Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910

User talk page harassment and general incivility

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 involved in a few content disputes with Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) on motorcycle articles. We both have similar interests and seem to bump into each other on these articles. I accept that we have differences of opinions on these articles, and as long as content disputes follow wikipedia guidelines regarding 3RR, civility, NPOV, etc, I see no major issues. However, I am starting to feel that the above user is taking things rather personally and his edits (in particular on my talk page) are harassment.

Firstly, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed, which was followed by him undoing my removal of that comment.

[1]initial warning

[2]removal by me

[3]restored comment

[4] request from me, for him not to restore comments on my talk page and for him to leave me alone.

So, I posted a request on his talk page, asking him not to restore removed comments, and not to post anything on my talk page. I made it clear that if he wanted to discuss an article with me, he could do so on my talk page, if he was concerned about my conduct as an editor, he could file a report, and that if he did file a report, I would allow him to post the report notice on my talk page (as I think posting that notice is required). He simply replied "no" to those requests. So, I posted again and said that if he undid my talk page revisions or posted on my page again, I would report him for harassment.

He then reported me for being a sockpuppet/master? I'm not sure which as he claimed I was the sockmaster, but one of the other accounts he reported is a really long established account. The conclusion from the admins involved was there the accounts mentioned were not connected. That's fair enough, I will have good faith in his sockpuppet report, and assume that it was not harassment.

Today, he posted a warning on my talk page, which I removed. I've already stated that I don't require his comments, so that alone was not something that I wished to see. He restored the warning, so I removed it again.etc,etc,etc. In the end, he restored the warning three times on my talk page, in the space of five minutes.

[5] initial warning from the above editor.

[6] restored comment 1st time

[7] 2nd time

[8] 3rd time

He has been editing wikipedia for about 10 years, so I would imagine he is really really familiar with talk page and harassment rules. He has also made numerous ANI reports on other editors, so he is also very aware of the consequences.

This is not the first situation in which the user has used templates/warnings to harass another user. For example:

[9]

[10]

[11]

also of blatant incivility

[12]

I feel bad about this, because I know this user is trying hard to improve wikipedia. He isn't a troll, he has the best intentions when he edits articles. However, when something doesn't go his way, he has a total disregard of wikipedia rules and a total lack of respect for other editors. I now have really mixed feelings about editing any motorcycle related article, as he is quite likely to harass me on those articles too. Can someone please take some action, he needs to understand that a mere content dispute is not grounds for harassment. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar behaviour from the same editor. Fake warnings, ignored requests to stay off my talk page, continued restoration of harassing comments when I deleted them. I compiled a timeline of events here, including some very uncivil language on his part. It is odd that after ten years of editing he is apparently unfamiliar with some basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where this "stay off my talk page" rule comes from. It's how we send editors messages. If two editors disagree about a talk page warning, then of course one of those editors can call the warning "fake", but that's only begging the question. I think putting a {{Globalize}} tag on KTM 390 series takes the cake for "fake" templating.

Spacecowboy420 is a troll and serial sockpuppeteer who is only here to disrupt Wikipedia. He searches for the most controversial possible changes he can make in order to kick off an edit war and bring down anyone he can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) recognized him immediately, as yet another in a long line of socks from somebody who intends to go on making new troll accounts forever. Zachlita (talk · contribs) is, by an obvious WP:DUCK test, another sockpuppet, though checkuser says they're unrelated. I have no problem saying either Zachlita is a meatpuppet, or an account created while the sockmaster was traveling among different locations. The tag-team editing pattern is blatantly obvious.

Here is a perfect example of Spacecowboy420 deliberate battleground behavior. Or this. Kicking off an effort to expunge all of the expert debunking of the supernatural claim that the Dodge Tomahawk could go 420mph is more of the same deliberate disruption, as is the idea what we cannot talk about the KTM 390 series as Indian motorcycles, and must delete all mention of India and Bajaj. None of it makes sense unless you realize that this person has been doing this for years, picking insane fights and whipping up maximum drama.

Skyring (talk · contribs) is just piling on because he's got an old grudge. It's as unseemly as when he threatened to use his admin powers to block others in a content dispute. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only here to comment about the edit warring on the user's talk page. I just recently went through that on my own. Dennis, please know that WP:DRC applies here. Whilst it may be an essay, you should not edit war on a user's talk page after they've removed notices/warnings. Reverting the user on their talk page is not an exemption from 3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding on that point. This series of edits [13][14][15] occurred because I was trying to correct an error, where my attempt to copy-paste a line of text from an msn.com article was resulting in the URL being pasted in; apparently that's their copy protection scheme. All I wanted was to to get one complete and correct version of my post saved before it was deleted. I wasn't edit warring to try to get the same thing to stick, just to get the message right.

The real issue here is this: Spacecowboy420 wouldn't be having this kind of conflict if he weren't making blatantly absurd, trollish edits, such as insisting that the source cited mentioned only KTM, and not KTM and Bajaj working together. This content issue matters here: pretty much every article about KTM's Indian-made bikes says that they are Indian bikes, and that Indian company Bajaj builds them in a close partnership with KTM. Spacecowboy420 is here to delete any mention of India and Bajaj for no reason except it's his "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" troll assertion that he knows will incite a the battle he seeks.

I might be a 10-year editor with 40,000+ edits, but there's no doubt in my mind that the sockmaster behind Spacecowboy420 has edited more and for longer than me. This guy is good at what he does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis is obviously confused above – I'm not an admin. I don't hold grudges; there's no point in this community, nor in life itself. Less stress to just live in the present and not the past. Having said that, SpaceCowboy's description of poor behaviour on user talk pages above struck a chord, because it is very close to how DB behaved a few months ago. Edit-warring, name-calling, gross incivility. Now that I see this is not an isolated incident, I might look to see if I can find other examples. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I mixed you up with User:John from the same old grudge. Regardless, I don't think it's a appropriate to stalk your enemies and jump in whenever somebody else has a beef with them. The whole issue that's being dredged up here, over Volkswagen emissions violations, was resolved as a content dispute. Having you lurking and waiting to come back at me with that is not appropriate. If you had a problem, you should have brought it up back then and not used this new issue as an excuse to get your digs in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking over Dennis's contributions, I'm seeing a history of harassment of other editors on their talk pages, particularly new or IP editors. Edit wars and calls to 3RRN are common, and accusations of sockpuppetry seem to be par for the course. A quick look, but I see other editors complaining of harassment in a pattern of behaviour stretching back years. This is one example, but there are others. --Pete (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

People like User:Tiptoethrutheminefield [16] certainly do find themselves butting heads often with people like me. You're right that I have a long history of conflict with editors with multiple blocks to their name. It's funny that you link to that incident, where Tiptoethrutheminefield "adopted", in Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)'s words, one of en. and de. Wikipedia's most persistent and disruptive sockpuppeteers, Europefan/GLGerman. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pull me into this, and certainly not in your defence. I still remember the way you hounded Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) User talk:Bridge Boy#Changing Article Name Without Discussion.2C Again! (Yamaha Rz350), another GF motorbike editor, off the project (albeit with some help).

Throwing around blame against others is no excuse for how another editor behaves. So I'm not seeing anything of either of these two editors as being relevant as to how well or poorly the other has acted. But neither is impressing me here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were defending me. I accurately characterized your words about a specific incident. I am not the one who blocked Bridge Boy (talk · contribs); he was blocked for disruptive editing, socking, and personal attacks. There were several other editors besides me who found him impossible to deal with. All the mean things I said about Bridge Boy were true, and then some, and multiple admins had no qualms about showing him the door permanently. If you want him back then I guess you should be asking an admin to unblock him. I'm glad you brought him up, though, because like Spacecowboy420, or Tiptoethrutheminefield, you've identified the pattern here: editors who are not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia have successfully goaded me into returning their offensive behavior with "incivility", and then someone tries to boomerang it back on me.

Brianhe's comment in the same thread as above is quite relevant: these habitually disruptive, serial socking editors know that they are going to draw a series of warning templates from regular editors, so their defensive ploy is to delete the templates and then play the "get off my talk page" card. The templating is a necessary step to getting action taken to stop the disruption, so they pretend they're being "harassed" on their talk page to bully and intimidate anyone who tries to stop them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editors should of course be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered and whatever. However we clearly disagree as to just who falls under this. I too found Bridge Boy hard work to deal with, but I'm happy to accept them as a GF editor who had something to contribute. You seemed more interested in finding reasons to decide why another editor was an outlaw, and for why you were just the sheriff to organise the lynching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree that some of his contributions were invaluable. Much of Spacecowboy420's contributions are wonderful. But the reality is that with editors like that the cost of keeping them is too high, and there's no point in delaying the inevitable. And even then, you can read on his talk page that I spent something like three months trying to politely cajole Bridge Boy into behaving himself. And wasn't it actually SamBlob (talk · contribs) who, technically, initiated the actions that got Bridge Boy blocked? I was there, and I helped, but it's unfair to make it seem like I'm the only one behind getting anybody blocked. And you might have noticed that the admins don't exactly like me. They don't block anybody just because Dennis Bratland asks them to. If anything, they cut them more slack if I'm involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dennis Bratland. I remember reading this and being highly unimpressed. --John (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. You took one side in a content dispute and abused your Admin power by threatening blocks against anyone who crossed you. Funny how that spiked the subsequent discussion, isn't it? I still think that threat successfully discouraged any moderate editors who were thinking of participating from sticking their necks out. I stood up to your bullying, and now we're not friends are we? Yet you got away with it, scot free. Lucky you.

  Looks like somebody is working hard to canvass anybody with an axe to grind to come back here and show their willingness to use Wikipedia noticeboards to settle old scores. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I stand absolutely by what I said in September. I am not sure what part of that you find objectionable. I am only contributing here because you pinged me earlier. You seem easily confused, repeatedly mixing me up with Pete, and then mixing up my clear statement which referenced WP:INVOLVED with someone threatening to breach WP:INVOLVED. If not for that I would ask you to clear that up by properly reading the comments. In your case, I fear we would be here a lot longer than any of us have patience for. Can I ask that you at least consider that when everybody says you are out of line, that you may in fact be out of line, rather than everybody else being part of a conspiracy against you? Or would that be asking too much... --John (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have perfectly amicable disagreements with lots of other editors all the time. The simple fact is that you are hopelessly compromised when it comes to me. As long as you remain an admin, you should recuse yourself and stop trying to play a role in any noticeboard discussion involving me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see. So, given this "simple fact", why did you ping me at this discussion of your behaviour? --John (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's get real here. Dennis is a long-time productive contributor to WikiProject Motorcycling and Cascadia Wikimedians User Group with two GAs under his belt and countless other good deeds. The editor(s) you held up as a "good faith contributor" "hounded off the project" by him are blocked for their inability to abide by community standards. Give him a slap on the wrist for incivility if you must but this ad hominem endoscopic examination is exactly why people leave Wikipedia, and should stop immediately. – Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If one is a productive editor, one may harass less productive editors. I get what you're saying.

I found DB to be short on some of the basics of editing, such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. He seemed to think that if he thought something sounded reasonable, Wikipedia could say it, even if we had no external source making that statement. He also seemed to have a very poor grasp on what constituted edit-warring, which is odd considering the number of times he's appeared on WP:3RRN.

Be that as it may, what we're looking at here is editor conduct, not content. Dennis Bratland has a history of abusing other editors on their talk pages, including edit-warring to keep his abuse visible when it is deleted by the editor. Whether that other editor is a newbie, an experienced Wikipedian, or just someone Dennis Bratland has a difference of editing opinion with is immaterial. We are civil to each other, and we don't call each other motherfuckers when our views differ.[17].

I think it is high time Dennis accepted that, even if he has a difference of opinion, it is wikipolicy – and more productive to the project – to be polite instead of abusive. He has been around Wikipedia long enough – and yes, produced enough excellent work – to know this. --Pete (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that one of my interests is controversial articles. I enjoy the debate, and getting some form of resolution and consensus on a controversial article is very satisfying. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet/master and that it being confirmed that there was no connection. I should remind you Dennis, that you thought Flyer was a sock of mine as well, so perhaps your judgement of who and who isn't a sock, isn't quite perfect. But this isn't about me. It's about you and your conduct. You refuse to accept the findings of various 3rd party opinions and dispute resolutions, so you revert me on every article you can find, continually slap templates on my user page (despite being asked not to post there) and restore comments/edit war on my talk page. And it's not as if I am the first editor you have done this to, judging from the comments above, your editing style seems to attract this sort of drama. I don't. I have content disputes on various articles that are far more controversial than some silly motorbike article - they stay on the talk page and don't require ANI reports. They get discussed and resolved. The only difference between those articles and this one, is the fact that you aren't content with leaving it on the talk page. You need to take it to other articles and revert me, you need to take it to my talk page, when asked not to. You need to make sock reports with zero evidence pointing towards me being a sock. The difference is you and your way of dealing with other editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't about sock accounts, so I will try to keep this brief. Brian, you accused me of being the sock of Flyer22 reborn. That accusation was so unrealistic, that an admin removed that name from the sock report. You also accused me of being connected to Zacklita, and the admin looked into it, using their techy tools and found my account and Zacklita's had no connection. You're clutching at straws in order to try to justify your harassment of me. All of this comes from you giving more attention to the editors than to their edits. Don't assume that every editor who has a different point to yours is a troll. We aren't, we just disagree with you. Don't assume that when two editors are both in disagreement with you, that they are socks. They aren't, they just both disagree with you. All of this chaos and annoyance started because you couldn't accept the removal of one single word from some article you feel that you own. Be a little more flexible and respectful towards other editors and we won't have weeks of dispute resolution, sock puppet reports and ANI reports. Jeeeeeeeez! the removal of the word extraordinary from an article has resulted in this FUBAR situation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey sometimes sockpuppet investigations turn out not to have actionable results and I'm okay with that. I take your word for it AGF that you're not socking now that I know you better. So take this as an apology for the misfire. At the same time may I make one small retort and note that Draft:Dodge Tomahawk does not contain the word "extraordinary". I really think starting with it is the best path forward but we don't need to keep discussing it here; maybe on the draft talkpage instead. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"All blocked editors are evil, otherwise they wouldn't have been blocked" is an obvious fallacy. However the usual wikiexplanation of this is based on the many editors who are blocked, then react badly to it (and may even sock) and that later bad reaction is then seen as an excuse for their blocking, rather than a reaction to it. This supports the clique of "good people" and excludes the newcomers. As such we have to be very careful against it.

I think at least one of these editors was wrongly blocked. I think Dennis' responses to many editors, particularly newer editors breaking the minor rules, isn't as generous as we might like (although few editors, and not myself, manage much better). We're supposed to welcoming of new editors, we certainly need them, and that means putting up with early and minor infractions. Then it means putting up with the same, all over again, if needs be. The alternative is merely reinforcing what's already seen as a clique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy, you changed my words "inability to abide by community standards" to "evil" which is a straw man, also an obvious fallacy. I carefully chose those words to describe Bridge Boy's situation precisely. And laying what you consider to be a wrongly enacted block solely at Dennis's feet is also an error; he is not an administrator and only gets to present his evidence and arguments like anyone else. I hear what you're saying about not forming a clique and actively try to welcome, recruit and enable new editors to all parts of WP, especially the motorcycling article base. Dennis does too, and in fact he created the invite template {{Motorcycling invite}}, among the other "good deeds" I alluded to above, so please give him some credit. I think a GF understanding of the situation here is that there's an established editor (not a cabal) trying to extend the best of the community standards, including high standards of authorship and research, to new editors. – Brianhe.public (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

They're not your words, they're all mine. There's a problem here, it's pervasive, it's a bad one, and several editors are involved it. This is just one example of it (Dennis' involvement summarises here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Bridge Boy will not drop the stick), but nor is it the only one. There is a tendency on WP to turn on new editors and block them permanently (when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of "indef", then this becomes unwarrantedly permanent by default). We need to be careful to avoid doing that, and part of this includes dealing with the same nonsense over and over again if needs be, with a vast amount of patience. There are plenty of outright trolls around, there's no need for us to find ways to lump others in with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridge Boy was not a "new" editor. He was just a recent incarnation of a long-term abuser, whose earliest account (that I know of) User:LevenBoy began editing all the way back in 2008 up through 2011. His User:Triton Rocker sock was active in 2010. His most recent sock was User:Salty Batter. Before we saw his dark side, Bridge Boy was treated with a warm welcome and kid gloves, all through January, February, March, April, and May of 2012. It wasn't until June, his fifth month of editing with his latest sock account, that I and several others began to lose patience with him. Your accusations that I bite newbies are demonstrably false; anyone can read the record of the gentle help I offered him for during his early months editing on many article talk pages. I created a new barnstar, just for him, to thank him for his edits. You're inventing a narrative about me, a caricature, that doesn't fit the facts.

I guess the only sense I can say I agree with you is that it does seem very much like Spacecowboy420 is Bridge Boy all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Spacecowboy420 and Pete here. In my limited experience of Dennis Bratland, he is liable to adopt eccentric interpretations of sources and then get very personal very quickly when others don't agree with him. It's hard for any of us, let's face it, when we find we are in a minority but Dennis regularly doesn't seem to get the thing about how consensus works. There's a bit of work to be done here; whether it is necessary to enact any formal sanctions at this stage I am not sure. Spacecowboy420, what admin intervention were you looking for here? --John (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

For my part, it's clear that Dennis Bratland has a history of personal attacks against other editors, including gross incivility and abuse of any number of behaviour conventions. Don't bite newbies, have a regard for the talk pages of other's etc. etc.

Intimidating and attacking other editors is not how we improve the Wikipedia. DB does not admit any misbehaviour in his comments above. In fact he defends his actions.

I think he should be given a chance to admit that his behaviour is improper, and if no acceptable admission is forthcoming, he should be blocked for 24 hours, and warned that similar activities in future will result in longer blocks. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

i agree with pete. there should be a short block, as dennis doesnt understand or accept his actions were wrong and have been for some time. once he gets a block he will understand that he wont get away with it in the future and i hope he will change his style. Zachlita (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside (but not uninvolved) Comments

These two, User:Dennis Bratland and User:Spacecowboy420, are at it again. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129. My recent experience is that, while Dennis Bratland is a good-faith editor and is probably a productive editor, he is also a stubborn editor who does not seem to understand the concept of collaboration. As to whether he has a history of personal attacks, his comments here consist largely of personal attacks. The two editors in question came to the dispute resolution noticeboard recently with regard to Dodge Tomahawk and to the exact language to be used about its manufacturer's claim that it had a top speed of 420 mph. Although Dennis Bratland kept suggesting that WikiProject Physics be asked whether this claim was physically possible, the question had never been whether anyone was supporting that claim, only exactly how to characterize it in the voice of Wikipedia. Dennis Bratland says that Spacecowboy420 is a troll and a serial sockpuppeteer. Has a sockpuppet report been filed? (If not, this is just a case, all too common, of yelling “Sockpuppetry” in order to “win” a conduct dispute.) I won’t say that Spacecowboy420 isn’t a troll, but I will say that I haven’t seen them being a troll, and I have seen a number of trolls in action at DRN. I concur with other editors that Dennis Bratland’s behavior in this section (aside from elsewhere) rises to the level of blockable personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The end result being that a few highly-skilled Wikipedians show up out of the blue with "newbie" accounts, and produce, via wholesale deletions, an article about a product which contains only information which originated with the product's marketing team and press releases. Rejecting entirely even one word of criticism from a comprehensive version (written by 3 experienced editors, not just me) of the article that gives space to a dozen other high-quality sources which are actually independent of the subject. Nope, no trolling here. Anybody who would object to deleting every word of criticism and dissent must not "understand the concept of collaboration". Better block a guy like that, because we want the kind of guys who write this and reject this; they're definitely here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I do see that a sockpuppet investigation was filed. It didn't attempt to link User:Spacecowboy420 with User:Bridge Boy, but with two other editors. (In other words, in claiming that Spacebowboy420 is Bridge Boy, Dennis is yelling "Sockpuppet" to "win" the conduct dispute.) I see that the sockpuppet report was closed as unrelated. I will also note that the issue at DRN never had to do with whether the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of 420 mph, but with what to say in the voice of Wikipedia about that claim. Maybe Dennis Bratland is right and there is a vast murky motorcycle cabal, or maybe Dennis Bratland needs to reread no personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not claim Spacecowboy420 was Bridge Boy. Andy Dingley brought Bridge Boy into this, accusing me of hounding an 'innocent noob', and I merely pointed out that yes, this is often how it goes when I'm confronted with a disruptive, socking troll. Referring to the actual SPI case, Zacklita has not edited from the same IP as Spacecowboy420, we've proven that, but the close connection between them is glaringly obvious. Both Flyer22 Reborn and User:STSC could smell "sock" all over Spacecowboy420 too. Read his deleted talk page history. It's not just me.

I think the net effect of what choices we make here matters, not merely whether we check off compliance with a list of rigid rules. One course of action leads to a certain kind of encyclopedia, promotional and devoid of independent criticism, and another path leads to what I think Wikipedia is actually supposed to be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting it, Dennis. Blaming your poor behaviour on the (possible) shortcomings of another editor just inspires poor behaviour all round. No personal attacks is a core policy, and you are doing it over and over again, whether the other guy is a sock, a newbie, or another editor with years of experience. The only common thread is that they disagree with you. You've been given a chance to accept this and declare an intention to act better in future, but all I see here is more of "I have the right to attack the other guy". Well, no you don't. --Pete (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Restatement

I think that Dennis does “get it” in his own way. First, it appears that he is saying that Wikipedia has constructive editors and non-constructive editors, and that the development of the encyclopedia requires that the constructive editors be allowed to create and improve content and that non-constructive editors are a problem. So far, so good. I think that we all agree. The differences of opinion have to do with who is and is not a constructive editor and with what privileges the constructive editors earn as a result of their contributions. I think that we all agree. Dennis appears to be saying (by his conduct) that he has the privilege of identifying non-constructive editors and engaging in personal attacks on them. That is where some of us disagree. Dennis also appears to think that constructive editors do not need to compromise on matters of wording in Wikipedia. (After all, the Dodge Tomahawk issue was never whether it could go 420 mph. We all agreed that that claim was balderdash. The question was whether it was encyclopedic to say that was balderdash.) That is my observation of what Dennis is saying. Maybe he can restate it. Maybe he didn’t mean his attitude to be as high-handed as it came across. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate Conclusion

Dennis is an editor who contributes substantially to article content, but is uncivil in the process and is stubborn. Such editors polarize and divide the community. Unfortunately, “the community” at WP:ANI cannot deal with such editors, because they polarize and divide the community. Such editors can be blocked by one admin, but are likely to be unblocked by another admin. The ArbCom can deal with such editors, but Dennis’s conduct does not rise to the level of warranting an ArbCom case. Therefore, in my opinion, there is very little that can be done here other than empty discussion. I would support a block, but I don’t expect consensus for one. This thread will sputter along until the community gets tired of it or some administrator is bold and closes it as no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I avoid the internet as much as possible during holidays. Regarding what I think would be a suitable result for this report, I think that a short editing block would be deserved, constructive and fair. From the large number of comments regarding this editor's behavior, it is clear that there have been numerous incidents related to civility, involving many editors. A simple "please don't do it again" while suitable for a new editor who needs to work out how wikipedia works, is not suitable for an editor with ten years experience, who has made many ANI reports against other editors himself. A short block (and the understanding that short blocks lead to longer blocks) would be highly effective in persuading this editor to think twice before acting in the ways that have been listed in this report. The idea that an editor should be cut some slack because they have been here a long time is wrong. It should be the opposite, once you've been here long enough to know how things work, your behavior should be close to perfect. Yes, he has made a lot of great edits - but while making those edits, how many new (and potentially great) editors has he pushed away from wikipedia with his edit warring and incivility? Also, the fact that his responses here mainly consist of him trying to transfer the blame to other users and justify his incivility, show that he doesn't understand how he should be behaving, a short block would be a great way to help him understand these things are not acceptable. Block the guy, let him come back after his block and see if he is capable of improving his attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been following this since the onset (I was not canvassed) and it's not just because Dennis Bratland challenged me to take him to (one of) 'several notice boards' probably nine months back. I had drafted a lengthy message waiting to come in, but probably just the suggestion of dissatisfaction is enough here. I will leave it optional as to whether 'someone else' chooses to explain the circumstances for the above commentors and any other editors ('someone else' = two connected individuals).

The other reason is that I am collating evidence against another long-term editor with mulitple problem areas starting with my involvement in May 2014. As I am inexperienced with notice boards, this is a good way to learn with-a-focus and I can identify perfectly, having surveilled Dennis Bratland since early 2013, instead of learning simply abstract concepts. This other editor was blocked for six-months, quickly unblocked (against my lengthy argument, two admins), has been largely dormant, was exposed to yet-another (senior) admin, and has now resumed the old traits.

It is therefore disheartening to know that a ten-year veteran knows how to tough-it-out for long enough, potentially until the thread goes stale with no consequence. This does not bode well for Wikipedia. As one of the above editors opined elsewhere - Wikipedia is a toxic environment.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is sufficient evidence from the OP for a block, although I suggest that the block administrator block for a shorter amount of time than is appropriate for the misconduct.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't intend to reply to every straw man attack, or to correct all the words put in my mouth, by the various editors who have shown up to pile on here. Leaving all that aside, I understand the civility concerns raised here and will commit to using more decorous language when working out content disputes, and I will avoid making newcomers feel unwelcome when helping them understand policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's good Dennis, thank you, it would go a long way towards making cooperation and collaboration easier. I have one more suggestion that might make interactions between editors easier: Let's try to make any future content disputes more efficient. The Dodge Tomahawk issue (for example) has dragged on for a long time. I am not blaming you for this, it's just the way that wikipedia works, and I have been just as responsible for continuing the dispute as anyone else. We have many many avenues of content dispute available to us, however I'm not sure that the article is important enough to deserve the amount of time we have devoted to fighting over it. I suggest that if there are relatively unimportant edits to make, that are disputed by a number of editors, backing down and accepting the majority opinion is a more efficient way to edit. We can move on, maybe we have to accept that there is content we don't agree with, but at least we can devote our time to adding new content to articles, rather than fighting on talk pages. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that worked then, something Dennis Bratland wants to hide from the community when on the backfoot? To borrow from an admin's username - 'the worm has turned'.

The irony and hypocrisy here is that this incident report is dated 28 December and Brianhe, Dennis Bratland's cohort (the other of the two closely-connected individuals I mentioned above as "someone else") launched in with a level-1 warning headed "Civility", dated 24 December, mentioning Dennis Bratland and further-accolading his Wikimotorcycling-prowess, at Zachlita's talkpage. I chucked-in my four penneth - an early 1900s Englishism - as soon as I found out 4 January, including pinging Brianhe. Brianhe: "All of your communication on Wikipedia is part of the record, including edit summaries. It was the incivility of your edit summary that caught my attention,..". This "attack" was closely followed by Dennis Bratland's sock-accusation involving Spacecowboy (timeline). Very trigger-happy with the TW button is Dennis, and has spilled-over into noooobs (to reluctantly use an Americanism).

They surveil each other's worklists and talk pages, jumping-in when one gets beaten-up, as Brianhe did shown above, and in this thread further up. @Spacecowboy420: impartiality should be present and observable in any consensus. I will still, as always, distance myself from this cabal of two individuals, the articles I had to abandon, and, again as always, proudly dissociate myself from the Wikiproject Motorcycling (circa 20 active members, not 138, total includes 2 indeffed), almost all of whom never directly interact. If I'm strawman that's fine as, nine months back I was WP:DISINGENUOUS, although, like Bridge Boy, whom I have surveilled IRL for more than two years (I am not a proponent), I consider myself relatively-competent in the Wikipedia topics I contribute to (Bridge Boy is undoubtedly an expert). The Bridge Boy/sockpuppet allegation by Dennis Bratland against WyrmUK in January 2015, was rebuked as a "personal attack", with simultaneous deletion of the {{User WikiProject Motorcycling}} badge, [18] then headed-up as "False accusation" [19]. The accusation/block against Salty Batter memorialised a vulgar display of gratuitous enmity from Dennis Bratland. I only learned of it afterwards, but contacted admin/CU Ponyo to query why geo-location was not enabled (unstated, but as I knew of Bridge Boy's whereabouts), and she confirmed it was past/stale, so nothing historic to compare with, which is unfortunate as the IP range could have been recorded for posterity.

I, too, have received at least one faux-warning from Dennis Bratland and, risking his future wrath and likely-retaliation, based on the historical patterns, including knee-jerk shouting of Socks and Trolls, I think a block is necessary. I am grateful in some respects for what I have learned from Dennis, including my bad tendency to use brusque, slightly-acerbic edit summaries, but particularly his application for Wiki News accreditation that is highly-pertinent to the evidence I am now collating against a wikilawyer admittedly-contributing since 2001 unlogged-in. Dennis' time often is spent Wiki-policing, with complaints that this prevents creation of his intended-articles. The maximum block-sanction permissible would facilitate this desire, and allow time for contemplation.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh ... wow. Two part reply. First: Yes, I collaborate with and even meet in person a number of Wikipedians including Dennis. This is hardly a secret, as many Wikipedians who know us IRL are able to confirm. I don't think that GF, transparent cooperation between members of the community can be called a "cabal" in any sense of the word. Rocknrollmancer's comments are unwelcome not just towards me personally but towards the building of a stronger community of editors who interact through a variety of venues (community sanctioned and sponsored venues like meetups and edit-a-thons, I should mention). The free use of the word "surveilling" and suggestion of some kind of off-wiki tracking/geolocation of other editors is particularly chilling towards the goal of building a safe place for people to do this work. Could an uninvolved person give some guidance what, if any, part of these comments towards me need to be addressed?

Second: I think a review of the blocking policy is in order. What if any of the policy based reasons for blocking are being invoked by anyone on this thread? I see an editor who has expressed understanding of what triggered this case and has committed to avoiding these triggers in future. Even the initiator of this thread seems to have accepted this: in his words, "We can move on". Punitive blocks are non-policy and may not be applied (WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE). – Brianhe (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to skew this thread further, so I have only supplied pertinent, token-evidence above based on what was introduced before. Leaving aside the evocative, hackneyed clichés – "chilling, transparent cooperation, building of a stronger community, building a safe place..." – everything I do is to the betterment of Wikipedia, which has always involved identifyng abnormal practices and patterns. Wikipedia requires evidence, I don't invent it, just collate it. Why the objection to my use of the law-enforcement term "surveil"? Again, for the avoidance of doubt - transparency - I invite you to share with the Good Wikipedians the reason Dennis Bratland challenged me to bring him to notice board.

Here's some clues - he surveilled an exchange between myself and a.n.other in the early morning UK time, evening West Coast US, This other, a member of the Wikiproject Motorcycling, had previously been pursued by Denns Bratland for daring to oppose him, rightly or wrongly, with a series of escalating warnings, ending with a full Page Protection request. I have seen this ploy many times, usually IP editors and semi-protection. I am not a wikilawyer so could not opine whether this was NOTVANDALISM (that sequence from memory, but I can provide the evidence).

Again from memory, Dennis Bratland then launched-in using the normal manner I have come to know so well, pinging Brianhe, previously unmentioned, and, I think, using the word bully. Why would he need to involve Brianhe? How would he be motivated to choose Brianhe in preference?? Why not one of the other alleged-130+ project-members available to him??? Why would Brianhe use the (loose quote) phrase "fighting in alleys with switchblades???". However jocular the intention, it was unseemly.

I logged in today expecting a notification of SPI, that I was actually Bridge Boy. I will not be around until late Friday UK time, assuming I am still unblocked. That will give Brianhe plenty of time to engender the support he is obviously so desparately seeking, to block, sanction, or otherwise silence me by dint of dragging-up a minor technical infringment. The truth will out sooner or later. Count on it. So, lastly...I have needed to approach conflict of interest noticeboard for some months, but avoided it as Brianhe volunteers there. I now expect that he would recuse himself in that event, at my request.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This seriously needs closing. I have decided to do that as carrying on with this discussion would be pointless. Take it to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and deal with it there if you need to, but blocking him would not be ideal. Despite everything which has lead to this AN/I report Mr. Bratland appears to be a skilled editor. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Long term IP vandalism

IP 174.112.116.15 has been blocked for a period of 2 months. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

174.112.116.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is going around on football articles only to make small incorrect edits (probably hoping to be undetected). This has been going on for a long time, but without much warnings, because reverting editors simply have not warned but it is causing frustration amongst editors so this ha to stop.

