other big matters) or heavily advertised (for example, via the WP:Village pump). AfDs usually get more attention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would note that this incident discussion is not about discussing what to do with this particular article. That discussion doesn't belong here. This is about a process that has turned into a clusterfudge of shenanigans. It's not just about this admin. That was just the cherry on top. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is in fact just about this admin, per the heading. We seem to have some disagreement as to how to expand the scope of this thread to a point where no consensus is humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK then, in terms of Fyddlestix's question up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" -- Yes, I do think that's a major problem, and a major mess, especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article. So yeah, I think we have a problem and Guy should step away from the article. One or more admins should step in an ensure the Kim Davis article remains intact, and then sort out the two(?) litigation/controversy articles so they get merged into each other, without interfering with the Kim Davis article. And no, I don't think admins should summarily delete (archive) civil and good-faith questions on their talk pages (multiple questions in this case) -- they should definitely respond to them and be open to feedback and discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was extremely clear that there should only be one article. The AFD was extremely clear that the content merited an article. The AfD close was extremely clear that a discussion on where to keep the content was merited. And it is extremely clear that there are a number of editors going to ludicrous extremes to attempt to keep the extremely clear decisions from being implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem in the diffs under "following events" in the OP. What admin action by JzG am I supposed to be seeing? The discussion JzG closed (first diff) is just another argument between those who are familiar with standard procedure and those who like the liberty of writing a BLP regardless of WP:BLP1E. It looks like the "Cool headed admins needed" post by JzG has morphed to #Kim Davis above, but cool-headed admins really are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  John, the Kim Davis article has gone through two AfDs in the past 40 days, and both have closed after lengthy !voting as SNOW Keep and a clear consensus to avoid deleting, merging, or renaming the article. The only way to override that now would be to have a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  What exactly are "cool-headed admins" needed for? Bypassing a consensus? Implementing Jimbo's version of a biography? Quelling an uprising? With the exception of one editor who was topic banned, the discussions have been quite collaborative considering the subject. I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with an admin closing discussions and voting in closely related discussions on the same article. When is it ever acceptable for admins to simply delete requests to explain their actions? Hell, I give IPs, trolls, and spammers better treatment than that. - MrX 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Two replies but no mention of the points I made—no admin action has been identified. This report is based on "conduct as an admin" with a claim of an ADMINACCT problem, yet it appears no admin action has occurred—has a page been deleted? protected? an editor blocked? The ADMINACCT issue is apparently the reversion of two posts at a user's talk page: being disruptive and Your Kim Davis disruption. Hint: if you want to talk about an article, use the article talk page, and if you want to talk to an editor, don't frame it in terms of them being disruptive. Wikipedia is open to anyone, so you can do these things if you want, but don't use ANI to whine about your unfounded complaints being archived. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  See where Softlavender sums it up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" ... "especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article". Wikipedia is open to everyone, but we also have expectations for how processes work. What we have now is shenanigans that were made a lot worse by this admin. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your vacuous comment ""cool-headed admins" really are needed". Closing RfCs and AfDs are admin actions. Hint: actions that occur under the color of admin authority are admin actions. JzG failed to abide by policy which states in plain English "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." - MrX 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnuniq, you asked what exactly is the admin action we are objecting to. To answer your question: Inappropriate arbiter behavior. Guy pretended to help us as an arbiter but instead of facilitating us, he attempted to take us in a completely different direction. He had a personal motivation to try out a pet idea of his: to combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article. This was an idea that came out of his own head; it was not currently being discussed. That's not what administrators acting as arbiters do. This was no arbiter. Arbiters don't ignore the current formal question, come up with a different scheme, and try to get everyone to follow it instead of the formal question. Yet this is what Guy did. I still can't believe an administrator did this. When I asked him about it, he deleted my question. When I asked him again, bringing up a series of points to him, his response, instead of refuting or accepting each point, was to ignore everything I said and just repeat his scheme to me (see the #Kim Davis section above). His actions are nonconstructive and unhelpful to all the work many of us have spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You appear to have made a single edit at User talk:JzG, namely this comment which has the heading "Your Kim Davis disruption". Was that "When I asked him about it"? Do you often get useful replies after posting a message like that? Re WP:ADMINACCT: My suggestion for the OP would be to read what it says—it starts with "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" (my underline). I still don't see any use of admin tools in regard to this issue—closing an AfD with "Procedural close as merge" did not use admin tools. I will try to not post in this section again because I've said enough—if we engage in back-and-forth it is very unlikely that any new voices will be heard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, fair point about my note on his talk page. I do have a single question for you, as I do actually need to know at this point: We all know administrators use admin tools. I think administrators are also depended upon to act as arbiters in a discussion. Just because this particular administrator behavior did not involve the use of admin tools, does that mean his behavior is excusable? Prhartcom (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that by now yo have made your position entirely clear. I closed an RfC, and you don't like the outcome. You also don't like the fact that I am trying to draw to a close the filibustering of implementation of that consensus. At this point it might be a good idea for you to stop digging. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, as I suspected, you haven't actually read the complaint I laid out for you. For the last time, I agreed with your closure of the RfC, and I agree with your opinion that the Kim Davis article should be an event, not a biography. For the last time, my complaint was the following behavior: You attempted to take the discussion in a direction that almost no one was discussing (combining the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article) and then you voted on your own idea, revealing that you did this for your own personal reasons instead of facilitate our discussion. You were supposed to be acting as an arbiter. Now do you understand? Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do not find Fyddlestix's above summary of the situation to be remotely accurate and I don't think the complaint here has any merit. I will explain why. WP:INVOLVED prohibits the use of administrator privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Closing an RfC is not an admin action and per WP:RFC any uninvolved editor can do it. Closing an AfD is usually an admin action, but this was strictly a procedural close that directly resulted from the RfC he closed. A procedural AfD close is not an admin action, nor is it controversial. It's a technical decision rooted in procedure, not any reading of consensus. So, his AfD close was an extension of his RfC close, and both were the result of him acting as an uninvolved editor, and he did not use his administrative tools in any way. Thus the WP:INVOLVED complaint is invalid. Secondly, is the notion that it was somehow inappropriate for him to close the RfC as he was not "uninvolved". This argument has no leg to stand on. First, he was not involved at the time of closing the RfC, and has not attempted to act as an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator since involving himself in actual discussion. Second, there were two clearly distinct issues here: He closed an RfC that was trying to determine whether to have one or two articles. He involved himself, after the fact, in a different discussion to determine where exactly the single article should be located at. This is not prohibited in any way. Perhaps starting a poll while a move discussion was ongoing was not the most helpful thing he could have done, but rather than attempt to resolve this concern civilly and in good faith, I see accusations of disruptive editing, bias, administrative abuse, flaunting of consensus, causing damage, and "Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus"—for asking Jimmy Wales for his opinion. In my opinion, this all constitutes a series of unfounded and egregious personal attacks, if not outright harassment. The most likely response that is warranted here, if anything, is a swift WP:BOOMERANG. Swarm ♠ 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you saved me saying exactly that. The reason I asked Jimmy should be obvious: I first got to know Jimmy when I was being attacked for trying to fix a biography that was under attack from off-wiki activists, before I was an admin and before WP:BLP even existed. I'm pretty sure I understand WP:BLP, but in edge cases I will often consult Jimmy, not as "Mr Wikipedia" but as someone whose judgement on biographical issues I trust more than anyone else's. It's pretty clear that some people don't like the consensus to have one article. By my reading there are two groups who oppose that, one which wishes to attack Davis as a small-minded bigot, and one which believes her to be the Rosa Parks de nos jours. My advice to both is: walk away and leave it to people who care a lot less about it. Turning the whole thing into a battleground is not making them look good.

I started the title discussion because the RM can't come to a conclusion. It's being held in isolation from the fact of existence of two other articles. There's a consensus to merge to one title, the next step is to decide which title, IMO, and "leave it here" vs. "move it to some other title" does not help with the two other articles; all it does is string the agony out for another few months while people argue at those talk pages, giving them a further opportunity to filibuster the merge.

Anyone who has a better idea of how to fix this mess is more than welcome to pitch in, as I said at the time on this board. There are some editors active on this topic who I think could perhaps do with being forcibly separated from it for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You created the mess by opening an overlapping RM discussion. A couple of editors tried to tell you that you were creating a mess, but we you not only ignored them, you deleted their requests! Another admin can close the RM in a couple of days. If there is no consensus, then propose another RM if you like. But stop closing RfCs and AfDs, and stop posting non-neutral requests for admins to get involved in content disputes. You're obviously involved and have expressed a desired outcome. Know your role.- MrX 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Your baseless accusations of egregious personal attacks and harassment, and trite appeal to WP:BOOMERANG are repugnant. You analysis of this situation is flawed. WP:INVOLVED doesn't exclusively pertain to admin tool use, nor did I even mention admin tools. WP:INVOLVED does say "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." The five diffs that I listed show an admin closing an RfC; immediately voting in a move request; closing an AfD; seeking involvement from "cool headed admins" (WP:CANVASSING); and finally, disruptively creating a move request, because the current one was not going his way. In that chronological order. As a user with a non-trivial amount of editing experience and basic observational skills, I find this conduct to fall short of what the community expects of admins. How would this behavior fare in an RfA?

You didn't even bother to address the fact the JzG refused to answer requests to explain his actions, and merely deleted the questions from his talk page. Not only does is show a disregard for WP:EQ, but it plainly violates WP:ADMINACCT. JzG added more chaos to a dispute that was moving toward resolution and he seems to have done it with a specific content outcome in mind. It's great that Jimbo Wales agrees with him, but what makes his opinion any more relevant that that of Stevietheman, Prhartcom, Fyddlestix, Softlavender? Here's the last biography that Jimbo created six years ago.- MrX 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a very simple situation; allow me to restate it: The issue is inappropriate administrator/arbiter behavior (nothing to do with administrator tools). It is fine that Guy began acting as an arbiter for us, to help us organize a complicated discussion. It is even fine that he closed discussions for us; we appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator. I happen to agree with Guy's view that the article should be an event instead of a biography. What isn't fine is when the uninvolved administrator then attempts to take the discussion in a completely different direction, one that had almost never been discussed. He said we need to combine two articles: Kim Davis and Miller v. Davis. This was not the current discussion. Guy complicated the current discussion by introducing a pet scheme of his. What kind of administrator complicates a discussion instead of trying to help simplify it? MrX and I have had hard enough time getting the current editors focused on the formal questions; we don't need an authority figure to sweep away the formal question and try to replace it with one of his own, and certainly not for the administrator's own selfish reasons. Now does everyone understand why MrX and I complained about Guy? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the uninvolved people here have told you that the issue is not inappropriate administrator behaviour, and there is no such concept on Wikipedia as "inappropriate arbitor behaviour", your statement is founded on a fundamental error. In fact, as far as I can tell, the real issue is that you don't like the consensus to have a single article and want to re-litigate that debate. That's why you're one of the people I think needs to be forcibly separated from these articles, because I think you have become too emotionally invested in a specific outcome. My suggestion to you is to walk away. It is pretty clear to me by now that, in as much as there is a problem here demanding administrator attention, the problem is you and MrX behaving like angry mastodons. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article. This shows how little you understand me or the fact that we agree on so much otherwise. It looks like you will never admit that you were the one who introduced a complication for your own selfish purposes: the Miller v. Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What "selfish purpose" is this supposed to be? Good grief. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since several uninvolved people here and on the article talk page have pointed out that your conduct was inappropriate on several levels it may be a good idea to actually listen. You might note that Prhartcom and I hold opposing views on how the article should be titled and seem to be far less emotional involved than yourself who went shopping to Jimbo and ANI as soon as it was clear that your choice of outcomes was unlikely. Showing a scintilla of respect for people that you disagree with would also help. - MrX 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate disagreeing with you, Guy, as I noticed we agree on a lot. MrX is right; I wish you would listen and acknowledge instead of just defend and deflect. To answer your question, whatever purpose you had in mind when you introduced that new idea that wasn't being discussed that you had a personal stake in. Anyway, I know you were only trying to help. As a show of good faith, we still need an administrator to close that remaining RM discussion over at the Kim Davis talk page; if you are interested? Or wait a few more days and then close it? Or ask another administrator to close it? Whatever you think. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the dead horse. You have a content dispute that has improperly been raised to the level of ANI through an incorrect attempt to expand INVOLVED way beyond the scope. Being an "arbiter" in a dispute is not an admin action unless you are claiming only admins can act as neutral arbiters and that would be silly.

The only thing I can find to criticize {u|JzG}} for is simply blanking the request to explain things on his talk page. A simple "INVOLVED does not apply here because..." would hopefully have nipped this in the bud. That was his error and I hope he will remember a brief response early on can save pages of drama later. Your error is continuing this thread after several un-involved editors have said that they see nothing wrong. Time to move on. Jbh^Talk 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As anyone should be able to see, I have extended an olive branch above. I honestly have a question, though: Don't administrators occasionally help decide difficult discussions? Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do but they do that as editors. Admins are, by definition, experienced and trusted editors but there are likely hundreds of experienced and trusted editors who are not admins who I would trust as arbiters in a sticky content dispute before I would trust some admins. Being a neutral arbiter is not part of the admin "package" and INVOLVED only applies to those actions which can only be performed by admins whether due to technical ability, like blocking or page protection, or by policy, like making decisions at WP:AE. Jbh^Talk 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that. I myself often act as an uninvolved arbiter to help others resolve their disputes and I have always wondered if I was out of line for doing so, as I was assuming (incorrectly, you are saying) that the job is normally done by administrators. This explains why Guy said he was there in the capacity of an editor. When he closed discussions for us, ruling/deciphering the consensus, we looked to him as someone who could help us organize some of the chaos that naturally comes from a contentious subject. Then we were disappointed when he actually made the chaos worse; injecting a pet idea of his that wasn't being discussed, almost succeeding in taking the focus away from the formal RM question. I hope this helps explain why we were disappointed in what we felt was "inappropriate" administrator behavior. So, do you think he should not have closed a couple of discussions for us, as he was only there as an editor? Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a judgement call on his part and, as a non-admin, not one I feel comfortable second guessing, particularly without spending more time than I want to to look into the surrounding discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• None of the items at the top of this section fall in the category of admin abuse. But maybe JzG needs to be clearer when he's acting an admin and not. It may not be a bad idea for admins to have two IDs, one for admin actions and one as non-admins, to head off this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't open this ANI but I misunderstood Guy's role; I thought he was there to help us get organized after he closed two discussions then came to the third one and asked us for a "show of hands" for a new idea, etc. but I see now that he was acting on the same level as any one of us. He had told us he was there as an editor, but I forgot that when he began behaving as someone with authority. I hope you agree he wasn't really acting like the editor he claimed to be; that's why I asked you that last question. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to opine as I haven't seen the edits you discuss. Mr.X's list was not disturbing. I'm a non-admin, by the way, and proudly so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on whether the conduct in question was admin-related or not (it was partially, because he closed the AfD as an admin), however Jzg/Guy recently wrote above "I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article", which is categorically incorrect, because as I've stated more than once here, the Kim Davis article has gone through two extremely recent AfDs which closed with very clear consensuses NOT to be merged into or with a/the article on the controversy. If there were two articles on the controversy (which there were), one of them should be merged into the other. But there should not be one single article created out of those three existing articles. That was the main problem with Guy's actions, past and current. The Kim Davis article cannot be merged, redirected or deleted without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring WP:V

89.205.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user was blocked in August by User:Laser brain for disruptive edits that seem largely to revolve around changing genres without regard to sources. The person received a level 3 warning in September. When I came upon the same behavior (changing genre to contradict sources) I tried to explain, in case there was a misunderstanding of policy. There's not. The response was to again change genre inconsistent with source. Personally, I'm not really a soldier for the genre wars, but I think WP:V counts. And it doesn't look like this IP is inclined to agree. He's not adding sources or replacing sources. He's just changing content regardless of source.

Bringing it here as it's not really "obvious" vandalism, although it is disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the single diff you posted, the IP is correct -- read the citations; the genres are posted on the right of the AllMusic Overview. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I must be missing something, Softlavender. :/ The genre for Guns 'n' Roses, for instance, says "Pop / Rock". The IP changed the genre from "Pop / Rock" to "Hard rock / Heavy metal". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The IP is using the "Style" info on AllMusic, as opposed to the rather spurious (in my opinion) "Genre" info. But his edit summary was compelling: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only says: "do not use genre sidebar" from AllMusic. Which is probably a good rule to follow, especially in cases of bands that are clearly more (hard) rock than they are "pop". Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that (and said as much to him or her), although s/he seems to have been cherry picking "styles" rather than using all - but I have to wonder why if the issue is the source s/he doesn't replace it with sourced material rather than changing to content that contradicts sources s/he retains. :/ At least that would just be WP:NOR. (I removed the genre field from that table, by the way, per the talk page. It's a chronic problem, people adding unsourced genre information to that stupid list, and if AllMusic isn't reliable for this that means none of the genres were sourced.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the band clearly is or is not, whether the source is reliable or not, he's making the article say something different from the source. The bigger problem here, is this IP has been used since July, and seems to get into at least one edit war every week, and never uses discussion except for the occasional edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dealing with genre warriors is frustrating at the best of times and one could make a wiki-career on little else if one was so inclined. I consider blocking only when they are completely outside the bounds of WP:V, engage in edit warring to keep their preferred version, and refuse to discuss—which was (and continues to be) the case with this IP. Edit summaries are not discussions. I would recommend a more lengthy block. --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to topic ban Timtrent from any more AFDs

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:Timtrent has done nothing but post AFD after AFD on articles. Some of these exist in over 30 other wikis and they are all going for speedy keep right now. He needs to be told to stop. See Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts. 166.176.56.20 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. My contributions record speaks for itself. I choose not to participate in this. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Articles for deletion are evidence of misconduct?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- No evidence of disruption has been provided. Disagreeing with someone on AfD is not grounds to get them banned. Reyk _YO! 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose And I believe this is a sock that needs to be put back in the drawer. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

These deletions aren't policy-based. Timtrent should link to specific policies when creating AfDs (WP:BEFORE). clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clpo13, every AfD I have observed violates this POLICY: [[WP:ATD]] (Wikipedia Alternatives To Deletion) and I wish the ATD POLICY was enforced before AfD's were allowed. Any AfD not following the ATD POLICY should be withdrawn. ATD is a POLICY, not an option or an afterthought. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

seems like this ip is related to [60] in some way. Likely sock.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The Banner - AFD Topic ban?

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.

---

G'day - I am creating this to bring to attention the User:The Banner, who has repeatedly over the last year nominated national beauty pageant holders who contest the Miss Universe competition for deletion. There have been at least two dozen nominations on individual pages, some documented here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Pageant_articles_under_attack. The user seems to contest the premise that individuals that who win their national beauty competition and represent their country in Miss Universe are notable.

There was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Beauty_pageant_contestants that he participated in to discuss it, and while I don't think there was clear consensus, there seemed to be majority agreement that representing your country in one of the major international beauty pageants (including Miss Universe) was sufficient notability for a stub article. Despite this, User:The Banner has continued to individually nominate Miss Universe contestants for deletion (as per above), and another one today Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adorya_Baly (winner of the Miss British Virgin Islands who will contest Miss Universe for her country). His main argument was refuted in that discussion because he largely discredits any small country as not being inherently notable, and that results in a huge bias based on the size of a country (something we try to avoid).

I would recommend that this user receive a topic ban from nominating these articles for deletion in the future, because I question that these are being done in good faith and, they appear from my view to be disruptive to the area. Core discussions of notability should be decided on Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants or somewhere similar, and I don't think this crusade is constructive. --  R45  ^talk! 15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately if someone fails GNG then an article on them can be nominated for deletion. This tends to favour people from bigger countries due to the larger pool of reliable sources available. As notability is not inherited, an unknown contestent from a small country who has had no press coverage is not notable by wikipedia's policies. Yes this is biased, but its the way the rules work currently. Local consensus on specific wiki-projects does not over-rule the GNG.

Of course there are probably plenty of local sources in their home country, as long as these are reliable there shouldnt be any problem. There is no rule against using foreign sources, as long as they are reliable. They will just be more difficult to find. I would expect the winner of a national country-wide pageant to gain significant press in her home country. But then you come up against BLP1E. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, so participating in a notable event does not make the contestants automatically noteworthy. Due to this, repeatedly articles about pageant contestants are removed, like Tonie Chisholm (now a redirect after several removals and recreations), Paola Nunez Valdez (removed at least three times under several names) and Markélla Konstantínou (removed at least three times under several names). People known from just one event are, conform WP:ONEEVENT, not always considered notable. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I think you're being disingenuous here given that in those AFDs, participation rates were very low in the discussions. Additionally, highlighting 3 examples when you've have over 2 dozen fails means a very small percentage of these articles you're nominated are being removed. My reason for coming here is I think the approach isn't appropriate in light of the objections/disagreements, and it would be better to generally discuss the issue and find consensus rather than trying to individually tackle these articles. Others don't agree with me it appears, but I really scratch my head to think this is actually a constructive way of approach these articles. --  R45  ^talk! 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Look up what I have nominated for deletion and you will get a non-biased list with a much higher success rate... The Banner talk 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am specifically talking about your nominations of these types of articles, and that's my whole reason for coming here - and hence why I suggested a topic ban, not anything else. --  R45  ^talk! 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you actually look at the list? Or are you only cherry picking? The Banner talk 18:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: Of course I'm cherry picking because I'm was/am raising a specific issue - that's also why I didn't suggest anything more than a topic ban on this specific issue, because you are a constructive person in the AFD space in general. Honestly judging by your block log, you have a history of getting caught up in edit wars and maintaining hard-line stances on specific issues (including a previous ANI about you earlier this year and a similar ANI about you last year), and I think in this specific case, whatever personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That said, based on comments by a couple admins here, others don't agree that a topic ban is warranted so nothing is likely to come of this. --  R45  ^talk! 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• So you are cherry picking the negative facts while you accuse me of personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That sounds a bit odd, don't you think? More or less: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But for sure, you won't see me nominate winners of Miss Universe, as they have enough independent sources to establish notability. A lot of other contestants earn most of their notability from other events/work and you won't see me nominate them. I only judge contestants towards WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT (and I know not everybody agrees with me the preliminary round and main round are in fact just one event). And I judge the articles on WP:RS, as a contributory reason. Nothing more, nothing else. The Banner talk 19:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And WikiProjects do not set the rules for notability. The wider community does that. And certainly WikiProjects can not use WP:AN/I to decide an AfD. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am not a member nor a participant of that WikiProject. --  R45  ^talk! 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't even see this as particularly biased. Even the Miss America pageant is not nearly as big a deal in the United States as it once was, and I can only imagine that in many of the participant countries, Miss Papua New Guinea, for example, the annual winner is not a big deal locally and does not receive the equivalent of front-page newspaper coverage. Here's the thing: if you can't find three examples (in three different publications) of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about a given national pageant winner, then the subject probably does not merit a stand-alone article about her. And by significant coverage, I do not mean one and two-sentence passing mentions, nor do I mean routine coverage such as the one paragraph about the subject in the morning-after-pageant announcement. In the United States, national pageant winners still typically get magazine write-ups and interviews. If you can't find a feature article in the subject's hometown newspaper, and a magazine article or two about the subject, plus some significant national and regional coverage, that tells you something about the particular subject's notability (or lack thereof). We are not a beauty pageant winners' directory, and notability is the standard for inclusion. Oh, and don't forget, for purposes of establishing notability, the sources must be independent: that means coverage from the website and publications of the pageant committee (and its affiliates) do not count for notability purposes.

So, in short, no, The Banner should not be topic-banned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: your comment is certainly fair, but not directed at the premise why I opened this discussion. In my opinion, The Banner is indiscriminately nominating these articles on principle, not individual merit - hence the reason why such a large volume of these are nominated and continue to fail. If you look at most of these failed nominations, most were made with no effort to research sources - rather a generic reference was left to WP:GNG, largely based on the user's bias/personal belief against these types of articles. If he wasn't an established user, people's perspectives on this may be different. Again, I think there are valid discussions to be had here what notability guidelines should be to help these discussions, but I think some common sense (at least as I see it) is suggesting that these mass and indiscriminate nominations may not be in the best interests in this area. --  R45  ^talk! 17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How dare he fail to understand that all hotties are inherently notable. In case it was not obvious, pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and nuking purported "biographies" that consist of nothing more than tabloids saying "phwooooaar!" is a valuable improvement of the project. Pageants are not under attack, editors who want to write about almost-famous-for-15-minutes hotties are under attack, and rightly so. And frankly I think we should be ashamed as a society that in the 21st Century we still have these cattle-market pageants. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @JzG: The veiled sexism (or anti-sexism) tone in your response was really unnecessary and unprofessional, and not relevant to why I posted. I am not here defending pageants, or even trying to bring a content dispute here. The reason for my post was the manner of his behaviour. Frankly I don't contribute to Beauty Pageant articles much at all, and this post was not about the notability argument per se, but use of the AFD process when so many have of these nominations continue to fail. My opinion is that, in light of the history of lack of consensus on the notability of these national winners / Miss Universe contestants, it would be more constructive to discuss it at the dedicated WikiProject, find consensus and establish a guideline, than deal with these with ad-hoc nominations of individual articles. I was under the impression that's the whole point of having clear guidelines. --  R45  ^talk! 16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, clearly we can make light of this, but GNG is the standard for inclusion of stand-alone articles. That said, nothing stops the interested editors from creating a list of Miss Universe/World/Planet Earth participants that includes a brief two or three-sentence bio for all of them. That list can then link to the notable participants. Some participants of a given pageant will be notable; some won't. Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a galumphing old sexist, I am all in favor of "hotties," but they still don't get a stand-alone Wikipedia article if they're not notable as individuals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal. Absolutely worst case scenario, the topic ban would have to be narrowed to just be about pageants or something, as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD. That being said, I don't see any action warranted at all. He's not doing anything wrong, and arguments over what is more important, the GNG or more specific variants of it, (like WP:NSONGS or WP:NBAND) come up frequently, and more often than not, the GNG is the one that's ultimately held in the highest regard, which would leave him in the right in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD." I suppose you mislaid your glasses. Please have a look at his AfD stats full of red cells, and an accuracy of 59%. A deplorable performance. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said, from what I've seen. One's I had observed recently include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardlight, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hisashi Suzuki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masami Ishikawa. Please don't sass uninvolved third parties, there's no need for that and it won't get you anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently I parsed your statement incorrectly. Anyway, I'm not trying to get anywhere. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only says that I am not interested in vote-polishing, also known as voting with the crowd as the decision is already loud and clear. The Banner talk 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Sergecross73's observation is even that suprising from a numeric standpoint. If we look at the recent 100 [61] (from 1 June onwards), The Banner !voted the same as the outcome 80.5% of the time, so if Sergecross73's observation is relatively recent, it's somewhat expected. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Sergecross73: My suggestion was strictly an AFD topic ban over beauty pageant contestants, specifically even Miss Universe contestants given that I've counted at least 25 nominations that have failed so far in that area. I was not suggesting anything beyond that. --  R45  ^talk! 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, you're right. I think I read the subject title and was thinking you were proposing something more broad. My apologies. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a ban on nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion, for slightly different reasons. There is ample evidence that The Banner has an unhealthy obsession with these beauty pageant articles. In the past I have considered bringing this to ANI myself; and I'm not alone in thinking about it (pinging Kraxler). The problem is that The Banner wants these things deleted regardless of whether there are sources are not, and will persist even if sources are provided. This user will not pay attention to WP:BEFORE no matter how many times they are reminded of it. Some background:

• There was an extended discussion of this issue here. All the relevant points are covered in the discussion. Since then, here are a few more that I have been involved in:
• The Banner telling me that counting Google hits is research here
• More Google hit theories on not passing GNG here. A good example of blind nomination: nominating Miss Vietnam on the basis of ghits while not being able to speak Vietnamese to even know what the hits are is obviously a bad idea.
• Interesting discussion about systemic bias on this one. If the debate is at the level of ghits to determine notability a subtlety like systemic bias would be rocket science.

That he doesn't like pageants isn't a valid reason for nominating everything he finds just to see what sticks. We are well past AGF at this point. If this was a new user I would assume WP:CIR over the Google hit thing but this user has been around a long time, and repeatedly spoken to about this, so I'm convinced these nominations are in bad faith.