Examples include changing result of football matches ([20], [21], [22]), lineup changes which has lead to frustration ([23], [24]) amongst other issues. All of their edits so far has been reverted, and since the IP dont edit every day I suggest a longer block so that they actually are blocked when trying to edit. If they are blocked only 24hours, they wont notice block when coming back next week or whenever the editor will be back again. Qed237 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and have applied a 2 month block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of speedy tags

Resolved

 – OP blocked for two weeks. Considering their attitude of claiming to be bullied and then saying "Whatever" to a block suggests they're trolling, so their next block, if and when it comes, should be indefinite. Fences&Windows 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been edit warrning on several pages such as here, here, and here in addition to other tagged Green Party articles. Request assistance. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That isn't edit warning. It isn't edit warring either. could you describe your problem better? -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I nominated a few articles for speedy deletion, and this non-admin is removing the tags, as well as other maintenance tags to encourage the improvement of Green Party articles. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the edsums?:Roxy the dog™ woof 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tags can be removed by non-admins; the only person who cannot is the article creator (who has to use the "contest this" button). Hullabaloo is not the creator of these articles, so his removal is perfectly valid. And these are not valid tags in the first place; an article requiring cleanup is not in any way a valid reason for speedy deletion. Clear case of boomerang coupled with a lack of competence. oknazevad (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Will somebody please give this troll the long block they so clearly have earned? They have edit warred to replace speedy deletion tags that other editors (not just me) have properly declined (aside from the Green Party articles, see Universal Life Church Monastery); placed phony warnings on my talk page, filed related, groundless AFDs that are in the process of being rapidly and unanimously rejected, and, for an editor who's been here for more than 10 years, is showing a sudden and unlikely attack of cluelessness that's hard to take at face value or see as good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And, as well, not the section immediately above, where they've made sockpuppet allegations without a shred of evidence or reasoning. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Note: the section to which I referred has been removed [25] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please give us a clearer pointer to the location of the sockpuppet allegations to which you refer? I can't see them. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in here but "Me-123567" deserves blocking just for Misusing Twinkle, (Giving someone 8 incorrect templated warnings within 5 minutes is not only Bad Faith but it's disruptive too!), I would strongly suggest "Me" packs it in and withdraws this pointless thread before they find themselves blocked!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad I did not know non-admins could remove spedy tags. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) It has since been resolved to afd. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• • You've been editing here for more than ten years. Your edit history shows extensive use of the speedy deletion process, including multiple removal of your tags by non-admins. Your "I did not know" claim deserves zero credibility. This was deliberate disruption and harassment of editors who don't share your views. The evidence-free sockpuppet allegation above is more evidence of a lack of good faith. Asd was your posting a dishonest warning on my talk page saying I'd removed a speedy tag from an article I'd created, even though you knew I hadn't. Putting A1 tags on articles which had significant substantive content wasn't a misunderstanding. Putting A7 tags on articles which accurately reported that third parties which had qualified for statewide ballots and had elected candidates to office wasn't a misunderstanding. Placing G11 tags on articles which reported election vote totals wasn't a misunderstanding. You're on a weird little political jihad, and have been harassing editors who disagree with you. "My bad" just doesn't cut it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I left User:Me-123567-Me a note on their talk page, and they responded here. The speedy deletes seem a bit hasty. I have already improved two of the articles: Green Party of Mississippi and Green Party of Delaware. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And once its removed it can't be put back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it can't be put back, but a user had better have a solid reason to restore a speedy tag after it's been validly removed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This edit] by OP of that section and this changed the word "Trump" in other editor's posts. Glrx (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Refractoring other's talk is certainly bad-faith. Too many edits since then for an easy undo. This person needs a break/vacation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Has to be a damn good reason for reinstating WP:Speedy after an objection. I was confused: WP:PROD says: "If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag—see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I initially reverted Hulla, but I realized also that a non-admin could remove them so I apologize for that. I was unaware of that. However, the tags should remain as the issues still stand. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian25

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 an Admin please revoke Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs) Talk page access as he's repeatedly pinging editors while blocked and does not get it.. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the harm here. It's not my call to make obviously, but why not just let him have his last stand. All we really need to do is disengage and he'll loose interest. It's also worth noting that the last time his talk page access was revoked for WP:NPA reasons, Alex immediately resorted to sock puppetry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Good points, Thanks JMHamo (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I will disengage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to make a last attempt to get him to understand, but the first thing I see today is block evasion with another account (which I have blocked). I fear he's simply too young and impetuous to fit in at the moment, so I think I'll suggest a Standard Offer to him and I'll explain once again the behaviour he'll need to change if he's to come back. And the best thing to do then, I think, is just ignore him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at User talk:Alexiulian25#Standard Offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Alexiulian25 is not happy with the Standard Offer I made, and he might want to appeal here. So please leave this section open for a while - I've offered to unblock temporarily solely for the purpose of making such an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• And there's an unblock request, if anyone is interested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I must say that you went above and beyond what was necessary. I just don't think Alexiulian25 has the competence or maturity, but mainly competence, to edit on ENWP. Too much of what people are saying just go sailing by; the whole "I've taken a 7 day break so please unblock me now" thing is one such example. I couldn't possibly endorse an unblock. Blackmane (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur - the "you must unblock me or pages will not be updated!" attitude is concerning as well. A perfectly cromulent block and they need to take the standard offer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I closed this as no further action, then saw that Alexiulian25 is still trying to continue his article disputes at his talk page. So I've revoked talk page access and pointed him at WP:UTRS, and I've reverted my close of this section - I'll leave that to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible rev/del

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 edit popped up on my watchlist. While it is the usual scam I wonder if it should be suppressed. I would hate for an unsuspecting person to come across it in the edit history and actually send a message to the email address. If it does not meet the criteria for r/d that is fine but I did want to get input on it before other editing led to my forgetting it. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. It's one thing to revdelete ordinary spam, which normally isn't necessary, but retaining something that might have even a remote chance of harming history-reading people isn't particularly important. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check on this Nyttend. It is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor engaging in edit war for kicks

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:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz repeatedly undoes edits to Brooklyn Lee page, removing additional photographs provided, and reverting to an older version. He is doing so under the guise that the newly included photographs are "photoshopped." Furthermore, I included information about this individual's current work, and it was reverted as "self-promotion." Wikipedia exists to provide current, factual information and associated content. In continuing to undo my edits, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is undermining the integrity of the site by disincluding relevant photos/information. It is Wikipedia's official stance to "revert only when necessary." This individual is reverting for sport. Vforvampist (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I let Hullaballoo Wolfowitz know about this thread on your behalf. JMHamo (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

They did, it was just at the top of the page. HighInBC 00:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the OP for asking one of our editors to die. HighInBC 02:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User displaying blatant ownership

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.

---

Callmemirela engaged in a revert war on Brooklyn Lee, and showing clear ownership by making more than 6 reversions in one hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconorangina (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 January 2016‎

Please see above WP:ANI#.28Self.3F.29_promotional_editor_who_won.27t_be_deterred. If my statement is truly required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the obvious sock who made this faux complaint allowed to continue to abuse legitimate editors? This is obviously the same person as is operating the User:Vforvampist account == the substantive edits match up, they don't sign their posts, they add their comments to the top of user talk pages . . . and this edit summary [26] has earned an immediate block and suppression. Why the delay? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked both accounts. HighInBC 02:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since the block of VfV didn't slow them down, I've also semi'd the page for a few days. Better than whack-a-mole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat by 190.150.36.88

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

---

The basic issue is László Csatáry, a dead person who was convicted of being a Nazi war criminal and about whose guilt there may be some controversy. The subject IP first made this ambiguous legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEteethan&type=revision&diff=698036016&oldid=698035941

The subject IP then made this unambiguous legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEteethan&type=revision&diff=698227460&oldid=698195207

The human behind the IP address has a right to make legal threats, and a right to free speech. The human behind the IP address has no right to use WMF servers to make legal threats, and their right to free speech does not extend to WMF servers. The human behind the IP address has been warned and has ignored the warnings.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for one week. -- GB fan 02:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I also left a note. Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Spanish speaker requested

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 someone who speaks Spanish look over these two edits [27] [28] and confirm whether they are personal attacks/harassment. I think they are but I don't want to go blocking anyone based on Google Translate. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese. I was unable to comprehend the first diff, but I was able to confirm one thing in the second diff. The IP told, what I presume, the IP who is/speaks Portuguese and any other Portuguese editor f you in Portuguese. They also said in the second diff that the IP should learn when it comes to losing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24:, first one is rather unfriendly advice from an uncivil and frustrated person, you won, go get a woman, that kind of stuff. The second doesn't cut it though, f language, I win, learn to lose. That's harassment. --Midas02 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks both. I've blocked the second IP for a week (seems a pretty static address) and a warning has been left for the first one. Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: The first one calls the editor marica, which is a homophobic slur akin to "faggot". I would say it translates to the English expression "sissy Mary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

IP 68.46.222.11 vandalizing and article blanking

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.

---

Check THIS out.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

---

[29] --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Threat revdeleted and user blocked by MusikAnimal. Unless it balloons into bigger drama, this seems resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Source faking incident

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.

---

(Sorry if this is the wrong page, but I'm not used to the English Wikipedia...)

I accuse user:Matthiasberoli of heavy cross-wiki source faking.

He has already been under observation for a long time by de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Musik because he used questionable sources in German articles related to Eric Clapton. For example, he used a limited edition book from his so-called aunt (PDF, self-published) for exactly these sources of positions he was not able to retrieve elsewhere and that we questioned. We think that this book does not exist physically, only virtually, and we strongly doubt the information in this piece of eletronic paper. (For German-speaking people: here is a incident explanation in German). In addition to that, he was also accused of using sockpuppets for manipulating article certification votings last year.

The last weeks he has also heavily edited in the English Wikipedia, more than a thousand edits . I saw by chance this morning that he inserted faked sources in an en-WP article, because a German editor wanted to re-use the faked source in the corresponding German article. The article is Slowhand at 70 – Live at the Royal Albert Hall. He edited this one short before Christmas 2015 and also made hundreds of edits to several Clapton-related articles in the English Wikipedia.

I will now list comparable sources to show what he faked. I already removed these links from the article.

• faked screenshot from hmv.com.hk (added a chart position and a certification that do not eist) and the original page
• faked screenshot from portalsucceso.com.br (inserted the DVD in place of another album) and the original page (insert dates as in the faked caption)
• faked screenshot from promusicae.es (a * added in the certification column to indiciate a non-existing certification) and the original document
• faked screenshot from ifpi.fi (added the album at place three though being at place 5 and a non-existing certification) and the original page
• In addition to that, he also added a screen of a suspected #1-position in the Danish music-DVD charts, but these charts are not longer compiled since mid-2015, and are not listed on the original ebsite anymore.
• All these fakes were uploaded to de:Directupload on December 23rd, only hours before he put them into the articles. Also other related articles contain links to such screenshots, all uploaded the same day Matthiasberoli edited this article.
• He also added the book by his suspected aunt in some en-WP articles, for example Story (Eric Clapton album) (where also another two unverifiable sources are included) or Pretending (Eric Clapton song).

The given faked sources, among others, were also used heavily in the article Eric Clapton videography. In general, many of his edits seem unverifiable. I suspect the whole articles created and edited by him mentioning Eric Clapton as being full of faked information. The problem is that he also adds many correct information to the articles...

You may expect further adds from German Wikipedia authors here.--Ali1610 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ali1610 looks to be right. I took a look at the German page (with machine translations ) and Matthiasberoli states that he's using this book:

• Title: The Music of Eric Clapton
  
• Year: 2014
  
• Publisher: Keil press (Self)
  
• Pages: 250
  
• Language: English
  
• TBP-ID (Textbook Publishing ID): 85178349
  
• Author: Astrid Keil
  
  
  

Problem is, this book doesn't seem to exist anywhere except on the site directupload.net. Also, looks like the discussion Ali1610 pointed to has been going on a while with no results, same thing with the sockpuppet investigation. He's definetly edited Eric Clapton here and has used that same source. I can't see the uploaded book and I'm hesitant to say a self-published book wouldn't be reliable (I mean, WaRP publishing is the authoritative press for Elfquest, and it's a Self Published press, so why not? ), however, without more evidence, I would sadly have to agree that using that link (directupload.net) for anything would fail RS over here. KoshVorlon 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is not the book in first case, this one is only the tip of the iceberg. The fakes of information uploaded at Directupload are way more problematic in my opinion. And he has edited so many articles that it will be really hard to find out what is wrong und what not. A note: the author of the "book" shall be Astrid Keil, that was a mistake above. Plus, I do not think blocking Directupload would be a good thing, because he would either switch to another picture hosting service, or people from Germany where it is popular could be offended. --Ali1610 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) (Just seen: May we interprete this edit as an admission of guilt? --Ali1610 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

The problem seems to be more serious than I initially expected. When the user started his work on Eric Clapton articles (first on de-WP), it appeared to me that he just tried to introduce some (serious) original research via the “book” by his aunt, given the incompleteness of the official sources. But now I have to admit that appearingly the user has completely invented certain numbers and certifications, also if I can’t understand the reason for such behaviour. And the false information meanwhile can not only be found on the German, but also here on the English Wikipedia. I guess the first step must be to remove all the Astrid Keil and Directupload sources introduced by the user! And better hurry before he continues his renewal of the Eric Clapton discography …--XanonymusX (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Matthiasberoli for adding hoax information. Unfortunately while I've wanted to write a Clapton-related GA, I've not got the sources to do so. That's a shame as the minute I tried one, I would have uncovered these sources - experience also tells me that chart and sales statistics, particularly for foreign territories are the least checked over simply because doing so is so mind-numbingly dull. If I was going to do work on Clapton articles, I would probably go for his autobiography and Paul Scott's book. ANY self-published sources on a BLP are a complete and utter no-no and should be aggressively removed per the policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the evidence presented and the block that followed as a result. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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.

---

83.217.96.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is posting legal threats at Talk:Tube Challenge. The IP is apparently the same individual who had made such threats before, as well as considerable other disruptive edits there. Deli nk (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year, since this is clearly a static IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In one case the guy's first name is spelled "Andi". Is that what the IP is on about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This idiot has been trying to insert his claims into the Tube Challenge article for ages. We're down to playing whack-a-mole by now. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, should the article and the talk page be both semi-protected long term? (The article itself is currently semi-protected for a couple of months.) Deli nk (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: The IP has been Blue Shelled and cannot do anything for 12 months. Look like we can close this case now. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How about waiting to see if the anyone would like to answer the question above before closing the case? Deli nk (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That sort of question is probably better asked at WP:RFPP or on the article talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

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

Dark knight rises pavan kumar

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.

---

Dark knight rises pavan kumar (talk · contribs) didn't learn from his first block to stop submitting unsourced content, and has continued it at List of highest-grossing Indian films In these edits he adds Bajirao Mastani to the list with no reference and changes the gross value for Baahubali with no reference. Box office gross values for Indian cinema are heavily vandalized and require constant supervision. User doesn't appear to comprehend this. There are numerous notices on the user's talk page, and some editors have suspected the user of deliberately adding unsourced content. I don't think he's here to contribute positively. Alternatively, we're talking about a serious competence situation. Note for example the creation history of S. L. B Films. The article was created three times, but at no point could the editor figure out how to add anything beefier than "S. L. B. (Sanjay Leela Bansali) Films" or to figure out how to get some help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a either serious competency issue or there is a vandalism issue; probably the latter. It isn't just a case of adding unsourced data but in some cases it has looked to me he was introducing deliberate factual errors. I questioned him on this issue during the 12-18 December but got no response. He doesn't seem to respond to any queries on his talk page, so I think unless he states to engage with the community we must start considering a one-sided solution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Block: It appears that the user who is editing the corresponding article needs another time out. Doesn't get any better from here. 50.29.199.144 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why does his talk page say he has been blocked since December 2015? No unblock requests or anything like that. Maybe it is time for a closure. Chesnaught555 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That was for one week. It's expired. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: No, I am wrong. I also propose that he be blocked. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Reverting a deletion proposal?

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

---

Can users just delete proposals like this one at Reform of Ottoman Empire? I found this unproductive but I would like admins to check it out. --92slim (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim: Yes, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag". Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Please don't replace the tag again. SQL^{Query me!} 23:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bring it to AfD. --92slim (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think an AFD would be the best option since it would garner more community input. If the rationale for keeping this article is not met in my point of view, I think it will be best to go along with an AfD. --92slim (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Superkeegan9100

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.

---

Superkeegan9100 continues to demonstrate battleground mentality, most recently in this edit where his edit summary reads "F*** YOU! The series is airing as of January 9th, and there is NOTHING you can do about it." This was his response after I challenged the quality of a reference he used. The reference is a current television schedule that only goes back a day or so. This means that in 2 days, this reference will likely be useless for purposes of verification. User has demonstrated lack of attention to detail and a irritation at established guidelines. I've twice had to ask him to stop marking all his edits as minor, yet he continues to do so. He was previously blocked for repeated submission of unsourced content. His response to that block was "fuck wikipedia"[30] and "FUCK WIKIPEDIA AND THEIR STUPID DUMBASS ADMINISTRATORS LIKE FUCKBOMB! I'M LEAVING THIS DOUCHELAND FOREVER! FUCK THIS SHITTY WIKI!!!!!!!!!"[31]. While a block might inspire change, I'd be fine with another admin explaining why this petulant behavior is inappropriate for a community editing project. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support an indef block wholeheartedly. Also, I took it up with myself to archive the source in question into the Wayback Machine - I simply insist that if Zap2It, LocateTV, or any TV network's schedule page be used as sources, they should be added to the Internet Archive before they are used. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 2 weeks. SQL^{Query me!} 21:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Thomas.W now marking all links to Findagrave as unreliable

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:Thomas.W is philosophically opposed to linking to Findagrave, and he now marking all links to Findagrave as unreliable in articles. The issue was brought up yesterday when he was systematically removing links to Findagrave, he was opposed, and the links restored. He also tried to have Findagrave blacklisted and was unsuccessful. This issue should be handled on global scale following debate and consensus, and not be done ad hoc to create a test case. It just makes more work for people to clean up. We do not need to disrupt to prove a point, we can debate and build consensus. I know it takes time to debate and build consensus, but in the end it saves cleanup time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "cleanup" - don't you have some of your own to do...? Like, maybe, before you continue to try to link to your own work on Find-a-Grave... Just sayin' Scr★pIron^IV 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue here? I would not consider Findagrave.com WP:RS (it's a project anyone can edit) so I really don't see the problem. Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, I'm not marking all links to Findagrave as unreliable. I have done it to a couple of them, but that's all. What I have done is removing pure linkspam from a handfull of articles, where the reference links in addition to a link to the subject's page at Findagrave also added an extra external link to the Findagrave mainpage, in order to increase the number of links to the website, which is pure linkspam.

What I have done on a handfull of articles is change the reflinks from this:

<ref>[http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=45370306 Katherine Green Brown] at [http://findagrave.com/ ''Find A Grave'']</ref>

to this

<ref>[http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=45370306 Katherine Green Brown] at Find A Grave</ref>

and on a couple of them also adding {{rs|date=January 2016}} when they were used as a reference for more than just death date, or showing a head stone. That is removing the extra part in the reflink that added a totaly unneeded external link to the Findagrave main page, in addition to the link to the subject's page there. I also suggest you all read the discussion at Talk:Lloyd D. Brown, an article where RAN was edit-warring because of not being able to, or bothering to, read diffs properly, before reverting, re-adding the extra spamlink (which had not been removed by me, BTW) time and time again because of not understanding what he was doing. Thomas.W ^talk 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, Findagrave is exclusively a user-submitted content site with no editorial oversight at all; it fails WP:RS. If it is being used as a source for contentious info, the info should be removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with talk insofar as the diatribe about "editorial oversight" is unwarranted overstatement. I do agree that Thomas.W ^talk is not going down the road suggested by Ivan, but instead is trying to make individual reasoned judgments related to particular articles. We should deal with what is being done, not hypothetically tilting at windmills. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Close this and direct everyone to the current talk page discussion. Find A Grave hasn't been considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave for quite a while. Your edit there doesn't seem to dispute that. Thomas' conduct seems appropriate then. There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Perennial_websites#Findagrave_tweak_to_text right now started by Richard to change that but I don't have any evidence that consensus supports Richard's changes to the current essay and thus Thomas' conduct is line with the long-held current consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong boomerang coming In light of the new evidence, I suggest a block on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who is clearly acting in bad faith. The edit warring is bad enough, but the fact is that the user knew perfectly well that Findagrave is not WP:RS. As shown here, Richard Arthur Norton posted yesterday to try to overturn the consensus on Findagrave. So if he knew yesterday that it is not considered a reliable site, starting this discussion looks very bad indeed. I suggest the discussion be closed with a (short) block for Richard Arthur Norton. Jeppiz (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll see that the non-reliability has been there for many years now with little dispute so it seems like the only objection is now that it's being enforced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree Jeppiz, although I would not suggest a block is necessary. Just topic ban RAN from discussing findagrave onwiki. As he is currently under a restriction from adding Findagrave links, it can probably be done by any admin as an AE action, or the community can topic ban him here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not added the links to Findagrave in question. I am not receiving money from Findagrave or from Ancestry.com, the parent corporation. On the contrary, I pay them by having a user account there for looking up dates of birth and missing middle names in the WWI and WWII draft registration. Spamming has nothing to do with the number of links created, it has to do with the intention of the links. In the top 10 of outgoing links from Wikipedia is the New York Times, adding links to their archived articles is not spamming either. The guideline reads about linking: Findagrave: "As a reliable source: Almost never. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia." Again this is about intention, if the link is "cit[ing as] a circular reference to Wikipedia." then I agree it is not reliable and should be removed. None of these links are to the biographical text at Findagrave that may "reference to Wikipedia", they are to the burial information and the birth and death dates on the tombstone that is pictured. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing Findagrave to NYT? Sheeesh. Even links that are seemingly added in good faith can be spamming, BTW, depending on how the links are added/coded and the number of links that are being added. The reflinks to Findagrave, which are so uniform regardless of who adds them that they seem to have been provided by Findagrave, all add an extra totally unneeded external link to the Findagrave main page, in addition to a link to the subject's article there, which in my book makes them a clear case of linkspam. Thomas.W ^talk 22:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe we should tag all FAG links as unreliable, get consensus first. Please show a link that you have changed that links to the Findagrave main page, as opposed to an individual burial, I have seen one, and I agree that it should have been to the individual burial. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You need look no further than a few steps up in this thread. This piece of code "<ref>[http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=45370306 Katherine Green Brown] at [http://findagrave.com/ ''Find A Grave'']</ref>" adds two links to Findagrave, a link to the subject's article there plus a totally unneeded external link to the Findagrave main page. And that's what the linkspam thing is about. Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the statement by Jeppiz that there is a "consensus" is not true. You can view the rest of his wholesale allegations through the same glass. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear user who does not care to sign, I'm saying that January 10th came before January 11th, so I'm unsure what you're insinuating. On January 10th, the user participated in a discussion where it was very clear they knew Findagrave was in doubt. On January 11th they posted here alleging it was a Thomas W. who was opposed. In the future, sign your comments and state your case clearly instead of making irrelevant snide anonymous insinuations. Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why I wasn't named, as I'm doing something similar to what RAR complains about. After seeing the ANI and WT:ELPEREN discussions, I noticed that there were inappropriate findagrave.com links that needed cleanup. While working on these, I marked all the findagrave.com references I encountered as unreliable. (I may have outright removed some if they were clearly unnecessary or were significantly worse than the other sources used in the articles.) A few of those changes were noticed by RAR who decided to revert them. I notified RAR of the problematic edits [32], and his response was to edit-war to include the inappropriate links. [33] [34]. Given he clearly new that the link was only rarely allowed per WP:ELPEREN, and that he knew that he need to find consensus for including them per WP:ELBURDEN, the reverts appear to be simple spamming to me. --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Undeclared Paid Editor - Jsherlock

Please see diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ravenswood_School_for_Girls&type=revision&diff=698415720&oldid=698253897 and User_talk:Jsherlock. Seeking assistance on how to induce her to declare her paid editing position. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the edit summary this might be on the edge of being a Legal threat. SQL^{Query me!} 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eh, I don't see that edit summary as a legal threat (although it mentions "courts", it's poorly worded but not unambiguous). I am not seeing direct evidence that proves that this account is being paid to edit Wikipedia. All I see is what appears to be a single-purpose account. Ariconte, do you have any diffs that provide direct evidence that unambiguously proves that this account is an undeclared paid editor? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I used the Google search terms "sherlock ravenswood sydney" which finds a LinkedIn profile.... which is explicit. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat or not, paid editing or not, the accused edit was quite proper. The edit she removed was not NPOV, most likely was NOTNEWS, and certainly was not within school article guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And I do agree that the LinkedIn profile pretty much screams, yea, she's a paid editor. John from Idegon (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I performed the same Google search, found the "off-wiki" location described, and could still not establish direct proof that indicates that 1) This user is connected in any way to the off-wiki location, and 2) that this account is being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia as part of their job title. Remember, AGF - we have circumstantial evidence at best; we do not have any direct evidence. All I see is a potential COI, and no indication that paid editing violations are occurring here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two points: (1) Not so much a "paid editor" as someone who works for and at the article subject and is in their full-time employ and does their digital marketing. This thread belongs at WP:COIN rather than ANI. (2) While the material removed from the article in that edit may have been proper to remove, the material added to the article in the same edit most certainly was not proper to add. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any updates to this thread lately. Unless anybody has additional details or concerns, I believe that a COI warning should be left for the person but that's about it. There is no evidence to prove the accusations presented in this ANI, and hence I am marking this as a preliminary resolved discussion. No administrative action is required. Am I wrong? Is this not resolved? Please remove the tag and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Template:Resolved isn't appropriate for ANI; it's for simple non-controversial edit requests on talk pages. Since ANI is always inherently controversial, it's better to place a recommendation that the thread be closed, if that is your recommendation; then an admin can check and close the thread if warranted. I personally believe that Ariconte should have placed this complaint on WP:COIN (where it belongs) rather than here. Since the problems with this SPA employee have been going on for over a year and a half, the article talk page should get the "involved editor" tag and so forth. However, someone has posted a mild COI notice on the editor's talk page. If she does not directly edit the article further, perhaps the situation is OK as is. If it recurs, please report to WP:COIN. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

From a COI perspective, 86.166.167.76 (talk · contribs) and Jsherlock (talk · contribs) have edited only this article. JSherlock may have a COI, having added some brochure-like material.[35] Those two don't seem to be supporting each other; this is probably not sockpuppeting. The article is currently at full protection, reflecting a minor edit war between LauraJamieson (talk · contribs) and John from Idegon (talk · contribs), experienced editors who edit many school articles. The possible COI editor is not currently involved in that edit war, although their deletion[36] may have started it. So this is now more of a content dispute than a COI problem. All the arguments center around whether the critical comments of the Head Girl, as cited in the press, should be in the article. That seems to be the only content in dispute. I don't think WP:COIN can help here. John Nagle (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence. I'm away from regular Internet :-) . I agree this should be closed.... my desire was to inform / assist Jsherlock. It appears she does not read the talk pages.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio material keeps on being added by this user

Hittit keeps adding copyvio material onto articles. At Armenian Genocide denial, the user consistently adds information that is a carbon copy from the relevant sources. I told him to refrain from doing so but then still adds information claiming that its "rephrased" when it is clearly not. I believe the user's contributions should be further examined. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hittit notified. Please remember to notify users if you are raising a thread on ANI or AN about them. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For Étienne Dolet edit, albeit done in good faith, from opposing view point seems easily labeled as violation. The edit has been rephrased and sourced. Based on WP:RV editors should refrain from blunt reverts and try to discuss the possible issue. Hittit (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hittit: Please read WP:3RRNO. Per the exemptions rules, ALL edits that contain WP:COPYRIGHT content must be reverted. These aren't blunt reverts, as you say it. Copyright is a policy on Wikipedia, something you aren't acknowledging properly. "Further rephrased" does not mean it doesn't contain copyright violations. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerted POV pushing attack and socking of banned user at Race and Intelligence and Richard Lynn

We have a sitiuation at the pages about Race and Intelligence that need some attention from users with tools. In the past few days two new accounts have turned up at the pages Sombe19 (talk · contribs) and 維基小霸王 (talk · contribs) pushing a clearly "hereditarian" "race realist" POV and promoting established fringe sources and authors - under the tutelage and advisership of an IP editing from an anonymizing Gaditek IP range that is veiling geolocation (themost recent is 103.47.145.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and also 103.47.145.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The IP is clearly Captain Occam (talk · contribs) who has routinely used off site coordination to orchestrate the insertion of his pov into articles. The style of argumentation closely follows Occams style (detailed lawyering, POV, calm demeanor (most R&I socks are anything but calm)) and reasoning (including arguments he has made in the past about how to "neutralize" the biography of notorious race scientist Richard Lynn) Today after a 1 month hiatus he posted at the site which shall remain nameless to complain about another sock that was confronting the IP at the R&I pages - thus clearly demonstrating that he is indeed the IP. I am currently traveling and do not have time to deal with this or with an SPI investigation, so I hope someone else might take a look. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: That the IP range and pure VPN service is similar to one used by another sock on this occasion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive246#Block_of_IP_range.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Statement: I have never been asked by others to edit such articles, except the ip user's encouragement on my talk page after my edits on N&I:

I hope you'll continue to participate in these articles. You seem knowledgeable and level-headed, and the articles need more people like that. 103.47.145.151 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never been asked to edit such articles through discussions on websites, IM, mail nor any other ways (except for the above encouragement).

I have never been in contact with the IP user (except for recent public talks on Wikipedia), Captain Occam nor Sombe19.

--The Master (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not actually suggest that Occam/103.47.145.151 had recruited you. But he has clearly been mentoring you, and you have followed his instructions almost to the letter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The only suggestion I've accepted from the IP user is to report puppet accounts who was later shown to be linked to long-term abuser Kingshowman.--The Master (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And to propose the Rinderman 2013 survey as a source for scholarly consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I found that source when searching for updated version of

Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42(2), 137.

Although later I found he/she already mentioned it in User_talk:Sombe19#The_Snyderman_and_Rothman_survey from your contribution log.--The Master (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, the 103.47. IP is clearly a soc of a banned user and taking advise or suggestions from him is generally a bad idea and could get you sanctioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I only took one suggestion from him/her. And CU has domenstrated the suggestion was right. If he/she really were also a banned user, it's better to domenstrate that. By the way, thank you for teaching me the distinction between demonstration and proposal. I expect to learn a lot more things from you and other users.--The Master (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP is pretty obviously Occam. I don't know where he got the two new meat puppets from, but at least Sombe19 has been trying to make some blatantly racist edits and talk page comments in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to add my comments - I think Volunteer Marek is right. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I also have been participating in the White Privilege article. [37] Was Captain Occam interested in that article too, or is Richard Lynn the only intersection between his edits and mine? 103.47.145.169 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think I'm finished participating in the Lynn article for the time being. I commented there because Maunus had edited the lede against the manual of style, but he has suggested a compromise there that is acceptable to us both. However, I hope I can continue participating in articles that aren't related to race and intelligence, because the suspicion that I'm Captain Occam seems to be based entirely on my edits in that single topic. 103.47.145.169 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I love how you worded that to *suggest* you're not Captain Occam without ever actually *denying* that you're Captain Occam. "Was Captain Occam interested in that article too" and "the suspicion that I'm Captain Occam seems to be based entirely on my edits in that single topic".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I respect about Occam, I have not caught him lying yet.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) - you might want to block the entire VPN range used by Occam here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandals of pages music

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.

---

[38] [39], [40]--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked them all for disruptive editing but, Giubbotto non ortodosso, don't you start also. Pinging Binksternet, for formality's sake. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems that Giubbotto non ortodosso has been editing while logged out: Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43, Special:Contributions/82.55.247.27, Special:Contributions/82.51.122.88 and Special:Contributions/82.51.120.173 are from the same area of Italy, doing the same sorts of edits as our friend. Which is genre warring without references. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

i only do occasionally rollbacks, i never do edits like Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43, Special:Contributions/82.55.247.27, Special:Contributions/82.51.122.88 and Special:Contributions/82.51.120.173 --Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I add, it looks like you wanna help some vandals that edit without a source where there is, like here, but i'm not accusing you, i'm just saying that your observation it's wrong doing an example--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Wondering how JC Gonzalez came to be listed as a Good 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.

---

The article JC Gonzalez has a Good Article tag, even though it's terrible - marginal notability at best, no better source than IMDB and with some images that were obvious copyvios until I flagged them. (It's up for deletion now-it doesn't seem to ever have had good content that got removed.) Does anyone know how it got to be a Good Article and if this needs looking at? There's no discussion on the talk page. Blythwood (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• The GA template was added in this edit. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've removed it. It was never nominated or reviewed as a good article, just added by an editor. Melonkelon (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Brilliant, thanks! Obviously not ideal, but looking at the edit that looks like it might have been an honest mistake copying across categories wrongly (another category added is clearly a mistake.) Blythwood (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Any views on Portal:JC Gonzalez?

• Some people build shrines in their closets, others make elaborate Wikipedia portals and articles. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Assistance requested on legal warning

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 this message from Tommy N. Trash. I'm looking for assistance to respond. Earlier I've reverted this user's edit in Tommy Trash which I felt should not be in an article. Vipinhari || talk 11:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment on the removed diff appears to be a simple case of somebody thinking that they can contact a page's subject through Wikipedia. The diff on your talk page, however, is an unambiguous legal threat that is addressed directly to you, and accordingly, a block has been placed. (WP:DOLT doesn't seem to be relevant here, as an aside, due to the fact the dispute, assuming it is legitimate, is over the use of somebody's copyrighted stage name.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thanks for lending a helping hand. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As a totally irrelevant side note, there *is* a trademark on the name "Tommy Trash" with respect to music -- but it's owned by a "Trash Time LLC" out of California, and only dates back to 2014. --Carnildo (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Vtrnascimento

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

---

I don't know the policies on possible Twinkle abuse but User:Vtrnascimento's editing is concerning to me. User:Vtrnascimento has been removing all backlinks to articles based on them being proposed for deletion or being listed at AFD alone. For example, the editor removed these links to List of supercentenarians who died in the 1980s and to based on a prod which was denied, didn't bother to restore the link when they were denied and then removed the remainder because they were listed at AFD. Now, it's my AFD and it's going my way but I still don't like it. It's been going on for days with this link to Hannah Morris (paleoethnobotany) which of course if kept is now completely orphaned. I gave a warning to the editor about the fact that if they are kept, the pages are now uselessly orphaned but does someone think these should be reversed until the actual deletion is complete? Can a bot do that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Just reverted ALL the "unlink-backlinks-before-the-article-in-question-is-deleted-type" editions I made. And also, all of them (the link removals) were good faith, so don't get deluded. And I promise I'll only do the unlinking when the article is already deleted. Thanks. Vtrnascimento (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me then. Thanks. My suggestion in the future is to review the article alerts pages (say for FOOTY) like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts and wait until it's actually deleted. Since anyone can remove a prod, there's a lot of reason for caution and waiting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting original "research" defacing Strongly interacting massive particle

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

---

The article, Strongly interacting massive particle, has been edited to include a passage that contradicts established physics. Apart from one minor edit elsewhere, this seems to be the user's sole contribution. I removed the offending paragraph indicating that if it is restored, I'll request administrator assistance, since I have no desire to start an edit war. As the paragraph has been restored by the author, here I am, requesting assistance. vttoth (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated WP:NPA violations against several users despite several warnings

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.

---

Religions Explorer continues to launch strong personal attacks against myself and other users. This new account takes a very aggressive stance towards anyone disagreeing. In the last few days alone, Religions Explorer first engaged in edit warring with DanielRigal, telling the user to "stay away" from the article in a fragrant WP:OWN violation [41]. After Religions Explorer engaged in extensive edit warring at Muhammad (an article under sanctions) [42], [43], [44], [45] I posted the standard warning to WP:3RR [46]. In response, Religions Explorer called me a "liar" [47]. Not sure what the "lie" was as the user was clearly edit warring; the user was also warned by both Amatulić [48] and Eperoton [49]. The user next proceeded to indicate I'm a troll [50] and was again warned for the policy violations by myself [51] and DanielRigal [52]. The user then posted on a discussion on ANI to again accuse me of lying and (somewhat ironically) claimed I was "making personal attacks and slandering" [53]. I again tried to explain that calling others "liars" is a WP:NPA violation, and in response I just got even more abuse, and was called liar five times in one short post. [54]. In short, this allegedly new user (with a remarkable knowledge of WP) seems to have something against me in particular, but takes a hostile attitude to several editors. Despite having been warned about their disruptive behavior by four different editors just in the last few days, the user just seems to increase the disruptions. Jeppiz (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I too am disturbed at the disruptive behavior coming from this user whose edits seem to be sincere attempts at improving content, but who seems to have a battleground mentality when someone objects to the edits, and doesn't understand the concept of collaboration (in particular when an article is under discretionary sanctions). I'd like to see Religion Explorer's response before I say anything else. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours with a reminder that recidivism will prompt fiercer sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspected sockpuppet

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 can't edit the SPI page. User:Xin Deui appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Hovertover and maybe User:DonSpencer1. 137.205.238.61 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you'd kindly prove your point with diffs, I'll be grateful. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similarity of edits: e.g. [55][56] (many similar examples) and focus on same narrow article range: [57][58][59][60]. 137.205.238.61 (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of WP:NOTHERE? There could be a connection between the two, but how exactly are the edits non-constructive. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:Civility Violation by Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

The 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.