Last but not least, I support a topic ban so that I don't have to look at any more beauty pageant articles, otherwise I may need to seek medical attention. Vrac (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban- The Banner nominates articles for deletion, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So what? I'm really not seeing any evidence that he's being disruptive in any way. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "so what" is that articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted because no one is around, or doesn't speak the appropriate language, to defend them. This user cannot be trusted to do any kind of good faith effort at BEFORE, and obviously doesn't have the good judgement to leave things alone they have no clue about. I find it extremely disruptive, it is a waste of my time looking at these things. I feel compelled to defend some of the ones in Spanish-speaking countries because I've lived there and know they are notable, and no one else will defend them. This is the problem with IDONTLIKEIT nominations; they are indiscriminate. Vrac (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not see the disruption. You don't like it that sometimes the community reaches consensus to delete these articles in your absence. So what? If you think it's a waste of time commenting on an AfD, don't comment on it and let the community consensus fall where it may. And BEFORE is not mandatory. Never has been, never will be. Reyk _YO! 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much of a defense of the Wiki there. You are obviously free to not care but I think that articles on notable subjects being deleted deserves more than a "so what", even if the articles are about things few people are fond of such as beauty pageants. Vrac (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. If articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted, there is an answer, and that is to define a notability criterion stating that national contestants in Miss Universe, and possibly in the other three international pageants, are considered notable by reason of representing their nation. If "we" don't want such a notability criterion, then "we" can just let the AFDs run their course. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) Based on their AfD Statistics [62] I see about five articles about pageant winners they nominated in the last six months which were closed as Keep while there are dozens which were closed as delete. Those results are a sure indication that what The Banner is doing follows consensus. Non-notable articles are non-notable and nominating them for deletion is a benefit to the project. If the editors who are upset about these nominations want the articles to be kept find sources to show notability. Do not try to topic ban an editor to prevent the articles from being nominated. That is abuse of process. Jbh^Talk 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Clarified time frame. Jbh^Talk 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: your statistics are selective and not related to the subject I opened. I made a specific reference about national winners that contest the Miss Universe pageant. I would suggest re-reading my first comment and reviewing what was linked (i.e. the two talk discussions). --  R45  ^talk! 17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are asking for a topic ban on beauty pageant AfD's. I do not see a lot of bad nominations in that category recently. Certainly not enough to be disruptive. You might not like what they are doing but it is not harming the project which really is what must be demonstrated before I will support a topic ban. Consensus about notability is established through AfD or through proposed policy changes at the appropriate Notability noticeboard, not through WikiProjects. Jbh^Talk 18:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: Again, please read the original comment (specifically this and the lack of continued discussions) which is the basis of my suggestion that this should be discussed given the history of failed nominations instead of continuing to open new ones. You're certainly entitled to disagree with me whether it's disruptive or not, but your other comments and statistics aren't quite on point with what I posted earlier. --  R45  ^talk! 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @R45: I did. I see no evidence of disruption. That you are citing year+ old material as a reason to ban really makes me wonder if there might not be something that warrants a BOOMERANG in the history because this ANI complaint shows an unwillingness to drop-the-stick. The topic ban discussion cited by Vrac about Davey2010 above also petered out because there was no evidence of disruption. My suggestion is to close this with a trouting for you for calling for a topic ban with no evidence of disruption. Jbh^Talk 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: I think your accusations and tone against me are unfortunate considering I only opened this today, and simply responded to comments within this thread in a civil manner. I came here in good faith believing this is an issue, and brought it here as such thinking it was the most appropriate place. --  R45  ^talk! 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry you find my comments objectionable, my intention is solely to give you the viewpoint of an editor un-involved with this dispute. You are requesting a topic ban for no current disruption. That, in itself is disruptive. You are challenging every editor who opposed your call for a topic ban and are not taking on board what they are saying. That is disruptive. This conflict has been going on for at least a year with, as far as I can see, the same result - that the AfD nominations are not disruptive. Bring it up again here based on old evidence is refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Continuing this ANI request for days will not change the outcome unless someone presents evidence of current disruptive AfD nominations by The Banner. Do you have such recent evidence?? If not my strong suggestion is that you withdraw this request and save on the drama. That is my two cents. Jbh^Talk 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from pageant AfDs - this is not about whether one or the other pageant or winner is notable or not. It's about bias The Banner nominates indiscriminately pageant articles for deletion, and always !votes delete on such articles when nominated by someone else, independent of the individual merit of any article. Thus his participation is unnecessary, at best (in the rare case the result is deletion), but mostly disruptive (in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases). Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You better look up what I nominate. The results are not as gloomy as you try to tell the world. The Banner talk 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kraxler: I am not seeing "(in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases)". Am I missing something? I looked at the last six months of their AfD nominations. I do not think any time beyond that is germane to a topic ban discussion. Jbh^Talk 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at 19 articles that were kept in 2014 (table as of September 2014), and many more, just look at the red cells in The Banner's stats. It's a long-term issue. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent AfD nominations of beauty
contestants by The Banner

Article	Nominator	Status (as of Sept 19)
Anastasia Chernova	The Banner	Keep
Sheillah Molelekwa	The Banner	1 keep 0 delete
Adrienne Murphy	The Banner	Keep
Tsakana Nkandih	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Celeste Marshall	The Banner	5 keep 1 delete
Winfrida Dominic	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Camila Vezzoso	The Banner	Keep
Farah Eslaquit	The Banner	No Consesus
Andrea Radonjić	The Banner	2 keep 1 delete
Ayako Hara	The Banner	Keep
Zhana Yaneva	The Banner	Keep
Marie-Noëlle Ada	The Banner	2 keep 0 delete
Laura Godoy	The Banner	Keep
Sara Chafak	The Banner	Keep
Lindsay Japal	The Banner	3 keep 1 delete
Abigail Hyndman	The Banner	Keep
Yéssica Mouton	The Banner	3 keep 1 delete 1 redirect
Laura Beyne	The Banner	Keep
Marcelina Vahekeni	The Banner	4 keep 1 delete 1 redirect
Salome Khomeriki	The Banner	1 keep 2 delete

That is from '2014 this is 2015. So you want to topic ban an editor for disruption because of results form over a year ago. Nope. Just nope. Show recent disruption. I thought going back six months was kind of long but a year is flat ridiculous. Jbh^Talk 17:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That, and I've noticed that the majority of these listed AfDs have the same three or four people voting Keep on all of them, frequently with personal attacks on the nominator. Reyk _YO! 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the one who made that list. Trackinfo had to be hammered on his fingers to stop him from harassing me. This list is neutrally sourced and up to date.

But yes, I have noticed that in pageant world are a lot of sock puppets and meat puppets and, unproven yet, suspected paid editors. To make it difficult, there are also genuine editors. I see no effort of you to look at that side of the story, Kraxler! The Banner talk 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So you mean he's posted things up for deletion and they didn't get deleted? OMG! We have to stop this. There's no evidence of any conduct issues but we just can't have people creating AfD's that may fail. We also can't have people riding to wikipedia on unicorns, so thus be warned as the Cabal is watching.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most of these are not notable and to be totally honest I think The Banner's actually clearing a long backlog!, (BTW thanks Jbhunley for the ping although I nearly had a heart attack as thought this was related to me & that near TBAN ). –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock? for Mumbai IPs

At a bunch of hip hop music articles there is a person from Mumbai who is engaging in persistent introduction of unreferenced text and wrong information, using multiple IPs. For instance, the IP changed Gold to Platinum for the album Rolling Papers[63] but the source says Gold (page 3 of the results.)

• 59.184.132.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.132.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.145.57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.151.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.153.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.164.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.167.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.169.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.175.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.189.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.190.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There was some action in August from Special:Contributions/59.183.57.203 but that is outside of the above range which suggests a rangeblock of 59.184.132.1 to 59.184.190.256. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Range 59.184.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). There does not appear to be any serious collateral damage so I am going to lay down a range block for a week. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid edit warring just short of WP:3RR with very personal application of WP:RS principles

This editor insisted that a paragraph in the lead section of Flat Earth about the myth of the flat Earth had to be removed because the source cited came from an advocacy group, so he removed it once, twice and then a third time. Then they stopped short of a fourth edit, possibly knowing from past incidents that people aren't meant to edit war.

The content problem with their edits was that the article has a whole section about the topic the paragraph he removed discusses, and there is even a separate article about it, both containing many more sources than the single one given in the lead that they considered too biased (let's keep in mind that the lead section doesn't really need references for things profusely cited in the article body).

The reason I am still concerned about the editor's attitude and am reporting it here even though the dispute may (or may not) have settled down is that in the talk page discussion, they insisted about being entitled to edit out content with valid references, just because the references were quoted from URLs belonging to advocacy groups - even though they accepted the very same references when quoted from elsewhere (same text from the same public speech at the very same advocacy group, just, quoted from veritas-ucsb.org instead of asa3.org).

Let me stress again that the paragraph in question really doesn't need references because it's part of the lead section (with good reason) and there is a profusion of references in the relevant section and separate article. At this point I really want to know whether I am to be disagreed with about this view. If not, then I think it's important that Lipsquid understand their edits are not in the encyclopedia's best interest as there seem to have been several potentially similar verging-on-edit-wars incidents.

LjL (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I note this older edit where the editor proclaims in the edit summary that "You can't delete sourced material and those statements" (which isn't correcct, of course, but that's not the point), yet he had no problem deleting multiply-sourced material this time just because of technical reasons, i.e. (I quote) "is not my job to fix the sources of the logically challenged". I find it hard to assume good faith with these plain contradictions. LjL (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all you have to say? Usually people reported on AN/I actually defend themselves from claims made in a report against them. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Defend myself from what? "edit warring just short of WP:3RR"? I wouldn't think I need to defend myself for not breaking a rule. Another editor fixed the source, I thanked them and have not made an edit since. What I am defending against? Lipsquid (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have just said that. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, as it states itself. You have engaged in an edit war, and I'm absolutely concerned with your continuing attitude about it. The other editor didn't "fix the source", he left the source unchanged, and merely gave a different URL to the same source (same text by the same author). You, on the other hand, had removed the whole paragraph three times because you didn't like that particular website. That is concerning. LjL (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A bright-line rule I did not cross. It seems you don't know what bright-line means? Are there any more accusations you would like to make for rules I did not break? Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out that edit warring is prohibited (I quote: "[...] if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"), whether or not you cross the WP:3RR threshold, something you certainly knew. Also, thank you for promptly removing your strange accusation that I was "whining". LjL (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say it was strange. I am sure Admins have something better to do than have people file requests for assistance against people who haven't broken any rules, without first making any dispute resolution attempts themselves. That seems like whining to me. Maybe I should file an ANI against you because I find your indiscriminate use of ANI's when you can't define a rule that was broken troubling and maybe you should be sanctioned.. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another bogus ANI filing by LjL today. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out. While 3rr is a bright line which if you cross usually results in a block, there is nothing to stop admins from assessing that edit warring is occurring and blocking the involved parties. Blocks have been levied on editors even when only 2 reverts have been performed. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This problem is a non-problem. LjL opens ANIs against anything he doesn't like without making any attempt at resolution, as evidenced in my case and as evidenced here which is completely out of the spirit of Wikipedia. I broke no rules and he likes to make controversy where this is none. He dug up all kinds of other nonsense about things that happened in the past and all were related to one user, Signedzzz, which I am sure administrators are unfortunately all too aware of who Signedzzz is and how he operates. How about a warning to LjL for opening frivolous ANIs without making an attempt at what the rest of us consider normal resolution methods? Lipsquid (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have applied normal resolution methods in the form of an extensive talk page discussion where you didn't seem to indicate understanding that your style of editing was inappropriate, but in fact re-asserted it was "perfect". LjL (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are so great with dispute resolution that is why all your childish ANI requests get closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up without commentary: [64]

It seems LjL thinks he is above WP:HOUNDING After the incident on Flat Earth (which I have avoided and not edited since the filing nor will I be editing), he seems to have magically decided to make his first reverts and move the chaos to [| Laffer Curve] & [| Supply Side Economics] Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is by definition WP:HOUNDING "This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight"..."The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Back off, I have made no reverts to Flat Earth and I have stayed away from any of your edits. Move along.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your quotes is the case here. LjL (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Then prove it by moving along... Lipsquid (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 31.176

On football articles there is a big issue with a dynamic IP that for a long time has been editing old results to incorrect results (diff), adding teams that has not qualified to tournaments (diff) and other delibirate factual errors (like moving Olympic games from London and Great Britain to Korea diff). This has caused frustration with me and other editors (diff, diff and diff) and I have seen multiple reverts from different users (just look at the contributions and you see the reverts after). The IP adresses I can remember and see on my watchlist after warning them are:

• 31.176.132.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 July)
• 31.176.137.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (1 September)
• 31.176.138.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (8 September)
• 31.176.142.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2 September)
• 31.176.143.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (22 September)
• 31.176.145.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 September)
• 31.176.148.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11-12 August)
• 31.176.150.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (5 August)
• 31.176.152.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 September)
• 31.176.157.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (today, 15 October)
• 31.176.164.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 October)
• 31.176.166.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (10 August)
• 31.176.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11 August)
• 31.176.189.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (30 September)
• 31.176.190.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (31 August)
• 31.176.191.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 October)

There is probably a lot more, so if a rangeblock could be done it would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is a dynamic /17 according to DNS lookups (31.176.128.0/17). I fear there will be too many false positives, though; it's not easy to search older edits here on the English Wikipedia, but many of the contributions from the range on other language Wikipedias (which are faster to check) were benign (although the Italian one has dubious football-related edits that might need looking at). --ais523 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is 31.176.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). All the edits from October except for one from this range are football-related. I am laying down a range block for one week. Please make note of the range for future reference. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, it is an /18. That'll teach me to do rangeblock arithmetic in my head… What tool did you use to check the contributions? I tried using the rangecontrib tool on WMF Labs but it took several minutes to load and doesn't show many results. --ais523 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I used this one and changed the start date to 2015-10-01. The range calculator I used is the simple one in my sandbox.-- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dmateh

Dmateh (talk · contribs) is a student of Savitribai Phule Pune University who is upset over what he claims are the school's unwritten rules. Several times now he has used the school's Wikipedia article to air complaints about these rules [65] [66] [67] [68]. The material was removed by User:JustBerry and myself; we both attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:NPOV to him at User talk:Dmateh#Recent edit to Savitribai Phule Pune University and User talk:Psychonaut#Savitribai Phule Pune University. He does not seem to accept the policies, and in retaliation for our not allowing his unsourced criticisms to stand, he blanked large sections of the article—basically anything that didn't have a <ref> tag nearby, no matter how uncontroversial or trivial to find sources for. I told him that this was disruptive but he seems to have dug his heels in. He's re-added the unsourced content, claiming that it is his "right" to do so.

I don't think any further communication from JustBerry or myself is likely to help. Could someone else please have a word with him, or take whatever action they deem necessary to curb further disruption to the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just posted an edit-warring notice on his user page. His position seems intractable but I'd like to see if he responds to warnings from other users. I hope other editors can watch this article as well to see if this disruption continues or the editor decides to move on to other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; hopefully he'll get the message. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Basketball disruptions

Anonymous editor IP 141.237.78.57 has been repeatedly reverting my changes on Liga Sudamericana de Básquetbol article, as showed here, here and here. I tried to persuade him on his talk page requesting him for a good reason for his reversions or at least try to reach a consensus. What I tried to explain him is that some club names have to be cleared (for example, put the city into brackets) to avoid confusions when there are more than one team with the same name, such as: Estudiantes de La Plata - Estudiantes (LP) and Estudiantes de Olavarría - Estudiantes (O). He has always chose reverting instead duscussing the topic. - Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

New sock of "Dragonrap2"

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

---

Please see Futuristic21 (talk · contribs). Almost certainly a new sock of User:Futurewiki, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Mega256, User:Futurew, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, User:Futurew. Has been blocked immediately in the past. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

RS bullshit for an EPISODE GUIDE TO A TV SHOW

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.

---

@GiantSnowman, JzG, PrimeHunter, Dianaa, and David Biddulph:partially created an episode list for The Centurions and submitted it, hoping that others would help complete it. instead it got rejected on grounds of "reliable source". SERIOUSLY!!? a list of episodes now need a RS!!! Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Requesting admin oversight on this obstructive problem.Mentioning as many admins as i can for attention grabbing.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire list is already in The Centurions (TV series). Your draft is less complete: Draft:List of The Centurions episodes. This isn't an admin issue. Marking as resolved. Samir 05:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protect Felix Manalo (film)

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

---

Can someone semi-protect Felix Manalo (film)? It has been subject to many edit wars and content disputes. I believe it should be edited only by autoconfirmed users. Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There have only been two edits to this article in the past two days so protection doesn't seem warranted at this moment. If the situation changes, you can post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editor

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 got my attention when the IP in question left a note on Jimbo's talk page thanking Jimbo for supporting the IP in RfA. His whole edit history here indicates a vandalism-only account. It is also worth noting that he self-describes as a "stoner" in his edit summaries and also describes himself, apparently meaning specifically now, as "stoned" in them. Someone want to do the honors? John Carter (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please John, AIV. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

A disruptive admin HighInBC

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 sorry it came to this, but I have to make a report. I don't know how much success I, as an IP have against an admin, but I hope this will be reviewed by objective people. HighInBC has been following me around, accusing me I'm a sock and he has been blocking me and protecting the pages everywhere I appear.

Here's the case. We had a RfC and a consensus was established trough a formal closure [69]. I requested an edit [70] based upon this consensus and this admin had denied it and blocked my IP without any reason.

I made a second request [71] and this admin had called another admin to deny my request. This time a reason was stated. The second admin said : "I don't see consensus". I pointed to the consensus established in the formal closure, but this admin had not appeared since. I opened the request and contacted the editor who made the formal closure.

The admin who made the formal closure agreed with my edit request. He said "There is consensus for that wording, there was little discussion against it, and more for it". Here's the discussion on his talk page [72].

Then HighInBC had protected the talk page thus banning the implementation of the consensus.

I called upon the editor who made the formal closure and he had opened a discussion explaining the consensus [73].

The editor who made the formal closure battled there to explain the consensus to one another disruptive editor.

Then I made the edit to the article myself. That another disruptive editor went on edit warring me. Then HighInBC had protected the article page as well.

The edit warring made the editor who closed the request to make a formal request for the review. [74]

I as an editor who opened the RfC share my opinion there.

HighInBC proteceted the administrator's noticeboard and he deleted my comment.

He keeps telling I'm a sock without a single reason to do so. He had not said a single concrete reason that would make me a sock. None of the editors who participated in this and several other discussions had any complaints against me.

I'm sorry, but he keeps acting like a God, and I don't know what to do. I just tried to implement the established consensus with the support of the editor who closed it, and he blocked the talk page, article page, and administrator's noticeboard.

212.15.176.6 (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing to this, and I'm tempted to just remove this as trolling--but, you know, before you know it someone cries "censorship". I'll also refrain from blocking this IP for now; FkpCascais, do we have an account with this warrior, or an SPI? Drmies (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This person has been using several accounts and literally dozens of IPs to evade their sockpuppetry block for months now. They always use the same style of speech, they always have the same point of view. Their most recognizable characteristic is their tendency to constantly shift IPs the moment they are blocked. It is unfortunate that their disruption has forced the semi-protection of these pages.

Their original account User:Asdisis was blocked for being a single purpose account that was belligerent and screamed bad faith to any editor who disagreed with them. Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Asdisis/Archive, on this page Asdisis takes the form of User:Detoner, numerous IPs, and a couple other identities.

They have been going at it since. I will leave this to my fellow admins to review and decide the best course of action. HighInBC 18:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also relevant is: this, this, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for RFC close review. HighInBC 18:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, a Tesla nationality warrior. They should be blocked for not accepting that he was a Martian. clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the one. HighInBC 18:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, the Tesla dude? Who was trying what they could to argue that Tesla was Croatian, or not Croatian, or something? Who filled up half of our servers with jabbering? I indef-blocked them, or one of them, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that one, I don't remember what he wanted Tesla to be either, just that he wanted to rewrite history. I am thinking given the history of this we may need a long term abuse case. LTA is not one of the processes I am familiar with though. HighInBC 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I remember Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_8, where I closed a discussion on whether Tesla was the child of an Orthodox priest or a Serbian Orthodox priest. Very important. That was started by someone now blocked as a sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michelle Ridomi. So they have a Serbian interest. On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis, proving that Tesla was Croatian. Then we have Trump arguing he was an illegal immigrant, and I'm waiting on someone to create a meme with a US flag in the background and Tesla on the foreground, with hair metal hair. In the end we'll find out that our two nationalist socks are cousins, but that two brothers who later became their fathers were separated during one of many conflicts; the one married a Serbian woman, the other a Croatian. Terrible.

Yes, an LTA case can be helpful, if only because it helps explain certain intricacies and qualities to other editors (I think Ritchie333 is familiar with it, haha). At some point maybe ArbCom should be involved with these Balkan matters. For realsies. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Constantly explaining the history is exactly why I think an LTA would help. This user always pretends to be new and is always innocent. They often seek people unaware of their history to defend them. A page I can point to and say "Look familiar?" would make routine enforcement much easier.

I have not checked but I have seen to said that Eastern European politics are under discretionary sanctions. I am not sure if this extends to historical facts though. HighInBC 18:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP, so they can switch to a new one and continue the conversation. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• I concur that these IPs are Asdisis. This morning, I spent a non-trivial amount of time reading through an RfC that was dominated by this user, moving from IP to IP, apparently using a proxy service in Russia. An LTA page would be a good idea, especially if it ensures that this user will be quickly blocked every time they change IPs to further disrupt discussions.- MrX 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am going to read the instructions at WP:LTA and try to create one. HighInBC 19:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• LTA is more complex than I thought, I have some stuff to do now but will look into it this evening if someone else has not yet. HighInBC 19:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the question of whether this IP was socking distracts from their argument that the consensus of this RfC did endorse their edit (according to User talk:AlbinoFerret/Archive 02#Serbs of Croatia consensus).

And is it socking to have different IPs when an ISP can assign a different IP address every time you reset your router or even go online? If an editor only edits anonymously and keeps getting blocked as a sock, how can they go back to an original IP address and request an unblock when their IP address is probably randomly assigned? This seems like a no-win situation for this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor is indef blocked under multiple accounts so using any means to edit wikipedia is socking. They can log back into their first blocked account and request an unblock there or via UTRS. What is more they demonstrate that they can stick with an IP for days and only shift when blocked. Also they regularly pretend to be a new person when they change IPs. The community came to a consensus to block this editor, so I don't see why there needs to be a situation where he "wins". There are plenty of other websites. He can always appeal to the community for the WP:SO after not socking for at least 6 months.

As for the RFC I have no opinion, that matter can be settled by editors who are not blocked. The RFC is getting attention here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_RFC_close_review. HighInBC 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I often edit trough mobile device. Mobile networks are even more prone to change IPs than land networks. I also admit I had to use proxies because I constantly got banned for no reason. Trying to implement consensus is no reason to ban me. I thought it's simpler to use a proxy than report an admin, and it seems I was right. I really didn't hide it was me, and no one complained about my behavior. My suggestions were accepted by more than 5 editors in this and the other RfC I opened. Even now when all determined I'm a sock, nobody had put a single misconduct to me. I participated in several discussions and no one complained except this admin who keeps repeating I'm a sock and that it's obvious. I ignored it up to now because I'm here to edit Wikipedia and not to wrtie reports, but being prevented to apply the consensus is really bugging. Even if this admin is right that I'm a sock, I see no reson for him to prevent the consensus being applied. I did all I could, put requests, editing myself, contacting the editor who closed the RfC. I'M really done with this. There are plenty more articles where this admin is not present. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.176.151 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are blocked, and you evaded that block by editing through sockpuppets, then that's clear misconduct. Being blocked means you are not supposed to edit, even if you believe there is consensus for your edits or any other reason. You can edit your talk page and request unblocking. LjL (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

OP blocked, HighInBC to look into creating a LTA report. Anything else to do here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz expressed some concerns, I have attempted to address them. I have no objection to closing this but I don't want to dismiss their concerns. HighInBC 19:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

MarkBernstein

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.

---

Involved parties:

MarkBernstein

Note: I cannot notify MarkBernstein because his talk page is locked.

Initiating filer:

Sanstalk (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs:

"No one outside Gamergate associates #Gamergate with "attempted ethical critique," while the term has become a byword for harassment, bullying, and low-grade domestic terrorism -- witness, for example, the CSI episode based on Gamergate crimes."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=686235733

"If we want to say, "Gamergate is a terrorist conspiracy", that would be clearer and consistent with the best sources."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=684637856

"As is my custom when a fresh editor arrives here eager to rebalance the lede, I'd like to remind people that, while Gamergate is at best tenuously termed a "movement", there is no question that it is a terrorist organization[...]"

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=684574755

"We do know what Gamergate does: it sends emails and broadcasts through Wikipedia and other social media sites its intention to assault, rape, and murder women in the computing industry."

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=686061684

Also worth noting:

Individuals such as Mark Kern and John Bain have aligned themselves with GamerGate in the past. This may be BLP as well, but I'll let more experienced members be the judge of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanstalk (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• And your point is ....? Whatever it is, it holds no water as your account has never edited Wikipedia. Recommend closing this immediately. Softlavender (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Can I just go and call the Republican primary a terrorist gathering now because I don't like them? There have been no arrests made or deaths caused by GamerGate. To call it a terrorist organization and the fact that this is being defended by you is reprehensible.--Sanstalk (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Article on Political Correctness is being controlled by two bully editors

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: I am not seeking any specific action. Pincrete intimidated me with some sort of a report of a personal attack unless I make this listing here.

Aquillion returned to edit Political Correctness on May 20 2015 after 7-8 years of not editing it. He then added pejorative and a large bit about Dinesh D'Souza to the introduction. 4 days later on May 24 2015 Pincrete came to support Aquillion on editing the article. The two have controlled the article ever since. They have removed large amounts and added and modified it to their liking. Through their group power they have bullied any disagreers into submission.

Dinesh D'Souza obviously does not belong to the introduction. In order of importance in popularizing the term, he doesn't even rank in top 5. George H. W. Bush is the most notable one:

http://www.springerin.at/dyn/heft_text.php?textid=1599&lang=en http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/us/political-correctness-new-bias-test.html

So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

and The New York Times with its two journalists bringing the matter to the wide public: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all

Last weekend, a meeting of the Western Humanities Conference in Berkeley, Calif., was called " 'Political Correctness' and Cultural Studies," and it examined what effect the pressure to conform to currently fashionable ideas is having on scholarship.

and the plethora of magazines that followed suit in the short time following. The original modern popularizers in the context appear to be the Californian academics mentioned in the above bit.

Dinesh D'Souza apparently began using the term in 1992, in his second Illiberal Education book, which is different from the first one that appeared a year earlier. It seems for long the two mentioned editors confused the books for the same one. But now that I pointed it out, they aren't even close to budging from their stance.

I believe some editors may be trying to color the term Political Correctness as being directly linked to "neonazi" ideas like opposing multiculturalism, even though it enjoys massive mainstream usage in describing sensibilities of all kinds of matters — for example normal people politely inform each other something's not politically correct, not as a pejorative.

The talk page has had people before me putting to question the pejorative title and the overburdening labeling of things as conservative yet lack of opposite labeling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Political_correctness_is_not_pejorative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Scope_of_Existing_Content_Ignores_Rampant_Abuse_of_the_Original_Concept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#cry_foul_as_to_objectivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#American_centric_view_of_political_correctness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_11#Regarding_Modern_Usage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Pejorative.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#How_did_this_article_devolve.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Extremely_biased.2Fone-sided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Congratulations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_correctness#Not_pejorative_in_my_part_of_the_world

Most of the talk page bonanza regarding me (not included here) is about when I tried to add two labelings of left-wing affiliation to two journalists describing Political Correctness as ones from a camp generally hating the term would, as in a fairly biased fashion. The article is full of labelings of conservative and right-wing. I provided 6 sources, one of which has the journalist describing himself as left-wing. I changed the descriptions to "left-affiliated" when they weren't accepted by the two. They were constantly removed and what happened was an edit war, in which only I were blocked for a day, even though I tried to keep the reverts to a limit.

Concerning the labeling, from WP:RS:

• Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Note: I didn't originally care much about the introduction part of the article, until someone edited it to be more neutral while our arguments were going on. Then I realized just how silly the introduction had been. Aquillion quickly reverted the editor's edit, stating the reason to be their constant argument of WP:OR even though pretty much everything they have ever edited to the article is WP:OR, only utilizing sources which vaguely mention similar words. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

COMMENT:Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I 'intimidated' you to the extent that I warned you that unless you stopped making personal attacks and accusations of 'tag editing' against myself and an other editor Aquillion, or substantiated those accusations by filing an ANI or SPI about OUR BEHAVIOUR, I would report you. I WILL report you unless you agree to do so.

The content above is a waste of your, my and the ANI's time since an ANI cannot and will not settle 'content' matters. I suggest to you that you voluntarily close it yourself and either open one about our behaviour, or agree to stop making these accuations. I will be unavailable for the next 10-12 hours.Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You told me to put this matter here? You specifically wrote ANI. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, most of the above is content stuff and doesn't belong here; for what it's worth, I do believe I've made efforts to compromise on the content in question (eg. my current version of the affiliations section does make it clear that it's presenting the journalists in question as examples of liberal viewpoints). I'm also willing to try and reach a compromise on some of the other things in dispute; I don't think he's entirely wrong about everything. But it's been hard to work with him, mostly because he isn't really willing to assume good faith. See these diffs: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and so on. (The last one is somewhat reproduced in his complaint above, but it's a good example.) When Pincrete said 'take it to ANI', it was in response to things like those. --Aquillion (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You made that appeasal only yesterday and you added a covert "such" to try to mask the affiliation the best you can. Also, those diffs you pointed out were there for a brief moment, too brief for you to even notice without going to check the history page. Petty. You wouldn't have even seen them if you didn't go fishing for ammunition. In fact, I think that's all of them. You went through the history and saved every single one you could find, all of them quickly deleted. You really do act in good faith in crushing your opposition by any means necessary. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And he went on to edit the article to his view again. See here and here.

This is the presidential bit he's talking about, where it's stated that people heard the term for the first time:

• So when the U.S. President George Bush, Snr., declared from the right in 1991 that »the notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land« (Aufderheide, 1992: 227) left activists were puzzled, affirming no such notion or noun.

His own Dinesh is nowhere mentioned to have had anything to do with the term itself. He's attributed to the academy debate in a few sources, but not the term. The first apparent use he has of it is in 1992. That 1992 32-page book is also a tiny sidenote in the history of the entire matter. I really don't understand why he still forces this view. The only reason must be that he is the one who added it to the introduction; thus no one may ever remove it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems entirely like a content dispute. How are either of these two users bullying you? Brustopher (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not me, the article. I pointed out 10 disputes on the talk page, all of which have ended in favor of the two — due to resilience and power in numbers (two). This isn't concensus. This is people getting tired of fighting. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So they're bullying the article or something? If you think there's a false consensus emerging on an article the correct response is to start an RfC and get more eyes on the issue. Brustopher (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't my goal originally to have a notice anywhere, and I created this for the aforementioned point. I tried to make a point on the talk page, but I guess that was foolish as we were the only ones reading it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is a content dispute, but Magoo was pretty close to being reported here himself. The diffs Aquillion gave above are just a sampling, Magoo has made a whopping 326 edits to the article's talk page since Sept 30, often refusing to AGF and very persistently refusing to drop the stick. I don't it's quite reached the point where we need a boomerang here, but a warning from an un-invovled admin to AGF and not bludgeon discussions quite so thoroughly is probably called for.

In terms of the content dispute, the people Magoo is arguing with (that includes me, btw) have actually offered an olive branch and compromise solutions several times (I tried again just last night), but Magoo does not seem interested in that. If he (or anyone else) feels that strongly then we can settle this with an RFC, but I'm about 90% confident that un-involved editors who take the time to look at the sources and the talk page will find that he's being pretty pedantic here, and is ignoring sources that contradict his view.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, they were quickly deleted, before anyone could read them. They are only found because Aquillion took his time to scour the history for any mistakes to use against me. I also make a lot of tiny edits, because I often push save and then notice I made a mistake. I have also constantly dropped my edits to more appeasing ones. I have tried to find common ground. Most of my original edit abandoned. From left-wing to left-affiliated. After that I kept asking which term would you accept, perhaps simply anticonservative? You don't seem to want any. The first appeasal Aquillion ever made was yesterday, probably scared by the admin. You state I weren't interested in your olive branch, but provide no evidence of such. I replied and talked more about the sources. In fact I liked your approach, until Aquillion showed up to ruin the party again. I like you a lot better. Oh and note: I don't think Fyddle is much attached to the article or the other two, but I edit warred with him in a different article through which he found me and his way to the Political Correctness article. All of us but Pincrete are edit warrers. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of hard to interpret statements like "I'm not assuming good faith from any of you three. I believe all you simply want to color the term as some neonazi terminology" as anything other than a rejection of a proposed compromise.

And just to quickly note, I didn't follow you to Political Correctness, I have had that page on my watchlist since at least Sept 23, your first edit was a week later than that. I had been following the debate but wasn't to keen on jumping in until I noticed that you were the same editor who had been causing a similar ruckus over at Antifeminism. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have not posted when you saw it had closed. But I did have to edit the quote marks because they were screwing up the closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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.

---

Legal threat at Talk:53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) by User:91.140.146.201 as this diff - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

False accusation of edit-warring by Softlavender re: Ruritanian romance

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

---

While editing the page Ruritanian romance, I received notice of a deficiency in my edit from user:Ssilvers. I thanked the user, and proceeded to attempt to remove the deficiency.

While doing so, I was referred to the talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin, in which Softlavender broke WP:Civil first by referring to my edits as "mind-numbingly long" to Ssilvers, after which Softlavender and Ssilvers agreed between themselves to dramatically change my edits without consulting me - no attempt to reach consensus.

Softlavender then expressed doubt the subject of my edit (adding Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" to the list of literary settings similar to Ruritania) belonged in the section, saying that additional sources to verify the classification of "Orsinia" as a Ruritarian setting were needed (that weren't imposed on the other two editors in that section).

I tried to resolve these issues. I supplied two additional references which affirmed the point I was making. Meanwhile my edits were changed, again, with no attempt to reach a consensus with me by Softlavender.

The act which seems to have precipitated the templated warning to me in my own talk page not to engage in an edit war (with no private consultation with me beforehand) was my attempt to be conciliatory and remove certain citations as Softlavender requested earlier in the article talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance.

This provoked a reaction completely at odds with WP:Good faith and WP:DTR in which I was falsely accused of edit-warring - after making a change that Softlavender requested earlier - deleting my own citations because I believed in an earlier post that Softlavender wished me to make those citations in the Ursula LeGuin article.

I am following the procedure set forth in the templated edit warring warning left in my talk page to protest a false accusation by Softlavender in complete contravention of WP:Civil, WP:Good faith, WP:DTR and the guidance to seek consensus before changing another editor's edits. loupgarous (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation is deteriorating. In Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin Softlavender just ordered me not to remove citations in the article which I had placed there originally. My reaction was "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits?" Then I placed the notice which I'd earlier placed on Softlavender's talk page informing Softlavender that Softlavender is the subject of an Administrative Noticeboard/Incident discussion. loupgarous (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, you were attempting to add information that other users think was excessive or flat out unnecessary. After the first or second reversion you should have attempted to open a line of communication to figure out what exactly the issue at hand was and how you could best resolve it. I know you were trying to address the concerns in good faith, but repeatedly re-adding the content without starting discussion was edit warring. You can edit war in good faith. You can edit war with the best intentions. Softlavender did not ask you to remove references you added, you simply misunderstood, so let's just forget about that part. Softlavender did not refer to your edits as "dull", but "long", which is actually a pretty big difference. Had you followed WP:BRD, the situation would not have escalated to the point of warning messages and mild "incivility". Did Softlavender need to template you? Probably not. Was that the best way of going about things? Probably not. Does that warrant admin intervention? Absolutely not. We are all human and we don't intervene over minor instances of incivility. I don't think you are being bullied anyway. You were not behaving appropriately to begin with and that makes other editors frustrated. Bringing this here does not resolve problems, in fact, it just aggravates the animosity. Rather than worrying about Softlavender, why don't you worry about the content and seek out dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Being "edit-warring" templated on my talk page lent an air of officialdom to Softlavender's accusations. I didn't edit war. Softlavender was uncivil. Softlavender just forbade me to undo an edit I'd made originally - in fact, she reverted my removal of my own citations without consulting me.

I find that hard to reconcile with wikipedia's norms of behavior. Obviously you disagree. loupgarous (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see where this is heading. Sorry I wasted everybody's time. Carry on, everyone, the article will get on just fine without my help, and I just learned a little more about wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vfrickey Please be aware that when you click on the edit button this statement is directly above the editing field "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." No one is "required" to inform you of any edits that they make. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I referred to was Softlavender's complete failure to engage me in discussion toward a consensus. I naively believed wikipedia required that. loupgarous (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, also, I did initiate a discussion. I did introduce sources on the talk page which specifically answered concerns Softlavender raised about my edit, and I repeatedly trimmed my edit to attempt to meet those concerns while keeping the edit reflective of what the source actually said. At one point an edit Softlavender made was at variance with the content of the source cited. I advised the other editors in the talk page discussion that I was changing the edit to make it reflect what the source cited actually said. If that's "edit warring," then every time I've edited an article to conform to the cited source, I've edit-warred. I have no way of knowing whether you read the discussion or not, but it's all there. I repeatedly tried to initiate a discussion toward a consensus, got ignored, patronized, templated, and then finally forbidden to move my own edits as Softlavender requested in the discussion. I didn't misunderstand anything - Softlavender said, clearly, "you can make your citations of the books in the LeGuin article." And, after being templated, I obeyed the injunction in the template to bring the discussion HERE. I have been trying to play by wikipedia's rules this entire time. loupgarous (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is some guidance I'd like an answer to. I made three citations of Ursula LeGuin's books in the Ruritarian romance article. Another editor consolidated these citations into a single reference. Softlavender referred to me in the third person:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article."

I took this as a request to move the Orsinian citations in the Ursula LeGuin article, and in preparation to do so, I deleted them from the Ruritarian_romance article with this explanatory edit summary: "Other Ruritanian settings in fiction: deleted references to LeGuin's publications at Softlavender's request" My intent was conciliatory. Softlavender reverted that edit with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 685936889 by Vfrickey (talk) replaced citations removed with no rationale" It was at this time she sent the "disruptive editing" and "edit warring" templates to my user talk page. I took this to mean she was proceeding with charges I'd edit-warred. I believe that if there was an edit war, both parties took part equally, at every stage of the exchange. I responded:

"Quoting you from earlier in this discussion:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Wikipedia mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

THAT is the rationale for deleting the citations in question, Softlavender. Your very own request. It was my attempt to be conciliatory and address an issue you raised. As far as the accusations of "disruptive editing" and other abusive behavior, I'll let this discussion and the change log speak for my actions, which were done in good faith. Remember WP:Good faith? loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

Softlavender's response was: "I made no request whatsoever to remove any citations from the article. Do not remove citations from this or any other articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)" My response: "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits? loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Is Softlavender justified to forbid me to revert my own edits? MarnetteD just told me that every editor agrees to have her edits changed by other editors on clicking the "Save page" button. My citations were combined, very correctly, by another editor into a single reference.

But on Softlavender's accusation I and I alone was edit-warring, can she forbid me to delete citations I'd made in the first place?

I'm not wikilawyering here, and the issue isn't content - it's conduct.

I was going to just walk away from this discussion, given that I fully expected to be piled on and Softlavender's accusations of edit-warring repeated.

However, I want as many other editors as possible to read Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and consider that someone else may treat them in the way I've been treated, and tell me they'd accept (a) a false accusation of disruptive editing and edit-warring to stand unchallenged (b) a discourteous refusal to engage in discussion toward a consensus - Softlavender waited until she'd templated me to address me as anything but "the other editor" and in anything but the third person, and (c) repeated reversion of your edits without that attempt to achieve a consensus we're told to seek. I tried to do that, I troubled to look up those other sources Softlavender told Ssilvers - not me - she'd need to see until she even conceded that Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" met the criterion of "being similar to Ruritania."

At this point, the content isn't the issue. It's the conduct, gaming the edit-warring rule to avoid reaching a consensus or even discussion toward a consensus. Until this point I'd been willing to concede Softlavender's good faith, even after she assumed such bad faith on my part (or wished to create that impression) that she sent warning templates to my user talk page... and I took those templates as clear evidence of her intent to make precisely those charges to administrators.

I don't have much of a choice but to come here as each of those templates advises to make a defense against false charges I've edit-warred or edited Ruritanian romance in a disruptive manner. I could be reasonably sure that had I taken Swarm's advice and just forgotten about this or tried to seek dispute resolution that Softlavender's next move would be to bring edit-warring charges against me to administrators.

Read the discussion in Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and the edit summaries for Ruritanian romance before you decide that I edit warred, or did so without just as an arbitrary reversion of my own edits. Ssilvers was the only user in this discussion to advise me my edits were being reverted and the reason for doing it - and I thanked Ssilvers for the constructive criticism and indicated my intent to locate a secondary source establishing the Ruritarian nature of Orsinia.

I won't ever touch another article of Softlavender's, but neither will I sit meekly while my character and actions are attacked without justification. It's possible I'll be gamed out of Wikipedia, but I won't slink away. loupgarous (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

loupgarous (or Vfrickey), Swarm just stated above the problem with your excessive content, and then you write a long complaint like this? At any rate, I really think it's time you drop the stick. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't victimize yourself any further. I already stated that Softlavender's methods weren't ideal, and I don't blame you for bringing this up here. It's okay. But there's nothing really disruptive here on either side which is why I don't understand why you won't drop this. I can look at the article's history and see that you edit warred—it's okay. We've all done it. It's usually not a big deal, just a side effect of legitimate content disputes. I never denied that you were acting in good faith, but you did edit war. It's okay. You're not going to be punished. But, again, you could have handled the situation better and I think you're ignoring the problem with your own conduct while complaining about a response you partially provoked. I'm not trying to pile onto Softlavender's side because this isn't a battleground. The simple fact of the matter is that they did not do anything to warrant administrator intervention. Disputes happen. Sometimes they get nasty. We're all real people, with real emotions, and we don't punish editors if they get worked up and become a little uncivil. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this. Softlavender has no power over you and they are not trying to harass you. You can continue to work with them, because we're all on the same team. If you find an editor unreasonable, appeal to the others, but there's no need for this. Move on. Please. Swarm ♠ 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that Vfrickey is relatively new here, and so I am sympathetic to some of his/her problems in adding excessive content, using wiki-markup, reference format, etc. But I suggest that, instead of being defensive, Vfrickey read the WP:MOS, use the WP:Cheatsheet. Softlavender's first comment on the Talk page was based on experience concerning article balance and such Wikipedia policies as WP:V. That's why I adopted Softlavender's suggestion. When two experienced editors agree on something, it is very likely not arbitrary, so Vfrickey's next action was, indeed, edit-warring. Vfrickey, what you should do, instead, is to go to the Talk page and ask if it would be ok to restore certain content, and then I would have been glad to explain why it was too long and too tangential to the article's topic. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect assumption. This comment is from their user page; "I've edited wikipedia for over eleven years, and nothing, not even wikipedia's own inattention to all the supposed arbitration measures it boasts of will stop me from doing what I do well; which is edit articles for accuracy and concision."[75] I am not sure what is going on here but 'new editor caught up in the arcane machinations of Wikipedia' is not, per their own words, it. Jbh^Talk 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Waking up in the morning, reading this, and

(a) my wikimarkup skills are pretty atrocious. I will definitely, before I edit again, learn the current wikimarkup protocols. And

(b) I apologize sincerely to Softlavender and Ssilvers that they had to "clean up my mess," i.e., replace HTML italics with wikimarkup italics. They shouldn't have had to do that, or

(c) deal with my reverting Ssilvers' change so I could pare it down in my way (which they found to be unacceptable, too). My intent wasn't edit warring, but there are sandboxes for what I was trying and I ought to have used one (perhaps learned from my tomcat and buried my edits in it, then walked away).

(d) I sure apologize to all of you for indulging myself in massive logorrhea last night.

I appreciate your input. You gave me what I asked for, your candid opinions. And you were civil. I've taken your points, and again, thank you all. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors. loupgarous (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Pound Sterling and N0n3up (talk · contribs)

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 do not have the time or the inclination to continually revert the vandalism that this user is inflicting upon the article, or put up with his non-stop personal attacks.

His initial initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. He claimed that, despite there being a source in the article, that this claim was un-referenced. Repeated requests for N0n3up to address if he accessed the source used have gone unanswered.

References were provided, initially in the edit summary and then on an off-article talkpage (since copied onto the article's talk page) providing evidence that the US was the main holder of British debt following the First World War. Despite this, the same - what I would now like to call vandalism as it included ignoring and misreading sources - vandalism was repeated: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, and this revert from an un-involved 3rd party, who attempted to mediate. As the talk page discussion shows, the sources were all ignored with completely invalid and irrelevant reasons.

Next, N0n3up focused on mis-reading only one of the sources provided to make a series of edits that resulted in this revert, which he subsequently reverted, and after it being taken to the talkpage and barely discussed he once again reverted. Despite being informed that Admin intervention was being sought, he once again reverted the edit: diff. Please note the change in wording over his previous version, despite his edit summary comments.

Finally, his posts are littered with trollish comments aimed at my nationality (Anglo-American). The user has demonstrated little understanding of the subject, combativeness from day one, an unwillingness to engage with the sources, answer questions directed at them, and completely misuse sources. I acknowledge that my own attitute has been far from perfect, yet this needs to end and this user needs to either start reading the sources for what they say (not what he thinks they say) or be banned from editing from this article.

Regards 204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He said at first that my edit was wrong. Then after a long dispute with the IP, I made the change according to source but he now put back an unsupported source that contains unsupported data. I showed him where in the given sources shows the cited part, but he refuses to acknowledge. As seen in the discussion page (N0n3up (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Incorrect, and the diffs show that you are lying. You claimed that the sources were of no use and attempted to discredit them. Then, you made the unsupported assertion that war debt caused the Great Depression. Then, finally, you claim that the 40 per cent figure is unsupported; a quick search (sources provided on the talkpage) highlights that the article is roughly correct.204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Where in the talk page does it say of the 40%? At first you were right, but now that you continue to edit, I never said that said point lead to the great depression. Indicating that you didn't read or misread my posts. (N0n3up (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

"This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression". At any rate, I'll just note that both of you went ridiculously over WP:3RR (I count 7 reverts by 204.116.6.232 and another 7 by N0n3up). If it were up to me, I know what I'd do. LjL (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Daniel Schitine

Daniel Schitine (talk · contribs) ignores my warnings and continues updating Fred (footballer)'s career statistics without updating timestamp. See history. SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• You posted comments in edit summaries, not warnings. And considering that you yourself stated that his/her edits were good faith edits, I'm not really sure why you brought this to ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation from User:Thursby16

User in question never spoke to me and then, suddenly, send me a message: "You're racist" and nothing else. MYS77 ^✉ 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff is here. GAB^Hello! 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

have you asked them what they're talking about? Rather than throw NPA warnings, it might keep things calm to find out what their beef is. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Asked him yesterday, no replies. MYS77 ^✉ 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your edit summary here on a page he created has something to do with it: [76] I can't say I really understand what you meant, perhaps there is a linguistic barrier between the two of you. I see no issues with your edit, but mentioning prejudice in the summary could have been misinterpreted. Scr★pIron^IV 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be it. Looks like a misunderstanding more than anything else. Blackmane (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. But look at the page before my edits came in. It had no sources, almost. What I meant in my edit summary is: "why the people who create these pages (probably an English user - or fan - because the guy plays for an English team) do not look for proper sources", and showing with proof there's plenty of them in Spanish (a different language than English, of course). However, there's still no reason for him to call me a "racist". Everyone who can actually interpret it correctly can see it. I'll drop it, and if he personally attacks me again, then I'll try to "revive" this thread. Thanks everyone for your inputs. MYS77 ^✉ 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first [77]; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.

So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Wikipedia. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution [78]:

The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... [list of 14 other restaurants] ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance for Blueberry Hill

Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.

A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013.[79] Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No Assistance for Blueberry Hill

I happened to look a bit into the Plaza Hotel, one of User:Blueberry Hill's clients, when writing Oak Room (Plaza Hotel). The institution is now a shell and shadow of its former self, being converted largely to condos many of which are always empty (holding unused multi-million dollar condos is normal for Russian, Saudi, etc. billionaires I gather). The storied Oak Room itself had to be shut down because entitled "douchebags" (not my words) were out of control and wrecking the place. These, I think, are useful and cogent facts which ought to be added to added the article to help the reader answer the question "what is this entity".

Is User:Blueberry Hill going to add this material? No of course not. Is he going to suggest these changes on the talk page? No of course not.

My experience is that User:Blueberry Hill is going to elide all these facts. In theory then other editors are going to take time to check the material very thoroughly, take the time not to just to check the refs to ensure that they're accurate but to take the hours or days necessary to extensively research the entity exhaustively to determine if balancing material has been left out -- that we are not lying by omission.

Is this going to happen? Not in my experience it's not. More likely some editor will come along and at most check the refs for accuracy, be like "looks good to me", post it, and Bob's your uncle, for User:Blueberry Hill.

Why this happens is complicated. Here're some reasons: with User:Blueberry Hill, we have to assume bad faith -- nothing personal, User:Blueberry Hill, its just an effect of your profession that of course people are going to look at your statements with skepticism -- but we are very much in the habit of not doing that because of our community commitment to assuming good faith on the part of editors in good standing.

In addition, people here like to be helpful generally: "Sure, I'll post this for you". In addition, there are editors who think it's ridiculous that we don't allow commercial editing and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. There are editors who think rules against commercial editing are unenforceable and it is unfair to punish people who abide by the bright line rule and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. And of course there are libertarians who will post the material for ideological reasons. There's certainly no rule against backrubbing (you post my PR material to which you have no attachment and no COI and I'll do the same for you). So there're a lot of reasons why, sorry, this is a poor solution.

As an alternative, I'd suggest indef blocking User:Blueberry Hill on WP:NOTHERE grounds or whatever other grounds you like. I don't want him here and he doesn't belong here, period. I don't give a damn if he contributes to Mike Napoli or whatever. So do I. The difference is, I'm not corrupt and I don't hack into the Wikipedia database to damage it for my own personal financial gain (which is what I consider commercial editing to be). That's a big difference.

You're the admin corps. You're supposed to protect the Wikipedia It's simple: get rid of him and people like him whenever, wherever, and however discovered. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus, hopefully the more positive approach is to offer a limited amount of guidance and support to Blueberry Hill, during which they can choose to make the most of it and contribute according to policy, or other remedies can be looked at. Education opportunity and carrots are much better in the long run than brute force and sticks. Lets presume WP:AGF (per Wikipedia's policies, and regardless of presumptions of WP:COI or not). As yet, I believe we're waiting upon Blueberry Hill's request for review of their next draft/proposed changes. —Sladen (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan myself, but WP:ROPE would seem to apply. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The last edit from Blueberry Hill (talk · contribs) was on 11 October 2015. The articles involved have been cleaned up by others. Their edit at Plaza Hotel was totally undone, with the edit comment "Nope", and they didn't try again. None of those hotel articles need much attention; they're all historic hotels with their long histories documented in Wikipedia. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything here. John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:SyrianObserver2015

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.

---

Let me start by giving some background. User:SyrianObserver2015 is essentially a WP:SPA who opened his account for the sole purpose of disrupting one article (Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War), the associated module map (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map) and the associated talk page. WP:SPA says: “… a significant number (of SPA) appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed (WP:NOTADVOCACY). (my emphasis added). This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia.

He is very biased and nominated the article for deletion a couple of months ago. After the failure of his Afd, he came back to the talk page and started threatening editors by saying that if they don’t make the edits he wants them to make on the map, he will nominate the article for deletion again. Then he threatens again here by saying: “I am very close to nominating this map again.” And here again by saying: “So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone.”

To illustrate his general attitude, here he calls another user: “degenerate zombie”. And here he calls collectively all editors of the map: “you little terrorist supporting shit”. And here, he deletes a whole section from the talk page (4000 characters, with 5 participants). Here he is referring to another editor and “his support for his foreign invaders.” Here he is talking to another editor: “calm down young boy, don't behead me virtually lol.”

The editors refused his threats, so he went to editing the map by reverting legitimate edits that he didn’t like without providing any source or making edit summary. We reverted his edits and gave him an explanation about the need to provide sources here. We also opened a total of 3 sections on his talk page as well as explained to him again on the map talk page. This didn’t do anything since he came back and reverted back the map many times without edit summary or sources, breaking 1RR twice. Some of his edits were relating to major cities like Zabadani and he gave it a status that is completely unrealistic and unclaimed by anyone. It is hard to argue that these could be good faith edits. This could be viewed as intentional sabotage of the map that he failed to delete (and that he is threatening to delete). His message could be interpreted as: “Do what I ask you to do, or I will make your map a complete mess!” Right after this, an admin gave him a few templated warnings, including one about sanctions.

Unfortunately, all these warnings did not suffice. He kept insulting everyone (for example, he is calling an editor: "ISIS fan boy") He also kept making bad faith edits on the map. Here is a stark example where he writes in the edit summary that he is changing the town “Al-Basha”, but then you can see that he changed the town “Salma”! And again broke 1RR and got blocked on 28 August. Again, this did not suffice as he kept insulting everyone (for example, he is saying the map “is becoming a scum pit of ISIS and jihadi supporters” and again calling editors: “Jihadi boys”.) Here he is promising “a wave of Government supporting editors coming here to fix it”. Here a user writes a long message trying to reason him and encourage good behavior. This is in addition to many messages on the talk page of article… But again he breaks 1RR and gets blocked on 21 September.

During his latest block, User:SyrianObserver2015 evaded his block with IP sockpuppets. So the insulting continued during his block: Accusing editors: “terrorist supporting editors on this map.”, accusing an editor: “ISIS beheader supporter”, ranting about an editor: “Just another biased editor trying to make things look nicer for the terrorists.”, antagonizing another editor: “The butthurt from you Dajesuz your Isis whabbiboys are burning alive”; "all you can do is cry"; "you do support Isis the terrorists scum".

After his latest block ended, he came back with the same attitude. Here he is calling an editor: “ISIS terrorist supporter”, and “all you Al Nusrat and Free Shit Army guys” and “You support a dirty terrorist organization” and “a fucking dirty scumbag terrorist supporter”. Here he accuses another editor: “you support the terrorist moderate beheaders.” Here he insults everyone by saying: “Hail Putin bitches.” In addition, yesterday and today (October 17/18), he reverted the map many times, breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 Undid revision 686171591 by Rhocagil (talk).
• Edit 2 Revert 2 Undid revision 686286892 by DaJesuZ (talk).

This person is not here to help build an encyclopedia. I do not recall him making an edit to the map that did not get reverted. Also, you can notice that the article on which the disruption occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am requesting for User:SyrianObserver2015 to be permanently banned from editing Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map for WP:NOTHERE. Tradedia^talk 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

i totally agree with Tadedia.that editor is soo annoying and is definitely not here to contribute.Alhanuty (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015 better have a good rebuttal, else an indef block is certainly on the way. Blackmane (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

His contributions more than speak for themselves. Despite the OP being a bit lengthy, a mere skim of it should convince the community that this user is definitely not here to contribute meaningfully. He first came to my attention when he mockingly proposed a page on my watchlist for deletion in August. All of his contributions are clearly agenda-driven and in favor of the official Iranian regime POV. I would endorse any type of block, or perhaps a broad topic ban from Middle Eastern topics. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another indef. GAB^Hello! 01:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like these isis fanboys are having a field day, better make 5 new accounts the lies is sickening here, you all support isis terrorists, and Tradeia you have made many vandalizing edits . You can ban me all you want but remember this, your losing the war. And many scores of Government supporters now reside on your biased map because of me. You yourself tried to delete all the edit history because the person investigating would see all Ducks un edited sources and AlAboud aswell there is currently a topic about your many un-sourced edits. A little pack of isis fan boys trying to get me banned, good luck with that, I have made no edits in the last month(only re-sizing) also, so what are you trying to get me banned for now?? I do not support head chopping civilian killing terrorist like all you here that have come to blacken my good reputation on your biased map?? Every edit I ever made was sourced. ISIS are terrorists and their supporters are terrorists meaning all of you above.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For that comment alone I support an indefinite block if not a site ban. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever come across a more blatant case of WP:NOTHERE than this one. Can an admin just levy the indef and we can all move on. Blackmane (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

better make five new accounts is also an interesting comment, though maybe my sarcastometer is just broken. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Its amazing all these people coming here making rash judgements and none of you besides Tradiea have anything got to do with the map in question, just let them ban me for some reason they will make up. We all know wikipedia is run by Jihadi fools sitting in a basement, go on ban me please give me an excuse to rally a few hundred Government supporters to this biased map, and show you terrorist supporting fools real moderation.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As entertaining as this is, can an admin do the honors? GAB^Hello! 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Australian dollar article needs a lock

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.

---

Australian dollar is being targeted by vandals who think they're funny, on the back of a petition to change the article to "Dollarydoos" (The Simpsons reference). Can we please put a temporary lock on the article until this fad passes? Ck786 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's vandalism but it seems attached to a current active movement to rename Aussie Currency Dollarydoos. I don't think it's to be funny per se.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN has protected the article for a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

By odd coincidence... (Most of the jokes would probably only make sense to residents, but do note the "A" from AC/DC as a security feature on the $ 50 note.) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Keynesian economics page "criticisms" in edit war

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.

---

There was disagreement between several users about how a criticism of Keynesian economics should be worded. As per wikipedia rules, I so stated on the "Talk" page, and requested third parties to give their input.

Instead of complying with wikipedia rules, two users took it upon themselves to undo my edits, without discussion or consensus. User "Darx9url" even went so far as to complain on the talk page under my request for discussion -- so he obviously knew there was a debate. Yet he arrogantly deleted my edit as though he was the final arbiter of a debate that never happened. His stated reasons were hopelessly hypocritical, accusing me of using the same "non neutral point of view" words that are all over the austrian economics page. Why are these criticism words it OK on one page, yet not on another?

And what possible excuse does this biased "journalist" Darx9url have for deleting another users edit when he sees the matter is up for discussion and comment? What happened to the idea that wikipedians are supposed to build consensus and not have a select group of arrogant users dictate opinion? The user Darx9url must be suspended for wikipedia to maintain any credibility on any economics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogreggy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

A1candidate

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.