---

Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise has responded to an editor's question on his talk page with "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself." in the edit history comments. [61] Normally I would just ignore this as the rants of an immature editor, but this is an Administrator, and should be held to a higher standard. I don't want to discourage anyone who is willing to spend the effort to act as an Administrator, but I don't think we should tolerate this kind of abuse either. WP:Civility applies to everyone. I would recommend a warning or temporary de-admin of this Administrator. Hopefully with time he'll learn to develop an more mature attitude in dealing with other editors. (This Admin has ordered me not to discuss this matter further on his talk page, so that avenue of discussion has been shut down.) SimpsonDG (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you keep posting[62] after being told that you were unwelcome on their talk page[63]? HighInBC 01:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He did tell me to stop posting on his talk page, so I respected his wishes and have not posted anything further there. But this isn't about me. This about about Future Perfect treating another editor with abuse and disrespect. Can you defend his telling another editor to "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself"? How is that not a violation of WP:Civility? If you can explain why that should be acceptable and allowed Admin behavior, I'll withdraw my complaint. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You have 50 edits in the last two years and you suddenly reappear to make a badgering, tendentious post on a user's talk page, then run to ANI and demand they be desysopped when you don't like their response. Pardon me if I'm going to question whether or not you're here to build an encyclopedia or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, another attempt to turn this around and make it all about me. Sorry, but I'm not falling for it. This is about an Admin, Future Perfect, bullying another editor (not me) with abusive language: "F**k off" and "Go f**k yourself". Since you're not attempting to explain why that should be allowed, I'm assuming that you have no defense for this. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not your place to restrict the content of the discussion. It's about whatever the editors decide it's about. And what's it to you anyway? It wasn't directed at you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well given his response on his talkpage of 'Fuck off troll' to StuRat, who is most definitely not an editor with 50 edits, what did you expect? Suggest dropping it, FPAS is habitually uncivil and has been for years, no one is going to do anything since the civility policies are dead in the water. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The only sensible response I've gotten yet. Yes, I suppose you're right. FPAS isn't likely to change his uncivil behavior, and from what I'm seeing here, no other administrators have any interest in enforcing civility policies -- they're just making me the problem for reporting the bullying in the first place, while they defend the bully. I'm dropping my complaint about FPAS. This just reminds me why I stopped editing WP some years ago: the admins are just a bunch of bullies, and you can't contribute to WP anymore without getting threats, bullying, and harassment. It's really a shame. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think it was uncivil and not ideal from an admin. If you can show it is part of a larger pattern it may be actionable. I think your generalizations about admins being a bunch of bullies unfairly paints a lot of people with a very large brush, and is a personal attack on hundreds of people. Perhaps you can stick to criticizing people one at a time with evidence instead of targeting whole groups. HighInBC 02:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're so full of it, HighInBC. (Did you not read FPAS's RfC from 2008? How much more of a long-term pattern of incivility were you looking for.) IHTS (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"If you can show it is part of a larger pattern it may be actionable." May be HighInBC? Why just maybe? If that is just maybe, I don't think that showing it is part of a larger pattern will change anything. Its quite easy for anybody to see it. FPAS does not refrain from violation of wp:civil even in the edit summaries. Here are some examples (stars are mine, I did not want to quote the whole f word):

• unbefu**ingleavable.
• oh for fu**'s sake, get your facts straight, will you
• eighteen. fu*****. days.
• rv fu***ng hypocrite
• Oh I'm so fu**ing sick of you all.
• fu** off, idiot.

Disclosure: FPAS and me were involved in many disputes, most often not on the same side.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between "may be" and "maybe". If I say you "may go the the washroom" I am not disputing the legitimacy of you going to the washroom. When I say it may be actionable I am saying that action may be taken. HighInBC 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Constantly troll and vandal and sock hunting is never-ending, thankless work, and I've been getting the impression recently that some of our Admins are burning out lately as a result. Admins shouldn't be afraid of taking wikibreaks when it gets to that point. Now, that said, while the current situation is unfortunate, FP@S is not an Admin who should be at the top of our list of Admins to haul before ArbCom. Neither is Nakon. I suggest people look for examples of Admins who have been long-term conduct problems on that score... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much this. While this isn't as egregious as an indef block with talk page removal, it's still not becoming of an administrator. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. --Tarage (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is trolling by IPs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And that somehow makes incivility okay? Don't change the subject Bugs. --Tarage (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The subject is whatever the editors decide it is. And the alleged incivility is nothing compared to the relentless, malicious trolling by IP-hoppers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is neither here nor there. And seeing what FPAS has just done, I fully expect them to not be an admin any longer. Not acceptable in the slightest. They need a break now before they do any more damage. --Tarage (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP-hoppers are the ones doing the damage. Future Perfect has not done any damage, except to the IP-hopping trolls, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Except for the other admin he banned and talk page revoked for reverting edits on his own talk page. Stop trying to defend this bullshit temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is more of a personal attack on Future Perfect than what he said to StuRat. Who, by the way, had his talk page unprotected two weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Future Perfect assumed that StuRat was defending the banned user, related to them, or was just having a bad day. It's clear however that StuRat was innocuously trying to explain themselves following Future Perfect's passive aggressive edit summary (for an appropriate edit), and the response, "Fuck off you troll," is a mistake. An apology for the misunderstanding is all that's needed - not warnings, etc. -Darouet (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Above SimpsonDG states he "stopped editing WP some years ago". However he apparently still likes to add fuel to the fire occassionally. The reference desks are run mostly by people who like to talk—the more excitement the better—and there is a very persistent troll who uses that situation to spread discord. When people revert the troll, "good faith" editors restore the posts and spread further discord by complaining on user talk pages with patently absurd statements such as in the section in question. To see how absurd the statement is, consider:
  • 22 December 2015 Thanks, but I don't want anon's blocked from commenting on my talk page, just because a blocked user has done so repeatedly.
  • 23 December 2015 Please unprotect my talk page
• It may be fine for the ref desks to run a forum, but the community needs to strongly tell the liberty users that WP:NOTFORUM is policy—if you stick to providing referenced answers for legitimate questions no one will be uncivil. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq has hit the nail on the head here. If you push someone into a corner with your troll-ish behavior, don't come complaining to ANI if he hands out butthurt. Be a grownup and grow a thick hide for God's sake. Or you can stop the troll-ish behavior. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We see them trollin', we hattin'. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment This is where female administrators are better than male administrators. They face much larger harassment but don't become uncivil. Those who passed RFA's before 2008, had a very easy ride. HighInBC and Future Perfect at Sunrise both passed their RFA's in 2006. In today's standard, they wouldn't have made it.There is another one; Kevin Gorman. Who is also not fit to be a sysop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.5.129 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2016 Say what you will about me, but when I criticise people I have the courage and basic level of character to do so using my regular account. Don't expect me to take anonymous vague criticisms too seriously. HighInBC 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) And just how did you realise this MR anon Ip from India who has no edits on wikipedia? Are you just trying to make sure that this comment is not linked to your real account. for you must have a real account and this is ur sock IP. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found it rather outrageous that FPAS would protect my talk page because of what somebody I don't know wrote on it, then refuse to unprotect it when I asked him to do so. This is my talk page after all, not his, and I should be the one to decide if it's protected. I complained to others and was able to get my talk page unprotected. Maybe that explains the massive chip on his shoulder that resulted in that extreme incivility in an unrelated matter. Of course, if Admins aren't desysoped for such behavior, you can expect far more of it in the future. I imagine such behavior from a user, towards an Admin, would get them blocked. So, apparently the rule is "Admins are allowed to be abusive to users, but users are not allowed to be abusive to Admins". StuRat (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect has been active smacking down trolling IP's, and 223.176.5.129 is probably on that list, so he would of course love to see a diligent troll-smacker stopped. As for StuRat, he has been a target of that IP troll many times, and needs to understand that banned users are not allowed to edit. He also needs to know that he does not "own" his user page. Furthermore, some of the trolling on StuRat's talk page has been directed at me. I object to having such material on Stu's talk page. And if he won't take any action about it, someone else has to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• One certainly does not own their talk page. They can't choose to use it as a forum, they can't allow banned users to edit there. Wikipedia has a real troll problem and people who enable them are really making the situation worse. HighInBC 05:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:HighInBC can you just close this topic please as per WP:DENY. It is quite clear that this is just a trollish topic and the more we feed it, the more time we waste. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• StuRat proves yet again to be completely clueless about the purpose of Wikipedia. Since 12 March 2015, StuRat has made 5000 edits. Of those, 4802 were to ref desk pages or ref desk talk. Another 76 are to user talk. About 75 of StuRat's last 5000 edits were to articles. FreeatlastChitchat is correct: the longer festivals like this continue, the more trolling will occur. However, now we are here, it may be appropriate to consider a community restriction that StuRat should not revert the removal of any talk page or reference desk comment, and should not question the reverter on their talk. If a review of a revert is considered necessary, raise the matter at WP:AN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, amazing. Is there something wrong with spending most of my time on the Ref Desk ? I generally avoid doing anything more than small copy edits on Wikipedia proper, because most of the time any major additions or changes just get reverted, so it's a waste of my time. And I've noticed the pattern of any complaint against an Admin meeting with immediate retribution. We need a whistleblower law here. StuRat (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not just reply here saying something like "I will not revert the removal of comments and will not question those reverts other than at WP:AN"? Do you acknowledge that a fair bit of drama has occurred regarding what appears to be trolling at the ref desks? Do you want to continue opposing the removal of material that good-faith editors consider to be trolling? Why? Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not StuRat that's reverting-back the troll's stuff - it's the troll himself. That's why the page was semi'd, because StuRat didn't care what the troll did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        • In general I think you are right. However, 18:50 shows an IP adding comments with an obviously trolling edit summary, and 18:51 shows Elockid removing it, and 18:53 shows StuRat reverting the removal. Everyone knows that trolls thrive on excitement, but some contributors to the ref desks regard that as someone else's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It's a mystery why StuRat would do that, and he shouldn't have. But as long as the page stays semi'd, the problem should stay away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problem was that I didn't recognize Elockid as an Admin, the material he deleted didn't obviously appear to be trolling, and he gave no explanation for the deletion in the edit summary. As an unexplained mass deletion, I thought it was vandalism. I still don't see requiring that an edit summary be included for such a deletion to be an unreasonable request. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You might think it's not unreasonable (and I might even agree with you), but on Wikipedia today, you're wrong. When someone clicks the Undo button, they get a nonspecific edit summary. No guideline requires them to fill it in with a more specific one. Many/most editors click the "OK" button without filling in a more specific one, and in general no one thinks less of them for doing so.

When you're fighting vandalism, it is your responsibility to make sure it really is vandalism before you revert it (you don't depend on the vandal to tell you it was/wasn't.) And, for better or worse, when you're reviewing the action of a vandal-fighter, the situation is analogous: it is your responsibility to determine that the reverted vandalism was or wasn't vandalism before calling the reverter on it; you don't depend on the reverter to tell you so. In general, you're supposed to assume good faith on the part of the vandal-reverter.

(What if the alleged vandal-reverter is actually a vandal, cloaking his vandalism in the guise of antivandalism? That's a problem, to be sure, but again, it has to be your job to figure it out, you can't depend on the might-be-antivandal to tell you so.) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• What we actually need is this topic to be closed with the remedy proposed by Johnuniq enacted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a solution to the wrong problem. The page needs to be kept semi'd, and that should continue to fix the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Guys, excuse me, but I think "F*ck off" and "Go f*ck yourself" are not exactly civil, huh? To be honest, I don't think that this should be given any leeway. I agree, that StuRat might not be particularly constructive but if the elected reps behave in such a manner, it's a shame for the whole community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  We know that fuck off is not civil. The problem, however, concerns what to do about the long-term trolling at the ref desks, and the ref desk contributors who inflame that situation, and who post comments on user talk pages that are indistinguishable from trolling. Or do you think that so long as no bad words are used, everything is ok? Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  No thats what you would *like* the problem to be about to excuse FPaS' incivility. Which is why my advice above was to drop it, since no one is going to do anything about an admin who calls an editor in good standing a troll and tells them to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  This thread is to discuss FPAS' incivility and I've given my opinion on exactly that. You (Johnuniq) on the other hand are talking about something (diverting our attention) which doesn't justify his actions at all. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  A thread here is not restricted to the question raised in its title. And its curious that the OP is so concerned about an "incivility" not directed at him. That discussion should be between Future Perfect and StuRat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Definitely. Going around talking about your own agenda, (even if related but not about the topic) however is unhelpful. Hope I could help. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There's just no excuse for such incivilities from an admin, whose behavior is expected to be "at a higher standard" acc. Jimbo Wales. In my view those type of profane responses should merit immediate desysop. (The editor who writes profane responses like that has to not only compose them, but deliberately hit "Enter" on their keyboard. Admins are expected to simply have more discipline & restraint than that, no matter what they fucking "feel". Or they simply are not fit to be admins, or to retain their adminship. Period. [Unless they are posting when drunk. If they wanna continue with the profane posts, they can do so as non-admins, perhaps resign their tools. Otherwise this site is nothing but hypocrisy and BS re admin behavior "at a higher standard", as what meaning does that have in the face of this? A minimum standard of decor re admins entrusted w/ powers reg editors don't have, if not enforced, is gonna just cause the rank-and-file reg editor the responses you see in this thread, and disrespect for WP from new users who observe, and reason for reg editors to be disinclined to contribute here in light of said hypcritical & corrupt environment re admins. This is easy and obvious and just watch those who defend indefensible posts by admins bend over backwards here to excuse the inexcusable.]) IHTS (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. And let's get something straight: Profanity laden posts like FPAS made are expressly prohibited from admins, no matter fucking what. (Not something "not ideal". Not something "not condoned". Not something "not helpful". Not something "he/she is human". [They deliberately pressed "Enter" after typing the posts. It's unaccpetable unless drunk or on drugs. And that is unacceptable as well.]) IHTS (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  You should save your outrage for the IP trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but trolls are trolls. Why some 'special kind of outrage for the IPs, may I ask? Remember, all trolls are humans, just like the people editing on IP addresses. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Pretty obviously because the relevant trolls in this debate are those at the desks, and those are purely IPs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  (ec)That's not quite true. Registered users can be indef'd. IP's are only given short blocks. And in the case of the troll in question, he's an IP-hopper. That's what's so vexing about IP trolls - and the fact that Wikipedia maintains this insane policy of allowing non-registered users to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  An irrelevant response, Bugs. (Essentially anyone on planet Earth w/ a keyboard can be an IP troll and post profanities. There is no stopping that unless IPs are not allowed to edit, or a sophisticated profanity filter is developed & implemented. Since neither of those are in the cards, your post is just deflective. And so a fair Q is why.) IHTS (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  It's totally relevant. Blocking an admin who's fighting trolls does nothing except to aid and abet the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, and we should totally support him because he's fighting them with some beautiful "F*ck you"s and "Go f*ck yourself"s. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Why don't you say what you really mean Bugs?: You agree that admins are allowed the kind of profanity exhibited by FPAS. (Fine. Then let's hear you also say "admins at a higher standard" does not apply on the WP. [Then I can have some reason to respect my time in dialogue w/ you here.]) IHTS (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Are people really arguing that telling a troll to fuck off is a problem? It isn't. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  And that is the kind of attitude that causes the problem. First off, dealing trolls with abusive language shows exactly what kind of a person you are. Second, if you really believe they are trolls, you're just feeding them by saying that. StuRat, has exhibited feelings and an attitude to solve this problem, look at FPAS' talk page to see the contrast in the tone and content of their replies. Also, to quote FPAS, SimpsonDG is a "butthurt malcontent". Give this man a medal for creativity, maybe? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  It's fucking inexcusable behavior from admin period, whether reg editor, IP, or fucking monkey. IHTS (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Trolls deserve all they get, provided that they are indeed trolls (ie: it isn't someone just using the term almost randomly, as the likes of Smallbones tend to do from time to time). I really do not see why admins should have to patronise with waffle like "please find yourself another hobby": give 'em both barrels. We don't have to sugarcoat things, no matter how much a few poor dears might dislike it. You want a profanity-free environment then go live on some other planet. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It was obvious you'd say that, seeing Special:Diff/699166699. Synonimizing an user with the devil, saying "Piss off" to an user who is genuinely trying to understand Wikipedia's policies. Good job. At this point, you're a half-baked version of what FPAS is, if you want to be proud of it, that's your choice. Also, some curt language, you got there, buddy. Please have the decency to be polite and get rid of that attitude. You have no special authority here and if we have to sugarcoat things to maintain civility, so be it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  You may be forgiven because of the deliberate obfuscating going on above, but FPaS told StuRat (not a troll) to 'fuck off troll'. I assume from the interaction because he didnt feel like answering questions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  That is so stupid Sitush, IP trolls s/ simply be dealt w/ and ignored. Admins at a minimum can & are expected to conduct themselves minus profanity. (They are admins for Christ's sake; their behavior is expected to be at a minimum decor and profanity is easily avoidable by ADMINS. [What don't you fucking understand about that, it is a simple idea.]) IHTS (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  IP troll/registered troll - what's the difference? A troll is a troll. Profanity is no more easily avoidable by admins than it is by, erm, you (or me, on occasion). Only in death, you may have a point. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There is a deeper argument here, viz the management of the ref desks, and attempting to reduce the issue down to the behaviour one individual (Admin or nay) is reactionary. (Sory- that should of course read fucking reactionary.) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  There may be multiple issues, and until you define "management of the ref desk", how is anyone able to decide you are right that it is "deeper"? (Hypocrisy re "admin conduct at a higher standard" is pretty fundamental-enough for me to quality as deep [conflict].) IHTS (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Punishing FPaS here would be tantamount to issuing a carte blanche to trolls, socks and vandals to target specific editors they dont like, goad and troll them into using a four letter word and then run to ANI to get the. The degree of civility one can expect from others depends on the situation, including one's own conduct. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I fully agree with ·maunus. Ok, so Future Perfect at Sunrise was goaded. I'm not defending the language, but FPaS is still one of the best admins around. It is very very easy for trolls to target users they dislike, perhaps using several accounts, and just wait for the target to have enough of it. That's the real problem, not that FPaS got a bit too frustrated. Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Closure reverted

Closing summary:

• Even if justifiably frustrated, Future Perfect at Sunrise should not use quite such strong language in edit summaries.
• As a refdesk regular, StuRat should be aware of ongoing IP vandalism patterns, and/or should AGF when encountering reverts of same.
• SimpsonDG should find something more important to complain about.

(In other words, there is plenty of blame here to go around.)

• The protection status of StuRat's talk page is a separate issue which should be discussed elswhere.
• The appropriate management tactics to use on the refdesks in response to trolls and vandals is an ongoing issue which is absolutely being discussed elsewhere.

—Steve Summit (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)}}

I definitely don't think that FPAS belongs here with such conduct. Furthermore, I don't see why you closed it as there were no remedies. A pretty hasty close for an incomplete discussion which hasn't led to the resolution of the problem. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good point. Nobody with such long-term pattern of uncivil conduct belongs here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't understand why the two solutions presented are either "FPAS should not be an admin" or "FPAS is justified in cursing out editors who make mistakes." This is such a simple situation: FPAS was aggravated while fighting trolls, StuRat mistakenly impeded them called him out on a passive aggressive edit summary, and FPAS swore at StuRat. Both of them should apologize and everyone should move on with their lives. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that StuRat wasn't "mistakenly" impeding the cleanup; he was doing so knowingly and deliberately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, you would still look like a bigger person by apologizing for your choice of words. It doesn't hurt, I've done it several times.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: how do you know this? It looked to me like they'd made a mistake they were upset at your edit summary, and I don't understand why StuRat would rack up 5,000 edits on Help Desk in order to troll. Do you both have a history, or is there something obvious I'm missing? -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• It is, unfortunately, a little late for that now as FPAS just blocked TheRamblingMan. So, everyone get their popcorn ready.... Resolute 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Eh. The only one possible "uncivil" edit summary was made on his own talk page, as a response to a particularly stupid question/trolling. Nothing to see here. Get a life. Grow up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just close this politely disguised harassment. It's being used as a venue for anyone who's ever had a run in with FPAS to conduct a WITCHHUNT. My apologies to other experienced Wikipedians speaking up here, and with whom I've worked collaboratively, but I know you have personal issues with him. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe your motives to be anything but wanting to see him tossed like a caber. Don't pretend you don't stand to benefit because he's prevented you from diddling content per your own POV. Love you all as I do, this entire thread reads as a latch-on to get him for something... anything. Okay, that's my 2¢. I just thought it would be a refreshing change to approach things honestly. We're all terribly proficient at painting our comments with a veneer of Wikipedia professionalism. Hooray for us, but bollocks to blatant opportunism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Honest approach does not mean that FPAS's long-term pattern of uncivil conduct should be tolerated. On the contrary. No appeal to motive can change this simple fact. It does not make much sense either. Experienced wikipedians know better than to confront FPAS anywhere at wikipedia. Those who do, certainly don't do it because of the blatant opportunism. Otherwise they would remain silent. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which experienced Wikipedians are afraid to 'confront FPAS' (I'm taking the liberty of substituting 'know better' for what you're implying)? Why do you chose the descriptor 'confrontation'? I've certainly disagreed with FPAS in the past. I'm trying to wrap my head around why you would want to 'confront' any editor or admin unless they were genuinely flouting policy and guidelines. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to pull up a couple of examples of confrontations you, personally, have had with him in order that we all have a chance to evaluate your behaviour and FPAS's behaviour in context. I'm not interested in a diff or two that may be presented to your own advantage, but beginning with an actual content change and the ensuing exchange over it by both of you. Actually, truth be told, I've been involved in and observed a couple of these myself and would prefer to be discrete by not bringing them up here. That's not to say that we don't all disagree at some point or another, nor that we don't make bad judgement calls, but that the overall premise of being HERE is the predominant one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: It's clear that some have had past run-ins with FPAS, but I haven't seen that for StuRat (it may be true), and for my own part I have only ever been impressed by them (I recently agreed with them strongly at Talk:Bijeljina massacre). Unless it can be convincingly argued that StuRat was trolling, FPAS just needs to be more civil. Asking as much is not an indictment of their adminship, and in my view is on the contrary an expression of confidence in them. -Darouet (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: I disagree that it is 'an expression of confidence'. I also disagree with the re-opening of the thread. Forcing gestures of remorse is a futile punitive exercise, and I have sincere doubts as to whether it actually changes the dynamics between Wikipedians who are under pressure and will have moments when they can go off like a tinderbox as either the person who felt indignated, or the other who felt put upon (which is what I believe to have happened here). I think we all get caught up in a sense to having to project an image for inexperienced editors and potential editors that justice is meted out to all, despite their experience and rank. The only thing being accomplished is extending a venue for the airing of dirty laundry. Kill off the thread. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If the OP was seeking removal of FPAS' bit, then this whole discussion is moot. A complaint filed at ANI, no matter how long it gets, will not result in removal of an admin's tools. That can only be done by filing a case with the arbitration committee. So, either this discussion is really about venting about behavior some editors find unacceptable or it is about behavior at the Ref Desks but demanding that FPAS' admin status be taken away will lead to ZERO action. That is not because editors find his behavior to be unproblematic. It's just that, unless he voluntarily resigns, no one here can take it away, no matter what good or bad reasons are put forth.

This seems to happen on a regular basis on ANI, that an editor asks for an admin to be desysoped which involves a lengthy debate with no resolution because there is nothing here like a vote of no confidence to remove an admin's status. You're bringing your complaint to the wrong forum. If you believe an admin should be desysoped, make your case at arbitration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(Not a direct reply to Liz235) Maybe, if FPAS could be humble and just apologize for the multiple incidents where he'd failed to maintain civility, it'd all be over by now. Moreover, people have adopted an attitude where they consider abusive language to be standard for interacting with a troll (and again, StuRat is not the troll). I'm pretty surprised I'm gonna have to say this - you're too stupid to understand or blindly supportive of FPAS because of his other (good) actions, which should in no way undermine his conduct problems. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Yet again, FPAS has outdone himself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocking TRM was not really appropriate, but the IP troll (now blocked) was making personal attacks on someone other than TRM himself, and that kind of thing is routinely removed by admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Ha, this close was so obvious. Almost all participants had previous interactions with FPAS and were biased towards/against him anyway (silent observation). The two arguments presented were: "He was pissed off, it's fine." and "Nothing justifies what he said. Especially, that he's done it before too." Honestly, I'd like to see this acted upon and further discussion on this issue would help (the thread was not stale and had active discussion while it lasted), but I'm not going to contest a close for the second time. If any editor has actively documented FPAS' deteriorating conduct (I say that because I doubt we elected him as sysop with this kind of behaviour), he/she should definitely give it a shot at DRAMACOM. Very respectfully. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Standard offer request for Bazaan

• Moved to AN. BMK (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Edmund Janniger

A vivid deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edmund_Janniger was closed today by a non-admin,[64] despite the fact that it was a contentious discussion with nearly equal numbers of editors arguing for keeping or deleting the article. Per WP:NACD, a non-admin should not attempt to close contentious discussions. Additionally, the discussion was still ongoing and there was clearly no consensus reached, so the editor's choice to close as keep was procedurally incorrect (could only be closed under no consensus).

I disagree as to any relevance to the discussion still being ongoing. The discussion can be closed, even if still ongoing, after seven days.

Can be closed after 7 days if there is clear consensus one way or another. If no consensus is reached, the discussion is normally relisted. But that's nor relevant here anyway - the discussion was relisted.

The real question is whether it should have been closed as Keep, which it was, or as "No Consensus". Since No Consensus results in a Keep, is it worth making an issue about the close?

It makes a fundamental difference for any future renomination. kashmiri ^TALK 02:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion but another (non-admin) editor (Cachets687, who argued for keeping) is now reverting. Please someone with more authority than me could take a look at the way the AfD was closed, and either restore the AfD or close appropriately as no consensus? Many thanks. kashmiri ^TALK 01:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this sort of issue is what Deletion Review is for. Take it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Things take ages there ;) kashmiri ^TALK 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision to keep was made by consensus following an AfD debate which was relisted 3 times. Voices to delete often came from dormant accounts that reappeared for the discussion. Kashmiri has made edits to a closed AfD debate. Comments regarding an article made following the closure of an AfD debate can only be written on the article's talk page or via other appropriate discussion pages. It is also important to note that Razr Nation, who closed the discussion, was acting in accordance with WP:NACD. Razr Nation is an experienced editor; Kashmiri is not an administrator. I have reverted the misguided steps taken by Kashmiri and have posted on the article's talk page. (WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should, as a rule, only close discussions if they are fairly experienced editors, and have participated at previous deletion discussions...Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO.") Cachets687 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As User:Cachets687 was involved in the discussion, they should not be taking any actions regarding the discussion. I'm reviewing the discussion now. Nakon 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick clarification: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO." per WP:NACD. Thanks. Cachets687 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-closed the AFD as No consensus. WP:DRV is that way. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Thanks for stepping in and solving this issue. → Call me Razr Nation 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, DRV very rarely overturns a "no clear consensus" close ... one problem was that while there was a majority of "keep" !votes, there were some "delete" !votes from participants who are not normally Wikipedia active editors, which I found odd. Collect (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There were a few delete !votes that may have been from external sources, but I found that there were enough legitimate editors that !voted delete and had significant arguments to warrant a "no consensus" outcome for the discussion. Nakon 02:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Appeal to authority

Quick note: I'm posting a quick summary as well as a collapsed detailed explanation.
There is a conflict which has been ongoing at this page for several years now. I've known for some time that there are people who mistakenly think that any appeal to authority (which would necessarily include WP's policy on citing reliable sources) is a fallacy, regardless of the nature of the appeal, the authority, or the participants. One or more of these people seem to have recently established ownership of this article, edited it to suit their view, and are fighting against any attempt to correct it. I believe an administrator is needed at this point, because the arguments have never progressed past the point of these editors claiming that the sources are all wrong. I (and one other recently, and several others over the past few years) have been trying to make them understand the issue, but to no avail. Even when I quote the sources directly, they either ignore it, argue with the source, or claim that the quote means the opposite of what it says. Recently, I have been almost the only one arguing for the sourced definition of the term, and it's becoming more and more difficult to reign in my frustration at the complete lack of ground the other side is willing to give. A longer explanation of my involvement and the issue is collapsed, below.

Detailed explanation

My involvement My involvement began with this comment to the article's talk page, asking if there was any reason why the article differed from its sources. From the very first response to that question, the push from the other side has been to debate the meaning of the term (ignoring the fact that the definition is provides by the sources) or the nature of truth, rather than addressing the discrepancy between the sources and the article. I tried to shift the focus back, only to be stymied at every turn. The primary voice arguing with me has been FL or Atlanta (talk · contribs). When I quoted a source used on the page, FLoA promptly deleted that source, claiming it was not reliable without specifying why, despite the fact that it is used on virtually every other WP article on fallacies, with no challenges to its reliability in evidence (I did use an advanced google search and the WP search function to try and find where its reliability has been questioned, but with no results). FLoA then added an additional source which states that science allowed us to stop receiving all our knowledge from authorities, using this to support the statement that appealing to authorities is a fallacy. I pointed out that this was synthesis, but to no avail. When I removed a source which linked to a youtube video by a noted HEMA practitioner as not being a reliable source for an article on a form of argument, my change was immediately reverted by FLoA under the pretense of 'maintaining' the article while discussion was ongoing (a pretense that, apparently, did not include the 12 edits he made to the article during that time). Eventually, I opened a request for mediation at WP:DRN. It seemed to begin well, being accepted by a volunteer and opened, until a second volunteer stepped in to begin hatting portions of my request (not entirely without justification, but nonetheless in a disruptive and one-sided manner), before closing and re-opening the request, installing himself as the mediator. (I later learned that the first volunteer was not qualified to be a volunteer, which explains why another took over, but the lack of any notification of this to the parties involved was a drastic oversight). At that point, I was too weirded out to continue with the request. After reading that the primary party opposing me was 'going away' for a few days, I decided to go ahead and correct the article. I did so, only to be quickly reverted by another user (Perfect Orange Sphere (talk · contribs)) who had been canvassed (more on that later, including evidence) into the discussion. My edits: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] The edits which reverted my changes: Note that the first is from an IP editor who may be a user not logged in) [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] When another editor appeared to correct the lead with this edit, it too, was immediately reverted. In fact, no edit I have made to the page remained for even 24 hours. I (and any who agree with me) have been effectively blocked from editing the page by our unwillingness to edit war, and the other side's willingness to revert anything they disagree with. I continued to make my case on the talk page to the new face of my opposition, but again, to no avail. That brings us to the current point. Note also that throughout the discussion, the opposition (who have been arguing that appealing to an expert, reliable source is a fallacy) have brought up multiple sources and presented them as experts whose authority invalidated my argument. Note also that none of the sources they provided explicitly disagreed with my position, despite their assertion. In each case, synthesis was needed to conform what their source said to their position. I have asked about why they are using the very argument they claim is always fallacious, and the best response I have gotten so far is "Because of WP:V". One might note that citing WP:V is, itself, an appeal to authority. Canvassing I discovered earlier today that a number of users (all of whom were on the opposite side of the issue from me) had been contacted by an IP editor (97.106.144.198 (talk · contribs)) to come participate in the discussion. So far, only one has seemed to respond. Posts made by the IP user about this: [85] [86] [87] I feel it's worth pointing out that user Lord Mondegreen, who had been recently discussing the very same issue on this page, taking the same position as I was not contacted, nor was user Original Position, who also took the same side as me (and I must say, did a wonderful job of explaining himself using concise, technical language). Evidence of my position Below is a list of quotes with attributions showing that the argument is not always a fallacy. Most sources are explicitly defining the term, but a few are explicitly defining the fallacy, yet clearly state conditions that do not include every possible usage of "X says Y so Y is true". Some of these sources are from the article, some are from my own research. All of them (in my opinion) meed the standards at WP:RS handily, and every single one agrees with me. In fact, I could find no reliable sources at all which explicitly state that the appeal to authority is always a fallacy. PerOrSph (using initialism for this user's handle could be seen as insulting, so I'm abbreviating it instead) insisted that they had provided sources which state this, but none of their sources actually do state this. It could be inferred from some of the sources they gave (only a handful, 2 or possibly 3 were ever given), but that inference would be the only manner in which those sources disagreed with mine. If one did not make that inference, then all the sources would be in agreement. For example, appealing to expert opinion could be reasonable if the field of the expert is appropriate, and other conditions are met. But, of course, as the logic texts have so often pointed out, such arguments can sometimes be fallacious appeal to authority. -F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed (2003) "Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations" [88](PDF). Artificial Intelligence and Law: 133. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Basing a belief on what some authority says. A legitimate form of appeal to authority goes as follows: X holds that A is true. X is an authority on the subject. The consensus of authorities agrees with X. There is a presumption that A is true. It is a fallacy if we appeal to someone who is not an authority on the subject, if the authorities widely disagree, or if we say something must be true (and is not just probably true) because authorities support it. -Gensler, Harry J. (2010) The A to Z of Logic. Lanham, MD Scarecrow Press Appeal to Authority: Not always fallacious, but always something a critical thinker must consider. It is where you are asked to accept something as true based upon the word of an expert (authority). The main question is, "Are they really an expert?" Perhaps they're not an expert in that field, perhaps they've got an ax to grind, or perhaps they are being paid by someone. -Foothill College Although appeals to authority can be erroneous, it must also be recognized that some appeals to authority can be reasonable and legitimate in argument. For example, suppose you have a toothache and you go to your dentist for advice. He replies as follows. This tooth is badly decayed, but not beyond repair. I propose to replace the decayed portion with a filling immediately. Your dentist's advice in [this example] is the judgement of a suitably qualified expert in his field. In asking for his or her advice, therefore, you have appealed to an expert authority. However, it by no means follows that by acquiescing to his proposals you have committed a fallacy. -Walton, Douglas (2008) Informal Logic. London: Cambridge University Press The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. ... Finally, it should be noted that it is not irrelevant to cite an authority to support a claim one is not competent to judge. However, in such cases the authority must be speaking in his or her own field of expertise and the claim should be one that other experts in the field do not generally consider to be controversial. In a field such as physics, it is reasonable to believe a claim about something in physics made by a physicist that most other physicists consider to be true. Presumably, they believe it because there is strong evidence in support of it. Such beliefs could turn out to be false, of course, but it should be obvious that no belief becomes true on the basis of who believes it. -The Skeptic's Dictionary - appeal to authority Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument. -APPEAL TO AUTHORITY — argumentum ad verecundiam Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. -UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center Appeal to Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field experts in the field disagree the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious -Stephen Downes, by way of a Stanford University handout The fallacy of irrelevant authority is committed when you accept without proper support for his or her alleged authority, a person's claim or proposition as true. Alleged authorities should only be used when the authority is reporting on his or her field of expertise, the authority is reporting on facts about which there is some agreement in his or her field, and you have reason to believe he or she can be trusted. Alleged authorities can be individuals or groups. The attempt to appeal to the majority or the masses is a form of irrelevant authority. The attempt to appeal to an elite or select group is a form of irrelevant authority. -Texas State Department of Philosophy We all rely on the advice and counsel of others. Sometimes when we present arguments, we appeal to what experts have said on the matter instead of presenting direct evidence to support the claims that we make. Critical thinking allows for this, for it would be difficult and wasteful to always repeat arguments already made by experts. Thus, many arguments that appeal to some legitimate authority can be construed as strong inductive arguments. ... ...many arguments that appeal to a legitimate authority are strong inductive arguments... -Salmon, Merrilee Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking (2012) Cengage Learning What is wrong with arguing from authority? The short answer is, nothing – if the authority is a good one (for the conclusion in question). The reason why arguing from authority as such is sometimes classified as a fallacy is that it is not distinguished from arguing merely from putative authority. ... Paying too much attention to the latter kind of case, that of the deliberate, sophistical use of false authority to persuade an opponent, is one thing that leads to the traditional view that arguments from authority are always fallacious. Another is focussing on the case where an arguer (perhaps a solitary one) is indeed convinced of the genuineness and relevance of the authority to which she is appealing but is, in our view, mistaken in that conviction. Each of these pictures of argument from authority mistakes one species of such argument for the genus and, having done so, is unable to account for the obvious fact that we regard some arguments from authority as perfectly good arguments and are right in doing so. In this way they fail to save the phenomena and fail to provide an explanation of them. -Bire, John & Siegel, Harvey "Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies" Argumentation August 1997, Volume 11, Issue 3 pp277-292 Fundamentally, the [ad verecundiam] fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority." -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Fallacies "...many of our trusted beliefs ... rest quite properly on the say so of others..." -Gensler, Harry Introduction to Logic (2012) Routledge Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from authority) fallacy: an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise. -Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (emphasis added in all cases)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Appeal to authority is basically a philosophical concept concerning formal logic. In formal logic you can't make a syllogism or a statement that says that A=true because B says so and he should know. Basically whether the authority is an expert or not doesn't matter when it comes to formal logic. In formal logic you go all the way yourself and basically that's not always the way we work in daily life and certainly not the way we work on Wikipedia. We're not in the business of making syllogisms here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but, first, Wikipedia does need to discuss formal logic properly. Second, the argument from authority also applies in science, consisting of dismissing a new theory because it is inconsistent with old theories (authorities) rather than submitting to experiment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Thank you. Your final two sentences are perfect summations of my position with regards to the content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the Appeal to Inappropriate Authority is a fallacy in informal, not formal logic. You can make a formally valid syllogism that say that A is true if B says so. For example:

1. If B says A is true, then A is true.

2. B says A is true.

3. Therefore, A is true.

This is a formally valid modus ponens argument. Remember, formal logic is fundamentally concerned with the implications between statements, even false statements. Thus, it will investigate the logical implications of even false statements (such as (1) often is). Original Position (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The short version, not containing any diffs, doesn't make the case that there is article ownership behavior. The long version is [[WP:TLDR|too long, did't read. However, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and the original poster is trying to edit against the consensus at the talk page. What the original poster sees as article ownership behavior by multiple editors is probably seen by the other editors as simply following consensus. I suggest that the content dispute be the subject of a Request for Comments, which will get a larger consensus. (The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has been tried, and has failed, because the original poster insisted on making article ownership claims, and DRN discussions do not address conduct issues.) Admin eyes on the article would be a good idea, knowing that the admins might see article ownership, but they might see editing against consensus. Someone should help the original poster develop a neutrally worded RFC (since non-neutral RFCs are harmful). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The assertion of editing against consensus is untrue. A review of the talk page and the talk page archives will show that there has been a consensus for years to include the fact that the argument is not always a fallacy. I am merely the most active current participant. The current state of the article is relatively recent. Additionally, at least five other users have supported my position either on the talk page, by edits, or in edit summaries within the past 7 months, whereas the opposition consists of two registered users and one to three IP addresses. 33-45% is not a consensus. That may not represent a consensus in my favor, but it absolutely does not represent a consensus of the opposing view. Additionally, I have never understood that WP:CON ruled to the exclusion of WP:V and WP:OR when those policies conflict. If WP is to be ruled entirely by popular opinion, then what use is it as an encyclopedia? Finally, I would like to point out yet again, that the article as it currently stands makes the case that the Wikipedia itself is a collection of fallacies, and does so using the argument that it explicitly defines as a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't thoroughly read the article yet and that there may very well be something wrong with it. However, Wikipedia is not an exercise in philosophy or formal logic. I think it is important to separate these two issues. As Robert McClenon has written above; "Wikipedia does need to discuss formal logic properly". And as such it should be described in its own right. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed there isn't consensus against the original poster's edits, that is all the more reason why a Request for Comments would be an appropriate way to resolve the content issue. If there is indeed article ownership behavior, then reporting that behavior with a few diffs rather than a hidden wall of text would be a better way to request admin action. I suggest that this discussion be closed with advice to the original poster to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There's more to it than ownership. The collapsed portion contains diffs showing canvassing, as well. I suggest you read it. It's not as long as you seem to think it is, unless you insist upon reading quotes from 14 sources which I provided. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I agree. The article should explain how the argument works, and what its features are in both formal and informal logic. As things stand, the article defines its features in formal logic (rather poorly, though that's due mostly to the sheer number of edits recently), then proceeds to insist this is the end of the matter. If you take a look at the article, you'll see it doesn't contain a single example of an appeal to a false authority, but only of cases where legitimate authorities happened to be wrong, or their authority was improperly applied to the issue (being used to dismiss evidence, for instance). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to say that I believe progress is being made on the page. Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version with MjolnirPants. But instead of being willing to compromise and discuss, they quickly get impatient and pull out of discussions or decide to escalate. MjolnirPants has more or less said that the only version of the page they'll accept is one which fully aligns with the view he holds on the issue - building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way. FL or Atlanta (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Many edits have been made in an attempt to make a consensus version Which edits were those? The edit removing a reliable source which I quoted to support my position, or perhaps one of these edits reverting changes I made to the article? [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. Or perhaps it was the edits which reverted changes by others users who agreed with me? [103], [104].

building a consensus is very challenging when someone is behaving this way Kind of like trying to build a consensus with someone who states that broad agreement among every cited expert is actually a minority opinion? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with MjolnirPants] All I'm seeing in this thread (both long and short editions), and in the talk page, especially by FL or Atlanta, gives me a strong suspicion that we're in a Dunning-Kruger effect situation. I'll keep it short: the weight of sources talking about it being a fallacy is because people are wont to use appeals to authorities in deductive arguments (in which the appeal is a fallacy), but it's a different situation with an inductive argument. If you don't understand this, you need to read up on the subject a good deal, and further tendentious editing in favor of your misunderstanding will not be tolerated. Nothing wrong with editing a subject with which you're not profoundly familiar, but repeatedly reverting others based on your own misunderstanding is profoundly disruptive. And this one is even worse, introducing an outright hoax: having watched the video, I can assure you that the source does not address the issue of "speaking about issues unrelated to their expertise". This, therefore, is your final warning: Perfect Orange Sphere and FL or Atlanta, if you persist in these editing patterns, a block will result. I strongly suggest that you either stop editing in this subject area or that you restrict your editing to obvious tiny fixes (e.g. spelling) and talk-page discussions. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak to the conduct issues--I'm not familiar enough with wiki's norms to do that--but on the content issue, MjolnirPants is correct. The primary content dispute, as I understand it, is about whether all uses of an appeal to authority are fallacious, or only some. Of course, you could have the view that appealing to authority is always fallacious, but this is not the consensus view in philosophy. Mjolnir has already cited many sources for this, but to sum up, the best online philosophy guides (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities." , both written by professional philosophers) say that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. Furthermore, standard textbooks in Intro to Logic classes (eg Hurley) also acknowledge this (Hurley says "Of course, if an authority is credible, the resulting argument will contain no fallacy." p.139 of A Concise Introduction to Logic). In other words, it is standard in discussions of the argument from authority to distinguish between fallacious and non-fallacious uses of this kind of argument.

Unfortunately, this distinction is almost completely absent from the wiki article on this subject. For instance, the opening summary paragraph states, "Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning...Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts, as the truth or falsehood and reasonableness or unreasonableness of a belief is independent of the people who accept or reject it. [10]" But as shown, logic textbooks and standard guides actually teach that only some appeals to authority are fallacious. These sources, and the other sources presented by MjolnirPants, should be sufficient to justify the proposed changes to this page. Original Position (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just a bump, Perfect Orange Sphere is still engaging in the exact same behavior and I want to try to keep this section open in case Nyttend isn't able to deal with it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is build a consensus and accommodate potential concerns, and the discussion and edits on the Talk show this clearly. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Concern that have been singled out by user:Poeticbent for harrassment.

A dispute over text in the article "Polish death camp" controversy, discussed here Talk:"Polish_death_camp"_controversy#Request_for_comments, resulted in a sockpuppet investigation being opened by the above user after I had reverted edits I considered OR, POV and without valid citations. I tried to communicate with the user in his talk page but with no response.

After making the edit, the above user added to the article talk page and a main page edit summary both informing me that I'm "not getting it" with link to WP:NOTGETTINGIT, e.g. [105] and [106], which led me to believe that they were belittling my edits in an attempt to make me "go away" from the article. I feel this was uncivil behaviour, especially as it was public and extremely brusque.

A sockpuppet investigation was also started by the above user. The content of the talk section also includes "See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rapido" [107], this was also added as a talk summary to a main page edit [108] '(Undid revision 698547331 by Rapido (talk) → see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rapido)'. I feel this was an unfair attempt to publicise the sockpuppet investigation and convince other users of my "guilt".

However when another user made a similar reversion as I did [109], they didn't find themselves with an opened sockpuppet investigation, but received a "barnstar of diplomacy" from Poeticbent, something of an amazing double standard. [110].

I therefore believe I have been unjustly singled out for harrassment by Poeticbent, with the text in the article's talk page and edit summary and the opened sockpuppet investigation being attempts to bully me away from the article, or to influence other users against me.

Rapido (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since by their own admission (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rapido) Rapido has been IP and registering the same article (ZX Spectrum) they are, in fact, violating the WP:SOCK policy. As the violations seem to be due to a lack of policy understanding the appropriate remedy would be for them to knock it off. Quick IP non controversial edits of articles one has not edited registered aren't likely to cause an issue, but the same article should not be edited both registered and unregistered. NE Ent 19:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, I have checked the WP:SOCK page before posting my concern on this page and it says "Editing while logged out - There is no policy against editing while logged out...' and the earlier policy mentions 'Editing logged out to mislead', i.e. logging out to edit pages to evade sanctions, however I have been performing the opposite: specifically logging in to be linked to my edits and avoiding the IP address potentially changing.

I am also concerned that the issue I raised here has not been touched upon at all, in fact you made no mention of the other party's conduct. Rapido (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at the SPI [111]. We're dealing with some pretty bizarre behaviour by User:Poeticbent here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Serious personal attacks by User:Indruraz

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 changed the header to better reflect the importance of the section. —teb728 t c 21:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Indruraz is making several edits accusing Worldbruce in the edit summaries of being a "blocked sock-master." Since the block log does not show any blocks, this is obviously false. —teb728 t c 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) For example, [112] and [113]. —teb728 t c 11:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Also "archiving" a non-existant SPI against Worldbruce: [114] —teb728 t c 11:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Knowing how to go to SPI, archive, using the sock block and sock tag templates, (which are very obscure even for non admin veterans), moving over redirects, making their first edits at WP:BRFA, all of this in the first 57 edits. I don't think I've ever heard louder quacking than this. Obvious sock is obvious. Time for a WP:DUCK block. Blackmane (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy deletion of this link[115] which created a fake SPI page for Worldbruce and turned it into a redirect to an actual SPI archive. If this action was the forgery that it looks like, it would be a serious personal attack that needs to be addressed. Scr★pIron^IV 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And this edit, which I have reverted, is an even more serious personal attack, since it creates a fake SPI report against Worldbruce and then archives it to a real SPI-investigation (the one the redirect mentioned above leads to). It also shows that it's a very experienced editor... Thomas.W ^talk 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that with this edit[116] Indruraz adds to an article a composite file created by blocked sockmaster Armaanaziz—the same user he tried to associate Worldbruce with. If Indruraz is in fact Armaanaziz, it would explain his experience with SPIs. —teb728 t c 20:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• I notice that Indruraz collaborated [117] with Minhaz.de in creating the fake SPI. —teb728 t c 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A big Thank you to teb728, Blackmane, ScrapIronIV, and Thomas.W for guarding my back. I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armaanaziz in regard to the matter. You can read all about it there if you're so inclined (it's long, but there's a short version). Worldbruce (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User: Zachlita harassment, 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.

---

After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive, in which it was apparent to me and Brianhe (talk · contribs), based on what we could see at the time, that Zachlita (talk · contribs) was a sock of Spacecowboy420, Zachlita has begun a campaign of WP:HOUNDING against me. It appears Zachlita's account was created to assist Spacecowboy420 on the article Dodge Tomahawk which grew in a a protracted dispute, which led to a AN/I complaint by Spacecowboy420 against me. Zachlita, monitoring my contributions, followed me from Dodge Tomahawk to AN/I to speak against me.

On an unrelated article, I added some photos I'd taken to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Spacecowboy420 followed me to that article, so he could revert. This led to an edit war over removing US English from the article, for which Spacecowboy420 got a 24 hour block for 3RR violation. Another editor who has been aiding Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers appeared, and argued against me on the talk page. Like Zachlita, 72bikers had joined Wikipedia recently, jumped into the battle on Dodge Tomahawk, followed me to AN/I, and then followed me to Harley-Davidson XR-750. Next thing you know, who should appear but Zachlita, monitoring my contributions to see where else he could argue against me.

In an unrelarted article, a new editor added some unsourced performance claims "based on personal knowledge" which we routinely revert. I also removed some material tagged since 2014[118]. I added a standard "welcome-unsourced" message to the new editor's talk page. The new editor replied asserting WP:TRUTH and expert knowledge, typical of anyone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Who should show up, but Zachlita? He added encouragement to add more original research to articles, and made a personal attack that "some people think they own wikipedia and aint nice to new editors."

I removed the bad advice and personal attack, and warned Zachlita to stop making personal attacks and hounding me. Brianhe has previously warned Zachlita for civility violations on Dec 24 and again and again on Dec 26. Zachlita next restored the uncited performance claims to Honda SS125, which I reverted and warned Zachlita again for adding unsourced content, and carrying on personal grudges and harassment. He responded by restoring the personal attack to the new editors talk page.

I don't think there's any point in me reverting or templating any more. A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers or Spacecowboy420 at this point. I expect we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

all the editors mentioned in this report edit motorcycle articles, and we all watch eachothers edits and turn up on the same articles. i dont agree with some of dennis edits so of course im gonna revert them.it aint personal.and dont call me a sock again plz. you made a sock report and it was proven i aint a sock.you just dont like people who dont agree with you Zachlita (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noting briefly that I concur with Dennis's assessment of the involved editors' behavior. Zachlita's latest sarcasm-laden rejections [119][120] of my offer to try to find common ground on which to solve a literal one-word dispute show that there are some serious misunderstandings of how collaboration on Wikipedia is supposed to work. This follows prior remarks that indicated poor understanding of community norms of civility and consensus-building like this and this. I'm a bit flummoxed as to how to move forward when faced with an attitude as inflexible as this. Brianhe (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't stalk or hound anybody, Zachlita. I watch my watchlist. I gave you links to the harassment policy and you made the choice to ignore it. You didn't find any of these article on your watchlist; you found them by looking at my list of contributions and finding ones you could pick fights over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

this is about dennis and brian not agreeing with edits.first sock reports and now this. me and other editors didnt see a need to change wording, so youre saying im inflexible and have civility issues. this is about content not about me. Zachlita (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see how you might be unhappy about the SPI but it's not an excuse for retaliation by stalking. Wikipedia is not a battleground is another thing you've been repeatedly directed to read. These links to policy and guidelines are not magic spells that Wiki editors throw around or cards we play in a game. You're supposed to actually read them because there's stuff there you need to know. When you're told "you will be blocked if you continue to ignore this policy", you should listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just annoyed because consensus isn't in your favor. You try to police every motorcycle article and take people to ani when they don't agree with you. You're the subject of civility reports and 3rr reports so don't come across as an injured party.you don't get consensus so now you resort to fishing for blocks.Zachlita (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're just repeating the failed argument of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility. The closing editor, Chesnaught555, said "Take it to COIN. This has gone on for too long. Blocking Mr. Bratland would be punitive to say the least. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK I think." You should have read DROPTHESTICK and followed that advice. You should have read and heeded the harassment and battleground and civility warnings. You are not a newbie and have been repeatedly warned that the way you have been going about this is going to get you blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I got dragged into this. But I take offence to that I am just following someone around. Dennis why have you been speaking badly of me and never notifying me of the discussion. Is this how you treat or speak of editors that disagree with you? I think what should be really discussed here is mr bratlands behavior . What gives you the right to write your novel theories and opinions have no bearing and much much more. Dennis has a unwillingness to accept consensus. Even when other editors overwhelmingly disagree with dennis . He writes a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender . Even when majority disagrees with him he feels that for some reason he deserves some concession in his favor accept a good comprise, and move on. Maybe if his behavior were less obtrusive he would have less conflicts with other editors. Not sure what to make of this A block for harassment and personal attacks is necessary to put a stop to this. Not sure what to say about 72bikers. What is this to imply? What gives you the right to leave this on my talk page? Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another warning that you need to heed. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. You took note of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility and picked out 3 editors whom you chose because they expressed negative attitudes towards me as an individual. Because you thought they'd side against me, you canvassed them here, here and here. The guideline says "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)" is inappropriate. Combined with your pattern of Wikihounding, incivility, and tendentious editing, canvassing to stack votes is likely to get you blocked form editing. If you have trouble believing me, I'm sure experienced editors like Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs) or Skyring (talk · contribs) can convince you that these rules apply to your behavior, and you should stop.

  Please find some other way to build an encyclopedia and avoid deliberate confrontations.

  The sad thing is, the discussion you were canvassing and vote stacking for was one where I had not even argued against you or taken a position on the issue at hand. I said "I can't find any top speed tests" on the 1199 R, and so didn't commit to anything. But your obsession with me made you see things that weren't there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you have to or the right to berate or harass other editors that disagree with you? 72bikers (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is following and harassing who? 72bikers (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, I was about to request a block of you here at AN/I, but I felt like you had not been sufficiently warned. Since you were not the subject of this, I'm not required to notify you. Instead I posted the warnings you copy-pasted above (you need only use diffs by the way; it's more readable). I assume you got to this AN/I the same way you found your way to the other pages you have been hounding me on, checking my contributions and looking for any controversy you could participate in. And here you are, as expected. I expect you will continue to hound me, and continue to insert yourself into any topic I'm involved in until you're blocked.

IP address data might imply that you, Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita are not socks but you walk and talk and quack like socks. Perhaps meatpuppets, or a little of both. Or you all simply like to disrupt Wikipedia in exactly the same way. No matter what we call it, it has to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What gives you the right to berate and harass me and make unsupported claims. I have only run across you on motorcycle or motorcycle related articles. Are you to imply that my interest in motorcycles is in some way related to me following you around. Shame on you sir for not allowing others to disagree with you! 72bikers (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What needs to stop is your uncivil behavior towards other editors. Leaving unprovoked threating messages on editors talk pages. Is that just your effort to imply some authoritative message to editors that disagree with you. If anything has been proven here is that you have scoured my contributions to find something to throw in my face.following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. When all I did was just look for editors that were not your personal friend that Vote-stack for you. To give a unbiased opinion on a article that's it. Please stay off my talk page with your uncivil intimidating and harassing behavior thank you. 72bikers (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers since you're here, maybe you can explain why you templated Dennis with Wikihounding and following another user around for using the talkpage of an article he created five years ago? This seems like nothing more than a deliberate effort to block Dennis from access to contributing to articles. Despite your opinion on the "validity" of his reasons for requesting a one word change, he is allowed to use the talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So he is allowed to leave threating messaged on my talk page just because I disagree with him? For what possible reason would he legitimately have for harassing and threating me. Why should he be aloud to make unsupported claims against editors. Then go and do the very thing he is claiming others have done. How is this behavior acceptable? 72bikers (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is right there in your edit history. It's an almost unbroken record of grudge edits, on pages chosen via stalking. The canvassing is right there. If an admin needs me to post diffs of every specific instance of these policy violations, I can do that. Watchlists are a permanent record; it proves to an admin that you weren't watching any of those articles before your pals started disputes with me on them. I was hoping you would actually read the policies I linked to in the warnings so you would realize you have to stop. But I don't think you're ever going to get the point, if you're still trying to convince anybody that it's "just because I disagree". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with you sir. All that shows was I edit motorcycle pages. IF anything you are stalking my contributions and guilty of following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior . why are you searching through my contributions if not to just throw them in my face. Is it not that's what you are claiming I am doing and you just showed your guilty of doing just that. What brought me here is your unsupported threats on my talk page. 72bikers (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The meatpuppet claims are not realistic. Please note that I have not made a report regarding brianhe turning up on every ani report, sock report, talk page dispute and dispute resolution that you are involved in. Because despite him supporting your views every time, I respect his right to have different views from me. Try to have the same good faith in editors that disagree with you and we might have less time in ani reports. You do this every time. Some edits a motorcycle article that you think you own, you revert them with a scathing summary and template them, then when they dare to undo your edit or answer back, you go on a month long dispute rant, ignoring consensus and picking the rules that suit you, while ignoring those that don't. In the end you either get your way because people are tired of dealing with you, or it ends up in another ani report. You might have good knowledge of Wikipedia rules, but your presence here is far more disruptive than most vandals.you drive away good editors, you're unwilling to accept consensus and you turn every minor content discussion into a major dispute, unless you get your own way. That sort of attitude turns wikipedia into a bitter and unpleasant place.Zachlita (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(Out of order reply) For the record, Zachlita, lest my silence be taken as acquiescence of your claim that I "support [DB's] views every time". I pick instances to support Dennis, and other editors, carefully. You'll see for example that I was completely absent at Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal c. September–December 2015, or the surrounding actions at 3RRN. I assume good faith about the reasons for your incorrect conclusion, perhaps to be due to your lack of long-term perspective as a Wikipedia contributor. – Brianhe (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles#New first place holder began with Brian asserting the H2R should be listed, and me chiming in to contradict him. No basis for these imaginary accusations. They're just an attempt to fling mud and confuse the issue. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Zach, you cannot revert edits on the basis that you "don't agree with [them]". Mr. Bratland has been here for a rather long time, and it is clear that he knows quite a fair amount of information on motorcycling. Personally attacking him was not the answer, nor will it ever be.

I request that a CheckUser be performed on User:Zachlita and User:Spacecowboy420. This will confirm whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring here. If it isn't sockpuppetry, it's almost definitely meatpuppetry. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

dennis has been here a long time and he knows lots about bikes.and that doesnt excuse him ignoring rules on consensus civility and 3rr. how long does an editor have to be here before they can ignore rules? im not a sockpuppet. thats a proven fact. neither are all the other editors who disagree with dennis on many articles and ani reports. thats like saying you and brian are sockpuppets because youre taking his side. Zachlita (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not a sockpuppet of Brian, but that's a strange comparison to make considering that people do make sockpuppets to make it seem like consensus is on their side. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter -- sock, meat, same IP, different IPs -- it's the behavior that matters. If Zachlita, Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers could at least express that they understand what Wikihounding, harassment, and vote stacking are, and could express intent to obey the basic policies, you could imagine them putting this behind them and going their own way, to focus on writing some articles instead of on their grudge against me. But all I see from the three of them (or one of them, whatever) is denial and shifting blame. I think they're pleased with what they've accomplished so far and intend to do more of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports? Do you prefer to edit constructively, or is it the conflict with other editors you crave? Your recent appearance here sparked a series of editors posting links to a long history of this sort of behaviour, and your attacks on other editors above merely underscore the problem. Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was I being stalked or not? Look at the diffs and you tell me. Was Zachlita canvassing or not? Are Spacecowboy420 and his pals following me from one article to the next, or not? Does it surprise you that somebody with a grudge against me would try (and fail) to get me blocked at AN/I? Does it surprise you that if I'm being hounded, harassed, and the target of vote stacking, that at some point I'm going to be forced to come back here to AN/I to put a stop to it? Look at 72biker's first edits here and at Commons. They were all blatant copyright violations. I had no choice but revert them, he took offense, and joined up with Spacecowboy420 and Zachlita. Or maybe they knew each other all along. Or are the same person. What difference does it make? Do you think it should be allowed to continue?

If 72bikers is just a newbie editing in good faith, you could have done him a favor when he canvassed you for vote stacking. You could have given him a friendly understanding of the policy he was violating and convinced him to stop hounding me. Instead, you seem to have joined up with him.

The reasons why I'm here at AN/I are right there in the diffs for anyone to see. The question is why are you always right on my heels? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have ANI on my watchlist, Dennis. When I saw your name come up again so soon, I looked in. I don't care what you edit, though I do mind how it is done. Could you answer the question I asked, please? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw a chance to snipe at me again? I told you why I'm back here at AN/I. If this isn't Wikihounding, what is?

Do I edit constructively? After my three stalkers went to Dodge Tomahawk and deleted every word of independent criticism and objective commentary, I responded by going and digging up books and articles and uncovering all sorts of new facts, creating a new, expanded and comprehensive Draft:Dodge Tomahawk which met every one of their objections, bringing far more balance to the article than anything they ever did. I think my work speaks for itself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you answer the question, Dennis? Evading it just makes me wonder why it is difficult for you. As mentioned above, I was asked to look at the article you mention, and your agressive support of the nonsense word "winningest" in our encyclopaedia struck me as odd. I have asked you multiple times to stay off my talk page, and yet, despite the recent ANI discussion on this very point, where you were nearly blocked and promised to behave better in future, you have just done it again. This pattern of behaviour is not one that is usually associated with a constructive editor. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You asked a bunch of questions. How many answers must you have? I know, you want me to answer the question, "Is there no way you can edit without finding ways to irritate others?" You're demanding an answer to that question? See Have you stopped beating your wife, perhaps? You know two other editors worked with me on Draft:Dodge Tomahawk? A fourth editor supports the compromise on that article, but is being stonewalled by -- guess who? I've collaborated for years on things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions and WP:MC-MOS.

I'm happy to let others judge my contributions. You have nothing on me but an old grudge that you won't let go.

I have a question for you, and for the admins: should I put all the Noticeboards on my watchlist, and whenever I see the name of an editor I once had a conflict with, I insert myself into the middle of it, and say, "Yeah, that guy, he's no good, let me tell you about that guy..."? Should I do that? Should everyone do that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not demanding you answer the question, Dennis. It's interesting that you chose to answer a different question, that's all. I can't make you change your behaviour to other editors – that's something that can only come from within. Adopting the position that it is always the other guy's fault is another evasion. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know which question I didn't answer. You didn't answer my question either. Should I monitor all the Noticeboards for people I don't like? Are you sure you're helping here? You muddy the waters but will the admins have an easier time sorting this out because you came along and unloaded your old baggage? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See above, friend. If you see your behaviour as perfect, then obviously any suggestion for improvement is nonsensical. Pardon my intrusion. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Does my behavior have to be perfect before I get to say I've had enough Wikihounding? Would I be more perfect if I monitored all the Noticeboards for people I have it in for? I want to know if you think everyone should to that. Was Harley-Davidson XR-750 on your watchlist before you saw my name at AN/3?

Closing Admin Please consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions for Skyring (talk · contribs). The guy is watching these Noticeboards for the names of people he doesn't like, and haranguing them with loaded questions laden with false premises, e.g. "why are you always at the centre of these ANI reports?" It's one thing for an objective, uninvolved, third party to help resolve noticeboard issues, but Skyring is tendentiously using these boards for his own WP:BATTLEGROUND, picking his targets based on his grudges. It goes without saying that he thinks I'm the one who should be sanctioned, to which I say, again, look at the evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis whether you choose to believe it or not I hold no grudge towards you. Why would I care that you removed and informed me that some of my very first edits were not to policy that is such a trivial matter. And if anything I appreciated you sharing your knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia and other things wiki. Such as the talk page I never even really noticed these before. But now make it a point to check and read on every page I go to. And in doing so had come across some of your post on ram air Is this just somebody hypothesizing? or that it works at all -- I would be quite interested in learning more that. Sources? I thought I would return the favor and share my knowledge from working as a motorcycle mechanic and rider for 25 years and inform you and show the validity of these thing . And on your other post about motorcycle dry weights and wet weights .And after explaining to you and showing you sources on this information I believe you thanked me. But now that I have showed a difference in opinion from you. Or sought out someone who was not a close friend of yours for a third party opinion. Or that my opinion appeared inline with others you some how feel are out to get you I am stalking or harassing you. Would it not be true that I would have run into you on more than just the very few motorcycle pages I have contributed to. Or after reading this the any number of notice boards that you seem to be involved in. And I am only here to find this because of your behavior that I wanted to bring to the attention of the admins. Of Leaving threating and harassing post to my talk page. And why just because I choose to have a difference of opinion on a edit that to your even words. It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable to who you? So after all the thing you said of me here and else were these unsupported claims of sock or meat or just someones pawn or other nasty things .Then scouring my contribution for something to try and throw in my face. And the nasty threats left on my talk page. Is it not you that is guilty of stalking and harassment and just bad behavior? Born out of what looks to be paranoia. And now appears like you have some grudge against me. 72bikers (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a civility issue between Dennis Bratland and Zachlita. Why is my name (amongst others) being dragged into it? There has already been a sock puppet/master report regarding suspicions that I was in some way connected to Zachlita and/or Flyer22 Reborn Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacecowboy420/Archive and the conclusion of the involved admin on that report was The two accounts are Unrelated. Closing Please don't use this incivility report to make accusations unrelated to that topic of the report, that have already been proven to be wrong. I don't wish to have any more negative interactions with you, Dennis. You, Brianhe, 72Bikers, Zachlita and myself all have similar interests and edit the same articles, surely it's much better that we act in a friendly (or at least civil) manner towards each other. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar interest? There's a few thousand motorcycling articles. Are you suggesting the articles in which I first made an edit, and then you came along after me to revert, were on your watchlist before you saw me edit them? Your watchlist can be checked to see if it's true. The evidence shows that you took no interest in these article until after I touched them, and then you followed after me and -- surprise -- found a problem with what I had done. Why on earth would anyone want to delete Talk:Liter bike if not because you were following me around? Are you denying it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't wish to distract from the main purpose of this report, or get dragged into any further personal discussions as this is a civility report against another editor, so I will make this as succinct as possible. Like many other editors, I used the "contribs" button when I interact (positively,neutrally or negatively) with another editor. It's a great way to find interesting/active topics to edit or sometimes just an interesting topic to read. You are a prolific editor and have been for about a decade, almost every sports bike article I come across has your name on it somewhere, of course I will end up on topics that you have contributed towards, even if I never touched the "contribs" button. The Litre bike page was something that hadn't been edited since 2008 and just redirected to another article, I'm sorry if making a deleting it offended you, but I thought that it was a prime candidate for deletion, it was not an edit designed to annoy or insult you. How about the Bajaj Pulsar 200NS article? You edited it, and then I went there and reverted an IP editor's contribution back to your version, in order to remove some silly promotional content. Do you also think that reverting back to your version was unacceptable? I've made many attempts to inform you that despite our differences of opinion on some article content, I have no negative personal feelings against you, no desire to take any of this personally and that I just want to get on with editing some bike articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally we can agree. You've been using the contribs button to see what I've been doing lately, so that you can involve yourself in it. Not cool. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

+

User:Dennis Bratland. And the caravan passes on. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

−

Please don't twist my words. I use the contribs button with many editors that I have interacted with, because it helps me locate interesting articles. 99% of the edits that I follow lead me to an interesting article to read, and nothing more.

I don't involve myself because of you, I edit an article if it needs editing. I edit based on content, not based on the editor. If I had blindly reverted your articles based merely on the fact that you had made the edit, I could understand your attitude - but I haven't. I have disagreed with you on some edits, supported your edits in other cases and made totally unrelated edits in other cases. 08:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Your last effort is, once again, a total rejection of any compromise. An editor tried to meet you half way, and you didn't even make a counter offer. You stonewalled. This is the pattern on every conflict you instigate. You track people you don't like, revert them, and if they try to discuss, you refuse to bend. Your close associates Zachlita and 72bikers follow suit with perfect regularity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us be clear on the point at issue here. It is one word. Spacecowboy420 replaced the made up word "winningest" with "most successful", and from that Dennis Bratland edit-warred, making four reversions in a hundred minutes, made personal attacks against other editors[121], intruded himself on a talk page where he had been repeatedly asked not to go[122], and commenced this ANI report claiming that those holding contrary views were all sockpuppets of each other engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. All this over one word which has no place in a reference work. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a dishonest way to characterize what happened, and what I said. Please stop trying tracking the disputes I have with other editors so you can attack me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, I took a look at the history here and it seriously looks like you are edit-warring to include the word 'winningest' in an article. Which looks really really stupid. And by 'stupid' I mean, 'why on earth are you wasting everyone's time with this rubbish'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 was edit warring and recieved a 24 hour block for it. The issue was WP:RETAIN. I looked at every dictionary I can find and it tells me 'winningest' is US English, just like 'petrol' is UK English. Apparently some editors like Skyring think if a faceless account on the internet says, "Well, I'm American and I don't like winningest" then that trumps what dictionaries say. I thought that's how Urban Dictionary works, not Wikipedia.I explained that repeatedly, but instead I get called stupid by people who cite no sources, just opinions about which words they like and don't like.