---

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of a clean start is not to "respawn" with clean logs to resume whatever arguments you were just in, if you're under DS you shouldn't try it all. And if (this point is a matter of interpretation) you're trying to give the impression you're a random, concerned Wikipedian that just found their way into an ArbCom case, oh and by the way, here's a huge pile of diffs...I'm particularly concerned by that. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. All the evidence suggests the Project would be better off without this user. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to allow the editor to change names, which in and of itself is fine, but if it has been done to, apparently, dodge existing sanctions, that is problematic. At the very least, the editor should acknowledge the prior account name and by extension the existing sanctions against them. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I really dont see that they have violated the existing sanctions. It doesnt appear they have edited let alone reverted more than one time on alt med articles or edited let alone reverted on acupuncture by looking at the contribs. There is a question of the clean start being an issue. But unless it was done and the sanctions were violated, not much should be done other than a possible single account restriction. They should be able to choose which account they use and the restriction acknowledged. But since none of the accounts has edited since Sep 28th, there may not be much that can be done. AlbinoFerret 22:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to assume that their arguments and diffs before ArbCom might be given more attention if they had been seen as coming from a neutral/uinvovled editor as opposed to coming from a frequent opponent of some of the parties of the case. Especially since they were warned (in the diff AlbinoFerret gave above) not to use Wikipedia processes to eliminate ideological opponents (or some very similar wording). A1Candidate would have been allowed to comment on the case, but with that history their arguments might not be as credible. So, this is deception by breaking up edit history by use of multiple accounts. Even if somehow the letter of the policy doesn't seem to forbid it, this is the kind of behavior WP:SOCK was intended to prohibit. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a one-account restriction would be fine, except that they seem to be doubling down ("baseless accusations") [80]. They should at a minimum acknowledge the A1Candidate account on their userpage and stop complaining about being called out on it. Geogene (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I am not a clean start of A1candidate; I switched my account because I was harassed by several editors at that time, including BullRangifer and QuackGuru (who falsely WP:OUTED me multiple times and fabricated fake information about my personal life on at least three occasions [81][82][83]). Their evidence-free allegations of sockpuppetry are completely ludicrous - I am not related to User:Levine2112 in any way whatsoever, have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not know where this allegation is coming from (although I suspect it may be related to this separate allegation). Bullrangifer's most recent claim that I have a "serious COI" is again no more than a fabrication of fake information, but for the sake of transparency, I have requested that the arbitrators look into this issue and query the CheckUser tool to clear my name. I am also willing to consider providing some information to a trusted arbitrator to verify that I have no COIs regarding that topics that I previously edited. To expedite the process, someone has already pinged the drafting arbitrators to look into this [84], so please wait for their responses and do give them some time to verify my identity. In the meantime, I am trying to peacefully leave this site and and be left alone. I can't do this when i) Geogene is stalking me everwhere on the Internet, ii) BullRangifer is outing me everytime he sees my name and fabricating fake information because he can't find anything incriminating, and iii) JzG/QuackGuru are making the most frivolous sockpuppet allegations based on zero evidence RoseL2P (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of ludicrous claims, the only place I've ever interacted with you is on WP, and not until this case opened. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest closure - I'm seeing no action on this ANI filing after nearly a week on the board. Given the ArbCom case, closure now would be appropriate. Jusdafax 12:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support closure This looks done. AlbinoFerret 15:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support close (Note to Rose: I can relate very well to being on the receiving end of stalking, and of aspersions meant to discredit.) petrarchan47คุก 18:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

convert imagenames from unicode to ascii

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.

---

@JzG, MarnetteD, and BlackMane:found images whose filename is in unicode letters, almost impossible to type in ascii-limited keyboards, copypasting difficult in android. requesting admin oversight, are unicode filenames allowed to remain?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) @GiantSnowman and David Biddulph:pinging more adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No filename is mentioned above, but the user's edit history indicates that they edited a template which uses File:বাংলাদেশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির পতাকা.svg, the flag of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. That filename translates to "Communist Party of Bangladesh flag". It's on Commons, not English Wikipedia, and was uploaded for use on the Bangladeshi wikipedia.[85] So there's nothing wrong here. (Hint: Although a rarely used feature, Android's OS supports both USB and Bluetooth mice, which may help with the cutting and pasting problem.) Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle, JzG, and GiantSnowman:can admins edit filenames uploaded in commons?also, there is one more image in my edit history with non-ascii nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

commons:Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed? says: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, only because I don't know, but is there precedent for creating a copy under a more accessible name? --Jayron32 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copies should never be created. File pages have other information like license and description which should be maintained in one place. It's possible to make file redirects but commons:Help:File redirect#Unwanted use of file redirects says: "Creation of redirects in alternative languages is not wanted. Multi-lingual translations on the file's description page are used instead." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Jayron32:file uploads in commons where filename is smilies, imagine problemMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, a filename which is all smilies could be renamed "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is using, but my Android can copy and paste Unicode characters just fine. That is once I figured out how to copy and paste. :P —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix:OP make post for sake of all editor, not personalMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with unicode characters for article and file names. The "problem" you mention doesn't actually exist unless your Android device is misconfigured. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP said copy and pasting was difficult, not that it doesn't work, and didn't mention anything about unicode in relation to copying and pasting.

I think the OP's point was probably that on many touch screen devices (and this actually applies to Android, iOS and Windows, except that most iOS devices are in the higher end range), particular a small phone with a low res not that good in terms of touch, screen), selecting what you want to copy and paste can be difficult at times. It gets even worse if it's a link or very near one. I think John Nagle had the same idea, hence the mention of mice. Copy and pasting from an edit window can help in some cases, but that depends on other factors. Plus multitabbing a browser can be slow on a low end device with limited RAM and slow flash (and also CPU although I'm not sure if that's a big contributor), so using a seperate tab to ensure you can copy and paste all you need can slow things down a fair bit. (Let's not even mention some old versions of iOS Safari, where there's no guarantee anything you were typing in the edit window will still be there when you come back to it after changing just one tab.)

In case it's unclear I actually agree it does create problems, even with experience, depending on the device, where you're trying to copy and paste it from etc, however since there's no good solution it's something people will have to put up with. (Remembering that people who don't use the latin/roman alphabet will have problems with any file name that's in it too.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue might better be handled at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback, because the issue here is the ease of editing Wikipedia in multi-language Unicode on mobile devices. The Visual Editor team can work on that problem. AN/I can't help with that. John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sweepy

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.

---

Ho hum, User:Sweepy continues to mass sort dabs alphabetically. This is against the consensus and warnings of several editors [86] [87] [88] [89] final [90] (and WP:MOSDAB). This disruption hasn't stopped after a final warning, or threats of being blocked for this the next time by User:Xezbeth. Several of us are spending time undoing them before the dabs get edited. The disruption has been going on for months, and apart from dab edits, the editor is making good edits so it's a shame that all attempts at persuasion have failed. (details at User_talk:Sweepy#Sorting_disambiguation_pages User_talk:Sweepy#Talkback Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Mass_sorting_dabs) Widefox; talk 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the problem. Alphabetical makes it easier to find what you're looking for, rather than all jumbled up. I think Sweepy's doing a great job, and , yes I saw you point to WP:MOSDAB, remember, however, that it's a guideline and not a hard and fast rule, and common sense needs to be applied. I believe Sweepy's doing just that, it's more common sense to use alphabetical ordering than anything else. Also, "order of importance"? Important to whom, that's subjective. KoshVorlon 11:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not doing a "great job". Many of these dab pages have sections in chronological order, which is equally as valid as alphabetical. Even more of these dab pages have two or three topics that are vastly more significant and likely to be searched for than the others, and should not be shunted down the page just because of where they rank alphabetically. Sweepy has given no thought to any of that, they have just indiscriminately sorted random dab pages for months on end without anyone stopping them. They were reverted on a few dab pages by several different editors, but Sweepy simply ignored that and ploughed ahead anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

He's obviously not applying common sense since many people are complaining about it. Do you know what the "common" part of common sense means? Also, just because WP:MOSDAB is not policy but a guideline, doesn't mean you are free to ignore it. It reflects general consensus on how disambiguation pages should be organized. You are free to take it up there if you do not agree with it. Kudos to your powers of persuasion if you can convince everyone the World Toilet Organization should come before the World Trade Organization on WTO--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Sweepy is probably acting in good faith (albeit stubbornly, which may justify extreme measures such as this), but their edits aren't possibly justified by common sense since they go against consensus that was established specifically about that topic (not even some related topic it is being transposed from). Alphabetical order "making it easier to find" things is debatable, it depends on the specifics, and clearly the community has decided that in the case of these disambiguation pages, it does not; that should be respected. LjL (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to me it's common sense to arrange in alphabetical order, the list he's changing around is not designated in chronological order ( like a bibliography or a discography would be ), therefore, yeah, he's not doing anything wrong changing the list to alphabetical. Atlan remember, WP:IAR is ALSO a guideline, which actually does give us permission to ignore all rules to improve the wikipedia, placing the see also pages in alphabetical order does just that. Also, note that he (I'm assuming) doesn't speak English very well, judging by his English, he likely speaks Hindi, so we may also be facing a language barrier. KoshVorlon 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Their mother language is German, it's stated on their user page. I thought the changes being made where not limited to "See also" sections (which I do believe are meant to be in alphabetical order), but to disambiguation pages at large. LjL (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be no, you do not know what the word "common" in "common sense" means. WP:IAR is policy, not a guideline. It is a invoked when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. It is implied that when one invokes IAR, one is aware of the rule that is ignored and that consideration has been given to ignoring it. That is not the case here, as Sweepy is indiscriminately alphabetizing DAB pages. IAR is not a blanket permission to ignore all rules whenever you feel like it. Your interpretation seems to be that it is. And like LjL says, this is not about "see also" sections but about DAB pages. Do some basic fact finding before commenting on threads.--Atlan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:KoshVorlon: Congratulation to you! You are a rare user understanding the sense of all encyclopedias, namely to edit so, that all users find all his informations he want, faster!

@the others: By sorting DAB alphabetically their's not any advantage for anyone!, p.e. clubs, religions, sports clubs, parties, companies and so on, and so on! Coincidence is given and all administrators or controllers have therefore no problems to prefer somebody! Is'nt wonderful for all of you in your WP? Please consider this... -- Sweepy (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to help change the consensus and guidelines on disambiguation pages, you should discuss on a relevant talk page. This is not the place for it (nor is it the time to be bold and just change pages, when you have met with clear opposition). LjL (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlan Comment on content not contributor, ok ? I'm well aware that IAR is not a blank check to do what we want to do. It's to be used for the purpose of improving wikipedia, even if the house rule says we can't do what we think would improve it. His contributors do just that, hence the application of IAR. KoshVorlon 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And now an expample for not alphabetial sorting: Hayes High School DAB. Please clear me up, why an alphabetical sorting is undesired in your eyes because neither the sorting now or the towns are alphabetical sorted! The reason, please for my correct doing an your reverting? Looking forward for the Councils answer and the rule for it, as always done...-- Sweepy (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss (not ignore) MOSDAB is there, not here. The correct place to discuss a dab is on their talk. Both can be discussed at the project (where Sweepy has not replied). Here is the correct place to discuss an editor that willfully is ignoring consensus (edit, MOSDAB MOS:FORLANG, + warnings + block warning) on mass. The mass disruption isn't confined to dabs. Widefox; talk 17:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not enough for me! You point to -daily another- rules and so on...Be confidently, your depiction in this issue is not generally accepted! Please accept it! -- Sweepy (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that there is presently you and another editor going against consensus doesn't make the state of things "not generally accepted". LjL (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello together, I'm not ready to hear always the same...! Do what you all want and block me if you dont need my help for your WP! -- Sweepy (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"That is not enough for me!". Refusal to abide by consensus en mass - WP:IDHT best describes it. Widefox; talk 10:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree His actions aren't hurting Wikipedia. He's not re-arranging a list that relies on it being in chronological order, nor does his re-arranging break formatting or any other thing. His actions fall firmly under IAR. I hear your arguments, it boils down to "Sweepy is re-arranging a list against what's written in MOSDAB", that's the sum and total of your argument. So what ? Wikipedia is NotBurro as well, just because a policy exists doesn't mean we follow it blindly, or to exclusion of everything else ( there are one or two that we HAVE to follow, with no choice, but I digress). Do his actions hurt Wikipedia? I'd say not at all. Do his actions constitute an act of vandalism ? Again, no. Do the list he's alphabetizing have to be in chronological order or order of importance in order to make sense or be readable to the average reader ? Again I say no. More importantly, would it be easier for an average reader to read a list that's been alphabetized ? Absolutely. Therefore, I see no reason , other that outright WP:BURRO to continue insisting that the dab can only be written one way. Sweepy's obviously applying WP:IAR. I would move that this be closed and noted as an act of IAR. KoshVorlon 11:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously sorting one dab is fine under IAR. Mass changing the sorting of many dabs against the consensus of other editors is not fine. If you want your stylistic preferences to be applied to all articles, talk about it at the MOS. This is WP:BRD -- Sweepy was bold, got reverted, now it is time to discuss, not time to continue his editing. Mass changes over a style issue are (a) not very useful and (b) annoying to many other editors, so they are worth a block if the user does not stop. —Kusma (t·c) 11:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I see messages on Sweepy's talk page from six different editors complaining about the way he is sorting articles on disambiguation pages. That indicates a problem to me. I don't think anyone wants to give Sweepy a block for misunderstanding MOS guidelines. But MOS:DABORDER gives clear guidelines on how to order pages on a disambig page. Tf Sweepy could agree to abide by these guidelines, I think this case can be closed but not until this promise is made or the disruption will continue and we'll be back at ANI in a few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, you were adamant the rules should be strictly adhered to when you last got blocked, and were then made aware of WP:IAR and WP:BURO (not "WP:NOTBURRO", although it is good to point out Wikipedia is not a donkey). Now you are simply parrotting User:Worm That Turned's advice on your talk page, thereby completely misinterpretating what he meant. If you now choose to stubbornly stick to your fundamental misunderstanding of WP:IAR, then clearly the advice on your talk page has taught you nothing. You should disengage from this topic, as you have become nothing more than an unwitting enabler to Sweepy's disruptive editing.--Atlan (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken and his chronic edit warring problem

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:Beyond My Ken has been at the heart of a discussion under active discussion at WP:AN, relating to a matter where he was blocked for his actions regarding the article Anna Politkovskaya, for which he made eight separate reverts of give different editors in one day. With much tendentious arguing and wikilawyering, BMK was able to convince an admin to undo his block.

The problem is that BMK is no stranger to edit warring, having a block list that includes five previous blocks for edit warring in the past five-plus years, including two blocks this year alone; three if you include the aborted block for his edit warring at Politkovskaya.

Those five blocks are just a small sample of his actual edit warring history, which includes a total of 22 reports at WP:3RRN from 18 different editors. Six of those have resulted in blocks, and a handful of these reports may not have met the 3RR standard. But there are several other reports where BMK had managed to evade blocks through various warnings and other evasions. The edit warring pattern here is chronic and largely unaddressed.

In addition to the Politkovskaya article this past week, BMK was also caught edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan and reported here. As he had already been blocked for his actions at Politkovskaya, the Union Square case was closed as "already blocked".

With the block for Politkovskaya lifted, it seems that the best way to deal with this issue is to reopen the Union Square case and impose a lengthy preventative block for a situation where BLP is a non-issue and where the evidence is open and shut. I'm not sure why BMK has been allowed to evade justice here and persist in his edit wars, but we in the Wikipedia community have a way to end this chronic problem once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[91] BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your comparison, the last time Alansohn was blocked was in 2009, ample time for them to learn from their mistakes. clpo13_(talk) 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you speak of what you know not of. Check the AN/ANI database. BMK (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to enlighten me? I don't feel like digging through noticeboard archives looking for who knows what. clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like Forum shopping to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I could not have said it better. This is not forum-shopping, this is a long-term problem with no end in sight. I don't recall if I have ever reported BMK for edit warring but I sure as hell have experienced it. He edit wars everything and when he's not edit warring, he's throwing out insults and constant personal attacks. If this behavior was anything close to the norm here, I'd have been gone long ago. I truly don't know how he wriggled out of this latest block on such a specious claim that his behavior was excused by BLP. I don't actually dislike BMK, I just wish he could see himself as others see him and recognize just how unpleasant and unnecessary his behavior is. Everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND with this fellow. It's time to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude toward this stuff until and unless he gets the message and stops once and for all. Msnicki (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Time to start escalating block length for edit warring. Clearly somebody who has been around as long as this editor has knows better; time to fire a shot across the bow. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's not forumshopping, so where is the evidence of the misconduct that BMK has done since the ban was lifted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the condition he agreed to in return for the block being lifted was that he was going to stop reverting and if he had BLP concerns, he would take them to BLPN. That lasted a mere 50 hours before he was at it again, [92] and [93], again asserting the same specious BLP claims related to Anna Politkovskaya that got him blocked. Msnicki (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking BMK for the Union Square edit war would be unproductive, as blocking is preventative, not punitive and the disruption there appears to have ended when BMK was blocked for the Politkovskaya edit war. However, given the history of edit warring, future consequences should be more severe if the behavior continues, like a 1RR restriction sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 06:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Msnicki can we get a little better than your understanding, like perhaps the diff that shows his unblock conditions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NP. Here is Drmies insisting he should take it to BLPN rather than reverting: [94] and again [95]. And here is BMK agreeing to those terms: [96] and [97]. Msnicki (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Unblock conditons:

• "BMK, I do want to hear from you that you won't return to reverting (Anna Politkovskaya‎‎), at least not for now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Yes, I will take my own advice (see above) and "let things go", take the article off my watchlist, and never return to it. It won't be my concern anymore. BMK (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Well, I don't want it to not be your concern anymore, and I would like you to take the matter up again at the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"
• "Thank you very much for the unblock, I appreciate it. I have taken the article off my watchlist, and will post to BLPN. BMK (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Diffs: [98], [99], [100], [101]

Later comments on User talk:Drmies:

• @Drmies: Regarding this, I don't need or expect you to say anything about it, but I would appreciate your letting me know if I do go beyond what you intended to be the conditions on my unblock. I don't believe that I have, and because of that I don't think I'm testing any boundaries or editing in "bad faith", but if you think I am, I'll pull back (which, as you know, was my initial impulse in the first place). Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [102]

• BMK (and Volunteer Marek), I asked you to not to return to that article and I would unblock you. Whatever you do elsewhere is really not my concern: it is not my place (and not my intent) to issue some sort of a topic ban. The problem, and the reason for the block, was the edit warring. So you removed it on an associated article as well, I believe (don't really want to start digging around right now), but if you're not edit warring there, I don't see what the problem is. I think (sorry Marek et al.) that the focus should be on the more important matter, not on what BMK is messing with this time. Removing the material until there is some sort of consensus that it's not a BLP material should be the proper way to go--call me old-fashioned. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [103]

So it appears to me that Drmies, the unblocking admin, has no trouble with my subsequent edits, including to the article Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, to which I made a single revert, and have not edit warred on. (Nor, for that matter, have I edited the article Anna Politkovskaya since my unblock, which was the actual sole condition of that unblock.) As for Msnicki's comment concerning BLPN, she seems not to be aware that I fulfilled Drmies request, and started this thread on that board, even though I would have preferred to walk away from this mess, because I wanted to honor Drmies request to do so, even though it was not a condition of the unblock.

I will note for the record that Alansohn-- an inveterate edit-warrior himself] -- has had a bug up his behind about me ever since I commented on AN/I that I thought he was the primary problem in the I-Ban dispute between himself and Magnolia-whatever-his-number-is, and that Msnicki and I have been unfriendly since she helped to railroad Dangerous Panda, someone I considered to be a valuable admin, off the site. I see nothing in this thread except blatant retaliation for old and moldering beefs, and I shall not comment on this silly thread again, especially since I've had to deal with this untrue accusations on the BLPN thread, and on a thread just closed on AN. How many more times, and in how many more places am I going to be required to defend myself against blatantly false accusations of bad faith editing from users with an axe to grind? BMK (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no question BMK has been nasty to me, so I'm glad he's not denying it. But I have never returned in kind, not in the Dangerous Panda discussion nor anywhere else. For more, consider the interaction last month at Talk:Flatiron Building#Concerning edits to "Original tenants and subsequent history" where BMK repeatedly insults me and another editor, claiming neither of you will ever be a good writer and that I must be a piss-poor judge of writing, repeatedly questions my good faith, insists wrongly I must be following him and claims WP:OWNERSHIP as his excuse for edit warring and bullying: being the editor with the most edits to it (316, as opposed to your 3), who took it from 8,600 bytes to 15,000 bytes, and then from 18,500 to 37,000 bytes, so you'll excuse me if I have something of a vested interest. Nowhere on that page will you find me responding in kind. I behaved myself. All I did was keep repeating my request that he WP:AGF and, when it still continued, I threatened that if couldn't drop the WP:STICK and persisted with the insults, that I would take it to ANI. I didn't back down but I was NEVER disrespectful. That's just not me. Msnicki (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not responsible for your, or any other editor's, inability to write or edit. When I see bad writing, or bad editing, I revert it, as a matter of course. AGF does not require me to lie to you about your capabilities or lack thereof. My primary responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to the quality of our articles, not towards making you feel good about yourself inappropriately. If you want that, I suggest you check into a self-help clinic, where they'll be glad to take your money and assure you of your self-worth.

In the case at hand, that's really not an issue, except that you have decided to use your own hurt feelings as an excuse for expressing an opinoon about an issue which you have not been involved in, and apparently know nothing about, simply because you assume that anything I do must be wrong. I suggest that you would be better off putting some effort into understanding the issue before you sound off about it. BMK (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. Msnicki (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So... you believe you've proven (or, rather, I've proven) that I should be blocked? Because I think your writing and editing is sub-standard? Is there a particular policy you had in mind that I should be blocked under? BMK (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK was edit warring on Anna Politkovskaya. He was blocked. He agreed to stop edit warring, was unblocked, and has not been edit warring since. He is, of course, mistaken about his responsibility: his responsibility is to follow the Terms of use, which specifically include:

• Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
• Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.

Therefore while he is not responsible for the quality of any other editor's edit, he responsible for acting like a dick. Unfortunately with the closing of WP:RFC/U as ineffective and the lack of an effective civility policy (see WP:Civility meme), there's no quick solution. The majority of the time is he on point (i.e. knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and reasonable in expressing that), but I have observed the chronic pattern Msnicki notes. Personally I find it easiest to ignore his ad hominem nonsense (see WP:Other duck and User:Heimstern/Ignoring_incivility) and refute his occasional misrepresentations of Wikipedia policies with wikilinks to the actual policy. Presumably an interested editor could collect sufficient (i.e. lots) of diffs to show a pattern and present a case for some sort of sanction, but that would be a huge time sink. This ill formed ANI thread -- invalid grounds (edit warring) and wrong forum (this is not "an incident") is unlucky to bring about anything usefulNE Ent 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I am responsible for my edits, just as you are responsible for your lack of content contributions. BMK (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The BLP issue

This text, which some of you are arguing for keeping in the article, is a blatant BLP violation. Just because Putin is unlikely to file suit against Wikipedia is no excuse for attempting to put him on trial within Wikipedia. You all should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is an RfC concerning that text at Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. BMK (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That there's even a debate about this is an abomination. If it were an American or British leader instead of Putin, that text would be shot down, and those pushing for it would be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. Msnicki (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying it IS a fact that Putin orchestrated the assassination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations cannot be tolerated. Allowing gross BLP violations to stand is thousands of times worse than "incivility". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You realize that incivility towards our editors are generally against living persons? Why is it that saying something negative against a living article subject is "thousands of times worse" than saying something negative against a living editor here? I personally find our volunteers to be as deserving of protection as our article subjects. HighInBC 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Which editors here are accusing other editors of engineering assassinations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, HighInBC, as an admin and a long-time Wikipedian, you know the emphasis that the WMF puts on the BLP policy being followed. It may have come later in the game, but it -- along with the renewed emphasis on getting rid of copyright violations -- has to be considered the prime-est part of the Wikipedia Prime Directive these days. You also know that "saying something negative against a person" is not' the same thing as a personal attack, and you've surely seen that the trend in WP:CIVILITY enforcement has been towards a more liberal interpretation, not to a stricter one.

NE Ent mentioned above the dismantling of WP:RFC/U, which I thought at the time was a mistake -- and I still think so -- not so much because it was a particualrly effective mechanism, but because it at least provided an outlet for people to blow off steam in a very structured way. Now, every time someone writes "fuck" or "shit", an editor is sure to post on AN/I whining about how they're being mistreated by the "uncivil" behavior. You must know as well as I do that such complaints aren't going to be acted on, except in the most absolutely virulent instances.

Given all that, to equate "saying something negative against a living [Wikipedia editor]" with a BLP violation which accuses by implication a living public figure of being involved in a murder... well, that's just absurd, isn't it? BMK (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly agree with BLP rules. However, in this particular case, that was not a BLP violation, but simply something that all reliable sources tell [104]. Not telling something that almost all RS tell and removing reliably sourced information (that is what BMK was doing) was an outright violation of WP:NPOV, which is our main policy. Based on their comments, I believe that BMK and some other contributors simply do not know this subject, which is rather complicated. If they knew, they suppose to discuss like here. Please note that among five contributors who reverted edits by BMK on this page four contributors were people who knew these subjects. That was also an edit war by BMK against WP:ConsensusMy very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You say it's not a BLP violation. Baseball Bugs is not the first one to say that it is. As for "knowing the subject", I am not sure what kind of inside knowledge is necessary that cannot be gleaned from the sources. One might as well way--gasp--that those five are not neutral on the topic. I don't wish to make that argument, but it's one that you yourself used in these matters against your opponent. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am only telling that one should really know the subject to make a qualified judgement. That means to study a lot of available sources and to know the underlying political and historical background, writings and biography of the person described on the page, etc. And no, these four contributors have very different views. I have argued a lot with two of them on various noticeboards. If they agreed about something, that means a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So, your theory is that only specialists in a subject area are allowed to make determinations of BLP violations? Funny, I don't seem to find that in the BLP policy itself. BMK (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not a specialist (and I am not a specialist in this), but simply someone familiar with the subject, which frequently requires a lot of background knowledge. For example, I would not edit much on Chinese history and would not blame anyone in this area of BLP violation, unless I knew the subject in depth. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh ffs. It's not a BLP violation. It's something that every. fucking. source. about. the. subject. matter. says. I have not seen it explained a single time how that is supposed to be a BLP violation. Just a bunch of people smugly proclaiming "it's a BLP violation" - that's not enough. You can assert whatever the hell you want as many times as you want but that does not make it true. You are suppose to EXPLAIN and ELABORATE, based on policy, not just mindlessly parrot the same thing over and over again. I have seen it explained more than a dozen of times about how it's not a BLP violation.

Anyway. Why is this is even being discussed here?  Volunteer Marek  21:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of sources can also be found to talk about Richard Gere and gerbils, but that's not a ticket to inclusion in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are they reliable sources? LjL (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Why is this is even being discussed here?" Exactly. User:Beyond My Ken's strategy is to obfuscate about his edit warring. The same guy who before last week was a five-time loser on edit warring charges, managed to trigger two bright line 3RR violations in one day. By shoveling the bullshit as thickly as possible and claiming that he was justified on a BLP basis to revert five different editors on eight separate occasions at the Anna Politkovskaya article, he hopes to avoid scrutiny for his four reverts that same day at Union Square, Manhattan, where BLP doesn't apply. Anticipate more of this tendentious wikilawyering from BMK and his apologists. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I must have used my "Baseball Bugs" persona to bring up the BLP issue in this thread. Sorry, I meant to use my "Jimbo Wales" persona to give it more gravitas. My mistake. BMK (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In any event, I do agree with Volunteer Marek that this is really not the right place to discuss the BLP issue per se, as opposed to how it relates to my editing. The proper place to discuss it is in this thread I started on BLPN, although I guess I'm duty bound to note that someone started an RfC about it here, even though that is not the proper place for it once the BLPN discussion had been started. BMK (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As for Alan... well, he's the proverbial boy who cried wolf. Sometimes it's a fox he sees, sometimes a poodle, and occasionally a German shepherd - he gets close, but never quite hits the target. And, of course, he never mentions the wolf costume he's got hanging in the closet. BMK (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

The problem here is that User:Beyond My Ken is using his usual song and dance to evade scrutiny. It's always someone else's fault; There's always an excuse; There's always some reason to ignore the crux of the problem, which is that BMK has failed to learn that edit warring is a violation of a fundamental Wikipedia principle. I'm willing to ignore the Politkovskaya article for now, as it only serves to perpetuate BMK's excuses. That same exact day, he had four separate reverts at the article for Union Square, Manhattan, where BLP is not an issue. He committed a bright line violation for the 22nd time on top of his six existing blocks for edit warring. Reopen the Union Square report and let justice take its course. Maybe a seventh block for edit warring will help prevent further such abuse by BMK. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Alan, I am very quick to admit that I'm wrong when I'm actually wrong. I actually enjoy finding out something new that I didn't know before, or having my previous beliefs corrected. I hope I never stop learning new stuff. You would know all this if you were reading my talk page without a jaundiced eye, instead of doing so to glean more data to use against me. BMK (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Geez, I've already admitted that I'm an evil person. Tell ya what, send your butcher over to my place and he can carve out a pound of flesh for you; I need to lose some weight anyway. BMK (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Yeah, I know, I said I wouldn't comment on this thread again. So I'm human, so sue me. BMK (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, right, he is suing me! BMK (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, "song and dance"? While my singing used to be adequate (All-State Chorus, leads in high school musicals), it now just provokes groans. On the other hand, my dancing is... not so much. BMK (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In respone to Alansohn, I believe it could fairly be said that there exists a very real chance that only a part of the problem can be said to be due to BMK. Although I am rather grateful that Alansohn has managed to avoid discussion at the various noticeboards for six months, the older discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles I think indicates that BMK can hardly be said to be the only one whose conduct might in and of itself constitute a problem. I think a very thorough review of the entirety of this discussion, and any recent interactions between Alansohn and BMK, is probably called for, something I personally, unfortunately, am not in a position to do myself today.

In response to BMK, thankfully, singing and dancing talent are rather irrelevant here. And, if you knew me personally, you would know that I am very, very grateful for that being the case. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all of us are blessed with talent, and thank goodness for that, otherwise there'd be no critics (ba-dum-bum).

You're right that Alansohn's problems with Magnolia677 aren't appearing regularly on the noticeboards anymore, but that has less to do with greater control on his part, and more to do with M677 just giving up on editing New Jersey articles ([105] and search for "New Jersey" or "NJ") due to the constant problems. On the other hand, Alansohn is sure to pop up and spout his spiel about me whenever anyone accuses me of edit-warring, never acknowledging, of course, his own checkered past in that respect.

Doorbell! I wonder if it's the butcher?BMK (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's only one way out if this morass: upload a short, 30 second clip of you singing a tune, any tune. If it's good, you won't be blocked. Problem solved? :) Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm doomed! DOOMED I tell ya!! BMK (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about "All Apologies" sung like Ethel Merman? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was think more along the lines of "I Gotta Be Me" sung in the style of Tiny Tim, or Sinatra's "My Way" as performed by Spike Jones. BMK (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, WP administrators, you've been presented with a problem here. You're charged with moderating user behavior, so how do you handle this one? Are you going to kick the can down the street like you all usually do when it involves an established editor who has a group of supporters who are also established editors and admins? I can't wait to see what innovative solution you all can come up with. I'm sure you all will handle it with astute aplomb and this problem will be put to bed for good. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

They will do what they always do: protect the wrong version, block the content editors, and unblock the crazies. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, tricky one. Can we block the peanut gallery first and see if that makes life simpler? Guy (Help!) 00:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Given his history of edit warring and incivility, I would support blocking Beyond My Ken the next time such issues arise. Previous warnings don't seem to have worked well enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem

The problem here seems to be that BMK is waving the "BLP violation" card , which he knows very well gives an exemption to most policies around editorial games of silly buggers, in order to remove material that is merely crap. The most recent edit war at Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) might be interpreted as removing a BLP violation but is much better stated as conspiracist bollocks that should be taken to Talk, with the onus placed on those seeking to include it, to obtain consensus. Since that article seems to be the motive for this report, which appears to be retaliatory, protecting that article looks like the best next step. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And, unfortunately, I guess it could be argued crappy content in a BLP might qualify as a BLP violation of some sort, maybe, I guess. One way or another, though, protection looks like a good idea. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Its also possible that Arbcom is a better path, if it wasnt already overloaded and slow. AlbinoFerret 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guy: When the "compiracist bollocks" implies that a living person was involved in some way with a murder, there's really no doubt that's a BLP violation, even if the living person is Vladamir Putin. BMK (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure "conspiracist bollocks" is on the mark; The Economist, for example, does not generally engage in wild-eyed conspiracy theories. More a question of WP:WEIGHT. A larger concern is that dubious invocations of WP:BLP risk degrading the community's concern for real BLP problems. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but (1) The Economist simply does what all the other sources provided by the advocates of inclusion do, which is to confirm that the speculation and theorizing exists, without actually providing evidence for the connection. There has never been a dispute that the conspiracy theory exists, so it does not serve to solve the problem.

(2) I look at the BLP issue from entirely the opposite view. The reason there's a BLP exemption to 3RR is to provide protection for the violation-removing editor, who is simply trying to protect one of our articles, much as whistleblower legislation protects those who serve society by revealing problems in businesses or government. Because of that, there is not (or should not be) any requirement that the BLP violation is absolutely proven beyond any doubt or is blatantly obvious on its face (although I believe that in this case it is), but simply that the editor removing the BLP violation had a reasonable belief that it was a true violation. In this instance, I had that belief, drawn from the previous 3RR report, where a commenting admin agreed it was " very well-grounded BLP concern" and "[t]hinly-veiled innuendo". Given that, I should have been afforded the protection called for in 3RRNO. Instead, an admin used their own idiosyncratic and non-standard interpretation of BLP policy enforcement to block me. That block was overturned, so it really should not be an issue, although there are those here who wish to keep it front and center. BMK (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the Economists and other sources doesn't just "confirm that theorizing exists". It does not say "theorizing exists" or anything of the sort. The Economist, like all the other sources say "this happened on this day". Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There has never, at any time been a dispute about the fact that the murder occurred on Vladimir Putin's birthday. That you don't seem to understand the difference between a dry fact and the libelous innuendo that reporting the fact carries is disturbing -- but, then again, the material you're so desperately trying to get into the article does a lot more than simply say "such-and-such happened on this day", it actually goes into the conspiracy theory, the speculation about the date being an indication of a connection between Putin and the murder. That you cannot see that that is a extremely serious BLP violation brings me to believe that you just don't care if it is or not, just as long as anti-Putin material gets into the article. BMK (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, the problem is that the BLP edit warring exemption is only for unambiguous instances. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. This is from WP:3RRNO:

7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

There is no mention of being "unambiguous". There is a suggestion to consider going to the BLP noticeboard instead of removing, but it's not mandatory.

In many instances of BLP violations, there is going to be a block of editors intent on keeping the material in the article, usually for POV reasons, which is why there's an exemption, so that a single editor can work to prevent that block from biasing the article, without being dinged for edit-warring. For this reason, comments on this and other threads about the number of editors I reverted, or the number of reverts I made are irrelevant. If the BLP exemption doesn't cover multiple reverts against multiple editors, then it is not an exemption at all, and attempts to interpret it in that manner are, in fact, gutting the intent of the exemption. BMK (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The above applies to material which is poorly sourced or unsourced. This material is so well sourced that you couldn't source it better. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you overlooked "libelous" and "biased", as well as the fact that the connectior between the terms is "or" and not "and". I wonder how that happened? BMK (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you. It's a BLP violation and there should have been an exemption. But just let those who want to push the Fringe conspiracy crap into the articles have their way. The Admins who have permitted this can take the hit if there is one. I would say it's time to step away, ignore these reports, and move to different articles. It should also be obvious to the editors making these reports that there is not going to be any action taken on this issue. Any editor who does not believe that there could be no good faith objection to inserting that material on BLP violation grounds, should not be allowed to edit BLPs. But it's time for everyone to just move on. Dave Dial (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Dave: I am no longer editing the article, or the companion article on the assassination itself, and the only reason I'm still here is to correct inaccurate information, claims, and charges against me. I'd be more than happy to put this behind me -- in fact I tried to do so immediately after my unblock, but the hits just kept on coming, with everyone and their grandmother wanting to have their say, and making the same errors of fact and interpretation over and over again. I can't turn back time and undo the block that was improperly levied against me (giving more ammunition for the Alansohns of the world for the future), and, to be honest, I no longer give a fuck about whether that one article is biased or not. On the other hand, I am concerned that people -- even long-time admins -- seem not to understand why we have a BLP policy, how it is policed by the community, and the proper role of administrators in protecting BLP "whistleblowers". That does not auger well for the encyclopedia as an accurate and unbiased source of information. BMK (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "fringe conspiracy crap" if it's mentioned by every single source on the subject. *You* think it's fringe conspiracy crap because it just "sounds" like fringe conspiracy crap. To you. But that's not how it seems to sources, which obviously think there's a connection between the date of the murder and the murder itself. This complete unfamiliarity with sources (and complete disregard for sources!) is what I believe MVBW was referring to above when they pointed out that competence is required. Volunteer Marek  02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This conversation was already held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive275#Request_of_independent_evaluation_of_my_actions_in_Anna_Politkovskaya, page was already protected, then unprotected when the edit warring ceased. The Rfc on the talk page will end, and a consensus will be determined. NE Ent 02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you closed the AN discussion -- which really had very little actual discussion about Ymblanter's action in blocking me -- before there was a consensus. Aside from that, as a participant you shouldn't have closed it at all, and as a non-admin you shouldn't have closed a discussion thread about a highly contentious subject. But that's water over the bridge, or under the dam, or whatever. BMK (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Can someone please block this obvious troll?

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:Udoks is an obvious troll. For those not in the know, some Gamergate supporters have a plan to destroy Wikipedia by making it so "pro-SJW," that no one can take it seriously. This guy is clearly trying to execute such a plan. The obvious sarcasm in their actions can be seen by reading their comments at Talk:Air conditioning (I've left an analysis below the hat). Now they are pulling similar crap at [Breitbar News Network https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_News_Network&diff=prev&oldid=686104089] and on its talk page. Can someone please block this person so they stop wasting our time. Brustopher (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE, and there's a good chance that they're already blocked under another account, the rhetoric looks familiar. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

OWN TV and User:RobinColclough

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.

---

• OWN TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RobinColclough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today saw the latest in a long series of attempts by the self-serving single purpose account User:RobinColclough. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia but instead considers Wikipedia a personal soapbox, advertising platform and legal battleground possibly centered on Trademark trolling. I've no idea what to do about. Please help. Here is the latest diff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OWN_TV&type=revision&diff=686485073&oldid=659963762

Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#OWN_TV before seeing this. Deli nk (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through their contribs and can't see a single edit where they haven't been promoting their products/trademark. e.g. [106] [107] which added information about ViewPoint 3D (deleted at AFD). WP:NOTHERE appears to apply. Note that this came up here in April but no action was taken. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SageGreenRider what is your problem?! OWNTV is my legal trademark, if someone tries to use it for their own business, such as Oprah Winfrey Network has, then you seem to think I should shut up, and let them also promote it through Wikipedia? Any page or reference to OWNTV or so very similar OWN TV must only refer to the legally registered trademark, not a commercial business. Clearly a lawyer needs to give you some advice on this. I start to wonder if you have a commercial or personal interest in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And look at the ViewPoint3D page that you guys took out! Its a viable 3D software, with a growing user-base, but you decided to erase it because its not got a big enough following? I thought Wikipedia was about sharing information, as you´re not 3D experts, why should you be able to decided to remove a page about a new 3D software, the only one that directly produces multiview autostereoscopic output with live data? Are some of the wiki decision makers, in this case two of you, making decisions that don't follow public interest? RobinColclough (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, as noted above, and the user seems to carrying an external legal dispute onto Wikipedia (with associated possible WP:NLT implications in some of RobinColclough's statements), perhaps an administrator should just block the user and refer them to Wikipedia's legal department. Deli nk (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@RobinColclough, I have no commercial or personal interest in Oprah Winfrey. I'm aware of her, but I'm not a fan and I don't ever remember watching even one of her shows. At most I've see a few clips here and there. My issue is clearly stated in my original Notification here. Wikipedia is a community-built encyclopedia, not the righter of wrongs, not a champion of the underdog, not a legal battleground, not a soapbox, and not an advertising platform. Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS SageGreenRider (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Very much WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:81.156.94.220

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.

---

For at least the last couple months, 81.156.94.220 has been removing content without explanation and making other strange edits. The user most often removes dubbing roles (i.e., roles originally in another language) from Japanese voice actor articles (e.g., these edits [108] [109] and tons of similar edits - see Special:Contributions/81.156.94.220). The user has also made some other nonsensical edits such as [110], which seemed to edit a character description to add information on a completely different character from a completely different TV show. The user has already been blocked once for these edits, but continues to make the same kind of edits. As far as I can tell, the person has never given any explanation for the edits or communicated with anyone anywhere. Can something please be done about that user? Calathan (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried AIV but my request was deleted. The IP edits also delete properly sourced information. The IP also changes subsection headers to violate MOS such as "Other dubbing" to "Other Dubbing". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

While I initially thought the edits were vandalism, I not so sure anymore. I think it is more likely that the editor honestly thinks the edits are improving the articles in some way, but is unwilling to discuss them or to listen to the people who keep reverting them. The edits are definitely problematic, but I don't think AIV is the place for this, which is why I brought this here. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

After looking at what happened with the AIV report, it looks like it was removed by accident. This edit [111] was meant to remove rejected reports, but it took out your report as well even though it hadn't been addressed at all, apparently because someone else indented their report under yours by mistake. I still don't think AIV is the right place for this, but if you do think it is the right place, you could probably just add your report back in. Calathan (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Based on this IPs history I've blocked it for a short while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Edits on Jithan 2

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

---

On the page, Jithan 2, there are two IP addresses that have changed the producer and director to Rahul. I have a difficult time believing that the producer is also the director. I'm sure there are mistakes in there, but I don't know exactly what they are and who made them. CLCStudent (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• CLCStudent, it's actually not uncommon for directors to also serve as a producer for some films or for producers to take on directorial roles. This source confirms that he's the director, so I'll look for something to confirm him as the producer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• This has Yuvaraj Reddy as the producer, although I'm not sure of the reliability of this site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and clear COI

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 received a legal threat after I reverted a change the article by an official of the party concerned. This sort of thing needs to be stamped on if an admin would pick it up? ----Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also note that the obviously WP:COI-encumbered editor also created a parallel WP:Fork at English Democrats Party (Official), aside from trying to introduce their party's official POV into the main article. LjL (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I indef'ed User:Ste.Morris for the legal threat, though I also see editorial/ToS violations that would need to be resolved before allowing this editor back. I deleted English Democrats Party (Official) as COISPAM in addition to the speedy-FORK tag added by User:RichardOSmith (User:CorenSearchBot had also marked it as copyvio based on the cut'n'paste from the fork'ed parent). DMacks (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As a COI issue, I was worried that we might have to deal with this at WP:COIN. But with the POV fork gone and the COI editor out of the picture for now, I put my notes on that on Talk:English Democrats, where others can deal with the relative right-wingness of the five or so minor parties to the right of the Conservative Party (UK). John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As a further note, the now-blocked editor has posted a line on their own talk page which I was thinking might amount to another legal threat, so it might benefit from being looked at. LjL (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RBI'ed. Per WP:NLT, not allowed to do anything here except revoke the threat, so I've removed his editorial discussion and further/re-interated threat (guess I could have left that, but he didn't seem to need more ROPE) and reblocked with talk disabled. User:Mooregraham is another likely COI-editor on this same article who will need to be watched. DMacks (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Apparently undiscussed controversial moves of category

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.

---

Without any prior discussion on the talk page user Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · count) has moved Category:Zionist political violence first to Category:Zionist terrorist groups and then on to Category:Zionist terrorism. Moves that are far from uncontroversial, and can only be undone by administrators since he also made a manual edit to the first redirect (which prevents reverts by non-admins...). So can an admin please move the category back to where it originally was, until Makeandtoss gets support on the talk page for such a move? Thomas.W ^talk 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not realize I needed to gather support for the move. However, I found it hypocritical and controversial for all categories to be labelled as terrorist while this one labelled as 'violence'.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reversed the move and deleted the redirects. The choice of category name was discussed in 2014 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 9. To propose a change of name, go to WP:CFD - a conversation on a category talk page is not enough. Bencherlite^Talk 21:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Rothly Bladje speedy 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.

---

Rothly Bladje is an openly declared sockpuppet of The Jolly Bard who was recently found to be a sockpuppet of the banned user Guido den Broeder/Roadcreature. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not that person, and my activity on Wikipedia is entirely constructive. Rothly (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blade beat me to blocking them.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, blocked; if someone thinks it's necessary a CU could have a look too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since they admitted it in an early edit, the only point of a CU would be to look for sleepers. They clearly evaded a CU block, they could challenge the original CU evidence, but should do that from the original account blocked as a sock.... Monty₈₄₅ 00:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking some more, as there was considerably CU discussion at SPI, probably their only remaining stop would be WP:BASC. Monty₈₄₅ 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: You're probably getting your leg pulled on their TP. Jarold Blythe and Rothly Bladje are obvious anagrams of The Jolly Bard. Blackmane (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my comment pinged the CU that ran the results. I was wanting to see the accused explain or at least try. <== We have to get our job perks where we can.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Spammer at work

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:Bennett5555 is an SPA all of whose edits appear intended to promote "Bennett Awards", a high-end supplier of trophies for award ceremonies. While their edits ostensibly add information about awards to celebrity bios, most if not all the awards are non-notable, and the references cited are promotional pages/press releases on the "Bennett Awards" website and typically describe the article subjects as "recipients of recognition awards custom designed by Bennett Awards for the" awardgivers, making the trophy maker more prominent/important than the awardgiver. It's clear the editor needs at least a username block; my only question is whether all their edits should be rolled back (my impression) or if any of the awards are significant enough to call for cleanup and resourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Wrongly assumed to be a credit card number: please fix

User:Sandra opposed to terrorism edited her own sandbox but somebody incorrectly thought someone else's credit card number was posted and oversighted it and blocked Sandra. In fact, those numbers were random numbers. Also keep in mind that the sandbox page is for use by that specific user and can be seen by others only with extreme snooping. Also keep in mind that it was stated that these are not someone else's credit card number so AGF dictates that we believe this.

To make things complicated, Sandra's blocking doesn't allow editing her own talk page, which is really heavy handed. However, Sandra expresses sorrow and will not joke around in her sandbox anymore.

"sorry, sorry, sorry" says Sandra. Won't confuse people again and do something like that.

The block reason stated "20:13, 19 October 2015...blocked Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (posting credit card info on wiki. Blocking until we have an understanding that is not a good idea, removing talk page access for same reason.)

incorrect because no credit card into was posted. Sandra has an understand that this is not a good idea.

By the way, I am Sandra. I am posting like this because my talk page is locked.

Thank you. Please just unblock me and not make a big drama out of it. In return, I will edit only one item in the next 2-3 days and it will be a non-controversial correction of an error in an article along with citations to prove it.

Sandra OTT (temporary) (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandra. This is a checkuser block, so admins are not permitted to undo the block without checkuser permission. If you need further information regarding the block or wish to request unblock, please see WP:UTRS. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Section and Subsection Titles

I apologize if this is not the appropriate venue to address such a question. Although I’ve been around Wiki quite awhile now, the only time I was ever involved in an incident was the result of a misunderstanding that was easily clarified. (I know the word “misunderstanding” is often overused, but in this case it was literally such and the nonexistent conflict was resolved before we got here.) If this is not the appropriate venue, perhaps an administrator or experienced editors can steer me to where I should have addressed this question for future reference. I am currently not involved with a conflict, though I shortly would (almost certainly) have been had not one of my allies in the potential conflict rendered the question moot. So all that is left is to ask my question.

We all the know the importance and power of headline writing in newspapers and headline writers are often accused of bias. My question is is there any Wikipedia regulation that addresses the matter of writing titles for sections and subsections within Wiki articles? Is there anything mandating that a section or subsection title should reflect the majority content of such?

Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV covers a lot of ground - section titles which appear to show a specific POV would run afoul of that non-negotiable policy. And "headlines" are not written by the reporter as a rule - but by specialists whose aim is t0 hook readers Collect (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick and informative response. It is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@HistoryBuff14: You may want to also take a look at WP:COATRACK. While sections titled "Controversy", "Criticism", and such may seem benign at first, they often serves as "bug lights" for anyone wants to spread negative information about the subject. A section that focuses on a negative aspect of the subject should be rewritten with the relevant information incorporated elsewhere in the article. —Farix (t | c) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Farix Thank you as well. I think you were sufficiently curious as to track my recent Wiki haunts and comments. I understand what you are saying. The curious aspect of this dispute (at least to my mind) was that those on the other side are contesting a mere name change (actually, an addition to the current one) that would bring a subsection’s title in line with 88% of its content rather than lobbying to remove or mitigate the material itself. But as I said, one of my allies unwittingly (I think) threw a monkey wrench into my plans to bring the conflict here. Therefore, I must concede defeat and that’s the end of it. Thank you, again. I have bookmarked both offered pages for future reference.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Courtier1978

• Personal attacks and accusations of sock/meatpuppetry: The user has engaged in a recurrent series of personal attacks against me and other users that has exceeded the point of being disturbing and is now discouraging me from contributing.
  • This started on Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus, when he/she was explained that his additions were not properly substantiated by reliable sources and constituted original research: "You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POV". He/she is clearly aware and has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks (as seen below his comment there + previously warned by me, a warning that he removed from his talk page). Following a revert of his additions by User:Alakzi, he wrote "Team work is not permitted by the way, under Wikipedia rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you". His personal attacks, along with his persistent refusal of understanding of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and his polarizing (Greek vs. Turkish) tone was at this time so unbearable to me that I just let the article be for months, until Mikrobølgeovn reverted it a few days ago.
  • In the past two days, this has reached intolerable dimensions in a campaign he started across a number of articles: here, he calls me "a massacre denier", says "You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles." Here, he calls a now-inactive user a "totally pro-Turkish user". Mikrobølgeovn, a user who has not engaged in personal attacks and is trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies as far as possible from what I see (he has filed a dispute resolution request), has been dismissed by him saying "I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing else". He has written an extensive attack on Mikrobølgeovn here.
  • He/She has even gone so far open a sockpuppet investigation claiming that I and Alakzi are sockpuppets of Mikrobølgeovn! + tried to get me blocked for edit warring when there was clearly no violation, of which he was informed: [112]. I am very, very tired of this.
• A definite lack of understanding WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:RS: His lack of understanding of consensus-building is very apparent on several articles: the aforementioned article on wars in Cyprus where he kept reverting to his edition and refusing intermediate proposals, here and here. He has insisted on using everyculture.com, a website that is by no stretch of imagination reliable, and supported it by a marxists.org link to support his thesis that the Cypriot intercommunal violence ended with a "Greek Cypriot victory" - and his source from everyculture.com does not even properly support his thesis (it says that only about a series of clashes in 1967 and with no substantiation). He has been referred to the relevant policies many times, yet he keeps making comments such as "Lets add some communist sources then, since everything else seems to be Greek nationalists for you". He has also repeatedly removed information supported by VERY reliable sources: [113] in favor of original research. His lack of appreciation of BRD is also evident here.
• On another note, he/she remained inactive after I let the article on wars in Cyprus be as he desired for about two months, and the moment that Mikrobølgeovn reverted him/her, he/she re-emerged: [114].
• The situation is perhaps best illustrated by the history of this page. He/she has no intention of accepting even this neutral version and keeps reverting to this. This topic is currently open on the dispute resolution noticeboard but this user conduct issue needs to be resolved urgently. The user's activities explicitly display numerous WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", "Does not engage in consensus building", "Rejects or ignores community input", "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", and honestly WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" (extensive activity against what he perceives as "pro-Turkish" across several articles). On a final note, I hate having to do this, but my previous work has included addition of details about the Armenian Genocide (especially on rape), significant expansion of Assyrian genocide and addition of atrocities against Greek Cypriots to Turkish invasion of Cyprus (e.g. [115]), all of which are antithetical to "pro-Turkish activities". Sorry for this lengthy text and taking the reader's time. --GGT (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-GGT that is making another false accusation as usual, has being edit warring the article list of wars involving Cyprus since April, in cooperation with user Mikrobølgeovn that he has being edit warring the article for a whole year now, and he is also cooperates with user Alakzi in reverting edits of other users. This can be shown from their history. GGT in specific is very active in pushing pro-Turkish POV in the highest degree possible in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey. Anyone adding any NPOV version, is seeing his edits deleted, and then accused by them as nationalist and other false accusations, and then they cooperate in pushing him on edit warring, and reporting him to the administrators. This has being going on for a very long time now. You can see this from their history. They have even permanently blocked other users like this, and now they are pushing the highest degree of pro Turkish POV in the articles related, since no one seems to be editing them for the reasons above. Even on this GGT has asked the help of user Mikrobølgeovn, as it shows from the message left in his talk page.

Due to their actions several users adding NPOV versions have being blocked or stopped editing, and now only pro-Turkish users are editing, which has as a result the articles related to Cyprus and Tukrey to have been evolved to the highest degree of pro-Turkish POV possible.

I will give a few examples.

GGT and user Mikrobølgeovn are keep deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side in the article list of wars involving Cyprus for a whole year now and edit warring the article since then.

GGT is edit warring the article Cypriot inter communal violence since April, pushing a totally pro-Turkish POV version and deleting all the rest. User Mikrobølgeovn is helping him. The amount of POV can be seen from the article. For example in the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way and in the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.

GGT is the main one editor for many months now in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Anyone adding anything that he doesn't like, is seeing his edits deleted. The totally pro-Turkish POV nature of the article is obvious for this reason. For example in the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.

Those are just a few of examples on what user GGT is doing. A look in his history and someone can see much more POV pushing in much more articles and much more edit warring and cooperation in edit warring with other users, always in pushing the highest degree possible of pro-Turkish POV that they can, and stop anyone else for editing, using tactics from false accusations to the administrators, to what the rules of Wikipedia describe as meat puppetry.

Me from the other hand, it is fair to say that I have being adding only NPOV versions to the articles, adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner and adding what the people of the island have in common as it shows from my history. In addition I have discussed extensively, in the talk pages, and cooperate with other users like that, in adding NPOV versions, in the articles that I am editing, and left other edits after me unchanged. Ron1978 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Disputes involving the Balkan region tend to be polarizing here and do not easily get resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Are there discretionary sanctions that include Cyprus to be enforced, however? Never in my entire editing life here have I seen reference to any such decision concerning Cyprus and it is certainly not referred to in Talk:Cyprus or Talk:Northern Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:ARBMAC, with its associated sanctions, including blocks, is about the Balkans, broadly defined. Greek-Turkish animosity has stretched historically from Macedonia, to the Hellespont, to the currently Greek isles of Turkey, to Rhodes, and to Cyprus. Regards to all. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:NOTHERE editor making spiteful reverts on various articles

SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on multiple articles, namely Microsoft, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Saturn AL-41.

• On Microsoft, he has reverted edits by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs), and refuses to accept the talk page WP:CONSENSUS.
• On Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, after I warn him that he should adhere to the Manual of Style at WP:MOS-ZH, he replied that, quote, "I don't need to refer to anything."
• He is being a huge dick on my personal user talkpage. (Per WP:TALK, I have the right to remove comments from my talk page.)

I'd like to request an external third-party to resolve this issue, as they see fit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just reviewed SundayRequiem's edits, at the least, he needs a stern talking to by an admin. Benlisquare, I know you feel that you are the aggrieved party, but please try to be polite. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He certainly needs a talking to, but c'mon. Reverting warning templates on your talk page isn't being a "huge dick." It's being clueless. Let's not overhype this to be some manner of epic rampage. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "somewhat of an annoyance" would have been a better way for me to word my original line. It was a spur of the moment; my vocabulary tends to simplify when I'm hot-headed, you see. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, their edits in that Saturn article are troublesome. There's no edit summaries, so when Benlisquare says "rv unexplained removal" they have a valid point; this edit of theirs, claiming vandalism, was rightly reverted by BilCat, and the reference to 3R is dickish. Edits on Pakistani cuisine are reasonable except for that there also most edits are unexplained and they reverted a revert there as well. Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning sees the editor edit warring; they've now been reverted by three editors, including Nick Thorne. Comments on Talk:Microsoft are from a few days ago, but they are asinine. SundayRequiem, you're treading on dangerous ground here, combining of a lack of good faith, a refusal to communicate, disruption, personal attacks, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree, I just issued a final warning. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1[116] 2 [117]

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [118] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [119] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [120]

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [121], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [122], and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [123]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [124]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal The OP doesn't seem interested in pursuing this and the report is stale. I suggest we close this and move about our business.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So long as everyone involved in this thread is okay with dropping it and moving on with no action taken, I think that's fine and dandy :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not okay with me, speaking for myself. The thread may be stale because ArbCom didn't want to look at it, not because nobody felt it didn't need to be dealt with period. See statements above. This is an editor blocked for edit-warring six times [125] and with at least an additional other editor pissed off for every time he did attract enough admin attention to get blocked. This is a persistent and ongoing behavior. If some kind of penalty and suspended sentence with parole is issued, that will probably stop the problem. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the problem will continue as it has since 2011.

Perhaps I erred taking this to ArbCom. If I've erred in taking it to AN/I as well, then say so. If AN/I is not concerned with persistent edit warriors and disruption that makes WP a real pain to edit, then please say so here now formally. SBHarris 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you give diffs for the "ongoing" part? I think that's what's being asked above. Begoon ^talk 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are wiling to do the homework and present something to the community then this should be closed.--Adam in MO Talk 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Brand-new user Sanstalk NOTHERE, filing Gamergate-talkpage complaints across various noticeboards

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.