Spacecowboy420 came to the XR-750 article to delete three closeup photos of the bike I added. The article previously had 7 side-views of the bike; he changed it to have 8 of the same side view, removing the 3 photos that were unique. Why? Because of who added the photos. Skyring, Zachlita, and 72bikers mobbed me at Harley-Davidson XR-750 because that is what they do: look for disputes they can join. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have commenced a discussion at WP:3RRN. Incidentally, the last three reverts were made within a space of five minutes. Perhaps there is a temper control issue in play. I also note that Dennis seems to accuse me of being a sock of SpaceCowboy420 above, by providing a diff of one of my talk page comments and saying it was SC420's. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got to stop mischaracterizing what others say and do. You are Wikihounding me. Nobody said you were a sock. You monitor 3RRN, AN/I, and who knows what other noticeboards, and when you see the name of somebody you have a grudge against, you weigh in against them. And now you're forum shopping over at 3RRN.

I see I mixed up the diff of Skyring's comment with this diff of Spacecowboy420. It doesn't make much difference -- it's the same thing from both of them. The dispute over 'winningest' was over, and now they're both stonewalling by refusing to accept any compromise. Yet they accuse me of not being able to collaborate. If you guys are editing in good faith, why not meet Brian halfway? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you are making this appear like you are doing all this just because you are not getting your way. The edit that was proposed by your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable. Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you. so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution or better any time soon. Maybe these language issues can be discussed later under better circumstances and with no time that has pass you kept up your efforts. The only thing that has change is your effort on notice boards to get editors blocked or leave threating messages on talk page to scare. It looks as if you are doing this just to get your own way and have no opposition. 72bikers (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

72bikers, you've re-posted the same point, what, five times now? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, all this talk, edit-warring, abuse, reports and intrusions into the time of editors and admins, because you want to keep one nonsense word in an article. If someone wants to remove "winningest" from an article, they should be commended for making a simple and obvious improvement, and the community should not have to wade through this every time you don't get your way. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE and not a good thing for the project. May I suggest that you pick your battles better. Come out with all guns blazing when there's something that really matters. Not this crap. --Pete (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I let that drop, an admin already decided the edit warring issue, and you two want to keep filibustering about it. Because you so respect everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis over exaggerating a issue does not make it go away. It has only been twice on these specific issues but three altogether on this similar behavior of yours. And all three times you have never address these issues. Is it because you know them to be true? These issues are at the heart of all this nonsense. Blaming others or wasting time or stonewalling you or someone's personal grudge over some very trivial issue. all this just because someone choose to have a different opinion from yours and did not want to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia just to for some reasoning of yours to appease you. I don't see how any of your logic here has been sound or does any service to you. 72bikers (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you feel that you can contribute to Wikipedia while never once accepting a compromise, or backing down from your position? And it's a perfectly acceptable practice to track others' contributions so three or four of you can pile on them in discussions? And you have no problem with canvassing in order to vote-stack discussions with like-minded editors? I've provided diffs of all these behaviors from your tight little group, and your response is that every bit of it is A-OK? And so you have no intention of stopping? Because that is the only reason we're here. The only reason anybody is blocked from editing is to stop the problematic behavior when nothing else works, not as punishment. And you're not stopping voluntarily, are you?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Look into your heart, Dennis, and ask yourself if your own comments do not apply to yourself. All this fuss over one little word that you seem unable to relinquish. No compromise, just edit-warring and personal attacks. Tranquility comes from within, and I'm not seeing the detatched, restful, productive editor that ten years makes of most here. --Pete (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop posting blatant falsehoods. I did back down on the "single word" issue that you keep harping on. I offered numerous concessions on the Dodge Tomahawk issue -- I provided Draft:Dodge Tomahawk as evidence of how much work I went to in answer to the demands of these guys, finding many new sources and writing a significant amount of content to balance the points of view, which is what they asked of me. You are a (fucking) liar, Pete/Skyring. Please cease this behavior. It's not acceptable, any more than your forum shopping and other obvious harassment. You should never have involved yourself here; you have too much emotional baggage to accomplish anything except fill this discussion easily refuted slanders and throw gasoline on the fires. Stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis you speak of stop posting blatant falsehoods. You have dragged my name all through mud with unsupported falsehoods. I barely know any of these other editors. But what appears to be just a common interest in motorcycles and in some way have incurred your wraft. You speak of people showing up here how did brianhe come here to speak badly of me he is your close personal friend is he not he came to pile on. And are you to imply the two of you don't vote stack. The behavior you have showed the threating the harassing the searching through my contribution to try to find something to throw in my face. Now the cursing its clear your anger is getting the better of you. The very things you claim others to be guilty of you yourself have committed. And I don't see you changing your behavior at all or even acknowledging it. You talk of compromise but your very words It might not make the article better, but it's likely to be acceptable Why should there be a compromise that does not make a better article just to appease you? What does not appear to be a falsehood is that it seems you are just trying to get every one that disagrees with you either blocked or just scared away. 72bikers (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be a compromise because the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered by a third editor (not me) who was trying to make peace. That is an open door for you to accept the olive branch so that everyone can move on. You, your pals Zachlita, Spacecowboy, and Skyring stonewalled a painless compromise. Why? Because you want to win more than anything.

It's a lie to keep repeating that your behavior is nothing but a "common interest in motorcycles". You've already admitted you've been tracking my edits. That's Wikihounding. Read the policy links I asked you repeatedly to read. I'm so tired of spelling this out again and again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I find it a little strange that you act so offended that I might have looked at your edit history and consider it to be "not cool" for me to edit something that I might have found on your edit history, but mere hours later you are posting here: User_talk:KrakatoaKatie#You_gave_me_a_.28very_short.29_editing_block I didn't notice anyone pinging you there, so I'm assuming that you followed someone there and decided to contribute? Isn't that exactly what you were complaining about other users doing? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. The kind of backhanded argument you're attempting now? We call that Wikilawyering. You're not here to build an encyclopedia; it's all battleground to you, and you're trying to score points. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I have never admitted to tracking you that is a all out lie. I simply don't care enough about you to stoop to such things. But you have just admitted to doing just that That's Wikihounding. Do you even read what you write? A change that you perceive as neither better or worse was offered were do you even come up with this stuff do you perceive if you state it is true and factual. Your close personal friend is not a third party just to let you know. You speak of peace and olive brank I propose it is you sir that think this is a battleground a war you must win. Why? Because you want to win more than anything. it's necessary to track their contributions Who made you the wiki police? Am I missing something here? You are guilty of every thing you have claimed others of uncivil,harassing,stalking and more. I am starting to think you argue just because you like to argue. Your not here to make a better Wikipedia. Your here to have word battles with people I am starting to think you get your kicks from it.72bikers (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, Did you ever consider that just perhaps you have brought scrutiny on yourself, with your editing style? Or does that only apply to editors who you are in dispute with?

Do you think it's me who is trying to score points? Who made this report? you

Who put my name in it, and dragged me into it? you

I don't want to be in this report, so please don't drag me into it (when it's a report on another user) accuse me of things, that you are doing yourself, and when it's pointed out, say that I'm trying to score points. This is laughable.

What is also laughable is that you made this report accusing another editor of personal attacks, and then posted this as an edit summary: "You are a fucking liar, Pete" - that is far more offensive, personal, disruptive, and indicative of someone using wikipedia as a battleground, than anything you have accused any other user of. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

He is getting a pass on his openly stalking and threatening behavior. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here I would like to point out his only expertise is his understanding and ability to twist the rules. basically he can do whatever he wants there is no justice here. someone take this to the next step surely someone can serve up some justice. 72bikers (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I said what you quoted in bold on a completely different (albeit related) thread, so why mention it here? Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because as you have stated it is related. Posted here to see if someone would take it to some higher level were maybe justice can be served. His harassing uncivil stalking threatening and more behavior needs to be addressed. have you even read this thread? You propose that he gets a pass simple because you believe he brings something to the table and has been here for a long time. Were are these double standards written? I would like to read them. I suspect that his pass on his behavior has only in bolded him to act the way he does. All the while making unsupported claims of others misbehavior that he him self is guilty of. how is this just how does this make a better wikipedia. You are just cultivating a bully. 72bikers (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to be aware that having pages on a watchlist is not synonymous with stalking. This seems to be the basis of your argument. Chesnaught555 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding of course that is not what I am talking about. Have you even read this When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributionsmr bratlands own words he has openly admitted to stalking. You are a (fucking) liar more of his own words personal attack. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Note that it says "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Dennis Bratland He has left unprovoked threating harassing messages on my talk page just because I did not share his views. He has plagued this conversation with false accusation of others that he himself is guilty of. he has had his close personal from come here and pile on when not even involved in the conversation. His repeated uncivil and harassing and more behavior should be dealt with. Are you impartial or a friend to dennis giving him a pass on his behavior is just cultivating a bully. Have you even read this or are you just turning a blind eye? 72bikers (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. Having pages on a watchlist, clicking the contribs button, etc are all legit actions on wikipedia.

I have doubts about Chesnaught555's comments on ANI, their neutrality, relevance and compliance with wikipedia rules.

When this civility/harassment report was started he stated I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here. Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC) against a user who has not made personal attacks, and has kept his discussions to article talk pages. However, in the report regarding Dennis Bratland telling a user you're a fucking liar he (as a non-admin) decided to take it upon himself to close the discussion. Nice double standards. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep AN/I on my watchlist, it is perfectly fine to do that sir. I can fully understand why he keeps pages about motorcycles on his watchlist too. If you were to see mine, you'd find I watch the pages of my personal interests too. That is not unacceptable behaviour at all. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Dynamic IP not updating timestamps

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

---

Hi, there is an issue with a dynamic IP not updating timestamps on football players. After the edits, the editor leaves the BLP's as factually incorrect as it says "correct as of 12 December 2015" (as an example) which is incorrect because matches has been added before that. Apart from being factually incorrect it also causes some issues when other editors see article and think "oh, it has not been updated" and add all matches since 12 December again so now they are added 2 times and player has an even higher number of played matches.

Since this is an dynamic IP, messages at their talkpage has not helped which is why I suggest a range-block.

Some involved IP's are:

• 2A02:587:2809:CC00:4945:AE9:7BA2:3A82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:a1d7:75b6:ed62:3e7d (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9458:9e1a:58a4:1b44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:e8e4:51c1:291a:33bb (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:44e2:2cef:8643:4592 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:309a:9daf:c74:20f5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:9815:ce0a:e27b:3e2c (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:2809:cc00:e07d:22b0:1681:3ac2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:280f:db00:f11f:d99b:e0c0:f2f (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and some of the articles are:

• Sebá
• Jimmy Durmaz
• Dimitris Siovas
• Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981)
• Luka Milivojević

Please help, the edits are being disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, editor with almost similar username, sorry to say that it sadly won't be feasible. Any range-block would block wayyyyy too many IP addresses. It was difficult with IPv4s and now it's a diabolical situation with IPv6. Protecting the articles is probably the only thing we can do. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. Qed237 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it would be good if the following pages were protected: Jimmy Durmaz, Sebá, Dimitris Siovas, Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981), Luka Milivojević, Arthur Masuaku, Manuel da Costa (footballer), Brown Ideye, Pajtim Kasami and Giannis Maniatis. Qed237 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not diabolical at all. It's two networks, same Greek ISP, probably the same guy editing from two places. Don't get caught up in the number of IP addresses available with an IPv6 network. 2a02:587:2809:cc00::/64 and 2a02:587:280f:db00::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. Katie^talk 17:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I forgot about rangecontribs. Since I can't find it anyway, throw in a link here, please. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Chris Stark 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.

---

Hello, if anyone is around right now, could you please check this [123] out? An entire nest of IPs making various nonsense edits per minute (!), at this moment ongoing. An RPP has apparently already been requested, but nobody seems to be there? Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Been fixed! Poepkop (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. What, a few hundred edits in some twenty minutes? Didn't we have some fancy filter that could put a stop to that? Drmies (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was really fast, like up to 10 edits per minute, the filter hopefully someone else knows about? (I'll have to read up on filters).Poepkop (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

user:Tom29739 and page WatchOS

Both Tom29739 (talk · contribs) and Jimthing (talk · contribs) need to stop edit warring and take this through the processes outlined at WP:DR. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

The above newbie user keeps editing the page to the wrong marketing version ("watchOS") which ONLY goes in the lead as per the MOS of the above page (and is trying it on on the TVOS page as well) – despite previous discussions by other users months ago as to correct naming convention we use on WP! He is also trying to quote the MOS says things it doesn't, and/or is selectively quoting parts of it to suit his own POV on getting it switched to this wrong marketing version. I have been involved with editing Apple-ralated articles for years now on WP, and this really is getting tiresome having these 'but I know I'm right!' argumentative protracted re-re-re-discussions with new editors continually about Apple's marketing naming convention vs. correct English language usage and the acceptable variations WP use. Please block user for a period accordingly. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - Please remember to notify the user when you make an ANI thread, I have done so for you. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Apologize for jumping the gun a bit there. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I did it ~10 secs later, lol! Thanks anyway. Jimthing (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:The talk page of the 'watchOS' page has nothing on it about the naming of the article. Where are these 'previous discussions by other users'? Tom29739 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom29739: Countless discussions on other Apple pages and elsewhere with exactly the same issue. Jimthing (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing:Others on the 'tvOS' discussion agree with me. Tom29739 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: Please post some diffs of these "countless discussions". Not all of them, as that would be countless, but several would be good. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just go to Apple page histories and see for yourself. The most relevant WP guideline is clear, and has been for years: "Conventionally, Wikipedia articles usually give the normal English spelling in the lead, followed by a note such as "(stylized as ...)" with the stylized version, then revert to using normal English for the remainder of the article." Jimthing (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jimthing: - "Go and see for yourself" is not appropriate on ANI. Diffs are necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If I must waste more time on these types of discussions, yet again... just see various talk pages on previous Apple products for starters: iPhone 4S (not "4s")/iPhone 5S (not "5s")/iPhone 5C (not "5c")/iPhone 6S (not "6s"), going on to iPod Touch (not "touch") [and all sub pages], then try iPad Mini (not "mini") [and all subpages], Mac Mini (not "mini"), Apple TV (not " tv") – that's randomly lowercase, vs. Apple Watch (not " WATCH") – that's randomly uppercase! ...I've probably missed some others, but you get the overall idea. ALL discussions ended-up correctly following the WP guidelines, as they make sense as they are (per those talk page discussions, for deeper explanations) in simply using the lead to explain hype marketing typographical elements like this. Hence there is absolutely NO need to go over the same old arguments time and time again for every new user who repeats the same tired argumentative points previously discussed yet again. Thanks! Jimthing (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Jimthing any time you report an issue, you must have diffs. It puts everything in one place so a quick decision or course of action can be undertaken, if need be. That being said:

Looks like Tom29739 and Jimthing were | edit warring on WatchOS back and forth - both claiming WP:MOS
and | Edit warring on TvOS, again claiming consensus and MOS
Interestingly enough, the sole discussion on this appears On the Apple TV talk page, and it was closed by Jimthing, who also participated in the talk. In all fairness, Tom29739 was | notified by two users about edit warring over this same thing.
It looks like a content dispute, however, I'd say Sysops need to step in and protect WatchOS, TvOS so that no more edit warring can occur. For the two participants, I'd recommend WP:DR to get this ironed out, both believe they're right , and it looks like neither will back down, that's a recipe for a block, in the very least, and you don't want that, so give DR a try. KoshVorlon 16:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tom29739 and Jimthing: Consider this a warning to use dispute resolution and stop edit warring. If this continues, both of you will be blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Is this an attack on Jewish 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.

---

See Talk:Leo Frank#Opening Paragraph. "If you review the talk page archives, you will find that the actual vandalizing of this article has been done by Frank's proponents, in order to keep most of the evidence of Frank's guilt out of the article so he may continue to be falsely presented as a victim of "antisemitism". Also, many editors who have sought a neutral point of view for the article have had their contributions reverted, their arguments hidden or deleted from the talk page, and even been blocked or banned over trumped up charges of sockpuppetry or other supposed offenses in order to maintain the false consensus that Frank's proponents fought so hard to achieve.

Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily jewish. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of jewish authors. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-jewish authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antisemitic" smear. Tom Watson, the famous, well respected lawyer, author, and statesman, who was a contemporary of Frank, and wrote and published the most definitive series of articles on Mary Phagan's murder and the trial of Leo Frank is the most notable example."

A relevant edit by the same editor[124] who started a section "Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word" - you need to read it all for context, but possibly the most relevant sentence is "It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda." In an edit just before that one the IP supports GingerbreadHarlot[125]. Note that at GH's SPI the IP was found not related to GH. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited in a while. This seems unnecessary.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying you don't think "this (is) an attack on Jewish editors"? Or agreeing with the IP that this discussion isn't necessary? Your indenting suggests the later, but I'm not so sure from the comment Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks User:Nil Einne, precision is required. I was responding to the OP, and disagreeing with the IP. I don't think it's anti-Jewish, but definitely do think the discussion is necessary. Thanks for pointing that out! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the issue, but the last edits namely those referred to at the beginning of the discussion were only slightly more than 1 day ago [126] ([127]) and as Doug Weller has sort of indicated, the IP seems to be a semi regular editor e.g. [128] [129] so I don't think behaviour concerns should be ignored because the IP hasn't edited in a while. Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The word Jewish is somewhat inflammatory, no matter what the context. Let's replace it with the word 'plumber'. "Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily plumbers. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of authors who are plumbers. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-plumber authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antiplumber" smear." Now, would any plumber take offence? I don't think so. Methinks the objector doth protest too much. Akld guy (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who claim that Wikipedia allows any sort of bigotry but anti-Semitism, we can always point them to this thread. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am always inclined to mistrust IP editors. But 76.72 is absolutely correct. @Akid guy: overlooks the fact that being a plumber is a choice, not an accident of birth, and the memory of six million, aside from all that, Wikipedia ought to be exquisitely careful of its appearances in this article, as indeed in all articles that are magnets for those who would excuse racist lynching. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that because you (and I) were born into a certain category, we have more right to be outraged than someone who was not so born? OK, replace 'plumber' with 'blue-eyed'. Akld guy (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if we lived in another world where anti-blueism was a thing that had been used to justify major genocides in recent history.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not a historian, so when I first ran across this article, I didn't know what was going on. But then I discovered a useful piece of information, which makes sense when you think about it: Who would be the only people on the planet so relentlessly interested in "proving" Frank wasn't innocent? Yep, antisemites. No one else would care so much. Also, if you give them long enough, they all eventually try to source crap to Stormfront-lite type websites. So yes, this is antisemitism, and this is why the page is protected, and you can safely and confidently block these two IPs. I've removed the thread from the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I disagree with this. I've read the post three times already and it doesn't appear to be antisemetic, further there appears to be an even consensus (rough anyway ) 2 say yes, 2 say no. On the basis of that, I would request Floquenbeam revert her removal or allow it to be reposted as no consensus actually exists that the post is an attack of any kind. Further the IP is correct, the lead asserts multiple facts without any sort of reference. KoshVorlon 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the time has come to ban Kosh Vorlon from AN/ANI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede is not supposed to have any references in it. At all. It is supposed to concisely summarise the facts the article goes into detail about below it and those should of course be referenced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort of correct, but that's not exactly what WP:LEADCITE says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Coded incivil message at RFC

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 is currently and RFC going on at the Royal Tunbridge Wells talk page over the inclusion of a term in the article. During this discussion @CountyOfKent: added this cryptic comment. An IP responded by stating if people had read the first letter of each word in the comment, which if that is done reads as a sweary insult which I have included a translation of here. I am not sure whether this warrants any action as the RFC has also been plagued with cases of IPs duplicating !votes and repeating claims made by others. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Was he talking about you? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: He could have been but I think equally it could have been aimed at Charles or Fuhghettaboutit. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, along with the responses to it. I'd be inclined to go with a warning followed if necessary by a block. However I suspect an SPI for some of the new accounts might be more fruitful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty blatant socking going on there. Keri (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--did we really need a code breaker for this? Anyway--CountyOfKent, one wonders where you came from but if you keep this up it's no mystery where you're going. Zzuuzz, if you can drag yourself away from your fan club I think running CU here would not be merely fishing. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked CountyOfKent as an obvious single purpose sock. If someone sees it differently and wants to unblock, I'll be offline for a while, so just use your best judgment--I won't object. Jonathunder (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement here. SQL^{Query me!} 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Block was warranted for (passive?) incivility. I also think that WP:NOTHERE can apply as well. I'm going to go ahead and close this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: The type of "coding" in this case would be an acrostic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Slow-walking, sweet-talking Jones

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 I have some views as to whether "You are a fucking liar, Pete" constitutes a personal attack? A lie is a knowing falsehood, and so far as I am aware, the whole discussion referenced is about a single word – "winningest" - and how one editor is going to extraordinary lengths to use this nonsense word in our supposedly serious encyclopaedia. I present the truth as I see it, and I resent the implication that I'm deliberately lying. --Pete (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Cussing at someone and calling them a liar absolutely is a personal attack. No one on Wikipedia should be doing saying that to any editor here ever! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not a liar, you're just ignorant of the facts. The term "winningest" has been around for over 2 centuries.[130] It's kind of slangy, but it's not a "nonsense" word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh, so it's the other fellow who's edit-warring, not you, Skyring?

...this nonsense word Except, as you've been told, it's no such thing. As this link points out:

...Yet despite the existence of grammatically unquestionable alternatives (most winning, best), winningest is deeply entrenched in sports commentary and is not going away any time soon. Those who dislike it might as well get used to it. Google News searches show winningest has been common since the 1940s, and there are scattered examples from earlier. The word has always been confined mainly to American and Canadian publications.

My copy of the OED 2nd Edition doesn't have usage notes, but it DOES use that form in three of their example quotes for the "winning" entry. So if you know it's an actual word, used in actual publications, then you KNOW it's not a "nonsense word", and continuing to maintain that claim might fall under "knowing falsehood", hmm? --Calton | Talk 06:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While it a word with a dictionary definition, it is also informal. As per WP:FORMAL we should try to avoid using informal terms, unless in a direct quote.

Also, as per MOS:COMMONALITY we should try to find and use universal terms where possible. "most successful" is a more universal term.

It has nothing to do with a bias towards British English, as "most successful" is just as commonly used and understood in American English as it is in British English.

I don't think it adds anything to the article to use the word "winningest" and it detracts from both the desired tone of an encyclopedia and the desire to have an international encyclopedia Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, while I agree that we should avoid words which are perceived as being slangy or informal, I do want to point out that "winningest" and "most successful" are not precisely the same, as their connotations are somewhat different. There are a number of ways in which sports teams might be the "most successful" -- i.e. having the most championships, making the most money, attracting the most fans, etc. -- only one of which is to be the "winningest". BMK (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that most successful can have many connotations, however in the context of the lead and the article, the meaning is very clear. Even if there was a little ambiguity in regards to the meaning, it would be so minor that having the correct tone and universally understood English is a far more important consideration. But.. I have an idea and an edit in mind that might remove the possibility of ambiguity without sacrificing the requirements of WP:FORMAL or MOS:COMMONALITY Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about American sports, but isn't "when ... Fracassa won the most games in Michigan High School football history" exactly the same as "when ... Fracassa became the winningest coach in Michigan High School football history", with the advantage that people outside the US aren't actually going "um? what?"? Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

exactly Laura. I wanted something a little more succinct, so I changed winningest to most victorious which should be understood by everyone. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm being selfish. This was a hijacked question, that initially dealt with a claim of incivility. "You are a fucking liar, Pete" is an obvious example of gross incivility, and highly worthy of a block. The profanity used, makes it clear that the editor needs to calm down and carefully rethink how to deal with people on wikipedia. A block will make sure that he takes the time to calm down and reflect, while also making sure that he understands there are consequences for such comments. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pete was correct or not (and I see absolutely no intent to deliberately deceive), that is absolutely a personal attack and User:Dennis Bratland should take a lot more care with his language in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

• It's true that many of the sports articles here are badly written editorials rather than encyclopedia articles. "Winningest" is an annoying stupid non-word, suitable maybe for low-brow sports journalism, but not for an encyclopedia. It should be excised on sight. The same goes for saying "would go on to score the winning goal" when you really mean "scored the winning goal". Reyk _YO! 11:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can argue that it's too slangy to be encyclopedic. But to call it a "non-word" is a false characterization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I prefer to communicate in proper English. "Winningest" is not just a slangy neologism, but an annoying affectation as well, it's restricted to one subject area (low-brow sports journalism) in one geographical region (parts of North America), and does not count as a real word in my opinion any more than, say, "Schweppervescence", contrafibularities, or embiggen are real words. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, this. Although the meaning of the word is probably fairly easy to work out by its very nature, we should not be using words that the majority of the English-speaking world may be meeting for the first time when there are far better alternatives. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The term is 2 centuries old, so it is hardly a "neologism". And do you consider The Wall Street Journal to be "low-brow"?[131] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It still isn't proper English. Are you arguing to use this "word" in Wikipedia articles? Reyk _YO! 12:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Who should I believe? You? Or Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc.? My money's on the sources rather than on your personal opinion. You can find longer "proper English" phrases to substitute for "winningest". But you continue to argue that it's "not a word" - and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
              • Are you arguing to use this "word" in Wikipedia articles? Reyk _YO! 14:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                • Not necessarily. I'm mostly arguing that you've got your facts wrong. It IS a word, whether you like it or not. The sources say so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
                  • I see, so this has been an exercise in semantic pedantry on your part. Gotcha. I still do not consider "winningest" a real word; I set the bar somewhat higher. Please don't waste my time again. Good day. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
          • There are plenty of words with long histories which see use in reliable sources, but no matter how many Guardian columnists use "fuck" or "bugger", I'm not sure we're going to see them in Wikipedia articles any time soon. Ditto things like contractions, which are well-attested and commonly-used, but verboten (and rightly so) by the MOS. Whether a word is "real" or not and whether it should be used or not are two entirely different arguments, and while "winningest" just sounds like a Colemanball to this reader, I'm willing to accept it's a word in the dictionary sense—but still one more informal than we're wont to use. That's before we would even look at readability, either—it's not a great idea to use words regularly which the lay reader might have to look up to understand, especially in articles which aren't overly dense in nature, so it suits the reader (our end goal after all) to be more legible, I would think. GRAPPLE ^X 13:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fucking plenty mate e.g., and, and..., etc... Mind you, I totally agree that 'winningest' is one of the most dumbass words in the history of the language. Which it shouldn't belong to. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that "bugger" is a totally formal and encyclopedic word when used in the correct context. But that's just me making a petty point. We have to make articles understandable for our readers, we have to retain some formality, but we shouldn't shy away from technical words if they add something to the article. A lot of the time, articles are written by people with a lot of experience in that particular subject, and the words used are suitable for their peers, but they have to consider that some people like myself are dumbasses, and require just a touch of dumbing down. The key is to find the nice balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, any word used over 1K times in The New York Times was gone well past the "nonsense" stage into "acceptable use in a major reliable source" stage.[132] Starting in 1906. If a word has been used in the New York Times for well over a century, there is no way we can seriously dispute its usage. Collect (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Losingest" only gets 63: [133], and they only go back to 1955. Seems a shame to me, I'd love to see "losingest" coaches and teams, but I guess we'll need to live with the anomaly for now, since the NYT has "spoken". Or we could just stick with proper English the world understands, and fails to laugh at. I'm easy either way. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did I hear someone say Roll Tide? I took "winningest" to the HEL class I was taking in 1995 or 1996, having never heard the term before; my rather descriptive professor had no problem with it. It ain't pretty, IMO, but it is a word. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Make it part of ENGVAR, seems like the best solution for most fun. Tide can be winningest, since US, but Chelsea are not, since GB... Begoon ^talk 15:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are words that have been in dictionaries - especially a number of British colloquialisms and regionalisms - for far longer than 100 years that I'd never use in articles, because (a) a large amount of our readership wouldn't understand them, and (b) they can be substituted with something far more understandable. "Winningest" isn't used outside a small subset of region (North America) and type of source (i.e. sports reporting) and since it's easily replaceable, we shouldn't be using it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I only want to point out that the thing Pete/Skyring keeps lying about is the slander that I won't drop the "winningest" argument. I said I was going to drop it, and I did. Yet he keeps lying about that. He keeps accusing me of never collaborating, or compromising. I have shown evidence that is a lie, yet he keeps saying it. That's what that was all about.

  I think there should be an RfC to discusses this other thing, rather than quietly changing the FAs and GAs that use "winningest", as Skyring and Spacecowboy420 are currently attempting. Not this word alone, but to answer the questions: Is slang any word an editor doesn't like? Or do dictionaries tell us what is and isn't slang? What is and isn't a word? Is WP:Writing better articles Policy? Or just an essay? Is there a List of Words You Must Never Say On Wikipedia? Should there be? Should we use stable Featured Articles and Good Articles as guides to good writing, or ignore them as mere stuff? Can we dismiss the language in our best sources (the NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc) as mere "tabloids", "slang"? Or is the fact that our sources use it what tells us what words and tone we should use? These are the core questions behind this debate which should be answered by the community.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

  • And I think many here want to point out that you probably shouldn't say "you are a fucking liar". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it so surprising that when someone repeats the same slander enough times, they are eventually told to fuck off? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think this has become sidetracked on the issue of this word. I believe this was started to address Mr bratland behavior. Is he really allowed to personaly attack and swear at another editor simply because he became irritated. And there are no repercussions or consequences? 72bikers (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks like there's no consequences for Wikihounding, canvassing, vote stacking or forum shopping either. Funny how you guys don't want to see those rules so strictly enforced, but now you're demanding action. You are allowed to say fuck on Wikipedia, by the way. Fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck a fucking fuck. You guys have to start actually reading the policies and guidelines that do not say what you think they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, this debate is becoming tediously long. Clearly nobody took this to COIN as I suggested (at least, I can't see a report), and I think some of you here need to read WP:DROPTHESTICK - heck, déjà vu to say the least; I put a link to that essay in my closing report of Spacecowboy's filing of Mr. Bratland. I don't think blocking him would be ideal given his expertise and how long he's actually been here. Constantly filing AN/I reports is not only repetitive but it is not working, nor is it going to work, because it has never worked in the past. Either take it to COIN like I suggested before, or drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• • • • I also would like to point out that this is pretty indicative of how he deals with other editors that disagree with him. He has also admitted to stalking other editors and tracking there contributions. He has openly admitted this and of riffling through mine to just to try and throw something in my face. He has also invited his close personal friend to join in and attack other editors. He has accused other editors with unsupported claims of uncivil and harassing behavior. When it has been him that has left unjust threating messages on others talk pages in a effort to intimates them . And still instead of amending his behavior he just throws guilt elsewhere. 72bikers (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry. I can't see how taking demonstrated examples of personal attacks and gross incivility to COIN would help. Where's the conflict of interest? Is there truly no way that the community can act against Bratland's calling other editors motherfuckers? Is this the community that is going to attract fresh editors to carry on the work? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I'm talking to a brick wall here. Repetitive AN/I filings will not help matters. Actually take it to COIN, I don't see a problem with the word though... or just drop the stick. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) User:Chesnaught555 why did you close this? You're actively involved in a discussion started by Dennis Bratland, in which he requests for a block on a user for incivility, agreeing with him and pushing for the user to be blocked, however on this discussion which is a far more serious accusation against Dennis Bratland, you are closing the discussion? If you have valid and unbiased input that you wish to add to these discussions, then please do - but try to close the newer one, while contributing to the older one, just because of some bias towards/against certain editors. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time you have closed a report against Dennis Bratland and recommended that no action is taken against him. Having good faith in your comments, your closing of discussions and your recommendations that people in dispute with Dennis Bratland is not very easy right now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I am starting to think you are right. I will back down. Forget I tried to close it, if you want to. All I am saying is, this issue which a small group of you have with this editor has gone on for too long, and as you can all see, nothing has been achieved. Chesnaught555 (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This goes around in circles and is annoying. Unfortunately, when this editor continues with this style of behavior, this continues. The editors who find his attitude towards them unacceptable, don't really have other options. They can accept his lack of civility towards them, they can stop editing wikipedia, or they can report him. I'm failing to see other valid options. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about the bona fides of Chesnaught. Looking at their contributions, I see a short period in 2014, and a month's worth of activity (including an interaction with KrakatoaKatie). Who is such a user to be closing incident reports here? They said earlier, "I concur that this user requires blocking. Harassment and personal attacks to this degree are not welcome here." and yet apparently nothing can be done about Bratland. Bratland himself makes constant accusations of sockpuppetry, and yet seems to be supported by a circle of close friends here. Time, I think, to look closely at some of these friends. --Pete (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sockpuppetry? I think you will find I am not a sockpuppet of any of the users involved... I'm Welsh, and I'm pretty sure most of you here are either American or British (England-born). File an SPI if you want to, but you won't find anything. Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a rare sock who admits it. No, I'm looking elsewhere. But while we're on the subject, perhaps you could explain your curious behaviour. It is a rare editor indeed who after only a month's editing feels able to perform a non-admin closure on an incident here. And why on earth would anyone take a complaint of incivility to WP:COIN, as you repeatedly advise? --Pete (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't the uncivil remark per se but rather the whole motorcycle COI problems. As for curious behaviour? For all the time I haven't been editing, when I took an apparent year's break, I was reading essays and trying to get a general feel of how things work around here... don't mistake my low edit count, or the fact that I am only sixteen years of age for lacking responsibility. On a side note, I'd just like to apologise to every editor involved here who thinks that I have been uncivil, or that my behaviour was unacceptable. I will step down as of right now, at time of publishing this. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Should not _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, sorry? Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this kid even a admin? By his own admission and from his page he is just a juvenile. And has things like this user has a screw loose you have been warned. and The sanity of this user has been disputed. These appear to be intimidation tactics for no one to mess with him. Surely this is not a impartial admin that should be passing judgement on these matters. Nothing personal ches but I feel the severity of these matters deserve a real admin. 72bikers (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland asked me to close this, saying it's getting out of hand and all that. It is, I agree, and I would love to close it, but I'm not going to until I hear something from Dennis Bratland that's not a. fuckity fuck fuck fuck; b. it's all someone else's fault; c. whatever. Dennis, you are going to have to take responsibility and own up to it--and that also means you have to tell us that (as I said before) you are going to have to try and be more careful with your words. If you think calling someone "a fucking liar" is not a personal attack, you are sorely mistaken and I will prove it to you: can call someone a fucking liar right now and I'll block you for it. Go for it.