---

Sanstalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE; his sole edits have been to file silly, spurious, meritless, inappropriate, and grossly unwarranted complaints about random comments which have occurred on Talk:Gamergate controversy (a talk page) onto various noticeboards, including ANI and BLPN. He has been warned about persisting and has continued to do so anyway [126], [127]. Suggest an indef as disruptive-only and NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So if I see a glaring issue with an editor on Wikipedia I'm supposed to ignore it? Additionally, these last two edits you posted were me noting the specific policy you were violating in your justification, of which this appears to be a form of retaliation. I will add that your adverb-laced personal attacks is excessive and unnecessary, particularly given I have made two filings (both of which you have closed) about a problematic user.--Sanstalk (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I will also address the first sentence, which appears to deliberately misrepresent my actions: The claim that I have made "silly, spurious, meritless, inappropriate, and grossly unwarranted complaints about random comments on various noticeboards, including (emphasis mine) [two noticeboards]" is patently untrue. I have again, those are the only two posts I have made, the first of which was conflating "GamerGate" supporters repeatedly with "domestic terrorists" and the second which was noting that a disruptive user had made BLP violations against a small organization, which was within BLP policy for "small organizations".--Sanstalk (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So your Gamergate-related noticeboard filings, which are the sole extent of your contributions to Wikipedia, have been a form of hounding of MarkBernstein? Why are you targeting that user? This is additional evidence that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia, but are rather here only to stir up trouble and harass a specific user. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you how reporting problematic behavior and BLP violations equates to a form of harassment. I have not even contacted this user and you are making a serious accusation against me.--Sanstalk (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That the behavior is "problematic" is your conclusion, not some objective fact. Repeatedly reporting the user on multiple noticeboards without a very good reason can be considered harrasment, since it defames the user in question. The main complaint here is that you are WP:NOTHERE to help build the encyclopedia, but engage in disruptive behavior instead. Filing a BLP-complaint about this fits that bill. So far, i haven't seen any evidence that you are, in fact, here to help build the encyclopedia.

You could, of course, provide evidence to the contrary by simply contributing to the project, but that is your choice. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Sanstalk thought to be a sock? An AIV report wouldn't justify a block, let alone an indefinite block. If socking and vandalism are out, what justifies an indef here? Assuming an editor is NOTHERE is not a sufficient reason to block according to the blocking policy. That information page "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". It's like blocking someone solely for beating a dead horse (subject to personal opinion). Evidence of actual disruption is required to justify a block that will prevent damage. Admins using NOTHERE in their blocking rationales is accepted and will continue with increasing impunity; but the language of the blocking policy should trump NOTHERE every time. Doc talk 09:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned." (from the top of WP:HERE). User is not here to contribute; is here only to disrupt and to stalk/accuse one editor. Now that you mention it, may well in addition also be a sock of one of MarkBernstein's antagonists, blocked/banned or otherwise. Softlavender (talk)

I'm not sure what the procedure for this is, but I'm going to request a WP:Boomerang against Softlavender for accusing me of harassment and stalking against a user I have not contacted and refusing to substantiate these claims.--Sanstalk (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Socking is blockable. Disruptive editing is blockable. Being HERE or NOTHERE is open to interpretation. Now, it is certainly unusual for a brand new account to start out as this one did. Is there no viable candidate for a sockmaster? Doc talk 10:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Being NOTHERE is clearly blockable/bannable, as I've quoted, and this user has not made a single edit that demonstrates they are even the least bit here to build an encyclopedia (quite the contrary). If in addition someone wants to go puppeteer-hunting, that's another matter; MarkBernstein would probably be the best person to consult on that. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTHERE is just a really lazy way of justifying a block for disruption with less or even no actual proof. Someone is not here and should be blocked because they did what, exactly? One has to do something wrong in order to be blocked. In this case I believe the user to be a sock based on the evidence I see. NOTHERE is NOT policy. And I hope it never is. Doc talk 10:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned." (from the top of WP:HERE, emphasis mine). If you don't fully understand what NOTHERE means, read the entirety of that page, as well as WP:Enforcement, etc. You don't have to agree with that, but there it is. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Could possibly also throw this onto WP:AE or ArbCom members (individually or as a group), since as the user's edit history attests they are only here to stir up Gamergate trouble. Pinging GorillaWarfare for a possible opinion. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I would say Doc9871 is correct, you can't hang someone up purely for being "not here to build an encyclopedia", particularly in the early days of their Wikipedian life. Someone might register an account, then spend their first 1000 edits making their personal user page look cool and hip. You might deduce that such a person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but they shouldn't be subject to a block because they haven't broken any rules. And for all you know they may spend the following 10,000 edits writing articles about rocket science or something. Of course, the user under discussion here was rightly blocked for being a suspected sock, and it's good you brought it to people's attention, but they weren't blocked because of WP:NOTHERE. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were, Amakuru. "Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned." (from the top of WP:HERE, emphasis mine). Now please stop commenting on a closed thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because NOTHERE "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". It's a freaking essay. Blocking for WP:SOCK, which was the appropriate rationale, was not cheeky enough. Amateur hour here. Doc talk 11:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the block notice on User talk:Sanstalk, and also the edit summary. "Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned." (from the top of WP:HERE, emphasis mine). If you believe users are never blocked for NOTHERE, you are mistaken. If you don't like the fact that users are often blocked for NOTHERE, that's a personal dislike. WP:NOTHERE is an information page, but it is also a rationale for blocking in some cases; this is undeniable. Can we please move on now? This thread was closed a while ago. Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

Softlavender has claimed I am a stalker and harasser without any supporting evidence. Requesting a WP:Boomerang against the user for making these accusations.--Sanstalk (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your name is "Sanstalk". Stalking could not possibly be your motivation, right? Where's the SPI on this? Doc talk 10:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by NE Ent

• Sanstalk is a 25 edit [128] account whose focus appears to be MarkBerstein.NE Ent 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Filing at 4:48 am (Eastern US time) and talking arbcom at 6:05 am shows an unreasonable impatience, and getting in a back and forth with the other editor is counterproductive -- you want an admin to review it, and filling it with noise doesn't help.NE Ent 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yea, it would have been better at AE, but at this point waiting for an admin to respond here is less work.NE Ent 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yea, MarkBernstein is always going on and on about ... whatever it is he goes on about. Best ignored. NE Ent 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Removal of "cult" from numerous articles without consensus

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:Toppsud is removing "cult" - as in "cult film" and other variants - from a large number of articles without a consensus to do so. On Greaser's Palace, he continued to do so even after I had provided a reference from Rolling Stone for it being called a cult film. It's certainly possible that some of the usages are inappropriate, but it seems to me that he's removing every use of the word that he comes across, probably using the Search function. I've advised him to stop and seek a consensus for his edits with a centralized RfC, but he simply reverts my messages off his talk page. I've reverted his edits, but his now in the process of re-reverting them. Could an admin have a talk with him and reiterate that a consensus is needed for this kind of mass change? BMK (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notified. BMK (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This particular user seems to have a bee in his bonnet about value terms in the lede of articles. His earliest edits show very large numbers of removals of "award-winning", also with boilerplate edit summaries. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Need some help with a Florida IP

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 having a problem with block evasion from Florida IPs, most recently Special:Contributions/166.172.184.116. At the case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ridryman, a series of 166.172.1xx IPs were shown to be part of a sockpuppet pool, editing music articles. A few days ago I encountered Special:Contributions/166.172.185.120 which appeared to be connected, editing music articles in the same manner, and today I got a particularly nasty response from another such IP, as seen in the edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If this pops again, please ping me and I'll look into a range block. Mike V • Talk 19:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for now, and also in advance of the next time. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:CSD#F5 request: File:Wings for My Flight book cover.jpg

Resolved

The article Wings for My Flight is currently at GAN, and apparently, I had uploaded the wrong version of the book cover and didn't find out until the day the GA review started. I have since uploaded a new version of the file, but since the previous version of the file is now orphaned, it fails WP:NFCC and should be deleted per WP:F5. Normally, this is done by adding {{subst:orfurrev}} to the page and waiting seven days; however, one of the GA stipulations is to ensure that the orphaned revision is deleted. Could the orphaned revision be deleted right away? To clarify, I want the old, orphaned revision of the image deleted, not the current image. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mz7 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Wikipedia. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Wikipedia under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?

Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Wikipedia under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure I get it. You claim not to "have time to submit to OTRS," but you have time to make multiple posts to ANI? Ravenswing 11:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Great photographs! Some of my photos have also been tagged for deletion in this way, in the past. The people tagging your photos have no ill will against you, but are trying to protect Wikipedia. If you follow the OTRS procedures everything will be resolved. Good luck! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to garner an admin OTRS member, I've replied to the ticket, but my interpretation of the OTRS privacy agreement forbids me from naming the article or paid editor. Storkk (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Repeated personal insults

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please don't curse at or around Wikipedia editors (unless they really deserve it and you keep the frequency of cursing quite low). It's generally not necessary, nor will it help you prevail in a disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Scjessey has been violating WP:NPA repeatedly. Comments like Assholery [129], Don't be a dick. You could always EDIT the fucking thing, instead of just reverting it like a douchebag [130] and What the hell kind of bullshit was that? [131] seem wildly inappropriate. Going after people who report them by claiming You should be ashamed of yourself does not speak of great reflection either. It seems this user could benefit from a time-out to collect his cool. [132] Jeppiz (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That first comment was in direct response to this edit summary which uses the same profanity. The second comment was in response to a ludicrous 3RR report that (a) wasn't 3RR, and (b) added a load of completely unrelated stuff to the report - I don't see anything wrong with calling bullshit bullshit. Just like in the NFL, the ref is throwing a flag for the retaliation and not the instigation, but unlike the NFL we have a full record of the instigation for review. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Cooldown" blocks have their own shortcut in the blocking policy (unlike NOTHERE <cough>). Nothing "wildly inappropriate" that I can see. Yawn. Doc talk 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we are all experienced users here and know that personal attacks are not acceptable. While the diff Scjessey links to does indeed contain profanity it does not resort to insults. I have left a warning on Scjessey's page. While "cool down" block are generally not done Doc, we do block to prevent further personal attacks. HighInBC 13:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, assholery. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Translated article "Disputed"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Different language editions of Wikipedia are completely independent of one another and have no say in other wiki affairs other than their own. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I have translated into Russian Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War (slightly abridged) keeping in the translation the sources from the original article. The translated article was marked as {{Disputed}} by another Russian editor on the grounds that I cannot certify the sources myself.

My question is: Can the factual accuracy of an article be undisputed in one language and challenged in another? Please note that I translated the article pratically word to word using the Translate (GoogleTrans) tool (see also here)?. What is the general practice? — Сергей Олегович (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Different language wikis are completely independent of one another, so yes, what is accepted in one wiki may be challenged/disputed in another. (I should also add that Google Translate and similar tools don't come close to providing perfect translations; rather, they may give a general idea of what a translation would be, but only a human well-versed in both languages can produce a translation that would be widely accepted as accurate). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it can definitely be disputed or simply not well-sourced enough on this wiki even if another wiki seems to consider it okay. LjL (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.

@Ohnoitsjamie: You write: "Different language wikis are completely independent of one another". For my personal information would you please refer to the source of this statement. Note re the Google Translate: Being a professional translator I can certify the correctness of translation. The main question is the quality of the sources. I can imagine situation when indisputable sources in Russian project may be considered as disputable in English taking into consideration general dependance of Russian media from the government, but how it can be in the opposite direction? — Сергей Олегович (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no say in what goes on at Russian Wikipedia, and vice versa. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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

---

Should this and the two previous edits by the same user be revdel'd? RichardOSmith (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, all cleaned up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! RichardOSmith (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Diego Grez-Cañete

Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The last time this user's misbehavior was reported here (by Sietecolores) I didn't make my comments because I thought that I could fix our differences by talking, but that has been impossible. The user reverts every edit I made in his articles (because nobody owns them), and almost every time he made it without reasons or with very bad ones [133]/[134]. I've tried to discuss that reverts in his talk page, but he never concede nothing and even some times he has insulted me. Only a few examples: (a) he told me "Rascagua boy", a Spanish word play that combines my home town and "rasca", that means "vulgar" [135]; (b) he said "llore" ("cry" in Spanish), when I asked him to stop personal attacks against me [136]; (c) he called me "alharaco" ("crybaby" in Spanish) for asking him to stop the reverts [137]. Now he is accusing me of vandalism for putting the notability template in some articles of his hometown [138]; instead of adding "reliable, secondary sources about the topic", he reverted every single edition [139]/[140], falling in a avoidant vandalism criteria in my opinion. This is not the first time he faces requests of his kind, so maybe it is necessary to adopt stronger actions to stop his bad behavior. --Warko ^talk 04:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

*goes towards a corner and cries* (nope) Don't you have time to do anything else than ridiculizing all of my contributions to Wikipedia? --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Diego, I get the sense that you're genuinely trying to be humorous. The problem is that regular humor doesn't work through text unless one has a good grasp of the techniques. Instead, you are simply appearing as a jerk. There are better ways to discuss different viewpoints with users. Insulting other users, in any language, is also frowned upon, but based on prior AN/I experiences I assume this you already know. At this point it would be wise to apologize and conduct yourself in a more professional tone. Best of luck.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again [141].--Warko ^talk 23:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Warko's tagging for notability of El Maqui and Pueblo de Viudas was incorrect, and the revert (i.e. removing the tag) was justified, per WP:GEOLAND. Legally recognized inhabited places of any size are notable ipso facto, content may be discussed on the talk page, but a notability tag may not be appended. Diego's snarky remarks are borderline uncivil, so I recommend Diego to stay within the bounds of encyclopedic decorum, and Warko to get updated on Wikipedia's guidelines. In the meanwhile I suggest you get out of each other's hair. Thank you both. Kraxler (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: First of all, this discussion is about Diego's misbehavior, not about the articles I've nominated. You should discuss this topic in the talks of those articles, not here. But as you're bringing up this issue, I will explain my nominations. For your information, I nominated those articles after reading the notability guidelines. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). The criteria defended by Diego is that a junta de vecinos is a legal recognition of a place. Wrong. Juntas are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. Diego is now reverting old editions made by other users in this same issue without any discussion about it. [142]/[143] --Warko ^talk 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss merging or redirecting on the pertaining talk page, or nominate the places for deletion (if you think they do not qualify under GEOLAND), but do not append a notability tag to articles on inhabitated place. It's that simple. ANI is not a place to discuss content. I already told Diego to be more careful with his tongue. I think we're done here. Kraxler (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow your advice in the future. --Warko ^talk 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree the personal attacks have absolutely got to stop, and each editor needs to treat the other with respect and communicate clearly and fairly. Also, coincidentally Diego Grez-Cañete recently and bafflingly removed a fair-use image which had clear context for fair-use (even an entire subsection of the article concerning it) from Caitlyn Jenner, and seconds later nominated the image for deletion as "Unused". Since Floq is in retirement, I'm pinging Drmies who was the last admin to opine at the last ANI 3.5 weeks ago. Something seems rotten in the state of this editor's XfDs (and other behaviors as reported above: personal attacks, edit-warring over merge tags, false accusations/templates of vandalism, inappropriate final-level warnings). Warko: If you place a Merge tag, you must also place a merge tag on the target article and create a discussion on the target article's talk page, per WP:MERGEPROP. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

False claims of vandalism

WP:VANDALISM states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ", and further that "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." An editor has been following me around to multiple articles , repeatedly undoing my good faith edits, and labeling them as vandalism - see list below. Can someone have word with them and get them to stop? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• [144]
• [145] — Preceding unsigned comment added by When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• [149]
• [150]

This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of an old editor. Either way, the account's sole purpose here is to make Palestinians and Muslims look as awful as possible, and to remove and soften critical information about Israel. Wikipedia's tolerance for editors whose agendas are to denigrate whole groups of people is a wonder to behold.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a no tolerance for editors like you, who have been repeatedly blocked for harassment. Control yourself, and if you can't, go find another hobby. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has zero tolerance for WP:DUCKs. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for blatantly disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Dan Murphy made serious accusations without a single diff to support them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The diffs provided against Dan Murphy show reversions of disruptive editing on the part of the op. Not really much to elaborate on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? Putting a single dead link tag next to a dead link (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Having a content dispute about a header (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Removing information inserted by an ip that is not only ridiculously worded, but easily ascertained as false (referred to, again, as "vandalism")? Please be specific as to what exactly is disruptive here, because I'm not seeing it or at least not from the guy who got blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy has left wikipedia for long and should be given a very long rest. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm honored you follow my talk page, I don't have a shred of an idea what you're talking about. Doesn't seem like it's related to this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts reverts my edits for no reason other than personal beef.

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 getting sick of it, and I know that other users are too because he's done the same to them and they've written to me about it. He's always the first to complain so he gets his way. It's getting a little frustrating. I got a one week block last week for doing something that he's done countless times, but he complained about me doing it a couple times after learning it from him and BAM. Film Fan 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I've been reverting disruptive page moves from this user. He was blocked for a week for disruptive page moves. Within momements of coming off the block, he continues to start to move pages that really need to go through the WP:RM process. FF knows full well how to do the RM process, but seems to ignore these. For example this article was moved by FF, despite the title's name coming up for discussion on the talkpage of said article. He has a long block log for edit warring on film poster reverts and page moves without discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a bunch of uncontroversial moves and missed the convo about one of them (which, by the way seems to point toward the title I moved it to). The rest stands. There's no need to request moves (which I do regularly) for the uncontroversial ones. Do you have any excuse for your other reverts today and last week, other than what I've pointed out? The poster reverts in particular left me absolutely dumbfounded. Film Fan 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

They were far from uncontroversial. Have a look at WP:RM. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions, I see Film Fan has posted a couple of RM requests today since posting this complaint at ANI but I don't see any requests in the previous few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FF couldn't do that because he was blocked. For disruptive page moving. The same type he's continuing with after coming off the block. Boomerangs for FF. We're done here? Yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the OP. Film Fan 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am well familiar with WP:RM. Now back to your multitude of reverts - in particular the poster ones - what's the point? All you're doing is creating conversations that don't need to be had. Film Fan 19:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FilmFan, the facts are that you have a history of controversial page moves and have been blocked for it. If any move is contested, it MUST go through a WP:RM; and since you have a history of controversial page moves, all of your moves should indeed always go through WP:RM from now on. I recommend withdrawing this ANI complaint before you get hit with a WP:BOOMERANG of some sort. You've been blocked 11 times in three years, so the boomerang is likely to be either another indefinite block, a site ban, a topic ban, or a move/RM ban. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we can go straight there, given that FilmFan just came off a one week block for disruption and immediately started moving pages again. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a self-imposed move ban, and if that doesn't work, then take it up a step further (topic > site > indef) if needed. He's already had one indef block and "promised" not to return to the issues that lead to that in the first place... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that would be the least of the options. A self-imposed move and RM ban, if effective and observed, would help prove to the community that he is in fact WP:HERE, which I must confess is seriously in question after that incredible block log plus the behavior following the most recent block. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, when the QE2 docks in New York, they don't tie it up back in Great Britain. Just how much ROPE do we give someone? --John from Idegon (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Good God, it's too late at night here to figure out metaphors. If you are suggesting a site-ban (or at least a more-binding indefinite block) might be more appropriate, I tend to agree. Violating the reason for a block the first minute out of the gate, when added to 11 blocks (including an indef) in three years ... it all adds up to bye-bye. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And there's the continued edit warring over film posters that was the reason for the indef in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm saddened by the direction of this discussion. I volunteer a move ban if it allows me to continue making the valuable contributions to Wikipedia that I do make on a regular basis. I've only ever wanted to improve articles and I feel I've done that the vast majority of the time. I did come off a long block and changed my ways, and I guess gradually over time, I've sort of slipped back slightly towards old habits, but I have the goods and all I need is a wake-up call. Where you take it from here is up to you. By the way, Softlavender, I don't know how to withdraw a complaint, but if this message will suffice, consider it done. Film Fan 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editors on Talk:Carl Hewitt

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.

---

For some time, there have been issues with IP editors making edit requests on Talk:Carl Hewitt. Semiprotection for a few months would be helpful.

Background: Carl Hewitt had a long history with Wikipedia and is under an arbcom ban; the article Carl Hewitt has been semiprotected since 2013. IP editors, who might or might not be Hewitt or directed by Hewitt, make edit requests to the talk page and revert other editors when the requests are marked as complete [151] or are removed [152]. There is little other activity on the talk page, apart from needless arguments unrelated to improving the article. It would be better for the article and for reasons of WP:BLP for the talk page to be semiprotected for a while. If Dr. Hewitt wishes to give feedback on the biography, WP:OTRS is always available, and unlike the talk page the OTRS team can verify the source of comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I see some IP edits, but none appear directly problematic or against any policies (enough to warrant action). If you supporting evidence exists that suggest that any of the IPs or edits are of the banned user mentioned, an SPI should be opened. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The arbitration case includes an amendment [153] of large numbers of IP addresses (many from the west coast of the U.S.) used to proxy for Dr. Hewitt after his ban was enacted. It's not particularly useful to employ an SPI technique, since the IPs are usually disposable and only used for a day or two a piece (so blocking them doesn't help). The main disruption is the continuing edit requests, and the re-opening of them when they are closed. This is also a WP:BLP issue, as we have no way to tell who is actually using them, although the clear implication is that they are proxying for Dr. Hewitt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

made userbox, not find gallery place to host, help

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.

---

gallery not have section. if wrong to post complaint in ani, tell OP. AGFMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not an admin issue. Please visit one of the help desks or the teahouse. WP:help ; WP:teahouse -- Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa:pinging admins on specific issues in ANI allowed or rule violation?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Administrators are here to help you with specific issues that require administrative tools (blocking users, protecting articles, deleting content). Please use the help desks for general questions; that's where you'll find people experienced in helping users learn how to edit or navigate the site. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Gun-related article edits

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

---

I am requesting assistance regarding recent edits on the Gun law in the United States page. User:108.31.49.188(contribs) has been editing the article in ways which I believe are not of a neutral point of view. At this time, I am unable to further revert such changes, as I would then be breaking the three-revert rule. Per the most recent edit, the user has unnecessarily deleted a component of the article. The specific component has been deemed as a "judges sentiment" by the User, however this is the determination of the Supreme Court of the United States, and not simply a sentiment.

This user has failed to display a neutral point of view, specifically referring to gun and the United States, as also seen in their contributions. The User refuses to yield or make any compromise. An agenda is more than overt, and I am requesting some form of action to be taken. I have made efforts to uphold the neutrality of the articles edited by this User, but my ability to revert edits is limited. Thank you for your efforts.

-TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:YehudiGermany

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.

---

Could I have a few eyes on User:YehudiGermany and their edits, please. Would appear to be another sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shqipërisëtonluk. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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.

---

An increasingly angry block-evading IP (most recently User:185.13.106.90) has just told the good people at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist that they must "edit you comments or I report this to police who will find you". --McGeddon (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one week.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by user:GalaxyStar91 to my sandbox and to user:Oshwah`s copy - replacing text with "Trump for President"

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.

---

An odd thing happened just now. I'd just finished the first draft for an article I'd hoped to propose for creation, and when I tried to save it, got an "Edit Conflict" page. My text had been replaced by the string "Trump for President" by [user:GalaxyStar91]]. No user page exists for this user, and I noticed on the user's talk page that user:GalaxyStar91 has apparently vandalized user:Oshwah`s page as well. I left a message on user:GalaxyStar91`s page, explaining that my page had been vandalized and courteously asking that the vandalism incident not be repeated.

This is a request for an administrator to investigate the incident. It's troubling to me that someone apart from me can edit my sandbox (what else can this user edit?). I'll change my password, but apart from that, I'm not aware of anything else constructive I can do. loupgarous (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

loupgarous, you can't work on an article in the general Wikipedia sandbox which is for general experimentation for new editors. You need to use your own sandbox which I created at User:Vfrickey/Sandbox. The Wikipedia sandbox is continually deleted, refilled and content deleted again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vfrickey - As Liz pointed out, edits in the sandbox are fair game for anybody to made experimental changes and edits to; it's exactly what that page was designed for. Just use your own sandbox, and you'll be good to go. There is no action that's required by administrators here. I'm going to mark this as thread as resolved. Please feel free to remove if other concerns surface. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I thought I HAD done the edits on my own sandbox. I'd created one for the purpose. It explains how my edits had been replaced by the political announcement. Thanks for the catch, folks. loupgarous (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Duly apologized to user:GalaxyStar91 on User_talk:GalaxyStar91#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_sandbox_.28October_24.29 for the inadvertent false accusation. loupgarous (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Air Serbia

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.

---

95.180.59.35 (talk · contribs) keeps altering the article with unsourced changes. The page is under pending changes protection, but that does not seem to be influencing the IP behaviour. They even kept altering the article after a final warning was left at their talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jetstreamer. It doesn't appear that any action is needed at this time. If this IP continues to add unsourced content and edits disruptively, report the IP at the correct noticeboard so that an administrator can review and block if necessary. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it does. Pending changes followed the IP actions and they have been left a four level warning regarding the addition of unsourced content. Despite this, they kept pushing their preferred version of the article. This has to stop.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. Swarm ♠ 04:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:SundayRequiem

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.

---

SundayRequiem has been collecting warnings at a fast pace [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] (there are more), and has also been reported here before [159] [160]. He just left a really rude edit summary insulting a previous editor [161]. This is not the first time [162]. No one should have to read that. Something needs to be done. Darx9url (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Also see his reaction to a final warning regarding this behavior. clpo13_(talk) 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at Phoenix (mythology): [163] [164]. clpo13_(talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• He received a final warning in response to the last threads. His response to this warning was "go fuck yourself". He should have been blocked after that. He also replied "you can go fuck yourself" to a different warning after that. Then he calls someone a "fucking idiot" in an edit summary. He also created an article attacking administrators as 'the biggest vandals on Wikipedia'. This behavior is beyond the pale and if it continues I will be inclined to indef. For now, blocking for one week. Swarm ♠ 04:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Mahensingha misunderstanding/misusing rollback "rights"

This editor claims his credibility granted him "certain rights and privileges", including WP:Rollback, after admitting that they "not simply" broke WP:3RR, but used "a special administrative feature to revert consecutive edits" which, while they amounted to an edit war, did not constitute vandalism or anything contemplated as a valid use of rollback.

As they somewhat proudly proclaimed (see first link again), the user they were edit warring against is now blocked for WP:Sock puppetry used to edit war (not, however, for the reasons Mahensingha attacked them, namely a WP:COI without evidence), but that's really neither here nor there.

I think this user does not understand the proper use of rollback, or, for that matter, what having flags on Wikipedia means (certainly not "rights and privileges" in my book), and they should either be explained much better than I was able, or revoked those flags.

LjL (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ping @Nakon: who gave this user the rollback right. My personal opinion is that rollback is easy come and easy go. There does seems to be some argument in making it go in this case. I will wait for others to comment first though. HighInBC 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Mahensingha only rolled back the removal of maintenance templates at Bihari Rajputs. This seems to be within discretionary boundaries of policy. Are there other examples of misuse?- MrX 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The removal and reinstatement of those templates showed to be a contentious issue (particularly the bogus COI-related one, I'd say). Anyway, I'm just going by the fact that the editor himself stated: "It is not that I simply reverted 3 or even more edits of the user. I used my Rollbacker rights, a special administrative feature used against Vandalism to revert consecutive edits of that nature". I read this as saying they not only reverted more than 3 times, but they used rollback to do so. The feature is "used against vandalism", but they didn't use it against vandalism. In fact, I later removed the COI template myself because there were no grounds to keep it. I believe understanding what vandalism is is required. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that rollback is only to be used against clear vandalism and the placing and removal of ordinary maintenance templates and tags isn't vandalism. I don't know if this warrants taking away the rollbacker right but Mahensingha should better understand the proper use of rollback. And Nakon hasn't edited for a week so I'm not sure if or when they will reply to your ping. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Per WP:Rollback, the feature can be used

1. To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
2. To revert edits in your own user space
3. To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
4. To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
5. To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

BMK (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of us consider bulk removing maintenance templates in bad faith as vandalism. It is reasonable to use rollback when the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Mahensingha will need to defend his own use of rollback since this is obviously not an unambiguous case.- MrX 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think rollback was probably used inappropriately, but honestly, that's not my main reason for filing this report. What concerns me is this editor's apparent (stated) belief that flags such as rollback make them "superior" to other editors. I think it's deleterious for people who think like this to have such flags, until they understand what they really are about. LjL (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I again suspect here that the current reporting user is a sock puppet of the blocked user User talk:Burbak earlier name User talk:Suijai who has been consistently engaged in disruptive editing and using multiple accounts for accomplishment of the same tasks of taking complete ownership of the Article Bihari Rajputs. I request the eminent Admins and other experts to look into the matter more seriously, so as to discourage such anti wikipedian behaviours. It was not only me but other eminent wikipedians too observed the behaviour of the User:Burbak See here]. Please also refer to the detailed investigation of sockpuppet here. May be I am not able to effectively deal with this issue, but certainly such practices of the sock be controlled so that no one finds is so easy to do it here. It is needless to explain much, the eminent body is wise enough to find the fact. It is definitely an intentional report filed in response to what happened with User talk:Burbak and seems to be a sock for the same.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm totally a sockpuppet of Burbak (admin note: no, I'm not), feel free to start a sockpuppet investigation about me. LjL (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Then Please tell me that why have you filed this report after the result of the sockpuppet investigation of the said user. If you were so unsatisfied then you could have done it earlier in due time when after the incident you sided with the user who right after the release of his block started same for which he was blocked. I certainly suspect you under prevailing situation.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again regarding the words used what the LjL is reporting are not my words, as I simply reproduce it from the policy page where the process of Rollback is defined. I can't remember for how long I hold the Rollbacker Flag, but can the reporting user cite any other issue where I misused this feature. It is the proof that I whole heatedly abide by the policies. But, can he give a link that he has equally or a bit advised Burbak the other party reverting the page again and again imposing his ownership on the page. The reporting user claims here that he is just a 10 daysyears (corrected) old on wikipedia. Is it really so? All these and his sudden changed behaviour makes me think that he is intentionally doing this in response to the disciplinary action taken against the other party involved in disruption. --MahenSingha (Talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, no, sorry, my claim was that my user is 10 years old on Wikipedia, not days. I suggest you read more carefully. As to the rest, well, it seems inconsequential to the report here. LjL (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollback is just a button. Any editor can use Undo, or edit a previous version, to accomplish the same result. The other methods provide for an edit comment, and should be used in preference to a rollback if there's any question as to why the action was taken.

A COI issue was alleged at one point, but this doesn't look like a typical COI issue. The issue here seems to be edit warring at Bihari Rajputs which took place between October 11, 2015 and October 15, 2015.[165]. See [166] and [167]. This appears to be a slow edit war over a citation format template. The citations look OK; they're proper book citation templates, not bare links. The real motivation appears to be political/social; see User_talk:Mahensingha#Why cant you accept that Yadavs are sudras?. That's an ordinary content dispute. Argue on the article talk page over that, if you wish; that's normal on Wikipedia. Find sources and argue over them. Bring in other editors for advice. That's fine. That's how Wikipedia handles controversial issues. Petty edit warring over irrelevant issues gets you nowhere, takes up a lot of time as others have to figure out what's going on, and ends with editors blocked. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not my concern here to address any content issues (in fact, I originally reached that article as an uninvolved editor who noticed an incident). I am here to note that 1) rollback was misused 2) the misuser shows no understanding of that 3) they actually show an understanding that rollback is a "privilege".

Rollback may be similar to undo, but as noted above, it comes with certain very specific rules about its usage. I'm simply asking that these be acknowledged and respected by the user, which is in the scope of this noticeboard. LjL (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@ LjL, I hope you can notice the Admins involvement throughout the issue and you certainly must not ignore the sockpuppet investigation results for the other party involved. I have already told you that I corrected many citations on that page even before you did it recently, but the said user used to undo all such creative efforts since ages ago on the page. I was really interested in making the article more meaningful in a very positive spirit but the sense of user's ownership over the article did not allow me. He was involved in this behaviour even after the release of symbolic block.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Own is not WP:Vandalism (which would allow you to use rollback), and as John Nagle said, this report should not be concerned with the content dispute. It's about your interpretation and use of the rollbacker flag. LjL (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I never said that it was over the content dispute, neither I reverted to the content related edits. I think you must again refresh yourself thoroughly about the chronology of events involved in this issue and to the edits I reverted with due focus on the unlawful user behaviour of User:Burbak. I really feel uneasy to stress the issues time and again. There was nothing good which you still favour to such a length. Try to understand as I have personally requested you for number of times that please not to encourage the anti policy or unlawful user acts on the wikipedia. Rest I leave it up to you. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist website

• bfwa.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Administrators blacklist these websites www.bfwa.in and www.bfwa.in/ . a group of editors is spamming them in Bollywood movie pages. Someone even created a two templates of this new website. --The Avengers (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, this is best taken to the MediaWiki spam black list page and requested there. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at External link search, there are only 8 links to this website on Wikipedia pages and two of those links are in this message thread. Either all of the spam has been quickly removed or this is not that big of a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I had to remove many links from Bollywood Articles and file this SPI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rikki233752 . Not a big problem now, but if they are blacklisted, it would reduce some work as if a latest movie Shaandaar had the links, they will be added again. Someone should check whether i filed my report correctly here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. There are two sections, proposed additions and completed proposed addition. In the SPI i didn't report the IPs. You can't find the links as they were removed. I did plain search instead of the specific search that you did. How to do this external link search?The Avengers (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the spammy templates earlier. There's not much else to clean up, I don't think. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Who should do formal closures?

Sockfest of Asdisis. No such user (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I strange thing had happened recently. I opened a formal closure request and a totally random user had closed it. I naturally reopened it and it stood like that for a few days until yesterday when another editor had closed it with an explanation "already done". I pointed out to him that the closure was not done properly by a random user and he said: "Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". Then he made a mistake by thinking the closure was done by an admin. Both I and the editor who closed it initially had pointed out that mistake. Then the editor who had closed it had backed down from the whole discussion because, as he had put it: "it's not enriching my life and it's not improving the encyclopedia.". I again pointed out that said it needs to be properly closed, and that he had made a mistake. He said I can go to ANI. Here I am. My question here is. Can any random user go and close formal requests. I can also ask, what would happen if I were to close other formal requests. I would like for the request to be properly closed by an uninvolved admin. Links: Talk with the editor who closed the formal request. [168] Continuation on my talk page [169] If you would like to read the discussion for yourself, it is linked at the bottom of this second section. I will just write a brief description as objective I can since I was involved in the discussion. A RS was presented with a request to be included in the article. Another editor objected. Another editor closed the request pending consensus, and purposed an alternative edit. I accepted his suggestion. The editor who initially objected had changed his opinion and went to include the edit in the article. I asked of the person who closed the request pending consensus to close it since we reached a consensus with his alternative purposal. Then another editor had contacted the editor who had entered the edit to the article on his talk page with the following claims :"what is your problem, why are you introducing Croatian propaganda to the article". He reverted the edit and went on to post a source to validate his revert. The source is a youtube link on Serbian language. I asked him to provide a quote from the source on English. He didn't do that. I also can't see the content of the other source he presented, but it supposedly says something that I agree upon, and irrelevant to the edit request. The discussion then had stopped, and the already described chain of events had happened. Initial discussion [170] 141.136.228.115 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Reading over Wikipedia:Edit requests, it would appear that any editor can assess the consensus of an edit request discussion and make the requested edit or refuse to and close the request. Specifically, it states Responding editors may decline to make any edit, and are especially likely to reject edits that are controversial, violate Wikipedia policy, or do not have evidence of consensus. The only time that the closer needs to be an administrator is when the article is under full protection and editing is limited to admins. But being an admin is not a requirement for an ordinary edit request close. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC) We are speaking here of the formal closure request. Even if he had closed only the edit request we can hardly say it would be valid since he is not impartial which can be seen from his explanation. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I will rephrase my request. I would like for the formal closure request be dealt with an admin or any other well established editor who is impartial. This editor first had seen the discussion then he felt he disagrees then he closed it. That's hardly impartial. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Also, do I have to note again that the editor who eventually came to close the request had agreed it was closed improperly.141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) If a RFC is improperly closed, you can ask for a review of the close on WP:AN and say why you think the close was improper. But the reasons must not be that you disagreed with the close, or if the closer is an admin or not. Valid reasons are that the closer was involved, simply counted votes, or completely ignored consensus that is obvious. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Formal closure requests can't be closed by just anyone. Especially not in such a way this one was closed. If that can be done then I can freely go and close a few myself. I will just repeat what the other editor who came to close it in a proper way said:"Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". I really didn't think this will be such a big deal. Let someone experienced and impartial close it and let's be done with it. It's not so long. There is only 1 source and none that opposes it. You do realize in what position I'm put as an IP editor? The matter is very simple. I have a RS and I want to introduce it in the article. If someone disagrees, they are free to contest my source with their own sources , but as long it is uncontested I should be able to put it in the article. This case is also simple. A random editor came and closed the formal request because he doesn't agree with it and not because it is the consensus. Also how to build a consensus when there's only 1 source that supports only one side? I thought a RfC is not needed to include a RS in the article , but it's obviously needed, so I will consider to open one. Especially if this request is not closed properly by an impartial and relevant user.141.136.228.115 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) To repeat perfectly clearly what had happened since there is some misunderstanding. An user came and saw a discussion. He strongly opposed the suggestion. He did a "clever thing". Instead to join the discussion, find sources and participate into establishing a consensus he just closed it to meet his point of view. Well that would for sure be a nice way to "win" a discussion, wouldn't it? 141.136.228.115 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Q: When doing a formal closure, is it black tie or white tie and tails? I can never remember. BMK (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how formal, White tie is the most formal. :) But it doesnt say anything about Socks. AlbinoFerret 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, very, very good, AlbinoFerret, very good indeed. Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith removal of AFD discussion

EEng removed a poster's vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) and refuses to apologize for removing it. That's just not nice. I think a topic ban may be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.209 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Creating a new account for the sole purpose of closing an AFD while masking your prior identity, so other editors don't know your prior history at Wikipedia is not allowed. When you then LOG OUT of that account to do it again: [171] that's doubly wrong, and THEN when you use a new IP address to "report" the problem here, and then do the SAME problematic thing YET AGAIN, that's now a triply bad thing. When you're in a hole, stop digging my friend. --Jayron32 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for the boomerang, IP (and EEng needs to be banned from what topic, exactly?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a sock of the topic banned IP editor in the world's oldest people articles judging by the IP address. Block, close, move on. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweepy appeal

User:Sweepy wishes to appeal the block I placed on him but appears to be incapable of following the instructions, despite having them explained to him by another editor. SpinningSpark 18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a language problem here. Can someone explain to him on his talk page in German? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done (though I'm not a native speaker myself). I'm just unsure whether it'll benefit him... LjL (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I offered German before, but it was not taken up. Widefox; talk 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Had another go (native German), things should now be assumed to be as clear as possible language-wise; further intransigence may henceforth be safely attributed to other reasons.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence almost itself sounded German. LjL (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In proper Deutsch that would be further intransigence henceforth to other reasons may safely attributed be haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein. EEng (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sweepy has responded to the explanation in German by shouting in German that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Sweepy might consider that ENWP really isn't the place for them. The policies and guidelines here are probably more idiosyncratic than those at DEWP. Blackmane (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in re: editor Trackinfo on Caitlyn Jenner article (Result: )

• Request for Discretionary sanctions

• Editor

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

• Article

Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Warning

Diff to Discretionary Sanctions Alert (with "pa" parameter): [172]

• Latest edit

Diff to latest edit in violation: [173]

• Reported by

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments

What exactly is being reported here? Is Trackinfo subject to a 0RR sanction on articles relating to transgender issues? @Checkingfax:, you're going to have to do better than just vaguely report another editor with no request for administrator action. Are you asking for a block? warning? editing restriction? You should not expect admins to play a guessing game. Also, if you're asking for sanctions, which are covered by arbcom cases, against another editor you should go to WP:AE Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[[Caitlyn Jenner]] is a DS page, not an 0RR page. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the editing guideline we all work under:

The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline,[[MOS:IDENTITY]]. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion.

There is also a DS that takes it a step further. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment

Here is the violation basis:

Request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions;

Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From your diff, Trackinfo reverted reverted to a version where there was no gender pronoun, so I can't see how your "editing guideline" applies. Also, Trackinfo is correct that there is a discussion currently underway. A notification was posted here, talk:Caitlyn Jenner#MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? with discussions going on at WP:VPP#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals and WP:VPP#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

From the diff, Trackinfo changed [...]"Jenner married 'her'"[...], to: [...]"Jenner married"[...]. That is the pronoun removal. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Talk page boilerplate regarding pronouns

Because this article contains material about one or more [[trans women]], it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity, even if it is not a biography. According to [[MOS:IDENTITY]], such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed [[gender self-identification]]". This applies in references to any phase of her life. Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child). Finally, please note that this talk page is [[not a forum]]. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to [[WT:LGBT]] or, in the case of living trans women, to [[WP:BLPN]].

Your report is inconsistent. First you complain that Trackinfo is changing a feminine pronoun to a masculine pronoun. Then you point to a pronoun removal as the problem. So which is it? In any case, the discussion at WP:VPP will establish a policy to dictate this. IMO, this is a total non issue. Admins may disagree with my view. Rather than fill this thread up as a discussion between you and me, I'm going to step back and let others comment as I've made my stance clear. Blackmane (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting the pronoun removal ("her"). There is no inconsistency by me. It's right there in the diff I submitted above. We are supposed to leave pronouns in articles and not make transgender articles gender neutral by removing pronouns. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the phrase:

Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child).

Clearly 1) the pronoun was unnecessary. I wrote the original phrase without a pronoun. 2) Inserting the pronoun is thus deliberately forcing a clear WP:BLP violation on Chrystie Crownover. Is there a sourceable statement that she approves of wikipedia stating that she married a woman? Is there any question that a rational reader might get confused by this phrasing? Trackinfo (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Trackinfo: The aim is to avoid confusing the reader. The reader is what Wikipedia is written for. Since Jenner was publicly a male at that time, and it was not therefore a same-sex marriage (and could not have been legally as same-sex marriage was not even in the realm of possibility), the pronoun "she" should be avoided there, even if we need some other form of re-wording (such as "Jenner had been dating Chrystie Crownover, and married her after graduating from Graceland" or "Jenner dated Chrystie Crownover during high school, and married her after graduation"). Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy and style in this area is a subject of active discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals. The AP Stylebook and the American Society of Copy Editors are struggling with the issue.[174]. That last reference is worth a read. Until some consensus emerges, enforcing a specific decision in this area seems premature. John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note I referred to the active discussion in my edit notes. Since I wrote the original phrase, the other editor that I reverted is trying to force the (unnecessary) gender pronoun into the sentence in question. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I linked to 2 concurrent policy discussions on VPP that are going on now. Like I said before, even a liberal reading of the discretionary sanctions could result in an interpretation that led to sanctions against Trackinfo. Also, Checkingfax, you were inconsistent. You linked to a DS that instructed editors not to change feminine to masculine pronouns, which clearly Trackinfo was not doing. But when I pointed it out, you stated that you were reporting the pronoun removal, which in the context of the ongoing VPP discussions looks like a reasonable edit. I move that this thread be closed with no action. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- I was never inconsistent. Here is a snippet from the editnotices and Talk page notices:

...or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether...

A pronoun was removed, and it was not replaced by her proper name. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY doesn't say that, so please do not keep trying to enforce that, as it clearly doesn't work for someone who was married three times to three different women in heterosexual marriages, and who won numerous high-profile awards in men's sports. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Daisey

The revision history of "Mike Daisey" makes it clear that somebody using Mid-Maine Communications has a monomania about a single, never-sourced allegation related to the biographee. The article's on my watchlist because of earlier trouble within it three years ago, when the biographee was the subject of intense bloviating; since that time, the bloviators have found new obsessions, the froth has died down considerably, and I infer that the article is no longer on many admins' watchlists. Since Mid-Maine Communications Person seems to obtain new IP numbers fairly easily and there are few constructive contributions by other IPs, my personal inclination is just to S-protect the article for half a year. Shall we do that? (If the decision is no we shouldn't, I'd ask more admins to put this article on their watchlists.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: Looks like the article was put under pending changes protection for six months just today. I'll keep this on my watch list, but I suspect the combined efforts of reviewers and admins will be able to address any issues stemming from this particular editing behavior. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Though I am not an administrator, I put this article on my watch list, and will keep an eye on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yes, pending changes protection was an excellent idea. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-time disruption and refusal to WP:HEAR

• Apokrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology. The account removes the classification of scientology as a cult in France [175], [176], [177]. Under WP:AGF, I supplied the source, the actual parliamentary report [178]. That didn't help, Apokrif just kept deleting, and deleted the source as well [179], before changing strategy and starting to add the weasel word "some authorities" (obvious nonsense and WP:OR, France does not have alternative authorities) [180], [181], [182], [183], [184].
As an admin already put in on talk, At least one of the arguments that editor has used, to the effect that a parliamentary report is not a sufficient declaration to declare whether a group is counted as a cult, as per here, unusual at best. [185]. At least three users have told Apokrif to stop, but the user refuses to WP:HEAR and just goes on. After the last round, I told the user it would move to ANI if the disruptions continued, but I see it did not help and Apokrif just continued. It's obvious this user is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and won't be bothered by a complete consensus against them. As discussing with the user does not help, I take it here. Jeppiz (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a former admin, not a current admin. But I believe that if you think that the matter rises to the level of disruptive editing as per WP:DE, it would probably be best to raise the matter at WP:AE. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology." That's wrong, as can be seen in the article history. I gave several sources which help to put into perspective the parliamentary report, and frankly I wonder if Jeppiz or other contributors even bothered to read them. Apokrif (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Scientology as a topic under sanctions? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"the parliamentary report has little or no parliamentary value" That claim by Apokrif says it all about this user. And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif, just links to other Wikipedia pages. In other words, Apokrif disputes using a parliamentary report and disputes using articles in leading French media if they contradict Apokrif's POV, but the user is happy using Wikipedia-links as sources if they conform to their POV. It is obvious that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If I wrote this (several edits and edit conflict in this section), I was actually meaning "no legal value", as explained in a source I quoted in the talk page (which I suggest you read before going any further). "France does not have alternative authorities" I'm not sure I get your point, did you read this? Apokrif (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

" And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif" Did you refresh you browser (e.g. with the F5 key)? I gave links to a circulaire, a minister's answer to the National Assembly, and a book, here. Apokrif (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"just links to other Wikipedia pages" Did you read them? They explain (minus some links) all that is needed to know on this topic (an argument and a source are two different things). Also, we should favor reliable sources, like this PhD dissertation, rather than "leading media" which not always know what they're talking about. Do you have anything to say (you never did, although I explicitly asked you) to dispute the use of this source or of the other sources I cited? Btw, which "leading French media" are you referring to? Is is this Nouvel Obs paper, which only says " En France, il a été classé comme "secte", dans un rapport parlementaire de 1995, jamais actualisé depuis" and so gives us not much more than the report itself? Thats' another question I already asked without getting any answer, so if you have anything to add to the debate, why don't you do it in the relevant place (the article Talk page)? Apokrif (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the article, the topic is your behavior. The fact of the matter is that

*(at least) three different users have reverted your edits, so you know the consensus is against you.

*Even more users have disagreed with you on the talk page.

You're edit warring and disrupting a sensitive article, it has gone on for much more than a week, and you refuse to acknowledge that the consensus is against you, you just continue to ignore other opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"you just continue to ignore other opinions" Wrong: I discussed them here and in other places (but perhaps you have a page refresh problem, did you try F5 as suggested above?). Could you please answer my relevant questions above and, so as not to obscure the debate, remove the inaccuracies (like "tries to soften criticism") you wrote? Apokrif (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Apokrif to the discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, that is helpful but it does not appear to have helped. We've already tried to explain WP policies to Apokrif, I only took it hear after the refusal to HEAR said policies became apparent. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then once again I think WP:AE might be the place to go. AE also has the advantage of having any sanctions it implements be basically irreversible, and it also in general gets a few more views than individual ANI threads, as there are much fewer threads there and the matters brought there tend to be more straightforward than a lot of ANI threads. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Did you ever consider that reading my answers and the sources I cite, and answering my questions, might be more constructive than repeating the same inaccuracies again and again? I'm afraid your display or reading problem is still not fixed. Apokrif (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Vettelisthebest

This user was previously blocked for sockpuppetry that he made to revert my edits and avoid 3RR. Now he started edit war, to restore insignificant parts of the table in the 2015 Blancpain Endurance Series season article. The article is already more than the recommended 100kb, so I didn't see any reason to keep his version of the table. As you can see, he still spits on 3RR. [186] [187], [188] Corvus tristis (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and it doesn't look like any discussion has happened yet on Talk:2015 Blancpain Endurance Series season. It looks like you are both verging on an edit war so, in the spirit of WP:BRD, it's time to discuss the matter right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We had a disscusion on my talk page, but then he suddenly stopped the disscussion and removed it [189]. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Persistent and belligerent copyright violation

User Haken arizona has, over a period of many months, introduced large chunks of copyright protected material into a number of motor racing-related articles. Until challenged, these edits were simple, blatant copy-paste additions from reputable online sources, such as the New York Times, Motor Sport, and others. Those that I have found so far are:

• Watkins Glen International (diff) - copyvio from Motor Sport
• Juan Pablo Montoya (diff) - copyvio from ESPN
• 1984 Italian Grand Prix (diff) - copyvio from Ayrton Senna Foundation
• Phoenix street circuit (diff) - copyvio from New York Times
• Korean Grand Prix (diff) - copyvio from Sky Sports

Having identified that there was a problem with Haken arizona's editing behaviour I placed the standard warning on their talk page regarding copyright. Their copyright violation addition to the 1984 Italian Grand Prix article, identified above, was made subsequent to this, so I placed a more strongly worded warning to get their attention (although I realise that I inadvertantly misidentified the article). At first, they flat out denied having simply copied sources, but then moderated their tone to suggest that they were quoting sources rather than copying them, and then asked for assistance to avoid repeating the error. This I provided. I thought we were getting somewhere. They then attempted to rework some of their additions to the Phoenix street circuit article, but these still included exceptionally close paraphrasing of the original source. For example:

• Haken arizona: "City of Phoenix decided in 1987 to hold a Formula 1 race to get global exposure and encourage economic development in the area."
• New York Times: "...the city decided three years ago to hold a race to get exposure and encourage economic development in the area. "

and

• Haken arizona: "The suggestion came from Howard Pynn, a Scottsdale businessman and Formula 1 fan."
• New York Times: "The suggestion came from Howard Pynn, a Scottsdale businessman and race fan."

and

• Haken arizona: "On January 13, 1989, the Phoenix City Council approved a five-year contract with Jack Long and Bernie Ecclestone, F1's commercial rights holder, to promote and run the race."
• New York Times: "On Jan. 13, the Phoenix City Council approved a five-year contract with Long to promote and run the race..."

On the basis of this, I reverted the additions, and in the edit summary included a link to WP:PARAPHRASE to expand on my explanation of why I had done so and to provide information. Haken arizona did not like this and reverted my removal, in the course of which their edit summary reverted to flat out denials of ever having used the New York Times at all, and accused me of being on a "power trip". Could somebody else please take a look at this and decide what to do? Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than chase around after people who either can't get their head around simple copyright regulations, or are not willing to educate themselves when provided with the appropriate information. Thanks! Pyrope 19:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work monitoring this user. I have fixed his content on Phoenix street circuit from the NY Times at least. I couldn't find the other source articles as he did not offer any links. I've given him a final warning for copy vio and will monitor. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, when they realize it isn't just me being an arse they may take time to learn. Who knows. By the way, the other sources are hotlinked above, direct to the source article. Pyrope 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize about this. I won't make the same mistake again. I did made edits to use only my words but member Pyrope thought that was not enough without giving me any explanation or at least editing the article himself, all he did is erased my work and told me "try again". I asked for him to give examples which he did wrote here on this page. (talk) Diannaa Thanks for fixing Phoenix street circuit article and not reverting to old skeleton description. Haken arizona (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Haken arizona: You can see by my example on Phoenix street circuit how thoroughly the prose has to be reworked to no longer be a copyright violation. As a rule of thumb it's best not to have three words in a row that are identical to your source material. Also, in the future, if you could please provide a link to your source material that would be really helpful. I was unable to locate your sources "New site for grand prix race,Observer Reporter Washington, associated press June 4th 1989" and "The Phoenix New Times, The Less Than Grand Prix by Tom Fitzpatrick Wednesday, 10 May 1989" and a link to where the material can be found online would solve that problem. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a range block

As the title says I want to request a range block for a series of 175.157.xx.xxx as they've been used for continuous vandalism.

• Special:Contributions/175.157.28.20
• Special:Contributions/175.157.40.117
• Special:Contributions/175.157.40.241
• Special:Contributions/175.157.47.125
• Special:Contributions/175.157.33.203
• Special:Contributions/175.157.33.72

All of these IPs have been used to vandalize Sheshadre Priyasad and Dinakshie Priyasad continuously. Both articles have been protected multiple times as a precaution. However, the vandal is so desperate that he returned to vandalize the pages right after the protections has expired. -- Chamith (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the articles for a month (one is being PRODed by someone else). Rangeblock isn't the way to go here. Most of those that you have listed have gone stale and only one is active.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on time travel in fiction by multiple connected IPs

The article Time travel in fiction is constantly being vandalized by different IP which I think are connected because they have almost no editing history except for blanking out content from the article without explanation.[190]. I request the IP range be blocked and the article protected for now.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me. If you check the article's history, the IP editor has used an edit summary several times. Although he has blanked an entire section, it was with the explanation that it's an unsourced example farm. The citations removed were labeled unreliable. It looks to me like this IP editor is making a good-faith attempt to clean up the article, though his efforts have apparently not been well-received. I see a few reverts from various editors, so maybe you might try starting a discussion on the talk page to see if you can come to a consensus. There hasn't been a post there in over 3.5 years. Personally, I think the IP editor has a point about the unreliable sources and example farm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP mass attack?

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

---

• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:29F7:D2D0:E953:E8A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:F12D:34:D335:1BFF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:E5AD:390C:DB39:DDB4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Got mobbed by a bunch of IPs that have been vandalizing after I blocked one of them. I had to protect my user and user talk to prevent further attacks. Any info on them? They seem to be the same person. bibliomaniac15 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some others:

• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:54DA:31DE:216D:59A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:304:CDC0:D470:381C:85BB:C52F:7187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

bibliomaniac15 07:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at their edits yet, but the IPs listed all appear to be within a range. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect these boards, please. Now. Doc talk 07:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

See this. Looks like a rangetroll :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected these boards for a short time. bibliomaniac15 08:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Softlavender being disruptive and removing talk she doesn't like

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

---

This user is removing editorial questions regarding the article about Catlyn Jenner. Also, 3rd revert. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

She's being reasonable, and you are not. This is the talk page note in question: [191]. Here is useful information regarding how we deal with gender identity in articles -- Samir 07:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"not hypotheticals designed to irritate people. PeterTheFourth (talk)" I mean... is Wikipedia the place to censor? Is it suppose to be a "safe space" for people who have a tendency to get "triggered"? It shouldn't be Wikipedias job to shield overly sensitive people, come on now. Jørgen88 (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Punchy questions are often good, but should be addressed in the appropriate area. The issue you raise is regarding the manual of style and how transgendered individuals should be referenced in articles. There actually is a relevant discussion to your concerns here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals. I would suggest participation in that discussion as opposed to the talk page of one article. There is no administrative action required here -- Samir 07:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG alert: OP is a sockpuppet with 500 edits who is posting transphobic trollisms on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. He was blocked for three weeks in July for sockpuppeting and block evasion. His userpage Jørgen88 declares he is a frequent editor on the Norwegian Wikipedia but he has never edited on the Norwegian Wikipedia: [192]. This is an obvious sockpuppet-master of the MarkBernstein-stalking Sanstalk, given the post a few minutes ago on my talk page disparaging MarkBernstein: [193]. Paging JzG. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • He's being disruptive but he's not the sockpuppet you think that he is -- at least by my view of the contributions, which extend back six years, most of them being quite reasonable, aside from the edits to Adam Kotsko from 3 months ago. I might be wrong, so please go to WP:SPI if you want to investigate further. He's been directed to the appropriate MOS discussion page, the warning on your talk page has been reverted, so no other action is required now, unless he does something else egregious. -- Samir 07:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Samir, please do not continue to close an ongoing discussion. You may advocate for the user, but don't close down the discussion. He's trolling, edit-warring, and socking (he is already a proven sock). Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No proof has been given in that incident, someone decided to use WP:Duck on me to stop me from adding sourced content. And if you feel users who you don't agree with are all trolls, you'll have a hard time working together with the community. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jørgen88, drop it now. The appropriate issue is WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are not for your irrelevant speculation about how the article could be worded. I don't care about the socking allegations, your discussion is not relevant for that talk page and anything to further engage the issue will result in a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC) {{archive bottom}

I've dropped a long time ago. And about the baseless sock allegations, I completely agree with you: I Don't Care Anymore. Jørgen88 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Sock with a grudge making personal attacks.

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

---

Trolling IP is probably a problematic editor that Acroterion, Binksternet and DrKay dealt with. See here and here. GAB^Hello! 16:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User Ans2015kivanc

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 Ans2015kivanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in excessive edit warring and continues to do so after being warned by an admin. He reverted edits in the article Ganja, Azerbaijan 5 times in 24 hours:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

In total he reverted the same edits 17 times since October 9. Thank you for your attention. --vacio 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AN3 Argyriou (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to that page. Thank you. --vacio 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Karah kenze

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.

---

Karah kenze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone should take a close look at the contributions of this brand-spanking new editor (October 17), who is editing very aggressively, removing large chunks of articles with no discussion on article talk pages, and edit warring when reverted. BMK (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Notified. BMK (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I have an edit warring report filed about them (although I copied it from another user who had decided to withdraw it). LjL (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw, but filed this anyway because the issue is more general than that one specific case. Some of their edit summaries ("...you peace [sic] of crap", "Leave it alone you moron") leave something to be desired as well. BMK (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I must note, though, that in the one where they called you a "BULLY", you had actually restored (broken) content that they were the one creating and then deleting. LjL (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed that, I believe, by restoring to the Last Good Version.

Also to be noted: they immediately blank their talk page after every post, so it's difficult to see that they've received about a dozen warnings about their editing (two of them from ClueBot) and have done nothing to change their behavior. BMK (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC) BMK (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Another data point, reported by clpo13: Kk to an IP editor at this edit:

Hi the way you are editing Jay Ward Productions is Wrong if you keep this crap up I will kick you from editing understand19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Karah kenze (talk)

Kk claims in other edit summaries to be an "expert" on Jay Ward Productions,[194] having talked to Bill Scott before his death,[195] so everything Kk does is correct, and everyone else is wrong. BMK (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor is clearly disruptive, hides that under a pretence of "not understanding" how things on Wikipedia works (see User talk:Hermionedidallthework), but the intent becomes obvious with the repeated blanking of their own talk page (did it again just now). LjL (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Iloveyoooou looks like a sockpuppet of our friend, based on being an WP:SPA who only edited some of the same articles with the same edit summaries, and this hint. LjL (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Very disruptive editor by thier contribs, and looks like socking to. AlbinoFerret 23:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI about them. I didn't ask for CheckUser since it says it's rarely needed. I don't know, I haven't filed an SPI before. LjL (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be a meatpuppet based on this edit summary. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The spelling and grammar are similar though, based on the very convincing denial they promptly left on my talk page. LjL (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

They're claiming they're "trying to fix" articles "unlike Karah kenze" but what they actually did was restoring User:Karah kenze's edits after my revert. LjL (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Amazing to you is them as well: same articles [196], smae tone in the edit summaries ("this version is correct", "i left a message in your talkpage stupid"}. They were blocked on 15 October for 48 hours by NeilN, so I'm going to put a pointer to this discussion on their talkpage, and add Amazing to you to the SPI. BMK (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Lord Jelbyhat speedy 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.