  I think there's a consensus of sorts among admins that "fuck off" or permutations thereof aren't exactly blockable, but that's not the same. Own up to it, then we can move along. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, if that's what it takes to stop 72bikers making personal attacks on Chesnaught555, then I own up to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Dennis, that almost sounds like it came naturally. Still, I will accept the main part of your statement: this is what AGF dictates. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• • Did he not just ask you to own up and not blame someone else. Then the first thing you do is go blaming me for something man that's rich lol. All I did was bring up on what authority does he have to close these discussions as it did not appear that he was a admin. But that's a peasonal attack ok and telling someone they are a f-ing liar is ok. 72bikers (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What is going on here you state that his action are not acceptable then not do anything to curb his behavior. He ask you to close this of course he wants it gone away he is openly guilty of severe bad behavior. All he did was say ok then went on to attack someone again. Are you sir a impartial admin? What came naturally to him was to go lay blame elsewhere. He receives no punishment for his uncivil, harassing, stalking, false warning and more behavior? 72bikers (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Calm down, 72b. What's past is past. DB has made some sort of claim to do better in future; let us save a link to the diff, and if he fails to achieve the standard promised, then we can add it to the list and present it here. But let us, for the moment, accept that he has seen the light and will sin no more. You can't say fairer than that, for all love! --Pete (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive user returns from block and starts behaving even worse

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.

---

Religions Explorer, who was blocked yesterday by Nyttend came back from the block and immediately returned to disruptions. As discussed yesterday, the user often violates WP:OWN by telling users who disagree to stay away [134] and has made repeated personal attacks [135], [[136]. After returning from the block, the first edit was a long preaching post beside the topic, which is hardly much of a problem though it did violate WP:NOTAFORUM. Several users have explained, over and over again, that we operate by sources. Religions Explorer's reply to my comment was the usual, telling me to "stay away" in a post that had nothing to do with the topic [137]. When I pointed out, before returning to the actual topic, that the user needs to respect others and everybody can edit Religions Explorer flat out deleted my comment from the article talk page [138]. After Favonian reinstated my comment, the user then made 100% off-topic personal attack by calling me a troll [139]. This kind of behavior from a user only a few hours after their latest block expired is strongly indicative of someone who is not here to work with others. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur; this user requires blocking. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and further action is most definitely required. Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Shall we discuss the battleground mentality of the other editors in the thread, or should we continue to address this as a content dispute (like it is).142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no content dispute, nor is there any other user causing problems in the thread. All other users agree perfectly with each other. (Even if there were behavioral issues with other users, they would not be an excuse. Meeting uncivil behavior with uncivil behavior is not acceptable) Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. I can't say I am surprised to see everybody back here today but I think that giving him a very short block was exactly the right thing to do. If he was willing to listen then that might have got his attention and it was right to give him that chance. At least we know where we stand now. The sad thing is that he still thinks that he is the good guy and everybody else is a troll. This guy is probably not flat out bad but I think that he is too misguided to contribute constructively. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

True, he is probably not a vandal, but it's very much an attitude problem that violates both WP:OWN and WP:NPA several times a day. First at least 4-5 users tried to tell him, then warn him, to change his behavior. It did not help, it just got worse. Then he was given a short block and warned the next block would be longer. As you say, probably right to give him just a short block as a firmer warning, but it also just bounced off. He is convinced not just that he's right about the topics, but also that he has the right to edit war, to tell other users to stay away from articles, and to insult other users. It makes WP less enjoyable and less productive for everybody else. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reblocked for a week, with a reminder to stop and a suggestion that an additional block might be a months-long thing. I'm hesitant to start off with a long block, preferring to start with something short (either it will get the subject to shape up, or it will demonstrate that a long block is needed) and ramp up from there, but when the ramping has already started, I'm significantly less optimistic. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate action looks to have been taken to address this ANI thread. Can we go ahead and close this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I've been contacted about a Speedy deletion I tagged

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

---

The following is a post on my talk page, it relates to the Speedy deletion of Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute. I tagged it for Speedy G11 and G12 after reviewing it. I'm afraid I do not at present have the time to deal with this appropriately, nor do I, as a non-Admin, have access to the deleted content. The editor needs to be informed about COI, PROMO, and the fact that we neither require nor desire their permission for an article about the institute to exist (or not). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article - "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute", G11-G12 violations ??
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Dodger67, This is in reference to the speedy deletion nomination and final deletion of the article "Prince Sultan Advanced Technology Research Institute" by you. The reason being G11, G12 violations by our article. I would like to inform you that I, Hamdan Hussain, employee at PSATRI (Prince Sultan Advanced Tech. Research Institute) have been made responsible for creating wiki articles for this influential defense company of the state. However if certain content of our work has violated the wiki rules, we heartily apologize and will make sure it is not repeated again. We will retry to publish the same article with a new content this time without soap-boxing or promoting anything (without G11, G12 violation). However, all the logo's, images and content used from our site were with the consent of the organization. Please find attached the document by my organization which authorizes me to publish articles for them using our pre-existing content over web. Your help and further guidance in the process will be highly appreciated. I hope I can now post about my company on Wikipedia, of-course provided the Wiki rules and regulations are followed. Please advise on the same. Thanks & Regards, Hnhusain (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent him a coi-welcome. SQL^{Query me!} 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perfect and appropriate response. Even if this letter was relevant to anything as far as article creation is concerned, we wouldn't have the ability to verify the authenticity or legitimacy of it anyways... so there's that :-). The article has been deleted. If they re-create or send additional inquiries, it's a perfect opportunity to educate the user about our notability guidelines and what and what does not warrant its own article. As for now, I think this thread can be closed as no further action appears to be required from anyone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, good response. To make it even better, I'll add a few words of explanation about that letter and about releasing copyright content for use by Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

A vandal appears to be specifically subverting your policies to avoid punishment

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 are various IP addresses suspected of being the same user due to the similarities in the vandalisim and two patterns among the IP addresses who have been doing what appears to be hit-and-run vandalism on Superior Defender Gundam Force and List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, among other various pages. Information on this specific pair of pages in particular are not common knowledge to english-speaking Gundam fans and is ALWAYS uncited. I am completely unable to warn or notify user due to the constantly changing IP address and general inactivity over long periods of time, this is presumably done to avoid punishment. Though I did bring up the issue on the talk page of List of Superior Defender Gundam Force characters, which the user/users has/have completely ignored. As it so happens, this also means the pages the user is vandalizing can not be protected according to your policies either. I would like to know exactly why your policies leave absolutely no possible way to deal with users such as this one/these ones.

It should also be noted that the IPs and diffs on List of Superior Gundam Force Characters are too numerous by this point to link all of them, but I will list a few examples to help you pinpoint all of the vandalism (it's pretty much everything I've personally removed from the page though). Forgive me as I'm not sure how to properly format these urls in this site's formatting.

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=637861427
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=638481189
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=668868262&oldid=668009979
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=696614204&oldid=691384784
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696614204
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force&diff=next&oldid=696737061
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=prev&oldid=695069640
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=680807736&oldid=668983255
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Superior_Defender_Gundam_Force_characters&diff=582528548&oldid=542553008 (earliest example I could find in the page's history, which was quickly followed by several other large edits by the 120.1xx.xxx addresses).

IPs:

• 114.121.133.177
• 114.121.128.34
• 114.125.168.132
• 120.164.41.107
• 120.164.42.177
• 120.168.0.64
• 120.168.0.46
• 114.4.21.210
• 120.172.157.226

Mattwo7 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thing is, in the main article I only see it three times in the last eight months or so, and you seem to have it well in hand. I don't really object to the principle of semi-protecting, but I am sometimes more eager to semi-protect than most other admins. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't be forced to repeatedly deal with something that clearly requires administrator attention. Mattwo7 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That's part and parcel for editing here. Those IPs are all over the map, so there's not really much that can be done when the person is clearly coming in from a variety of locations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it not possible that the person is using detectable IP masking or IP randomizing technology? Mattwo7 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Short of a checkuser, there's not any way to tell, and even then, it involves some deep IP magic sometimes. However, we can't go fishing just to try to figure it out, and (as in this case) we generally don't bother when we can hear quacking. We also don't just permanently semi-protect an article. It's frustrating sometimes, but eventually they get bored and go find something else to do. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • And it's probably just a plain old dynamic IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
          • "all over the map" — Nihonjoe, what do you mean? They all geolocate to western Java, and with one exception, all the IPs are from Telkomsel or Indosat Ooredoo. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
            • All over the IP map, not the physical map. There is not one or two specific ranges that are small enough to block effectively, and any block would likely impact tens of thousands of other people. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't you block the ISP's involved until they improve their security? It's all from the same country. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's just block an entire country. That sounds like a good plan. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's not a matter of "security" with the ISP. ISPs usually have tens of thousands of customers (or more), and they can't monitor what every one of them is doing at all times. That's just not logistically feasible. You're welcome to use the whois info to report them, which might help, but more than likely won't. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mattwo7: Also, making "requests" via edit summary like this [140][141][142][143] is not very effective. There isn't an infinite army of admins watching every single edit on this site. There are 6,826,925 articles here, and we just don't have the ability to watch every edit on every article every day. If you want a page protected, request it at WP:RFPP. That page is specifically for requesting page protection. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Endlessdaze

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

---

The above user seems to be here purely for promotional purposes. His only edit, besides drafting an article on an upcoming film and a few tweaks to the article about the director of said film, is replacing the plot of an unrelated movie with the cast list of the movie he is promoting, in an unmistakeably spammy manner. Diff: [144]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - I looked through that user's contributions, and while I agree that this looks like a COI / SPA, this account isn't making edits that are blatantly promotional (such as creating G11 articles, adding blatant advertising to the movie, or making spam-bot-like edits). It looks like a {{welcome-coi}} on their talk page is the right first step to take. Remember assume good faith :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Oshwah. Am I allowed to delete this thread? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt Haha, no - we'll just close it out for you. If you have any more questions or need advice with assisting other editors, my talk page is always open, EauZenCashHaveIt :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User Ms Sarah Welch

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.

---

Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

The user has been repeatedly Uncivil, mocking, gangs up by indulging in Canvassing and Votestacking to scuttle the normal consensus building process, harasses editors by continuously posting on their talk pages for no valid reasons, and engages in unsubstantiated edit-warring (evidence below). Mainly edits Indian religion articles, pushing here own POV (evidence below). I request the user be blocked from any further editing.

• Post from a well established editor MohanBhan here

"Your behavior matches with every single instance of uncivil behavior mentioned there including name calling, inappropriate and repeated use of warning templates, and repeated copy-pasting of out-of-context comments made on different forums. The tone of your comments is unprofessional, mocking and condescending even when you are at fault and have brazenly misquoted citations or modified them to suit your purposes. You have been warned many times for breaching WP:Civil, and for using talk pages (the last being the talk page of Allama Prabhu) to make personal attacks. So please do not write on my talk page. Please see WP:TALKNO."

• Supported on almost every count by another editor here

• Post from Mohanbhan on Sarah Welch's canvassing here

• A latest round of canvassing here, where she writes in the edit summary "@JJ/@Apuldram: please decide if this sentence is WP:DUE here...". Calling out two editors in particular with whom Sarah Welch "collaborates" often. This is not just an instance of canvassing, but serious mockery of the other editors who have been engaging in the recent discussions, as it paints them as worthless folks whose opinion does not count. Please note the tone "JJ/Apuldram please decide if ..." Why should JJ/Apuldram "decide"? (nothing against those two editors) But is this a "Wiki"-pedia or "SW/JJ/Apuldram"-pedia, which Sarah Welch clearly believes. These (and many others as noted by user Mohanbhan above) are classic examples of repeated WP:CANVASS , WP:VOTESTACK , WP:FORUMSHOP

• This preceding post followed what was a completely pointless edit-warring episode by Sarah Welch. She reverted the same well sourced edit multiple times harassing other editors and wasting their time, while also continuously raising false spersions on their credibility: here and here without even checking the source, as eventually acknowledged herself here.

• Further evidence of prior edit-warring on the same article here, acknowledged by another experienced editor Kautilya3.

• Further evidence of harassing users by relentless talk page posting here, where an Admin had to come in and instruct her to stop. - 172.56.38.207 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@172.56.38.207: Are you @Js82 by chance? Your IP is too close to @172.56.42.111, from which someone / @Js82 was harassing me on my talk page last month, for which my talk page was protected for a while by an admin. FWIW, @Js82 was long warned by wiki admins, and blocked by admin Drmies, before I posted on @Js82's talk page. The @Mohanbhan reference you give is old. Are you referring to issues related to wikipedia admin's comment on @Mohanbhan? Indeed, I asked @Apuldram to verify the text you or someone added to Sikhism article, because I could not verify it. @Apuldram too failed to verify. We deleted it. Such collaboration is not vote stacking (there is no RfC voting in progress in Sikhism article you implicitly refer to). In the most recent case, I found the source details incorrect, so corrected it. What is wrong with it? Since you haven't informed all involved parties, let me ping them for you; @Joshua Jonathan:, @Kautilya3: FYI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this ain't going nowhere, forget about it. Whilst waiting for the boomerang in a sock, that is. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite obvious that this is Js82 again; otherwise, please let us know who you are. The diffs provided above do not make a case against MSW, but only a case of harassment by this IP. Please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

New editor making a mess of a merge

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 someone please take a look at the edits of User:Terminatorof East? If nothing else, manual edits to RMCD are not a good sign. Also seems to editing talk page history to cover his tracks. GoldenRing (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking? The fellas been here ten minutes and the first thing you do is bring him here? I assume you're suggesting that he's a sock.* Fine. But in the spirit of WP:AGF use his TP first. Anyway you've been round the block often enough not to be camera shy :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Which, let me say GoldenRing, is probably absolutely correct, notwithstanding the above. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I was on new-user patrol, it's not surprising that he's only been here ten minutes. TBH he came within an ace of just getting listed at AIV, but the mess seemed messy enough (and I was sufficiently unsure of how best to sort it out) that I asked for help here. I guess there's a decent chance this is not a new editor hem hem, but the actions themselves seemed likely enough to warrant a block on VANDAL/NOTHERE grounds that it wasn't worth starting an SPI. GoldenRing (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean when you say that the editor is "editing talk page history to cover his track". I thought that only administrators could edit a page's history? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

He did not. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried assuming good faith and talking to the user (ie. actual discussion, not dropping templates on them)? I see a new user trying to figure out how to object to a proposed merge, not a malicious vandal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This is definitely not an issue worth filing an ANI over - in fact, there really isn't much of an issue at all (minus some unexplained content removal). GoldenRing, you need to address these concerns directly with the editor by opening a conversation on his/her talk page. I'm going to go ahead and close this ANI thread, as there is clearly no need for it to be open - no action or interaction is required from anyone. If you have any questions or need assistance with anything, my talk page is always open for you, GoldenRing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Giubbotto non ortodosso

The user has involved disruptive editing recently. Can someone block indefinitely. 123.136.106.215 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Offhand I can see where they're coming from with their edits to In My Head (Jason Derulo song). This is not meant to be an endorsement of the decision to add or remove anything from an article, just that I can see their rationale in this, given that they were told that AllMusic was not usable here by Cornerstonepicker when it came to genres. However that said, edit warring is unacceptable and both Giubbotto and the other editor that has been taking part in the edit warring has been given a warning by Cyphoidbomb. This seems to be the only thing he's done recently that has been overly controversial, so I don't see where any further action needs to be taken at this point in time. Both Thakillabeatz and Giubbotto non ortodosso need to discuss this on the article's talk page. On a side note, if you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, it's generally considered good form to disclose this when reporting the other user. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP above reported this at AIV and pointed out two other IPs that might have been used by Giubbotto, but they provided no evidence to connect, so vandalism wasn't clearly there. Edit-warring was, and I opted to warn rather than block them both. Both sides need to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and begin a discussion. If there are any ambiguities, they should seek the input of one of the relevant Wikiprojects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The pepole that say that i'm connected to the IPs from Italy are two vandals that i've reported, and after they've been blocked, so why did you believe in them, me and the IPs have only two pages where we edit in common, so please stop saying that i am connected with those vandals--Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant reading: User talk:Jenks24#User from Italy? and #Vandals of pages music. Not sure I can add much to that, I'm still not full sure what's going on here. Jenks24 (talk)

User started sockpuppet investigation against themselves

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN. I have no idea what is going on. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 07:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tora Tora Tora!!! That's pretty specialist, tbh... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 :Appears to be a compromised account. AKA they left their laptop open, or they forgot to logout of a public computer. an admin should put a temporary block and revoke TP access before it snowballs. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think that at the very least ZOKIDIN looks like they're not very fluent in English. I got the impression that they're a Russian speaker given some of their edits, so I've asked for help at the Russian Wikipedia and pinged a native Russian speaker to the SPI. I know that in one of their edits they seem to have asked for the account to be closed, so this does kind of give the impression that the account may be compromised. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

user:ZODIKIN

OOPS, duplicated report

WP:NOTHERE:

• ZOKIDIN (talk · contribs)
• Open Dragon in Portal2 (talk · contribs)
• ZOKIDIN2 (talk · contribs)
• Milanarashidova (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов (talk · contribs)
• Илья Драконов 2 (talk · contribs)

Someone is frolicking inclding self-reporting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN - üser:Altenmann >t 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OOPS, duplicated report

• OneLittleMouse (talk · contribs) Xakep. ZOKIDIN (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have blocked ZODIKIN2, the filer of the SPI, indef, this is clearly a vandal and an impersonator. I am not sure about ZODIKIN, they do not have to be there, and this is not really promising (check that page history), but for the moment I do not have enough data to block them indef. Generally, I have an impression that one or more users, after having been banned from the Russian Wikipedia, decided that they can have fun here even without speaking any English. Recently, I blocked a number of accounts who created their userpages claiming they are socks of Никита-Родин-2002, some of them even edit-warred at their talk pages after getting blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is this about? You think I'm a sock??? This is my only account. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

No, I do not think you are a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

"Russian socks are always correct, Mister Bond" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 (note the connection mentioned in the CU results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZOKIDIN). "Никита-Родин-2002" often reports his own socks (he used to add them to his own SPI report, but can't do that anymore, since it has been semi-protected), and even more often adds socktags to his own socks, no doubt in order to get more blocked socks to brag to his equally juvenile buddies about. So always look for connections to Nikita Rodin first... Thomas.W ^talk 14:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowetz

Shmuly Yanklowetz appears to be paying his staff to delete all statements that do not paint him in a 100% positive light, although the controversies section is balanced, researched, and sourced. Can you please prevent further deletions? Nothing is false, defamatory, or abusive.

This section that I removed clearly violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLP. For biographies of living persons, you need to stick closely to sourced material from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs, please. The article in question is Shmuly Yanklowitz. The original poster is User:184.177.112.118. There is edit-warring, mostly by IPs. Semi-protection might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has created a large "Controversy" section, which likely violates WP:WEIGHT at the very least. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And WP:COATRACK 69.12.26.174 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add specifically a case of WP:OUTING in this edit:[145] written twice, above and in the "Censorship" section where the editor identifies an IP address by name and place of employment. It needs to be revdel'd and maybe more. Scr★pIron^IV 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've revdel'd all of the user's edits and have emailed Oversight. If any friendly admins (I said FRIENDLY!) wouldn't mind doublechecking my RevDel work, I would appreciate it. I haven't done much RevDel-ing and it confuses my brain. (I'm pretty sure I picked the wrong criteria). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ScrapIronIV, in the case of RevDel or Oversight requests it's best just to either contact an active administrator directly, or email the oversight team directly, rather than posting a link to private information to one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - There are more instances of this same data in other edits today, I'll get together with @Cyphoidbomb: on it, and won't post here. Scr★pIron^IV 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say, that's one hell of a puff piece. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, you are just jealous of his awesome name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I just saw a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism about a related topic and left a note about this issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sir Joseph. I removed some gunk out of the article earlier today. The WT:JUDAISM discussion is about fine detail of how Yankelowitz's (and others' in his niche of the Jewish world) religious views should appear in Wikipedia's Category scheme. --Dweller (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Assetto Corsa again

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.

---

Just seen that the edit war on Assetto Corsa between user Mannyqee (talk · contribs) and a whole bunch of IPs has resumed, with the IPs again removing large amounts of material and certain references without explanation, and this appears to have been ongoing for a couple of days. This dispute was supposed to have been discussed last time round but all the editors just disappeared. IIRC last time there was an organized editing campaign from some fan forum or other and it seems like they might be back. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only one IP. Mannyqee has made some separate edits, but only two reverts of the IP... so far. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No edit warring is occurring on this page. But, it looks like the edits being made involve the removal of references and referenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm. I warned the IP and advised the editor. Seems to have stopped since... Standing by Gold Leader. ,_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No edits have occurred on the article since the edits made by the IP address was reverted earlier. I'm going to close this thread; if vandalism or (actual) edit warring occurs, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, respectively. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

vandalism/spam

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.

---

Pksnake has put intentionally disruptive and annoying content on the talk page for illuminati, he's has been given warnings before. thank you for your time.Thelockedoctor (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Pksnake (talk · contribs) is obviously a troll, but he only edited (under that ID) a few times in late September. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with close) Blocked as vandalism only account. While not ongoing, there are no constructive contributions from this user. No reason not to block. HighInBC 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Re: Re: Heads up

As mentioned before, socks come, socks go, socks are dealt with, deny recognition. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Latest Intel is that the massive sock attack won't take place until a day later. Tbc as Ben won't reveal the exact time after I "snitched" on him. Personally I wouldn't 100% trust him so remain vigilant tomorrow! I hope you guys appreciate me protecting you, as we may fall out over this real soon. 78.40.158.52 (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Email harassement by User talk:Darrellnorgrove101

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:Darrellnorgrove101 continues to harass me by email although he has been asked to desisit. All I have done is to remove some blatant promotional content from an article about a school for which he is the marketing manager. I will not publish the contents of the emails but the user's talk page speaks for itself. Please consider temporary withdrawal of user's Wikipedia email feature. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

verbal assault and disregard for a question by User:Kudpung I got told that the content that I had updated on my schools Wikipedia page ( which was last updated in 2007) was inappropriate and copyright even though I have the authority and permission to post the content and publicize the school. The update that was removed was about the schools aims towards its students which was taken from the schools website. After questioning this with the Wikipedia user who removed this content, he then became verbally aggressive and his whole mannerism because disgusting to what I would expect from a Wikipedia editor, I use Wikipedia not only on a personal level but a professional level a have had a good relation with other editors in the past, shame it only takes one user who doesn't show respect or courtesy for another user to ruin it, I was frustrated that a chunk had been taken out because of "Copy and Paste" but when I have the ownership over the content and the image that was posted then I cant see how this is an issue. This user spoke to me like something he would have stepped in. Hope this matter is resolved and the user is spoken to about his mannerism and professionalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellnorgrove101 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, it's actually far more likely that you will have your aris spun round and carted on down the road apiece. Know what I mean? Hapy editing! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm with User:Kudpung here - you need to be aware that Wikipedia is not designed to be an advertising platform. Please see the guidance on editing with a conflict of interest at WP:COI. Also, the copyright presumably belongs to the school (and there are procedures to allow permission for it to be used on Wikipedia) not you personally. Finally, whilst you're perfectly entitled to e-mail an editor privately, it's common courtesy to revert to using user talk pages on request - with the additional benefit that other community members might be able to help resolve the issue. Mike1901 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The only replies (through Wikipedia mail so as not to disclose my personal email address) were very polite one-liners to the effect that "For reasons of transparency I have replied on your talk page". I will happily forward a copy of the entire email thread to Arbcom if required. The rest is on the user's talk page and consists mainly of standard template messages plus some minor, but friendly elaboration. I don't see how anything can be described as disgusting except perhaps for the blatant PoV, WP:OWN, and infringements of text and image copyrights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd disagree with Mike1901 somewhat, as it is more than an issue of courtesy. The general rule is: do not send email to someone if they have asked you to stop. If someone continues to send you email after you've clearly asked them to stop, their ability to send email through the WP email system will be removed. Just forward the email chain to an uninvolved admin (if it doesn't contain personal info) or to ArbCom (if it does). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't want to be rude, but most of the alumni cited in the article are in fact alumni of the former public school. Don't judge a restaurant by its former owner ! Pldx1 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think we can probably close this thread now without any further action. It will have served its purpose in clarifying to User:Darrellnorgrove101 that his edits were obviously wrong if well intended, and the 'treatment' he received was nothing more than very mild L1 informative templates without the slightest threat of any action. The one email I sent him was nothing more than "I have replied on your talk page'. On his talk page I asked him not to send me any more emails, so he sent some more with threats of 'reporting' me! Close this now, somebody, please Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Steel1943

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.

---

Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please give this user a block. He keeps reinstating unreferenced OR on AM Driver. 172.58.73.8 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you've tried discussing this on their talk page. KillerChihuahua 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Or on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua 18:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It also appears the IP is trying to get around a ban as well. EDIT: And indeed the IP has been blocked as being the sock of a banned user.RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah well. One problem solved. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, the unsourced OR has been removed, this time on my authority. Per WP:BANREVERT, the removal cannot now be undone under the reason of reverting a banned user. Some people seem to think that BANREVERT mandates reverting all banned contributions, even sensible ones, which is false and counterproductive. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• @BethNaught: As you probably know, I mentioned you on the article's talk page. As long as someone else has taken ownership of that edit, my involvement with it is over. Either way, I fundamentally disagree with that interpretation a bit because a site ban is a site ban, not a "they can edit sometimes" ban. Over the course of almost a decade, that editor has failed to understand how to adhere to and respect Wikipedia's community-created policies for getting their main account unblocked, even socking with an account for two years before requesting that the block on their main account be lifted. Anyways, I can imagine that the sockmaster right now is looking at your edit and saying something like "Nya nya na nya nya, Steel1943." Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Suratfill

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.

---

Multiple attack pages, and unambiguous advertising. Block Please? TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 19:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Phasefive

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 has the name of the boyband whose article they just created. It was obviously promotional.

Despite this, at a quick glance the group looks potentially notable (some articles, verified on Twitter, 79,000 followers) so as an interim step I put in a few citations and cut the promotional language and put warnings on their talk page. They reverted my changes immediately. Blythwood (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've softerblocked for the WP:U violation and left a note about COI and NPOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I wanted to add a "Happy 15th" message but couldn't...

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.

---

... because it has to be tweeted!

I don't "do" social media, and doubt if I am alone in this. So the happy, postitive message I wanted to send has no 'place' on Wikipedia because I am, in effect, discriminated against. Cheers! Shir-El too 09:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Emblem-question-yellow.svg

The 15th birthday site is not part of the English Wikipedia itself; what admin action are you asking for on this site? WaggersTALK 09:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this'll be good. Hold on, I'm making some popcorn. Update: I'm back! Feel free to proceed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah, i have to say, i am more than a little disappointed that you would make such a troll'ish comment that is neither constructive or fair in any way. my parents always told me "if you have nothing constructive to say, you should say nothing at all". maybe it is advice well heeded? Nosdan (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the peculiar comment about "discrimination", isn't this more like maybe a ref desk question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

RPP backlog

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 take a look at WP:RPP please? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog is handled, WP:AN would be a better place in the future. SQL^{Query me!} 01:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Scjessey! Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard is the proper place for these kinds of notices instead of here. This noticeboard is for incidents that require administrator attention or intervention (i.e. disruptive accounts or editors, violations of policy, etc). WP:RPP is usually pretty well caught up when it comes to backlogging; someone will review the request queue soon, I can imagine. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Blocked User:Religions Explorer using different sockpuppet IP's

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.

---

@Nyttend: So...basically 1 week blocked user @Religions Explorer: is clearly socking and being disruptive deleting talk pages again. Please do something admins. --92slim (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Another IP too. --92slim (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked one. But [146] with an edit summary " (Undid revision 699606910 by 92slim (talk) I don't consider myself to be blocked)" suggests that they are not going to stop. As does their talk page response to the block: "You son of a bitch. I don't care if you block this acount or not jackass. God damn you and all the nasty trolls on this website--Explorer999 (talk) 4:56 am, Today (UTC+0)"Looks like a ban and a range block are needed, but I don't do range blocks. I am however blocking indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Whaddya mean, you don't do range blocks?!?!?" _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Well, I haven't ever done a range block and there's a level of technical expertise that I don't have and would have to acquire. At the moment that would be a use of my time that might eat into other activities here, in particular my ArbCom work. It might be more fun to learn about them and start doing them than to work on cases, etc., but that's a pleasure I think I shall have to forgo for a while. See the comments in the section below. If User:Only in death writes the guide mention, maybe I'll try. I've wished before I could do them but I really don't want to end up blocking half a continent. :-) Doug Weller talk 11:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, a small city as far as you'll get :) I've done my first ever yesterday and documented what I did here - if you got time, would appreciate a read through from someone who hasn't done any so far and tell me if it makes sense. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In some cases Doug / MLauba that might be an improvement _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MLauba, won't that depend on the country and network? Doug Weller talk 17:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Doug WellerNetwork yes, since there's actually no way to predict how many physical users are subscribed to a set of IPs. On the other hand, there are vast amount of IPs within pretty much any contiguous range of 255 addresses (that's a rangeblock of /24, much broader than what I used here) that have never edited Wikipedia in the first place. Short, narrow, soft blocks do little harm. Even the much broader /18 range that User:SQL suggested below has little activity - half of everything that comes out of that pool is related to this report, the other half is mostly harmless. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly blocked user socking (and admitting it)

I didn't see the report above when posting this, so making it a subsection as it's about the same issue It gets a bit repetitive to be back for the third day running concerning the highly disruptive user Religions Explorer. On Monday, the user was given a short block [147], came back yesterday even more disruptive and was blocked for a week [148]. This first lead to a highly uncivil outburst [149] before returning to the same article with different IPs to continue, openly admitting it's the same user, even continuing to sign as Religions Explorer [150], [151] and declaring not acknowleding the block [152], [153]. No need to start an SPI as the user admits the sockpuppetry, but I suggest a permanent block on Religions Explorer (three days in a row at ANI) who has shown himself to be extremely disruptive, and to semi-protect Talk:Muhammad for a while given the dynamic IP use. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL WTF. Seriously, this guy needs an indef block. --92slim (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard blocked the IP for a week for evasion. SQL^{Query me!} 09:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@SQL:@Jeppiz: OMG seriously, ANOTHER IP??? wtf --92slim (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think @Jeppiz: is right, either semi-protect the TP and/or range block. --92slim (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Talk for a week, but I'll leave the range block to another admin. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Help on range blocks. Help on IPv6 range blocks. If you dont have the time or inclination to learn how, see here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

All right, I gave it a shot. Pinging NativeForeigner, HJMitchell or Mike V from the list of admins willing to do rangeblocks to check I didn't goof - I blocked a *.16/28 range for starters. Feedback and trouts welcome. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC) dunno about rangeblocks but pings ain't my thing - HJ Mitchell was who I meant to ping. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Initiate ban discussion now so any and all edits can be reverted on site with maximum prejudice. If you don't abide by the community's policies then you're not welcome here. Blackmane (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support; this has gotten to the top of the ramp (see my comment of 00:04, 13 January 2016), so we need to acknowledge that fact and not bother giving any further consideration to this guy. Note that I've read those "how to make rangeblocks" pages several times, but I still don't understand them well enough to perform them unless someone else tells me what range I should be blocking. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, @MLauba: I just got home from work, and looked into the first IP in question - it belongs to DigitalOcean, a virtual server hosting service. The IP in question is running a VPN service (or, at least, port 1723 is open), I think we can safely rangeblock 104.236.128.0/18 without affecting much legitimate traffic. I'd be interested in thoughts on this, and duration of the block. SQL^{Query me!} 19:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess its easier if you do calculations all day. I will admit they are factually accurate but dont function very well as a 'how to block X ip without taking out half the continent' tutorial. If I have some time later this month I will write one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Or, maybe, we just need you to become an Admin. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several legitimate editors on that range, so check with a CU if you plan on hardblocking it. Assuming it's just a softblock, however, it should be fine. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of further problems within that /18 range that would justify any other admin actions at this time. If problems resume once semi protection wears off, we can revisit this, but at present, I think this is due closure. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from User:Oncenawhile on Southern Levant categories

Several months ago, I reported an incident of User:Oncenawhile making sweeping category removals from WP:ARBPIA articles. The result was a message from User:Georgewilliamherbert that "This topic area is very sensitive for obvious reasons and widespread use of HotCat like this is at least subject to enhanced scrutiny. I left the current ArbPIA alert for the record, but this can be closed if the two of you can discuss constructively in talk." Despite this notice, Oncenawhile is once again arbitrarily making sweeping HotCat removals of categories from WP:ARBPIA articles. Specifically, removing the category Category:Southern_Levant from a wide range of articles several days ago and then arbitrarily removing articles from Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant today (while proposing to have it deleted - which is in and of itself ok, but forms part of a larger picture). All of these edits are contradicting previous discussions. It is worth mentioning that Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse.

The recent edits are as follows: 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.

The previous report can be found here which describes Oncenawhile making strange edits such as replacing "Southern Levant" with "the region" and mass-removing Southern Levant categories via HotCat.