---

Lord Jelbyhat (talk · contribs)

Per this discussion, another anagram of The Jolly Bard has started editing within days of the previous block on the same articles as Rothly Bladje and The Jolly Bard. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Checkuser note:  Confirmed to Rothly Bladje. Mike V • Talk 01:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User Jss199

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.

---

Jss199 (talk · contribs) has made 173 edits since February 2014. I think he intends for some of his edits to be constructive, but he has a pattern of making unconstructive edits even after he has been warned. Some examples: removal of citations, removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content, introducing deliberate factual errors. He has received a number of warnings from several editors. He never responds to a warning or request for explanation or discusses on an article talk page or user talk page. He marks all of his edits as minor, including removal of entire paragraphs and other significant content changes, even after being asked not to do so numerous times. He rarely leaves an edit summary. Perhaps someone here will be more successful in getting him to communicate. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Following up: Jss199 was notified about this report as soon as it was posted. He continues adding unsourced content and marking all edits as minor. His pattern is to make no edits for days or weeks after a warning, then resume his usual behavior. Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [197] and [198]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [199]).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [200]. The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [201] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

“ A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. ”

Moreover, Dentren's diff ([202]) shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor ([203]). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership ([204],[205],[206]), POV-editing ([207],[208],[209],[210],[211]), inappropriate use of sources ([212],[213],[214]), and edit warring ([215]). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page ([216],), preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area [217]).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Wikipedia has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Wikipedia? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use [[WP:DISPUTE] Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. EdJohnston best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that "[it] has been in dispute for seven years" and that "[it] has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" ([218]). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | ^Talk 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Keysanger's English writing abilities have been called into question in these incidents. I not only don't see any big issue with their English here, but find the concept that they should be sanctioned also based on a perceived lack of grammar extremely worrying. If their edits contain English mistakes, correct them. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Agree wholeheartedly, that isn't a reason for sanction. The continued battlefield mentality and refusal to drop the stick on the other hand is. WCM_email 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree as well. It was insensitive, and so I have removed it. Thank you for the comment LjL. As WCM indicates, there are other more serious behavior-based concerns here.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- Insensitive matters little when competence is required WP:CIR. Weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban. A few minor errors wouldn't be justification however.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CIR is just an essay - neither a guideline nor a policy - and stating that "weak competence in English can be a justification for a ban" is outright ridiculous. LjL (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is just an essay. This is not a meaningful point. If a weak competence in English rises to a level of disruption it is a justification for a ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per above reasonings. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. What's needed here is an interaction ban. Both are at fault here, certainly, but Marshal's been topic-banned from this area before. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysangers comment

Who are the commentators of this accusation?

• MarshalN20 is an involved editor
• Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
• Dentren is an involved editor
• Cambalachero is an involved editor

Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

Because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

What about my contribution to Wikipedia?

Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

• MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
• Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
• etc, etc

If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Wikipedia.

What can we learn from this "discussion"?

Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No Keysanger, I am not involved, I've never edited the article and my only involvement in talk was to act as a mediator. Which I remind you was at your request [219]. The only reason I commented was because of your inability to drop the stick. You really do need to disengage here. WCM_email 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is all also completely irrelevant. So what would be my question? So what if Marshaln20 was banned? So What? He's also been unbanned I notice. So what about what ever petty issue you've mentioned. What about your own Ownership issues? What about your own edit-warring? Even if they were some how involved how is this even remotely important? What about your own battleground behavior? Have you no answer for the charges(for lack of better term) that they have made?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Serialjoepsycho:

MarshalN20 was banned of all articles about Latin America history, hence, he wasn't allowed to edit the article, so, it wasn't my "ownership" the cause of the prohibition, but his battleground mentality as is indicated in the ban!. Dentren's contributions were rebuked by the volunteers of the Third Opinion team, Darkness shines was blocked because of sockpuppetry, and Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a {{Spa}}. So, I ask you: why do they accuse me of "ownership"?.

It is not remotely important, it is very important to judge independent, neutral and objective. You can't expect neutrality from a person that has an interest to get a goal from the discussion. This is the reason why there are a independent judiciary power in a republican system and also in Britain. Can you imagine that some one accuses you of murder and he call also the jurywomen and jurymen?. Would you accept it?. I can't accept it.

Do you want to now how it works: You accuse someone, get some votes from friends and as another says the libel is ridiculous you change the accusation ([220]), so you keep the old votes and get new ones.

Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Marshaln20 is no longer banned from this topic area. This is not relevant. There's nothing to suggest that they are accusing you of ownership because they were banned. This also isn't a court of law. The votes aren't votes. Consensus is not a vote. If you get banned there will be a strong policy basis for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that MarshalN20 had been topic banned because of a discussion about Juan Manuel de Rosas. An Argentine ruler, half a century before the War of the pacific, and with no links at all to that topic, besides the broad thing of taking place in the same continent at some point in the past. Now that his topic ban has been lifted, it is completely irrelevant to raise that point here for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Actually specifically notes that mention of past sanctions, when the reason for them no longer exists is of itself uncivil. Which is immaterial in any respect as the topic ban was not imposed for incivility. WCM_email 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm confused as to why or how espionage and terrorism got included into this discussion ("they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist"). So strange. I hope this matter can finally be resolved by the community; the problem would only be prolonged if it got archived without a solution.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentrens comment

I interpret the issues brought up here as evidence of Wikipedias grave problems. Editors are stuck in perpetual conflicts, some of them frozen, some of them re-activated. We seriously need to consider whether we will be able to solve problems being around here for over five years, when he haven't done so so far. Nothing Keysanger says makes me believe he will change his intransigence on putting forwards his particular view of Chile's role in the War of the Pacific. These prospects can easily be shaped into a pessimistic view on Wikipedias future: Aging editors locked on old disputes, biting and playing power-cards on newcomers. I seriously wish we had some new faces in the War of the Pacific and that we older editors move on to new topics so that we do not become temple guardians. Dentren | ^Talk 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You get nothing when you change an editor and put another one. You have to improve the quality of the contributions and the best way, until now, is the consensus. You tagged the article, delivered a rationale that was rebuked by the Third Opinion volunteers. That are the facts. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality, there no such thing as consensus in the articles where Keysanger has proposed himself to defend a the state of Chile against information that puts the country as a "bad boy" in his eyes. Examples: War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile#Saltpetre Republic (1873–1914). Sietecolores (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Three alternate noncontradictory proposals

I had been hoping to stay out of this mess, having visited it at the third opinion noticeboard and seeing that the real problem is that User:Keysanger and User:Dentren shouldn't be allowed to edit the same article. The War of the Pacific was at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the issues got to the point where the volunteer moderator tried to refer it to formal mediation. It passed the conditions for formal mediation, but, in the northern summer, was unable to get a volunteer mediator in a timely manner and so was declined. This dispute is continuing to drag on. Maybe the ArbCom should have put nineteenth-century Latin American history under discretionary sanctions, but that is in the past. Now Keysanger has posted to my talk page to ask me to talk to Dentren: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=686944857&oldid=686536914 Dentren persists in putting tags on the article. I couldn't understand the dispute at Third Opinion, but another volunteer did answer, and said that using the framework of one historian to compare the views of other historians is not original research, but Dentren thinks that it is.

I suggest that any of the following actions be taken:

First, topic-ban both User:Keysanger and User:Dentren from War of the Pacific. Interaction bans don't work well, and their antagonism for each other is making the article toxic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Second, request the re-opening of formal mediation for War of the Pacific. The topic-ban will be specific to the article and its talk page, and will not preclude formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Third, as a last resort, put War of the Pacific under community general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with two, formal mediation, and maybe one, a ban from the article and the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban for Keysanger & General Sanctions for War of the Pacific. Oppose topic-ban for Dentren.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rationale for my decision

I disagree with laying any blame on Dentren. He is right that Keysanger is using sources incorrectly. For example, in the "Cause of the War" section, the text reads as follows: “ US historian Fredrick B. Pike calls this allegation "absurd"[35]:33 ([221]) ” The problem with this is that (A) Pike is writing in 1963 and, therefore, (B) We can't claim that Pike is criticizing sources from 1992 (Salazar & Pinto) and 2002 (Salazar). It simply doesn't make sense. I do, however, think that Dentren's claim that this is original research is wrong; he is confusing OR with misuse of sources. We must also consider the level of accuracy of Keysanger's historiographic analysis. Keysanger is openly against the idea that Chile's motives for the conflict were economic ([222],[223]). Nonetheless, in Encyclopedia Britannica we find: “ War of the Pacific, Spanish Guerra del Pacífico, (1879–83), conflict involving Chile, Bolivia, and Peru, which resulted in Chilean annexation of valuable disputed territory on the Pacific coast. [...] The territory contained valuable mineral resources, particularly sodium nitrate. [...] National borders in the region had never been definitively established; the two countries negotiated a treaty that recognized the 24th parallel as their boundary and that gave Chile the right to share the export taxes on the mineral resources of Bolivia’s territory between the 23rd and 24th parallels. But Bolivia subsequently became dissatisfied at having to share its taxes with Chile and feared Chilean seizure of its coastal region where Chilean interests already controlled the mining industry.([224]) ” Hence, as I explained to Neil, economics was a major foundation for the conflict. Even Pike writes that Chile "had been irresistibly tempted by neighboring territories." To sum things up: Keysanger's edits reflect a point of view that is against the mainstream. Dentren is right, but he has not been clear on his points. The best solution to this problem is, therefore, to focus on Keysanger's behavior. The best tools available are either the article ban or the topic ban.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see War of the Pacific under community general sanctions as a minimum, mainly to give admins the tools to nip disruption in the bud. The War of the Pacific continues to have an impact on regional tensions to this day and there are nationalists in Peru, Bolivia and Chile that perpetuate a conflict as intractable as other problems that have plagued wikipedia such as the politics of Northern Ireland and the Troubles.

Part of the root of the matter is that we've seen Dentren explain himself poorly, what he insisted was WP:OR was in fact a misuse of sources to infer a conclusion that simply could not made by the original author as his work predated the material it was used to criticise by some 50 years. It would be helpful for the article if Dentren were to take a break for a while to allow new opinion, I would prefer that to be a voluntary break by Dentren for a period of say 3 months? Dentren has edited in a toxic atmosphere and I believe a break from the issues may help him achieve a new perspective. Please note in suggesting a voluntary break I am not inferring any wrongdoing on his behalf, merely noting that a break from such an atmosphere would be beneficial.

Wikipedia is supposed to give a neutral POV and whilst all editors have their own POV, it should not lead to conflict with the consensus building process. After observing the pattern of behaviour on that article, I have to conclude that Keysanger has been unable to disassociate his own personal views and his intransigence has meant the article has stagnated for years. I have seen Keysanger produce good content and I would not wish to see him under permanent sanctions. I would also ugre that he take voluntary break for a similar period.

If these editors cannot agree to a voluntary break, then I would have to suggest that the community consider enforcing one.

Finally noting my comment about the intractable nature of the conflict, I strongly support the call for formal mediation on this article. WCM_email 21:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Doesn't really look like much is going on at that article other than the issues with Dentren and Keysanger. Doesn't really seem to be a reason to impose community sanctions. Banning these to from here or putting them both under these community sanctiosn when working on this article would seem to do so.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There have been past attempts by several users to get involved in the article, but they all ended up leaving due to a variety of conflicts with Keysanger. Some I can think about right out of the top of my head are Arafael, Likeminas, Eduardo Ramirez, Ian, Darkness Shines, among others. It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny that one user (Keysanger) is going to have so many others opposing his edits. There is a very obvious common denominator in these editing conflicts, and, just like EdJohnston, I don't understand why administrators have over these many years ignored the problem in War of the Pacific.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Albeit I strongly dislike any comparison of my editing with Keysangers biased and long-term ownership aims I am grateful of the attention this issue has received. The War of the Pacific article has been a dormant problem and this is just the last of Keysangers many conflicts in the article where he is unable or unwilling to rescind his biased editing (take a look for yourself in the archives of the talk page). I am reclutanly willing to take a break, but will not do so to let Keysanger get a free hand on the article as he have had so far. I am willing to compromise, and appreciate if you all keep an eye on the article. Dentren | ^Talk 15:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Chicbyaccident

User:Chicbyaccident is displaying serious competence issues. I first encountered the user because major changes were made to the layout of Freemasonry, which is a GA article. In addition to the edit comment made by the reverter, I informed the user of the issue on their talk page The user then moved Grand Master (Masonic) without discussion, and I requested a tech move back for that reason. I also informed the user of the issue on their talk page, making reference to other editing issues as well, such as:

• redirecting "Frat" to the "Brother" dab page.
• [changing the redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frater&type=revision&diff=685913291&oldid=288956384] of Frater to Brother. I reverted it and now see it was changed again to redirect to Fraternity despite the fact that the word Frater does not appear in either of those articles, and its redirect to Refectory is based off the English usage, not the Latin.
• Created now-deleted Category:Orientalist fraternalism for no apparent reason other than personal opinion.
• Executed a cut-and-paste move from IOOF Hall here.
• Rewrote Fraternity lede twice to include inline refs to Wikipedia/Wiktionary, as well as equating fraternities and fraternal organizations: 1 and 2 after I reverted the first time. rm #2 because sources changed and text didn't. Rv'ed for SYNTH, discussion before lede changes requested on talk.
• Created Category:Grand Masters based solely on a shared name.
• Removed material from an established template in use on 30 articles without discussion.

These edits have been very disruptive to the encyclopedia, especially because the moves have to be undone by board request because of good-faith edits afterwards. Discussion has not proven useful. because the same edits are being made. Editor shows no hint of wanting to do anything besides change Wikipedia to suit the editor's opinions without consideration of precedents, policies, or collegial editing practices. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are these edits are being described as "serious competence issues?" They look more like mistakes or routine editorial disagreements to me. I do note the issue with the problem of undoing moves here, and the editor has already been encouraged to consider requested moves in the future. The concerns regarding the frat/brother matter were discussed here from last week already and the editor is engaging in appropriate talk page discussion. I don't see evidence that the editor has repeatedly done more cut-and-paste moves after being notified. The issues with the lede for Fraternity do not rise to anything actionable. Yes, the Wikipedia references here were not appropriate, but most of those references seemed fine otherwise, and the edits overall were made in good faith to address an issue with citations. Category:Grand Masters has justification based in WP:SHAREDNAME, so let the deletion discussion run its course. I'll note as well that Chicbyaccident has been responsive to concerns with their edits and has engaged in reasonable discussion about it ([225], [226], [227]). I don't find the characterization to be accurate here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not feel there has been discussion; I feel that CbA's attitude is "I'm right, and why can't you see that?" The discussions you point to have not progressed, because even though there is supposed acknowledgement, I have a serious issue with the followup, which excuses the behavior and then dismisses whatever it is as something the editor "wasn't really interested in pursuing." In short, the editor appears to want to edit what they want, and when someone objects, they simply go away and do the same thing elsewhere. It will be seen that I asked the editor not to simply make mass changes, and everywhere I looked, that was what was happening. When I quote a policy and the editing continues contrary to that policy, it's not a mistake anymore. Even the "Frater" discussion was met with "your source is not consensus" and the claim that Merriam-Webster Online was "a pay site." One cannot massively rewrite a GA article with no history of work on it and expect it to go unnoticed. I'd point out that after the revert on Freemasonry, Chic has had no interest in continuing a discussion on the matter, and simply went on to change other articles instead, like Fraternity, where the request for discussion prior to lede changes has simply been ignored. I don't know what else to call willful ignorance of clearly stated policy when the edits are otherwise AGF than an inability to understand it. I really feel that making a mess out of a page for whatever reason and then simply ignoring the area when challenged is not the sort of behavior we want to foster here. Here's another example of what I'm talking about: [228]. In this case, it seems that specifying terms only have been added, which should only serve to make the article more useful. However, in Arkansas, Shriners are no longer required to be Masons first, so that change in membership standing is wrong. Shriners are also in Canada and the Phillippines as well as other countries, so it's not only an "American" group anymore (which is why it's now called Shriners International, and has been for several years), so that change is wrong. The reason I have the AGF issue is because a little basic knowledge in the subject area should show the edit to be wrong before it is ever made. I feel that much of these changes are being made simply because the editor thinks the edits are correct, and that's not how WP works. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with User:I JethroBT.

Editor MSJapan is wrong to suggest that there is any issue at all relevant for wp:ANI. Editor MSJapan is a longterm editor and should and does know better.

If this goes any further, it may be relevant to re-consider that MSJapan and other editors interested in Masonic topics have repeatedly engaged in wp:OWNERSHIP-violating behavior, with too-strong, automatic contention over any edits by non-Masonic editors that touch on articles in their domain. Contention has often involved attempts to block/ban others who accidentally edited in their turf. I haven't yet seen tag-teaming going on in this case (I am not sure of the Masonite association of one other editor contributing in this case), but one frequent issue in Wikipedia history is tag-teaming of Masonic-focused editors against others. Contention dates from at least 2006: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive81#Behaviour of Masonic Editors on Freemasonry Pages. In 2008, this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive463 and this:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#Longterm nonconstructive editor.... I personally encountered this stuff in 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Masonic_buildings. In that 2010 ANI discussion I greatly appreciated editor Uncle G arriving and providing perspective about Masonic editors' behavior that they observed had been running for five years at that time. In 2013 ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Unresolved issue..., editor JASpencer noted that MSJapan's involvement in 138 administrative noticeboard cases and expressed particular concern about bullying-type tactics being applied against a newish editor who'd never been banned and had no previous ANI involvement. The concluding statement by another editor in the thread asked for MSJapan "to not misuse noticeboards in this way again". Which is what is happening again now. --doncram 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in character assassination carried out by an editor who was sanctioned by Arbcom and topic-banned for the very behavior that brought him into contact with the "ownership" he sees, which was multiple editors trying to contain the damage he was doing through mass stub creation (and the whole basis of the case, which was brought against him by WP:NRHP, not WP:FM). There is no ownership in preventing mass rewrites of a GA article without discussion (as GA status depends upon stability), there is no ownership in preventing an article being rewritten to the point where it no longer addresses its topic (because then it ceases to be useful), and no ownership in preventing redirects to dab pages, because those redirects are prohibited by policy. My main concern is a problematic editor not addressing their problems, but simply doing the same thing again somewhere else. MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Article editor performs massive OR violations

Article editor has been engaging in singularly "upgrading" a large number of dialects into languages, with no discussion whatsoever at any language-related talk page that would have alerted Wikipedia linguists to what was going on. There is absolutely no academic support for these moves, on the contrary, they are in direct opposition to what reliable sources class as dialects. To compound matters, Article Editor has already been indeffed once by Fut.Perf. for "undiscussed mass renamings and redirects". These moves where done by Anthony Appleyard and Philg88 (who no doubt acted in good faith) in response to requests from Article Editor. I propose:

• 1. That the following controversial WP:OR violations be undone, at least until they have been properly discussed: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235].
• 2. That Article Editor be banned from making requests for "uncontroversial" moves. I would also strongly encourage the admins in charge of WP:RM to consider whether a move really is uncontroversial or not before carrying it out. Every single one of the moves above is a flagrant WP:OR-violation and certainly not uncontroversial.
• 3. That all current requests by Article editor at WP:RM for upgrading dialects to languages against all WP:RS consensus be rejected. Not one of them is uncontroversial. Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz: He tried it again: see this diff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Add Frainc-Comtou language to be reverted? If so, the 2 talk pages listed at #1 here would both automatically move along with their articles. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jeppiz: The moves were indeed done in good faith, and I naturally have no problem with their reversion. We have a section at WP:RMT where a request to revert a move claimed to be uncontroversial will be actioned.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz and Philg88: I have moved Lorrain language, Champenois language, Tuscan language, Gallurese dialect, Angevin language, Frainc-Comtou language back to "dialect". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard and Philg88:, thank you both for your comments and for restoring the articles. If somebody wants to argue that these are languages, and back it up with WP:RS, we should of course discuss it, but (knowing this academic field quite well), virtually all academic sources say the opposite, so at the very least a discussion is necessary. Thanks again for restoring the articles! Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Jeppiz and Philg88: What should happen to the page Norman language? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: I'd say it should stay where it is - article says it is a language rather than a dialect but I'm happy to defer to the opinion of someone more expert on the subject.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard:, I also think it could stay. I only mentioned those that are undeniably (according to the complete academic consensus) dialects, not languages. There are quite a few linguists considering Norman as a language (and some considering it a dialect) so I didn't include it, nor Gascon (for the same reasons). Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User is swearing and disresping.

User in question is The kyle 3

• here, he wants to remove an article from Wikipedia about a man who was killed during a car accident caused by Palestinian rock throwing. I quote: "The old fuck crashed his car because people threw something at him for being an illegal "settler""

• here I quote: " "People" like you noisily masturbate over things like that so you can further the lie of "it's the Israeli Jews who're the victims under threat!" "

• here he regards "Israelis" as legitemate targets. (Not soldiers, not civilians, just "Israelis")

What disingenuous behaviour. I clearly said "those Israelis who are legitimate targets", not "all Israelis are legitimate targets". The kyle 3 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• here again he talks about the death of a man, saying that because he and all of the Israelis are occupeyers, he is responsible for his death. Also states all Israelis are Kahanists, equivelent to calling all Germans "Nazis".

Enough said, user should be warned. --Bolter21 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I said that "settlers" are kahanists. Many are, or otherwise are equally pro-ethnic cleansing and rabidly anti-Palestinian as the kahanist element is.

"Settlers" and the IDF in the Palestinian West Bank very often are responsible, if not all the time, for the circumstances that lead up to their deaths, being as they are a hostile military force engaging in occupation, or otherwise a pack of pro-ethnic cleansing land thieves-- as you know as an Israeli yourself, no one recognizes the "settlement" project as legal except for your own government and the worse kinds of pro-Israel "activists"

The kyle 3 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He should be blocked. He's an editor with an agenda, and their kind doesn't usually last even as long as that guy has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha as though Gregory, the author of so many of those execrable and worthless "single Israeli died, oh no!" articles doesn't have an agenda? What shameless hypocrisy. The kyle 3 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The last uncivil edit that was cited here was made two days ago, and it occurred once (here). A block at this very time is not justified unless events occur since. Blocks are not to be used in a punitive measure, but a preventative measure in order to protect the encyclopedia. The diffs brought fourth here do not justify this. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if comments like this one today are uncivil, but I certainly wouldn't call them civil. LjL (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh wait, today is not the 22nd. LjL (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I"ll let the admins decide on that. --Bolter21 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• The situation is more complex: a series of pathetic articles are being created (this example) with copious dollops of horror at the death of an Israeli caused by the monstrous actions of criminal Palestinians who throw stones. The articles are part of a campaign to ignore encyclopedic issues such as the root causes; instead, appeals to emotion are used to distract from those issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to the issue at hand, or how the use of epithets like "pathetic" for something like that is appropriate. LjL (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As in real life, it's easy to be horrified by a bad act, but reacting to that bad act by whacking it without contemplating the underlying issues seldom has a useful effect. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but ANI cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the related underlying causes for an editor to misbehave about it. LjL (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a major case at Arbcom involving Israeli/Palestinian article disputes. In any event, this is probably not the venue to discuss Israeli/Palestinian controversies. GAB^Hello! 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Good call, GAB. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just like stating the obvious. For the record, I find the personal attacks disgusting and support a stern warning against them. There's a reason Arbcom is considering blocking all editors with under 500 edits from getting into this subject matter. GAB^Hello! 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've left the editor a warning because a few of their edits were quite obviously controversial, and yet were marked as minor. LjL (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, LjL; thank you for doing that. I think that this is the only action that's truly merited. I'm going to mark this as a preliminary resolved ANI thread. If this thread needs to continue, please do not hesitate to remove the {{resolved}} tag placed below :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the resolved tag. Have a look at what this editor just added as his response to this complaint. That's after LjL's warning. Obvious NOTHERE is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In this diff,[236] kyle declares the term "Israeli" to be a "made-up nationality". That betrays the agenda behind his editing. Editors with agendas don't belong here. If he's not indef'd today, he will be eventually. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Redacted my resolution statement. Thank you for re-opening this. Seeing this definitely shows that action should be considered. I think a 42 hour block is justified for WP:DISRUPT and WP:CIVIL. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at their block log, The_kyle_3 has been blocked three times in the past four months (for, among other things, personal attacks), two of those blocks resulting in talk page access revocation. User should know better by now, so I'm leaning towards a longer block. Maybe not an indef, but he needs to know that the WP:ROPE he's pulling is tied around his neck.

I'm looking through his contributions to see what value (if any) he adds to the site before I take any action. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not going to satisfy everyone, but I'm liking this idea: I thought I'd notify The_kyle_3 that Arbcom approved discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then I saw that he's already been notified. Going back through some of my contributions has confirmed my memories of being uninvolved. The closest anyone could argue I've come is making sure that antisemitic canards by white supremacists are presented as such, which has nothing to do with supporting or opposing any of the factions currently fighting in the Levant. The_kyle_3's problematic behavior only occurs in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He also demonstrates other problematic behaviors there, such as edit warring. Now, if we had any real samples of his behavior outside of that topic, we could tell if it was just the topic... or just him. Time to find out where the problem lies. And so, my decision is that:

• The_kyle_3 is now topic banned from pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) until 00:00 UTC, 1 November 2016.

Or, he is now invited to edit elsewhere on the site. If his problematic behavior continues in other topics, we'll know it was him and we'll have enough WP:ROPE. If his problematic behavior continues on this topic, we'll have enough rope. If the problem is the topic, then the topic ban will give him time to learn civility, and possibly give him time to become a productive editor in that topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They could have gotten away with a warning, but they just had to respond with more of the same. GAB^Hello! 12:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this guy is most likely a sock of a very old banned editor. Notice his reference here to Jayjg who hasn't edited in the topic area for literally years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but immaterial. Given the remark about every settler who is killed is to blame for his own death, the editor should not be editing in the I/P area, and the 1 year ban is lenient, but, if this is a Ist time offence, fair.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that socks are not a big deal to you all of a sudden. Please stop following me around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'd like a second opinion concerning the content added by Therapgod (talk · contribs). I was taking a lap through the CSD logs and Therapgod seems to have a lot of material deleted via csd and afd - not terrible uncommon, however the user in question is apparently attempting to rebuild material that was deleted cia xfd processes. Not overly concerning in and of itself, however if the deleted contributions are any indication this could soon end up in the realm of disruptive editing. I'd be of the mind to caution rapgod about this possible eventuality at this point, however I'd like a second opinion on that course of action and whether or not the user's contributions still fall in the realm of good faith editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article subject reminded me of someone. I checked: Yesson20 (talk · contribs), who also edited about the same article subject, last edited Wikipedia about an hour before Therapgod created their account. It may just be an amazing coincidence, or just a user who forgot their old password and created a new account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Both talk about "verified celebrity accounts on social media sites": [237], [238]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Probable sock? If so then this should probably be bounced to SPI for a look see, otherwise I don't see anything that concerns my original post. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Competence/Copyright issues with User:Dhudhi

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.

---

• Dhudhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

the users only edits have been to spam copyright material. They don't appear to be able to communicate in English which is problematic as their focus is the troubled areas covered by the ArbCom caste case where communication is essential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning and will monitor. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: User is now indef-blocked for copyright violations after final warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at Brad Warner

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.

---

Some vamdalism by an IP going on here. I've reverted once; could someone please revert again, and protect the page for a while? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There's only one IP, so I've blocked it instead. Elockid^(BOO!) 13:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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.

---

120.144.130.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Adelaide Institute, with this edit/summary. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The user also appears to have (and be indirectly declaring) a WP:COI per this comment on MelbourneStar's talk page. LjL (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for making a legal threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Quick question...

IPs can be indeffed now? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

hi there i found mistake in one article

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

---

on this article israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel on the category it saying that israel was establish in 1948 but the truth is that israel was establish in 1 may 1949 since there was an independent war in the middle she was only declared in that year please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Many countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist so it is appropriate to even say it was established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Lord and Taylor COI anon editor is back.

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.

---

• Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Lord_and_Taylor_COI_editor_-_various_IPs

The Lord & Taylor COI editor has finished their second block, and is back inserting promotional material at Lord & Taylor. [239] This would be a perfectly good contribution to Women's Wear Daily, but on Wikipedia, listing this year's fall lines is blatant advertising. John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked again, three months this time. Guess we'll see what's in the winter collection when their block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Self admitted sock

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

---

See here. Per common practice, I'm not notifying. Came to my attention through some trolling comments here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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