Additionally, he's been directing personal attacks at me, here where he passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while also insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where he accuses me of being Islamophobic for reverting his removal of "Antisemitism in the Arab World" from the sidebar of "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". It is abundantly clear that this editor isn't interested in editing constructively with regard to the Southern Levant. He mass deletes categories, is told not to, and then does it again months (sometimes years, he has been at this for about 5 years now) later. Drsmoo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that he was prevented from removing categories etc. In general, it is clear that you to aren't going to agree, perhaps it's time for DR. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he immediately pulled the islamaphobia card on an article that's critical of the muslim world really speaks volumes.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

He was advised that sweeping HotCat category removals in ARBPIA articles are subject to enhanced scrutiny, he then waited 3 months and did it again, contradicting previous agreements. In the discussion, it was agreed that Archaeological and Geographical articles should stay in the category, yet he's again mass removed geographical articles from the category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if all the edits are like this, but the first 4 diffs seem to be exactly as advised at WP:SUBCAT, namely removing a parent category when a child category is appropriate. Zero^talk 02:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the kind of pernicious editing regarding the subject is how he originally claimed that History of the Southern Levant and History of Palestine were separate subjects here and therefore suggested that an article for the region under the name History of Palestine should be made in addition to the History of the Southern Levant article. Then, two years later, he claimed that Southern Levant and Palestine were in fact the same region, and that Southern Levant was a redundant content fork and should be deleted, directly contradicting what he originally claimed here. This deletion request went through with only three editors commenting on it. After the deletion, an admin, Sandstein had the History of the Southern Levant page redirected to Southern Levant. Yet a year later, Oncenawhile changed the admin's redirect from Southern Levant to History of Palestine here claiming it to be a "better redirect." This editor has an absolute vendetta against the academic term Southern Levant and has been attempting to have it marginalized and minimized on wikipedia while using stealthy means whenever possible. Drsmoo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "Southern Levant and Levant are the common terms used to describe the region in academic discourse". A Google search for the term "Southern Levant" finds just over 100,000 examples, nearly all of them relating to prehistoric periods. A Google Scholar search produces just 10,000 results, all related to prehistoric periods. Why do you believe that this is relevant to articles relating to contemporary history and politics?RolandR (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. Archaeological research is conducted in all of the countries removed from the category within the field of Levantine Archaeology. Ie https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-archaeology-of-the-levant-9780199212972?cc=us&lang=en&. The issues at hand are repeated mass changes to ARBPIA articles and duplicitous and hostile editing. Drsmoo (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very strange report. The nominator and I have been having a constructive discussion on this at Category talk:Southern Levant. Prior to my recent edits I wrote a talk page message which pinged him here. Everything is being proactively discussed. I don't understand why the editor felt it was appropriate to claim ARBPIA violations. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was only a discussion four months ago after you arbitrarily removed Southern Levant from dozens of articles. It was suggested that you engage in dialog. It seemed that we HAD come to an agreement, as the page wasn't modified for four months, only to have you again go back to removing Southern Levant from dozens of pages, along with proposing to have an associated category deleted at the same time. Your editing behavior on this subject, random breaks of 1/3 of a year or several years, is not commensurate with collaborative editing. Nor, btw, are personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If I had any nefarious intentions I would not have notified you before my edits. How do you explain why I bothered to notify you? I am actively trying to gain your trust, but your suspicions appear to run very deep. I promise you if you take a cold shower and come back and look at all of this you may realize that you have misinterpreted and overreacted on a number of recent occasions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow the passive aggression and condescension of the above message to speak for itself. Obviously posting a notice seconds before abruptly editing 22 ARBPIA articles in seven minutes, 3 months after the conclusion of the discussion is not collaboration. Drsmoo (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least accept that I felt this to be a reasonable method of collaboration? I inform you, I use HotCat to make the edits in a clearly labelled fashion, and then you have the opportunity to revert the ones you disagree with. Which you have now done with 9 articles. It is just more efficient, because we don't have to discuss the 13 that we both agree with. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, overwriting an admin's redirect and constantly removing links and references to the region across wikipedia is not reasonable. You've already stated the Southern Levant to be ["a neologism coined to serve a political purpose"] and I have yet to see you make any edits related to this subject that weren't either deleting links to it, deleting images from pages, or trying to have categories and articles related to the region deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bumping this back to the top as it remains unresolved. Another disruptive incident occurred today. Five hours after Syro-Palestinian archaeology was moved to Levantine archaeology by a three to one consensus (nine votes to three), Oncenawhile issued an ultimatum that if the article didn't conform to his standards within "a month or two" he would "propose moving it back", which is of course completely ridiculous and demonstrates an absolute lack of interest in consensus. Rather than working on improving the article, he instead added a tag and issued an ultimatum. One would think if he were interested in improving the article he would choose to work on it and contribute to it instead. If completely ignoring consensus and stating his intent to move the article back mere hours after the move isn't disruptive then I'm curious to hear an example of what is. Drsmoo (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowded and BLP

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wants to include tabloid sources, including The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail on our article on the British National Party, a controversial right-wing political party. As the material concerns living people and these are square in the middle of the definition of "tabloid journalism" I would argue that WP:BLPSOURCES therefore applies here. Would someone else please take a look at the situation then consider reaching out to Snowded and explaining BLP to him? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mixed bag. Some claims from those sources are clearly simple statements of non-contentious fact which is fine - while some show "editorial positions" of the original source or the newspaper printing the claims, which falls outside proper usage.

Where the claims are clearly claims as to motivation etc., they should not be used, but a simple statement that Person A visited country B is not a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220565/BNP-change-whites-membership-rules-fall-foul-discrimination-laws.html is far too editorial in nature to pass muster IMO, while

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hope-not-hate-vote-for-equality-305140 is just a 404 in the first place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334312/Anti-fascist-protestors-arrested-packed-London-buses-following-violent-clashes-BNP-outside-Parliament.html is neither better nor worse than the editorial HuffPo cite for the same claim.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1911033/Top-Euro-Nazi-Zoltan-Fuzessys-hate-site-run-from-terraced-house-in-Gravesend.html is directly violative of WP:BLP for sure, making clear claims of fact based on opinion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339568/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-visits-Syria-receiving-invite-President-Assad.html is used to make a claim based on its headline and not on what the article actually states in its body ("after being invited to take part in a fact-finding visit to the war-torn country by the regime of President Bashar Assad" is not the same as the claim "BNP leader Nick Griffin visits Syria after receiving invite from President Assad" used in the footnote which is the only apparent reason for using the DM as a cite) and so on.

In short - the problem is that sources are used for both allowable claims of fact, and disallowable statements of opinion not properly attributed as opinion. And, of course, the endemic problem of confusion as to the difference between headlines of articles and the contents of articles. I hope this is clear to all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad John has brought this here although he is misrepresenting the position someone. He deleted a whole load of material some weeks ago on the grounds that BLP policy does not permit the use of tabloid sources. In fact BLP forbids the use of tabloid journalism and per multiple discussions at WP:RS Tabloids are allowed for facts although with caution. No one disputes that broadsheets are better sources. At the time I sought clarification at the BLP notice board here rather than rise to bait of, shall we say, the over enthusiastic templating of my use page with warnings. That discussion also came to the conclusion that tabloids are not the same thing as tabloid journalism. John did not engage in that discussion other that to asset he was right. We've now come back to the issue again. Despite not having taking part in the discussion I raised at BLP he again issued a warning based on is particular interpretation of policy.

Now as far as I am concerned I am not wedded to the material in question and substantially agree with Collect's statement above. The issue here is proper clarification of policy. If WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of any tabloid journal as a source then it should clearly state as such. Tabloid journalism is not confined to the tabloids and neither is everything in a tabloid journal tabloid journalism. Not the Sun, but the Mirror and the Mail do have a reasonable reputation for news reporting. Something that has been established in discussions at WP:RS on several occasions. I posted again to BLP and put a link on RS earlier today to try and get this clarified rather than rushing to ANI but I did think about it.

The other issue which I just want to note is John's behaviour as an admin. If I have raised an issue for clarification on the BLP page and he (i) does not take part and (ii) most editors agree that not everything in a tabloid is tabloid journalism then he should not be slapping warning templates on my page but should be taking part in those discussions. It really isn't too much to ask. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• If User:Snowded is truly "not wedded to the material in question", and also truly of the belief that the two edits here and here are reasonable ones, then there may be a WP:CIR issue involved. I invite an uninvolved admin to review these edits (which involve restoring information on living people referenced only to the worst of the gutter press) and issue a final warning with a view to blocking if anything like this is repeated in the future. If Snowded's belief is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. is somehow capable of allowing edits like these two (which restore the Sun source which even he accepts is not permitted) then he should not be editing here. --John (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• And, sorry, I meant to note that the content issue is moot now as User:Hillbillyholiday has very commendably re-removed the tabloid material and re-sourced that which can be; I would strongly request that a further restoration of the non-compliant material (or any such material on other articles) should be met with a block. --John (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• • So after the best part of ten years of editing here on a range of articles and raising an issue of policy clarification John's response is to say that I shouldn't be editing here? Further I am to be threatened with a block? Please, isn't there something somewhere about chilling effects? An uninvolved admin reviewing that material is a good idea - but it won't resolve the current conflict between John's assertion that no tabloid material is permitted and agreements at WP:RS which say they can be reliable sources. On that we need a community decision. Oh and the statement about my belief above is plain false the issue is what constitutes poor sourcing and on that WP:RS is at odds with John ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I note that John subsequently changed "Snowded's belief that" to "If Snowded's belief is that" for which I thank him. Making it a question not a statement is appreciated. The answer is that it is not. I am solely and simply seeking clarification of the conflict between WP:RS and the reading of WP:BLPSOURCES by John (which also conflicts with that by several other editors). The content issue is partly resolved by Hillbillyholiday edits. So if we can resolve the policy issue now it will prevent future conflict ----Snowded ^TALK 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, apologies for my typo the first time round. This is AN/I where user conduct issues requiring admin intervention are discussed. There is a parallel discussion at WT:BLP where the policy (which seems pretty clear to most people on matters like this one) can continue to be discussed. If you have agreed that you will desist from edit-warring violative and defamatory content into a BLP, then I would not ask for further admin intervention, unless this was to recur in the future. However, User:Zumoarirodoka may need a line in the sand drawn for them as they have restored material which nobody has tried to justify. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, current policy allows the use of Tabloids and most editors involve in the previous discussion agree with that. You really need to stop this aggressive labelling and issuing of threats to experienced editors who are trying to get an apparent conflict resolved. I could equally ask you to stop edit warring to remove material which is sourced per current policy on WP:RS and show some respect for WP:BRD. If you want to move the question to that board I'm fine with it. Maybe this time you will actually take part in the discussion, your behaviour is in question here as well you know. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

John, could you please at least tell me about the material which you believe is innapropriate for me to include on the British National Party article and talk with me either on the talk page or my user page, instead of bringing it up here first and issuing final warnings to me about disruptive editing (which I was definitely not intentionally doing) without any prior discussion whatsoever?

I'm not opposed to legitimate criticism as I am fully aware I am biased against the BNP (as with the majority of editors on that article) and I try to stick to WP:NPOV as much as I can, but please be civil about correcting me. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) edited 16:25 UTC

There're two interesting question on behaviour which could be asked here.

1. If an experienced editor has raised a disputed interpretation for clarification at the appropriate policy forum, should an admin issue them with a block threat to support that Admin's position in the said dispute?
2. Should an admin who is aware that there is a dispute about policy, edit war to revert long standing material without first discussing the issue on the talk page of the article concerned?

Just a thought ----Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zumoarirodoka is continuing to edit war this material in against consensus after a warning. Block, please. --John (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @John: As soon as you mentioned the specifics, I removed the material; I have no objections to removing specific material, but it wasn't explained to me personally which parts were BLP violations. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. It seems there is only one user now who does not "get" this policy. They were honest enough to admit that they restored the Sun source to the BLP to make a [[WP:POINT|point]. I asked at WT:BLP if there is anyone who thinks the non-compliant tabloid version was better than the version we have now, and this user (alone, obviously) still seems to think that using the Daily Mail to support negative material naming a living person is ok. I predict that if this aspect of user behaviour is not clarified, this user will continue to misunderstand BLP. I would like an uninvolved admin to look carefully at this and advise Snowded of our BLP policy. --John (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You really can't stop can you. WP:RS permits tabloid papers to be used as a reliable source on factual matters. BLP only forbids tabloid journalism. In all the discussions so far everyone has agreed that alternative sources are better if available. So your statement above about my preferring it is plain false. The issue is that you think you can revert perfectly good material just because it is linked to a Tabloid source and when you are challenged you issue block threats on people's talk pages while breaking WP:BRD. Given that you are an admin that is dubious behaviour at best. Try asking for better sourcing or even look for it before blind reverting. You could also discuss issues with other editors and generally assume good faith. The minute we first encountered each other on this I raised the matter for clarification on the BLP notice board which is what a responsible editor should do. In that discussion everyone (including me) said that other sources were preferable but that Tabloids could be used for factual matters. Your contribution to that debate was to tell everyone else they were wrong and you were right. I've opened it again with a the policy statement below given you didn't want it discussed here. Taking part in that discussion as a equal participant would be a better approach than demands here ----Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy question

To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?

• Some use: Reporting of statements and other factual matters should be allowed but no commentary, ideally alternative sources should be provided ----Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for this discussion, as stated above. --John (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • OK I have shifted it intact to the BLP page. I trust you will contribute ----Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Its just about npov - User:Snowded hates the bnp and wants them and griffin portrayed as negatively as he can and he will use any rubbish opinionated link he can find to support that portrayal and will ignore all policies including wp:blp to achieve that end, simple really. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And absolutely correctly, I suppose. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State

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.

---

NapoleonX has changed the title "United States Secretary of State" to "Secretary of State" but each state in the union has a Secretary of State so it is ambiguous. Is there a way to revert them all at once? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are state secretary of states's they are called state secretary of states. Eg. Washington Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is what you call the foreign minister in another country. It's Secretary of State John Kerry, not United States Secretary of State John Kerry. NapoleonX (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I just checked, the state secretaries of state are called "Secretary of State of Florida" or whatever state applies.NapoleonX (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC) I changed what showed in the box under the Secretaries of State from United States Secretary of State to Secretary of State, but left the link on the name, so if somebody clicked on it, it still goes to the page "United States Secretary of State" and explains the role of the Secretary of State in the United States.NapoleonX (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute, but should probably be undone so a WP:RM can be started by NapoleonX.(see below) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that NapoleonX did not move United States Secretary of State, but has changed a number of articles about a variety of secretaries of state. This is purely a content dispute, it would seem. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What you did, IMO, is totally screw up all those articles. You added extra links and it just looks much worse. Some of the USDOS have multiple offices, and they all have the US in front and others have the ## linked the the List article and then the DOS part linked to the DOS article. It's just a big mess you did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look what you did to Frank_B._Kellogg, and look at the difference now between Philander_C._Knox. You need the US part, how would we know if they are the US SOS or a State SOS? When you look at the words Secretary of State, I need to know if it's a State or US SOS. I should not have to click on the link first. Your edits were very disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look at the official webpage for the Department of State, they call him the Secretary of State. It doesn't say United States Secretary of State, that's only on WP. Why should it be United States Secretary of State? The state secretaries of state are called secretary of state of Washington, or whatever the state's named. NapoleonX (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. If I go to the US SOS website, I know I'm going to the US SOS website. If I go to a person's bio on WP, and I see a title Secretary of State, how do I know if he was a US or a State SOS? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to Sir Joseph All I did was shorten the title from the unnecessary incorrect title, the title is Secretary of State, not United States Secretary of State. I left the link on it, so if you clicked it, it went to the page for American Secretaries of State, so it explained the role of the Secretaries of State in the United States. NapoleonX (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC) The problem is that they put United States in front of all those titles. That was unnecessary. The actual titles are Secretary of State, not United States Secretary of State. I looked at the United Kingdom offices, it doesn't say United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Why should it be that way for the American Secretary of State? The state secretaries of state's titles are Secretary of State of Florida (for Florida) and Secretary of (State name) for the other state secretaries of state.NapoleonX (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you are in the wrong location, secondly the title is US-SOS. How are we to know just by looking at the words SOS if the person is a US or State SOS? You can't bring the UK into it, there are no individual states in the UK to compare to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't comment on user talk pages if there's an incident open here. You still don't get it. There aren't more than one UK Secretary of State. There's only one. There may be more than one former. But there's 51 current US and State Secretary of States. When you just see Secretary of State on a person's page, how are you to know if he was a US Secretary of State or a Delaware Secretary of State. The UK is not divided into States, the US is. I do not know why you are bringing the UK or other countries into this, the US is unique. Just like they have US Senate or PA Senate on the bios. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this is a content dispute. It doesn't belong here. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can get a mass reversion? This does need to be undone, all the pages are not in sync and it would take a long time to revert manually. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know I was discussing in the wrong place. Where do you post for a content dispute? NapoleonX (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey NapoleonX, you don't need to hit "new section" every time you want to reply. Anyhow, you all might want to take it to a relevant talk page, maybe look at WP:DR, or maybe a wikiproject talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update

I've reverted all the mass changes-in-question. Recommend that NapoleonX get a consensus for such edits, next time. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Nosdan at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea, E.M.Gregory and I marked accounts that are WP:Single-purpose accounts, which, as experienced Wikipedia editors know, is a common practice in AfDs. One of the editors I marked as a single-purpose account is Nosdan (talk · contribs). Other editors might not have marked him as one, and I can understand if some feel that I should not have marked his account as one, but I see no wrong in having marked the others. Nosdan showed up with a personal attack with this edit. I replied. Nosdan then struck through my and E.M.Gregory's comments with this edit. We got into a back and forth revert matter, with me stating that, per WP:Talk, he should leave my comments alone; I also queried if I should bring the matter here to WP:ANI; see this link. Instead, with this edit, I decided that WP:ANI was not needed, and I left a note. He reverted me. I left another note, this time without directly noting that he is a single-purpose account, stating, "You don't get to mess with others' comments and then not let them note that you messed with them. Delete my comment again, and I will indeed take you [to] WP:ANI." He reverted again, stating, "once again undoing personal attack against myself." I don't view noting editors as single-purpose accounts a personal attack when they are one. And the fact remains that single-purpose accounts and sleeper accounts are popping up at that AfD. I should at least be able to note that I did not strike through my comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - I think that labeling someone as a single purpose account could open a nice big can of worms with others (as well as open the door for tempers to flare with those that are accused) - use that with care and at your own risk. Removing that from the equation, I feel that these back-and-fourth reverts went a bit farther than it should have. There's a time where you need to get a second pair of eyes, and it probably should have been sooner :-). However, when I see things such as this (him fixing his signature later), I'm much less sympathetic towards Nosdan (which wasn't much in the first place). Whether or not Nosdan is a SPA is irrelevant; Nosdan has edited disruptively on the AFD discussion, and has been uncivil. I recommend a block for this behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm updating my initial statement. With the back-and-fourth battleground conduct that has occurred (even just here in ANI), and the edit warring performed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea - I'm now recommending a block for both of these users. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

i can certainly agree back and forth reverts were well over the top but as i have already stated i wont allow slanderous personal attacks without relevance stand. as for "fixing my signature later" im unsure of the context of your comment. originally i did forget to sign it, then flyer22 signed it "for me" (so much for their "shouldnt edit someone elses comments" stance) i did remove their signature on my comment and signed the comment correctly. it was simply an oversite that i corrected when it was made apparent to me see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taharrush_gamea&diff=next&oldid=699919855 etc Nosdan (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan - The reason that I provided the diff and mentioned you "fixing your signature later" is because it shows that that you went back later to the uncivil message that you left, and fixed an error with it so that it would be "proper". That tells me that your message was intended to be uncivil because of the subtle and passive intentions and thinking that it implies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah once again you have completely lost me with your comment (altho my f.lux is telling me its time to leave the computer behind for the night, so that may be why). you should also take into account that at the time of my initial comment as well as my fixing of my "error" of not signing my comment correctly i was also "fighting" with someone "hell bent" on publicly slandering and insulting me which was, at hte time, far more important than remembering to sign a comment correctly. apart from flyer22's constant barrage of insults and attacks aimed at me i am really not quite sure what your issue is?Nosdan (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Template:Unsigned is perfectly acceptable. And I didn't get to fix the template, since you signed your comment when I was in the process of fixing the template; there was a WP:Edit conflict. As for the rest of your commentary, that is addressed below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

this user has constantly attacked me (my account) and so i removed her personal attacks on me, as im sure you will see once you investigate. i wont stand for being publicly defamed. thanks Nosdan (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan, what you are doing is trying to control others' comments, to the point that we are not allowed to note any single-purpose accounts (by the very definition noted at WP:Single-purpose accounts), and to the point where I apparently am not allowed to note that you struck through my and E.M.Gregory's comments. You also engaged in another personal attack. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"what you are doing is trying to control others' comments" what you are doing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection . is it in fact you that is trying to control others comments, by trying to mark valid comments you do not agree with as invalid. Nosdan (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

so, in your mind everyone that disagrees with you is a sockpuppeting fake account? sounds kinda paranoid delusional to me. and making false accusations that i am a sockpuppeting fake account is not a personal attack on me and my character (even tho it is quite obviously a false claim)? or are you trying to claim that you are the only person that is allowed to make false, delusional and slanderous claims? because you have me really confused now. i can only follow logic and have had insufficient exposure to mentally ill to know how to deal with them. Nosdan (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nosdan (last time WP:Pinging you to this thread because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), WP:Single-purpose accounts and WP:Sleeper accounts are not the same thing as WP:Sockpuppet accounts. And as stated above, noting that accounts are single-purpose accounts is standard practice in AfDs; I think you know that. I commented from experience, not due to paranoia. And whether or not I leave you out of the equation, I have the right to note that the other accounts are single-purpose accounts. And I certainly have the right to note that you struck through my comments. As for your personal attacks, I've had all sorts of personal attacks thrown at me, including "delusional" by editors who turned out to be sockpuppets after I correctly noted that they were. Feel free to keep throwing personal attacks my way, but they don't faze me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

which ever of the accusations you throw at me, you are (obviously) still completely wrong and i am more than happy to prove to any valid admin that this is indeed the case (obviously not to you personally). marking valid comments from valid people is simply a way for you to try and invalidate them as people as you have done in this case, "all these people are not real there for their opinions are invalid", and i find that highly offensive and i am highly offended by it. because of your obvious paranoia towards me, via your obviously incorrect and poorly thought out/researched slanderous claims i felt the need to give all your similar accusations a similar marking (tho not deleting them) to ensure other readers can see your pattern of harassment and offence you seem to enjoy. the only comments i removed was your further efforts to try and further personally attack me which was in no way related to the topic at hand. i hope you have begin to understand the error of your ways. Nosdan (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I still disagree with you. And there was no valid reason at all to remove this comment, which is me stating that those accounts are single-purpose accounts and noting that you struck through my comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"there was no valid reason at all to remove this comment" how about your continued personal attack on me, yet again calling into doubt my existence and validity? "Nothing is unsubstantiated with regard to calling the single-purpose accounts in this thread "single-purpose accounts." They are, by the very definition noted at WP:Single-purpose accounts." you are clearly either trolling or delusional if you think otherwise. in the past i have had 2 occasions where mentally deranged paranoid schizophrenics have called into doubt "my existence" where it has led to 3rd parties taking it as far as trying to find my home address and threatening physical violence on me, so i take your similar level of paranoid attack on me extremely seriously. Nosdan (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. And you have again wrongly removed my commentary from that page; that was not a WP:Personal attack whatsoever. It was me replying to an IP (defending myself against claims made by an IP) and once again noting that YOU ALTERED MY AND ANOTHER EDITOR'S COMMENTS; clearly, you don't want that truth noted. And you have no right to be controlling editors' comments like that at that page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

STOP. Both of you. Please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"STOP. Both of you. Please." just so i can get this straight.. you are claiming that i should not have the right to remove obvious personal attacks on me that flyer22 CONTINUES to post on that same page?Nosdan (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

once again, you are completely wrong and at this point i think that rather than being mentally ill (paranoid or what ever you make out to be) you simply enjoy trolling me for kicks and attention? you continue to publicly attack and insult me when all i have done is try my best to stand up for myself and give credible "weight" to your poorly thought out slanderous personal attack on me.... if you make a comment i see that is attacking me that does not have relevance to wikipedia, by now you should be aware that i will simply remove that personal attack on myself before it has a chance to snowball further and become anything more personally dangerous towards myself and my personal well being. for someone that claims to have a high IQ you cant seem to grasp that personally attacking me is wrong and will result in me removing your vandalism? Nosdan (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect again. This is completely a WP:Talk violation. Your WP:Talk violation. Meanwhile, you get to state whatever you want at that page, and go on and on about how insane you think I am. Nothing I have stated about you rises to the level of personal attacks you have dished my way. Usually, the ones who act as defensive you are now do so because they know they have something to hide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

At that page, I will be restoring my reply to the IP, and noting that you altered my comments. And there isn't a thing you can do to stop me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

as long as you finally refrain from insulting me, yet again....... i see no reason i would even wish to remove it?Nosdan (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - That response was absolutely not necessary. I understand how easy it can be to get frustrated or perhaps angry over disputes like this, but these kind of responses are not constructive, demonstrate battleground conduct, and will only add fuel to the fire. Please help me out here, and don't make any more responses like that. Let's solve the issue here. Please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You will remove it because you considered this a personal attack. Our definitions of what a personal attack is are starkly different. You should also read WP:Vandalism. Wikipedia has a WP:Single-purpose account page; editors are allowed to call other editors single-purpose accounts, especially in AfDs, without being reprimanded for it. The worst I've called you is a single-purpose account and "the Nosdan account." Compare that to what you have called me and insinuated about me. Compare that to you removing my comments willy-nilly. I never stated that I have a high IQ, by the way (I don't lead with that); others have, and it was based on tests and interactions. And, yes, I somewhat noted that on my introduction page...since it's been a big part of my life. Whether that note is on my introduction page or not, Wikipedians have noticed that aspect of me. It's not something I go out of my way to hide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't see anything I stated above as completely unnecessary. And recommending a block for me for having the right to comment in the AfD and for putting up with the personal attacks and removal of my comments by Nosdan? Yeah, I obviously disagree. I'd been stopped reverting Nosdan at that AfD. I was replying to an IP; there was no personal attack. Nosdan came in and removed my comment and then made more personal attacks above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"there was no personal attack." as a "woman", i would have thought that being described as a "thing", nothing more than "an object" or a "piece of meat", being "objectified" would be something that you would have found offensive yourself? i find it HIGHLY hypocritical that you would think that referring to a man in the same manner is anything but similarly offensive? Nosdan (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your rationales are lost on me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

unfortunately that has been obvious to me from the beginning.... Nosdan (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

pointing out that, in my previous experiences with delusional people such as yourself, who have no "facts" and simply "feelings" is not a personal attack, its stating the obvious. "My parents, and occasionally teachers I've had, bragged about my knowledge of many topics (IQ), and wanted me to use it to pursue career fields they had in mind" appears to be a claim that you have a high IQ? once again i would call that me quoting a "fact" not a personal attack. continually claiming that someone is not only unimportant, but more so not even real is a personal attack. but you are correct with your assertion that one of us is clearly wrong and mentally incapable of grasping reality. Nosdan (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet more personal attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing 5 reverts by User:Nosdan with three of them including striking out others comments [154] and two of them removing someone else comments[155],[156] That is enough to support a block of User:Nosdan for me. I am not seeing issues from Flyer22 rising to the same level. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your "opinion". in this instance im not sure how it holds any relevance. but thanks anyhow.Nosdan (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Campaigning for Hung Tzu-yung

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 an admin please speedy delete and salt this article for now? The article was deleted after clear consensus in 2 AfD discussions, and has been re-created by the same editor just in-time one day before the elections. To be clear, I have nothing at all against the party or their candidate, but Wikipedia shouldn't be misused for campaigning. Although this request is not primarily about the editor, I have notified the article creator Jackac (talk · contribs) of this post. GermanJoe (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Extreme vandalism and personal attacks by User:Beyond My Ken

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 has reverted several hundred of my edits in the last 24 hours, for no reason at all. Will someone please stop them? 85.13.233.114 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:TheRealInventorOfGoogle

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.

---

Requesting help. Went from standard WP:CSD#U5 to Personal Attacks. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 11:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Page deleted. User blocked as NOTHERE. BethNaught (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 11:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

LTA: User:192.121.113.96

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:192.121.113.96 is clearly LTA editor Best known for IP. See [157]. Block needed. LTA editors are de facto banned, if not actually formally banned, and the edits of banned editors can be reverted on sight, regardless of quality. I've been rolling back their edits, but they are aggressively restoring them. Any editor in good standing can take personal responsibility for any of these edits if they wish to, but the banned editor cannot - banned is banned. BMK (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Insane series of vandalistic reverts from User:Beyond my ken"

No other way to describe them. The guy seems to have lost it and is serially vandalising dozens of articles. [158]. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I undid this as a separate section. Check out the link above. The IP editor is restoring the edits of all the IPs reported there, most of which have already been blocked. Only this one, User:192.121.113.28, and User:23.227.183.194 remain to get the banhammer. BMK (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not and have never been banned. I've never seen something so utterly ridiculous as what you're doing right now. It is pure vandalism. 192.121.113.96 (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid there is absolutely no doubt about who you are, and what you are. BMK (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to Ohnoitsjamie for blocking this disruptive and tendentious editor. BMK (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• Now editing as 85.13.238.124. BMK (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also 85.13.233.114 and 85.13.233.118. BMK (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Also- presumably- 85.13.233.114 (see secion below) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can put a /21 rangeblock down - no constructive edits from that range in the last four months. Katie^talk 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan Edit warring and Crystal balling

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.

---

Six weeks ago, I nominated All I Ask (Adele song) for deletion because it failed notability guidelines. The creator of the article, Greenock125, removed the notice and redirect it instead. That's fine. User:MaranoFan today reopened the article, and it still fails notability. So I re-instated the redirect. He has reverted me twice, and save me making a third revert, I'm reporting it here instead to avoid further warring and crossing the 3RR because that helps no one. I've explained in both of my revert summaries that it fails notability, but MuranoFan is rejected this. He or she is also use WP:CRYSTAL as an excuse for why the article should be open in this summary: "the song is #3 on Uk iTunes rn.Its about to xplode on the charts next week." MuranoFan has a recent history of edit warring and being disruptive for which he or she has been blocked multiple times. So, the main issues I am reporting him for are edit warring, ownership and crystal balling.  — Calvin999 11:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal interest in the article, "ownership" as is being accused. I am fine if someone redirects it. This guy said that I am "opposing the decision of others" when only he has expressed an opinion on this. I was not about to let someone preach edit warring and get way with it too. 'Nuff said. If I am punished, the reporter should also be certainly as well. --MaranoFan (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the opinion of others. I nominated it for deletion, and some else redirected it on their own accord because the essentially agreed that it failed, and still does fail by the way, notability. No one else in 6 weeks has touched the article or removed the redirect. You clearly do have a problem with it being redirected, you've reverted me twice for in-instating it. It's you who voluntarily removed the redirect and added text, not me. It wasn't me who started edit warring either, it was you.  — Calvin999 11:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ofcourse I'm fucking bothered. I spent fucking hours collecting sources and actually making a detailed article. It takes you 10 seconds to redirect with just a click. I was just asking for a deletion discussion, that's all. But you do really have a problem with me and that is shown by how you chose to come here instead of a 3RR noticeboard. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Then use your sandbox!!! If you remove a redirect and add sources you allegedly spent hours collecting (which I don't believe, the prose you added is not even one decent sized paragraph and it is not detailed in the slightest) and then the redirect gets re-instated because it still fails, then you don't really have a right to moan about it when you knowingly removed a redirect. A deletion discussion? Who said anything about now deleting the article which has been redirected for 6 weeks with no issue? That makes no sense. I'm reporting an incident which is more than just one issue, not your violation of three reverts because you haven't made three or more reverts. So that's makes no sense either. You keep incriminating yourself with nonsense each time you post here, do you realise that?  — Calvin999 12:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, Calvin police, let me teach you something a'ight? If you redirect an article, and someone expresses concern and changes the redirect. You go for an AFD. You are at fault here sry. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not when a redirect was already in place as a result of a deletion tag... I simply re-instated the redirect. You should have posted on my talk if you have an issue with it.  — Calvin999 12:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

NO, I shouldn't have to. That is the thing. Wikipedia prefers community discussion, not personal ones. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a discussion as the article talk would have been redirected... A discussion can take place anywhere. Seriously, I would stop now.  — Calvin999 12:20, 15

January 2016 (UTC)

I shouldnt have to "stop" anything because you say so. I will continue to make my defense. It is your fault for not nominating an article for AfD. Yes, Calvin, AFD. That's what we do for community feedback, not ANI. What do you intend to do here? I agree for an AfD, not for a straight up redirect. Don't think your opinion is superior to anyone else's in any way and stop this arrogance. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did back in December!! And it was redirected by another! There's nothing wrong with the article remaining as a redirect in case it becomes notable at a later date. I am reporting YOU for your actions about removing the redirect. And the place to do that is right here and this incident noticeboard, not AfD which is for deleting articles. Don't you understand how Wikipedia works?  — Calvin999 12:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, I aint got as much time to waste as you clearly do. OK, we will see what others say. I am DONE answering you, and have made my point and others will see it. BYE.--MaranoFan (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing some major competence issues here for MaranoFan. First off, WP:BRD requires to communicate with Calvin about this issue. Instead, you've reinstated an article that was redirected, which I assume was made through deletion discussion. Second, Wikipedia is about discussion entirely. Your assumption of community discussion is wrong. All we do is discuss in order to reach consensus. Calvin999, do you mind linking to the deletion discussion please? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, Thank you Callmemirela, for responding. But, if you look deeper into this case, there was 0 discussion about redirecting. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Calvin999: The article has never been nominated for deletion. If that were the case, there would be an WP:AfD discussion on it, which there isn't and has never been. You WP:PRODed the article, but WP:PROD is neither binding nor an AfD. Stop edit-warring. Do not keep redirecting: If a redirect of an existing article is contested even once (as it has been here), your only recourse is to nominate it for deletion via WP:AfD. Since you haven't done that, the article needs to stand as an article. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, Softlavender, this is what I've been trying to tell him for hours. --MaranoFan (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hours again, huh?  — Calvin999 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• As per Softlavender, a WP:PROD nomination can be overturned by anyone and that's all I see as having happened here. Reverting the redirect back to an article counts as validly contesting the PROD, and the next step needs to be a nomination at WP:AFD - and until there is a "Delete" outcome at AFD then there is no consensus for the removal of the article (either by deletion or redirection). Please go do that, Calvin999, and stop the arguing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you will find that I did nominate it for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)&diff=693723913&oldid=693723689) but it was redirected by the editor who had added some text to it before anyone could comment on the discussion, presumably because that editor knew that it would be deleted in its lack of notability state, and took it upon himself to redirect (which I'm also happy with) in order to save it from deletion straight away. People are missing the bigger picture here: it's fails notability, and MuranoFan using crystal to justify why it should stay is just wrong. So what, it's 3 on UK iTunes. That only means one more chart will be added to the two it has already charted on. That doesn't create notability in itself. The reason why I am posted here is because of MuranoFan's attitude, starting an edit war and using a crystal ball.  — Calvin999 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It has already been stated here that PROD (which you did) and AFD (which you did not do) are not the same thing. For this to be deleted, an AFD nomination would need to be started, and a clear consensus gotten there for deletion (no consensus→no change). If you genuinely believe it should be deleted then argue for that in the correct venue (which, one more time, is AFD). GRAPPLE ^X 14:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, MuranoFan just violated the 3RR and performed his third revert in less than three and a half hours just now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_I_Ask_(Adele_song)&curid=48324800&action=history.  — Calvin999 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR entails going beyond three, not reaching it. GRAPPLE ^X 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well three years ago I was blocked for doing only three, and I've seen many others blocked for only three, so there needs to be some continuity with that. At the very least, a formal warning should be given to the editor because 3RR doesn't mean you have to use three and make the history unstable.  — Calvin999 14:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Calvin999, s/he's only made two reverts total: [159], [160]. Violating 3RR means making four reverts in 24 hours. Something is really not computing for you today: You fail to understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD or WP:3RR. I suggest you withdraw this ANI filing before you waste any more of our time, and before it boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing as Softlavender. Calvin999, you have a complete misunderstanding of these processes. PROD does not involve a discussion. User:Greenock125 did not have to redirect to "save" it from deletion. All he had to do was remove the PROD. He may have decided to redirect it until he or another editor could find further sources, which is indeed what MaranoFan did. So stop second-guessing the motives of others. I also note that you have not discussed any of your notability concerns at Talk:All I Ask (Adele song). Nor have you discussed them with MaranoFan or Greenock125. Instead you came straight to ANI. Enough already. Open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All I Ask (Adele song) (instructions here) and stop wasting everyone's time. Or don't open it and stop wasting everyone's time. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Softlavender, he/she has made three reverts total: One, Two and Three. The third was a 'Nope, that's not allowed, we don't do that' kind of revert, to which the editor who made the edit asked Murano fan why it's not allowed, to which MuranoFan contradicted himself and said to the effect of 'well it is allowed but we don't really do it anymore'. Yet I am being told to read up on rules? I recommend that admins start to only block if four reverts are made, because I know many editors who have been blocked for making three reverts with the rationale of just because the limit is three, doesn't mean you have to implement and use the limit, as that then brings other aspects such as edit warring, ownership and instability into play. I don't need to you to be uncivil to me either. I won't be checking back here, if you want to reply then use my talk page.  — Calvin999 15:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This simple and warranted and uncontroversial removal of a couple of deprecated wikilinks [161] is not a revert in the context of edit-warring. I don't know how or why you are getting your wires crossed here, but it's beginning to be a case of WP:IDHT and an insistence on making MaranoFan (and everyone else on this thread, including admins) wrong and yourself right by whatever means possible. I'm asking you the last time, before I or someone else urges a WP:BOOMERANG sanction on you: Please drop this ANI thread and do something else on Wikipedia. I'm hoping your "I won't be checking back here, ..." means you are willing to drop this. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE JonFreeD AlekSmith7

Nenad_Gligo_Vrhovac: JonFreeD (talk · contribs) created this hoax article and AlekSmith7 (talk · contribs) removed the deletion tags from it. Clear socking and NOTHERE. IMO waste of wikipedians' time, seen from page history must be severely punished. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem - The article you mentioned has been deleted as a G3. If you suspect sock puppetry, you need to open a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations - have you done this? Since the article is deleted, the contributions of both accounts no longer are listed (I assume that their contributions were only made to that article). However, looking at their logs, I see that they were created within a day of one another. If the accounts are no longer causing disruption, a block might not be performed until they do so (since blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I'll leave that for an admin to review and decide. Bottom line: if you suspect sock puppetry, open an SPI case. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Social networking by United kingdoms my home

User:United kingdoms my home has done almost nothing but social networking and userpage adornment on this site. I sent them a message asking them not to carry on, but they removed it without response and have continued misusing other editors' talk pages. If not checked, this behaviour may encourage others to treat our site in the same way. I think an admin's final warning may be in order: Noyster (talk), 18:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is definitely only making edits to others' talk pages or his own userspace. While I'm not seeing a blatant violation of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (he's not using Wikipedia to host a blog, uploading files and using Wikipedia as a hosting service, that kind of stuff...) - he is editing in a manner that scratches that policy. I must admit that I haven't added discussion to this kind of an ANI report in some time (I'm used to giving my $.02 on ANI threads that involve much bigger and disruptive fish), so I'll abstain from making a recommendation for action. However, I will say that WP:NOTHERE can apply in this case. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Noyster Perhaps you can tell him that WP:NOTHERE can lead to his editing privileges being taken away? I don't think that we should come down on newbies like a ton of bricks, so perhaps we can coax him to start editing articles. If he starts working on articles I have no beef with him decorating his own userspace. To be frank I have no idea what pleasure/output he derives from this activity. This is not likea blog etc which is for public. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I was on the fence about taking any action; he's not being disruptive - we should assume good faith here, and I think this is the most appropriate thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pity we cannot apply a block on all edits except article space. Activities seem to have slowed down but if there is another burst as on Jan 3, I would suggest a month block as a warning. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth - A month block, huh? I'd probably start at a few days first, then a week if it continues. A month seems kind of harsh :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Robsinden

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.

---

TL;DR:

• After an addition stays on a page for an entire week, user boldly removes it, then after being reverted repeats it four more times: [162] [163] [164] [165] [166].
• When I point it out, user justifies their part in the edit war: [167].
• User alters my comment on template talk page: [168].
• I warn user to cease from further disruptive actions: [169].
• User's reaction: calls me an idiot and removes my warning. [170].

I would appreciate guidance on how to deal with this type of bullying. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In order of presentation.

• Content dispute. You have rightly been discussing it on the TP, but frankly both parties seem to have descended into a slanging match. Consider a WP:RFC or the Project page.
• Telling another editor to WP:BRD does not an edit war make.
• Best practice is not to refactor others' comments; but it was only linkage and therefore could be claimed to be a helpful addition.
• Which you have both been responsible for.
• Well; rather uncalled for. But then you did threaten him with a board, which is hardly in accord with WP:AGF.
  

Nothing to see here. Please move along. Move along. Move along. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So... I guess it's OK for some to behave in a bullyish manner and blatantly break basic rules, as long as you don't like what the other editor is doing. While my behavior was not perfect either, Robsinden's was unjustifiable. And regardless of WP:BRD (which was not violated by me, as I already explained), 5 consecutive reverts are not OK - and yes, neither are they OK on my side. There are also no butts for calling me an idiot.

But hey, thanks for completely dismissing my concern. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Robsinden templated me with 3RR, so... accusing me of breaking AGF by "threatening" (really???) with a noticeboard is, well, in your own words - rather uncalled for. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cinterminous Comment As I said ^ _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who can actually deal with my concern? I feel like I am at an empty sheriff's office. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page comment shouldn't have been edited by another editor. It seems like you both exceeded 3RR on that template page. As for being called an idiot, it is definitely not civil but I think most of us have been called worse. And admins are reluctant to block long-standing editors for breaches in civility. I think the best thing for this logjam between the two of you is for more editors to participate in this talk page discussions as there is a fair amount of animosity between you two now. I hope this fades over time but right now, you need a few more editors to weigh in on your subjects of disagreements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I second Liz's response. It's a scratch in the civility policy; it definitely was not needed and only makes matters worse. However, the best thing you can do is brush it aside, focus on content and not on the editor, and try and come to a peaceful resolution. If anything, take a break, walk away, and focus on something else for awhile so that any flames might settle. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not looking to get anyone blocked, only to be assured that being a long-standing editor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for acting in a condescending and unapologetic manner. I'd elaborate but I risk breaking civility myself. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt - Your statement is 100% true. Tenure, status, permissions, involvement, whatever - does not matter. All editors should be treated with respect, and all editors should be expected to be respectful to others. It doesn't matter who you are. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's just odd that at the end of the day, no one bothered as little as leaving a message on Robsinden's talk page about this. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have just done so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt notified Robsinden as required. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Izno, we know; I don't think anyone said he had not? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all the way to the end of the line to which I was replying. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he gets a pat on the back. So much for treating everyone equally. Maybe I should just insult more editors so I can become one of them "long-standing" ones, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Wow. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I unconditionally apologise for allowing my frustration at your actions get the better of me and using the word "idiot" in my edit summary. It won't happen again. I hope we can all move on now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess a backhanded apology is as good as it gets. Moving on. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if the OP is now withdrawing the complaint, but I'd like to point out that Robsinden's tenure and so forth have no bearing on the matter. What does matter though is that EauZenCashHaveIt was edit-warring instead of observing WP:BRD, and moreover insisted that Robsinden owed him an apology for his reverts. Although Wikipedians must avoid WP:OWNERSHIP, since Robsinden created and titled the navbox, he effectively established its title and parameters as being "Netflix original programming". If something was discovered to have been added counter to that parameter, he or anyone was within rights to remove it, and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS (i.e., some sort of proof and consensus that it meets the already established parameters of the navbox) are necessary before replacing it. In the lengthy discussion on the talk page, there does not seem to be such a consensus, so the item should not be re-added. If EauZenCashHaveIt still feels strongly that it applies or belongs, the next step would be some form of WP:DR, such as an WP:RfC. In any case, I suggest closing this discussion before it boomerangs on the OP. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Subtle threats, I like it - "shut up or we'll sanction you". This gets more interesting by the minute. As I said, moving on. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear:

• I withdrew the complaint. I'm withdrawing it again, for lack of clarity.
• I acknowledged having edit warred, and apologized for it. Robsinden's edit war, on the other hand, seems to be "justified". The attitude is what brought me here, otherwise I'd go to the proper board.
• Maybe I'm not as experienced as the editors who seem to have been here since Wikipedia was first launched, but I believe WP:OWNERSHIP applies here. While Robsinden created the navbox, he certainly has no patent on what constitutes a Netflix original. In any case, I have far better things to do than defend myself against windmills. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Using Wikipedia to promote a racist marketing strategy

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:Rebecca1990 is an SPA who substantive edits almost exclusively center on pornography. Their edits show a substantial and detailed knowledge of the field, familiarity with a fairly wide range of detailed sources, and access to material that is not indexed or directly available through standard online search techniques. Several users have independently questioned whether the account is operated by a paid/promotional editor, and its editing patterns may indicate more than one person uses the account. "Rebecca" periodically casts unsupported aspersions on other editors, and makes aqccusations of dishonesty without evidence. In at least one deletion discussion, her accusations of racism against other editors were characterized by uninvolved admins as "appalling" bad faith,[171]], but no action was taken at that time.

"Rebecca" has recently contested the removal of clearly inaccurate factual statements concerning "interracial" sex from multiple BLPs, and edit wars to retain the inaccurate content. They has gone so far as to attempt to write their preferred definition into the article on Ethnic pornography, using sources which characterize her preferred definition as dishonest and racist.[172](also see [173] As those sources (and others) note, this attempt to redefine "interracial" sex as exclusively heterosexual sex between a black male and a white female is a departure from popular and scholarly consensus, is factually inaccurate, and is really no more than a marketing strategy intended to attract consumers in a misogynistic, racist market niche. The attempt to commandeer Wikipedia articles to support this marketing strategy is atrocious and beyond all reasonable doubt grossly inappropriate.

There is no question that the term "interracial" has historically carried a broader meaning; the famous Star Trek "interracial kiss" involved white male William Shatner and black female Nichelle Nichols; the interracial marriage sustained by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia involved a white male husband and black female wife. Nor is there any question that, even in the context of pornography, the term was limited to heterosexual black male-white female sex: The Internet Adult Film Database lists many, many scenes between black female and white male performers as "interracial" ("IR"). See, for example its entries for Anna Amore[174], Ebony Ayes[175], Cherokee D'Ass[176], Kim Eternity[177], Carmen Hayes[178],Heather Hunter[179], Janet Jacme[180], Angel Kelly[181], Lola Lane[182], Purple Passion[183], Jeannie Pepper[[184], Domonique Simone[185], Kelly Starr[186], Desiree West[187].

Nor is there any question that Rebecca1990's insistence on the LGBT-phobic exclusion of non-heterosexual sex from the definition of "interracial" is unfounded. For example, the phrase "interracial lesbian" scores more than one million Google hits (many current references in the context of commercial pornography); and the IAFD lists many, many performers with "Lez Only IR" credits (check the prior list for examples), as well as titles like "Interracial Lesbian Nation" (at least two volumes), "Interracial Lesbian Ass Worship" (at least six volumes), "Bareback Interracial" (male-male), and "Interracial Lip Smacking Lesbians".

For a knowledgeable user to insist on such plainly counterfactual content is inexcusable. There's no apparent way to explain this that doesn't involve promotional purposes. Some level of editing limits/sanction is called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that I do indeed have "substantial and detailed knowledge" on pornography, which is exactly why I am very qualified to edit articles on the topic. Your accusations of me being a publicist and there being more than one person using my account are both false. In reality, I'm personally opposed to the way the porn industry treats interracial scenes, but I don't let that influence how I edit articles because I do it from a WP:Neutral point of view. The examples you provided of black women/white men are IAFD saying they performed interracial as a sex act, not that they performed in the interracial genre, there is a difference. Some lesbian and gay porn films have the word "interracial" in the title, so what? That doesn't mean anything. The title of a film is unrelated to the genre they are categorized in. NSFW warning: Brazzers has an interracial category consisting entirely of scenes that feature black males. Here's a scene between a white woman and a black woman. Look at "Niche & Categories". "Interracial" is not on there. Here's a scene between a white woman, a black woman, and an Asian woman. Look at "Niche & Categories". "Interracial" is not on there. There are reliable sources that state when Dani Daniels, Karen Summer, and Kendra Lust made their debuts in the interracial pornography genre. The interracial pornography genre is black male/white female, as several reliable mainstream sources have reported. This AVN article stating that Daniels was "making her first-ever foray into the interracial genre" is factually accurate because the interracial genre is black male/white female and this was the first time Daniels had a black male co-star in a scene. What would actually be inaccurate is saying "Daniels had interracial sex on-screen for the first in the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper, but that's not what the article said. It said "Daniels did her first interracial sex scenes for the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper" with a link to the article on the genre. If you want a compromise, "Daniels made her debut in the interracial pornography genre with the 2014 film Dani Daniels Deeper" is perhaps less confusing. But you shouldn't remove the info from articles altogether because it is a major event in the careers of porn stars. Why do you think AVN and XBIZ report it so often? Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That Brazzers cite demonstrates the vacuousness of your argument. Wikipedia is not bound to accept any business's marketing codewords in writing articles. And most of their marketing categories (they have scores if not hundreds) are not "genres" and are often utterly ridiculous. Albanian porn?[188] Australian porn?[189] Ballerina porn (which has no discernible connection to content involving ballerinas)?[190] Booty Shorts porn?[191] Five different "Doggystyle" porn genres? French Canadian porn? Huggy Bear porn? Jogging Suit porn? (Really, look here [192]) Parking Lot porn? St. Patrick's Day porn? Sun Hat porn? Thanksgiving porn? Why should we take this stuff seriously?

Am I seriously going to have to refute the above by linking to various porn sites interracial categories? I am not sure ANI is ready for xhamster... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ballerina" is a position; Brazzers categories are not genres but markers that denote the presence of a theme or act. It's hard work, this research. GRAPPLE ^X 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

As Maunus pointed out below, porn sites are WP:original research. I only provided examples of porn site categorization as a response to HW's examples of porn titles (also original research), not to defend my edits. I defend my edits with reliable mainstream sources. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop trying to move the goalposts, Rebecca. You claimed that "Many MAINSTREAM sources have made it clear that "interracial" means white female/black male within the porn industry". I provided what amounted to scores of counterexamples. Now you're claiming that you meant something different (which doesn't line up with the texts you edit warred to restore). Demonstrating that an opinion piece contains clear factual errors is not prohibited by WP:NOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is all OR. Cite some secondary sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources and quotes from them stating that the interracial pornography genre/category is only applied to scenes featuring black men can be found here. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, WordPress blog, and that's before we get to Vocativ. The Wikipedia article on that site reads like a cross between a press release and a software sales brochure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The interracial pornography genre is defined as black male/white female (or light-skinned women of color, excluding blacks). It was stated in the sources as an objective fact, not an opinion. The authors stating their opinions and quoting the opinions of porn stars and directors on the genre does not invalidate the whole source. WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION allow opinion pieces. The Daily Beast, Fusion, and Vocativ are all reliable sources. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at DRN? John from Idegon (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is evidence of misconduct or malicious intent, this seems like a content dispute over definitions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There's evidence that Rebecca1990 deliberately introduced false statements into Wikipedia to promote commercial interests. There's rather clear evidence that Rebecca1990 made false and disruptive accusations of vandalism in a related discussion. This is a recurrent pattern of behavior: Rebecca persistently personalizes disputes and disrupts discussion in order to protect promotional and other inappropriate content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has filed an AN3 report against Rebecca1990. We should investigate any misconduct over there and close this discussion. larryv (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting wikipedia contributor, occuspriest.

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

---

Since I am only an observer, and I am not an experienced wikipedia user, I want to report wikipedia user/contributor, OCCUSpriest, who made changes to wikipedia page, Craig J. N. de Paulo, that were clearly malicious and slanderous, in direct violation of the wikipedia policies concerning biographies of living persons. I suspect that this person is what seems to be called "sock puppeting." Anyway, this is clearly a personal attack to this page about the Archbishop of the Old Catholic Church in the United States of which I am a member. Thank you! 2601:45:8001:A70F:4C6B:623E:4102:5B32 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors warned, article semi-ed minus the BLP violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

John Lennon

There is some sort of css vandalism on the John Lennon page. It appears to only be occurring to ip readers but the whole page has been overlaid with a blank icon.png which when clicked takes readers to a pay per click short link page. It's well beyond my css abilities to solve. Note you have to log out to see the issue as far as I can tell. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Add, it seems to be inside div#mw-content-text.mw-content-ltr and is a link to http://rasp.is/2Z8H15 Nthep (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that it was happening for me in Internet Explorer, but now it's apparently fixed. It may have been vandalism on a transcluded template. clpo13_(talk) 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything wrong with the page, even when viewed while logged out, so perhaps it was some template vandalism that has already been repaired. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it relates to a caching issue with {{Wikimedia}} where, ironically, I fixed the vandalism yesterday. Nthep (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it's Deanmajorjr (talk · contribs) (see [193] and [194]). clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Damm, I should have blocked him yesterday after the first round! Nthep (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone care?

DENY

So you'll all be "glad" to know that Ben and I had a massive row yesterday. He left his laptop unlocked and I scooped around - came across a sock database and emailed it to myself. In total 3049 socks... not quite what he originally claimed, but still quite a few. Anyway he went schizo and we had it out. He's threatened never to speak to me again if I grass him up. I'm in two minds frankly. On the one hand I like this site and what it stands for. At least I did. On the other, I don't want to fall out with my friend, even if he is being a jerk, and in any case the way you guys have treated me since I first tried to warn you I don't know if you even deserve the sock list. If I do decide to give it to you, who should I email it to? 78.40.158.50 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI User:Ohnoitsjamie

173.63.70.217 removing article maintenance templates

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.

---

173.63.70.217 removing article maintenance templates[195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203] after warning.[204] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 08:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass-reverted as well. SQL^{Query me!} 08:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User attacking admins because their page was deleted through G7

Eatl33t1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created 2 pages, US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, and Deschloroetizolam, both of which were deleted around January 6. The first one was deleted through WP:G7 as they blanked the page, and the second was deleted through an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deschloroetizolam. On January 12, they contacted me on my talk page with this message:

Why am I getting like 7 messages?

All about the same 2 articles? Over and over. From Multiple users. What are you people like moderators or something? Once was enough, I got it. Now I keep getting spammed to death by multiple users, It's like get off my back already, please. I'm not gonna make any more pages for ages, OK? Now will yall leave me alone? " BoxOfChickens left a message on your talk page in "January 2016". Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, without giving a valid reas... "Lpl

You people asked (forced) me to remove the content from my "Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015" page, which I spent all day making. I was forced by some nazi staff here to remove all the content of my article that I put my heart in, my sweat and tears.

The message he is quoting in question was a warning I accidentally left on their talk page after they blanked the article. I removed the notice after I saw that they had created the article and I then tagged it for speedy deletion.

I replied back with this message and left a harassment warning on their talk page:

You were not forced by anyone to remove the content of your article. Because you blanked it, it implies that you want it to be deleted, so it was. Please see WP:REFUND if you want your content back. It also appears that you got only 2 messages about articles you created.

They replied:

No, I got 8 messages in all, redundant as shit, you want me to show you my inbox with 8 people messing with me? When I only made a change to one article which was accurate (all my changes are accurate) and I created two pages, one was summarily deleted, the second got all it's content deleted, leaving the title of the page, they gave some bullshit nazi reason about why I couldnt create a US Synthetic drug act of 2015-2016 page, even with 100% accurate info and the page doesn't exist here, same with my benzo article I made from scratch, I spent all day on that, I'm pissed. What kind of fucking page can I create? whatever I do will get deleted and my inbox will get spammed by this bias NAZI fuckin staff. Eatl33t1111 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) -Eatl33t1111 out.

I replied with another message and left another harassment warning on their talk page:

The first page was deleted due to a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deschloroetizolam. The second article was deleted because you voluntarily removed the content of the page, implying that you want it deleted. If you want it back, you can do that at WP:REFUND. Also, don't throw your toys out of the pram. That includes calling people Nazis (example in a previous Wikipedia discussion). BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) You may have gotten 8 messages in your inbox (not your talk page) because your pages were deleted or you were mentioned in an AfD or noticeboard discussion. I can't comment on what would have happened in that situation as I have not had a page I created deleted or been mentioned on a noticeboard. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What should I do?

BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If a user is getting increasingly upset by messages left on their talk page, I'd suggest you stop leaving them messages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that they are talking about talk page messages, but rather the messages in their notifications that their pages were deleted and the necessary deletion notifications on their talk page. They do not seem to understand that blanking a page is an implied request for deletion, and think that they were forced to delete their page. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did not appear to welcome your first attempt to explain - so just walk away and leave them alone is my suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Or they may be talking about emails, but same deal. ansh666 19:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What should you do? Stop biting the newcomers. Yeah, sure, you didn't leave all those messages, but I doubt the user was hallucinating when he said You people asked (forced) me to remove the content from my "Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015" page. Argyriou (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He received polite messages on his talk page and polite responses to his shrill complaints on other people's talk pages. No one was "biting" him whatsoever, even when he was calling other people Nazis. ChemNerd (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ChemNerd had added the following to US Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015, which Eatl33t1111 might have interpreted as a request to blank:

{{Proposed deletion/dated|concern = This is a proposed bill with little chance of passing.  It is therefore not notable and may fall afoul of [[WP:CRYSTAL]].  Wikipedia should wait until it does pass (if ever) and then an article can be considered.|timestamp = 20160106150609}}

Assuming they haven't taken to roaming Wikipedia destructively, this thread isn't really actionable. They've been uncivil, yes (I'm biased and a Nazi? That's news to me), but understandably so, given that many of their first contributions have been rejected. Best to let it be for now. Come back if they start making a mess. larryv (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian Historian (NOTHERE)

• Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

This user uploads files, claiming them to be his (when obviously not), releasing them into PD (see Commons:User talk:Albanian Historian). He created a very problematic "The Defense of Plava and Gucia". He created a copyvio, povfork "The Expulsion of Albanians". He has removed tags on both articles. He added this, very interesting, section about Anti-Slavism in Kosovo (please read). He consistenly claims that a toponym which dates to the Middle Ages is derived from the Albanian word for "flashlight", despite me urging him to use reliable sources, and not articles from low-quality ultra-nationalist sites supporting Greater Albania (such as this). He uses these sources in the articles he edits. I added a RS clarifying the toponym, upon which he readded the unreliable source, and commented: Your source is used for irrendentist claims. Provide arguments. Change reverted. Source is reliable. So, my argument is that this user is WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 18:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

...and he called me a "fascist, irredentist nationalist", and claims that his articles are "important and provides a different perspective, aside from the very Pro-slav, fascist versions." Need I say more?--Zoupan 18:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I am new to wiki and i mistakenly uploaded files as my own. I am providing proper sources and Mr Zoupan deletes them claiming they are not reliable. Its a matter of discussion then. The Expulsion of the Albanians, to which i already responded, you may read for yourself to see if Zoupans claims really are true. As for the part with ultra-nationalistic sources, ironically, Zoupan himself is the very nationalist who deletes my edits with no counter-arguments nor sources to back up his statements while i've written several articles with proper sources, not engaging anyone. Ironically, the Expulsion of the Albanians main source is written by a Serb journalist. Mr Zoupan has been constantly persecuting my posts because he does not fancy Albanian history for some reason although i've provided both Albanian and Montenegrin sources for many articles. If mr Zoupan cannot provide counter-arguments, calling my sources "ultra-nationalist" when they are not, then it is mr Zoupan who ought to re-consider. I am not here to fight. I am here to provide Albanian history, and that is it. As for mr Coupons fascist claims and constant persecution of my posts, failing to provide with proper arguments and sources for his edits, i find his reliability very lacking... --Albanian Historian (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked for one hour for NPA violation. Calling someone fascist on ANI is hardly a compelling argument why we should want to keep this person here. I have linked several policies on their talk page and will link more, and hope they will use their one hour off to read these and learn. KillerChihuahua 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to double check, but don't Albanian articles fall under the Arbcom remedies for the Balkans? Blackmane (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE? BMK (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He keeps adding the same unreliable source with dubious claims (1, 2).--Zoupan 08:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but Zoupan and Sideshow Bob have been trying to remove another article as biased by placing a prod tag on it; when I removed the tag, saying that biased articles can be fixed, they each of them, separately have restored it.I have warned them accordingly. (They can of course take it to afd if they think it unfixable). DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• And FWIW, the relevant Arbitration remedy is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which applies to the entire Balkans area, broadly interpreted. The editors would need to be individually warned first on their talk pages. They cannot be sanctioned under it for actions before they have been warned. Any editor in good standing may issue a warning. (this does not prevent normal administrative action even if they have not been so warned--it only applies to the special nature of discretionary sanctions). DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User Ronalditos58815738 consistently introduces errors

User:Ronalditos58815738 (contributions) is consistenly changing small facts about numbers on Mexican stadions. I checked them on three or four articles, and the given sources, and the numbers of the user seem incorrect or at least from an unknown source. The sources, e.g. at Estadio_Azteca (diff) do not agree with the user's edits. I would suggest that his edits need all to be verified or reverted. I put the notification on the user's talk page. I would go through it myself, but don't have the time right now. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is my first time opening an ANI and it is with some discomfort that I bring it up regarding a historically constructive another established editor.(edited 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)) However the continued and renewed tendentious editing by Born2cycle continues to be disruptive to the project. Multiple attempts have been made at correction over the years including:

• 2009 RfC
• 2012 AN
• 2012 ArbCom Case
• 2013 ANI with subsequent pledge
• 2014 Editor review
• 2015 Reminder of his Pledge

My first interaction with this editor was during a move review where I was the target of the move review[205]. As such I clearly have a conflict of interest in the matter. However it is in that venue that the tendentious attributes of this editor arose again. At one point I reminded the editor of his pledge, and he was quiet for some time, but then, after the article had been effectively stable and settled since December 2, over a month later he jumps back into the fray and continues his argument of the point - illustrating his believe which he links to on his userpage about WP:The_Last_Word. The result is this move review has created such a wall of text, I don't believe anyone dare try to close it. Actually one non-admin tried to, and got it wrong, although it really was in good faith. And subsequently I JethroBT took his best stab to clean it up. But it is still a huge mess that most people would shy away from editing.

During this move review, where the objective is to discuss the merits of the close and if it follows WP:RMCI, instead Born2cycle either introduced or spurred on discussions including:

• Continuing to argue his point about why the move is valid - WP:REHASH
• Arguing semantics over "opponent" being a WP:BATTLEGROUND term
• Arguing what WP:CONSENSUS means or attempting to redefine it
• Arguing about BLP validity as it related to this article
• Failure to assume good faith of other contributors
• Boarderline WP:NPA violations, including flinging accusations

He appears to approach contentious subjects as battles to be won, such as his essay on Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle. It is also illustrated in his extreme positions and over-discussing the point, including his dissenting view on:

• Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie album)
• Talk:Bell (disambiguation)

That is in addition to his massive edits and discussions at the initial move request and subsequent move review. Reviewing his contribution history, it seems most of the articles he is getting into recently have been controversial and is being tendentious in his editing and attempting to get his way. His recent, and WP:LASTWORD on the Move Review [206] today was simply the last straw. I reminded him of his pledge, but he has skirted right past that. I know the pledge was years ago, but it still seems valid today based on his current editing patterns.

My contention with him isn't over the move review, because honestly the move closure could have been handled better (but I still stand behind the actual closure itself), and I would actually be okay with it being overturned. It has to do with the behavior of this editor and how he completely drowns out the discussion and consensus process by pushing his point of view ad nauseam.

My desired outcome of this would be simply a reinstatement of the limited discussion ban and helping Born2Cycle get the point about his activities (ie WP:LISTEN, WP:TLDR and his own pledge). He appears to have great knowledge about WP:ARTICLETITLE and would hate to loose his experience and expertise as he often brings up good points of views - but simply argues them to such a degree. A less desirable, but possible necessary one would be to actually topic ban him from article moves -- a harsh move, but based on historical evidence going back multiple years, through multiple AN/RFC/ANI/ArbCom processes, it might be finally time. How much more should we excuse productivity for abuse of process, good faith and other editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Without getting into the above too much (I have to think about how I'd like to respond) if nothing comes out of this other than someone finally ending that damn move discussion that's been going on since October, this will have been a productive thread. I am entirely willing to chalk up what is perceived as tendentious editing in that thread as frustration over the lack of response from the administrators. Get on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that was closed in October / November...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And it has been at move review ever since. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Did Tiggerjay really refer to Born2Cycle as "a historically constructive editor"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: okay perhaps a little over generous with "historically constructive", but he has good points and probably 50% of the time his views on moves are inline with my understanding of policy (and community consensus). He had a good grasp of several policies and is working to make the project better, AGF. However, when his views are opposite of the major consensus he becomes quite tendentious in editing, and effectively (intentionally or not) bullies other editors to agreeing or simply walking away from the discussion. When he goes beyond two or three replies in a discussion things go from constructive to ugly really quickly. HOWEVER with all of that said, how much longer do we need to put up with corrective actions for this editor? Tiggerjay (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for what it is worth I did a quick look back at how B2C has participated in move requests between September to present. Again we need to consider more than !vote counting, but it seems that most of the time when B2C's position is not in line with consensus he becomes tendentious. This also illustrates that more than half of the time his position is in line with consensus. Of 19 different moves he participated in:

• 11 (58%) he voted in line with consensus - and generally posted only once
• 8 (42%) the result was not in line with his !vote - during those discussions he posted an average of 8 times and often more than any other single editor on that discussion. This activity might be expected of a RM nom, but not of simply another contributor.

Jumping over to the move triggering the MR he was the number one editor to that section as well as over at the move review itself. Overall it seems this editor throws a fit whenever consensus is not going his way. When his position on a move is on target, his comments are helpful. When he is a dissenting view, he becomes abusive. Other editors, non-discussion closers, and admins shouldn't have to continue to put up with this sort of nonsense. He simply doesn't know when to drop the stick. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding Tiggerjay's analysis above, I had made a similar observation in the Kim Davis move review about Born2cycle's history of repeatedly reopening move discussions until they get their way. He interpreted it as a personal attack, which inspired me to write the essay don't abuse the no personal attacks policy (which is not a response to B2C, just some general observations, but B2C made me think about it). My comment in the move review was based only on a cursory review of B2C's history on the Kim Davis talk page and encountering their Yogurt Principle essay. I had no idea that this pattern goes back over six years and has been the subject of an ArbCom case.

Indeed the last two points of Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors sound as though they were written specifically with Born2cycle in mind; this is his pattern exactly. I am just one in a very long and growing list of editors to have tried to explain to him that WP:CONSENSUS is not achieved by bludgeoning, filibustering and spin-doctoring until your opponents give up, it's achieved by considering your fellow editors' positions and working to achieve common ground. He subscribes to a minor but unfortunate misinterpretation of WP:CONSENSUS; this is evident in his many move discussions and clamouring to rehash contentious discussions which were not decided favourably in his view (evident in his marking of expiry dates of various move request moratoriums on his user page). CONSENSUS suggests that the closer of a discussion should consider the weight of arguments, and discard those which are poorly-supported or incoherent. B2C has a very extreme, black-and-white interpretation of this, relentlessly insisting that any argument which incorporates a project- or user-space essay be wholly disregarded. The problem is that these arguments are very often constructive ones with highly valid points, and B2C's attempts to shout over those points leads to pointless off-topic arguments, walls of text, and long messes of discussions where no consensus can ever be determined. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) for the archetypal example.

B2C also refuses to listen to other editors when they express frustration with his repeated WP:REHASHing of issues. In the lead-up to the most recent move review, three editors ([207] [208] [209], myself included) directly asked him to drop the stick and accept the no-consensus result; somehow B2C interpreted this as support for opening a move review.

I don't know what the appropriate course of action is here, but I think we are heading toward some kind of comment restriction for B2C on move requests. An outright topic ban would be a horrible loss to the project, as Born2cycle is indeed an expert in the titles policy and his input is valuable. But his inability to respect consensus and let things go, and insistence on getting the last word also work horribly against his expertise, because his involvement in move discussions most often directly leads to trainwrecks where consensus is impossible to determine. So, I'm open to suggestions.

Also, I'm going to use every comment I make in this thread to request that Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk) be finally closed by an administrator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Other examples include: Gangsta. and Bell discussions. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

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

---

Hi. Castanea dentata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account that used to edit exclusively in the area of English ecclesiastical history, and went dark in 2009. It's now suddenly reappeared purely to add a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Californias accusing another user of being a sockpuppet. I suspect that it's compromised. The comment immediately following it is from an obvious sockpuppet account, WCCCasey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a name impersonating the editor being accused by the other account. Could someone with experience in handling this sort of thing please investigate? Thank you.  — Scott • talk 17:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

{{inprogress}} Mike V • Talk 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed:

Castanea dentata (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

WCCCasey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wighson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It appears to me to be a good hand, bad hand situation. I've blocked the 3 accounts indefinitely. Mike V • Talk 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Very peculiar since Wighson and Castanea denata both had been editing since 2005! Simultaneous compromising, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

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.

---

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering [210], [211] and [212]. Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me [213], [214] and [215].
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon ^talk 14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I was fairly critical of FLCC in my comments. I don't approve of their rudeness, or lack of willingness to discuss. Certainly, if a talk page discussion is started, they should contribute to finding consensus, and refrain from edit-warring in the meantime. That's what we all should do. I also agree, in general terms, with the point made above: "Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here." When I referred to "dropping the stick" I was referring to the pursuit of sanctions as a "solution" to an editing dispute. The lack of response here at ANI maybe indicates that this is perhaps not yet an ANI issue, and that WP:DR would be a better route if talk page discussion is not fruitful. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Begoon. He was warned for his major civility issues in the previous ANI. Unfortunately he has not take that seriously. SO, what would you do? Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd carry on editing, adhering to policy, and establish whether my edits had consensus with talkpage discussion. I'd understand that just the ability to point to a source didn't make it reliable, or necessarily worthy of inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'd pursue WP:DR before calling for sanctions, and I'd realise that I am not the only one who notices when editors don't behave well, so I don't need to fight battles when I see it happening. These things generally work out over time. Patience pays off. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All those policies are applicable only if there is a TP discussion and the editors actively participating it. In all cases coming to ANI, however, an editor should start the case and whether other editors are seeing those destruction can not justify refraining from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background. By the way, I did not ask for sanctions until I saw that he asked for sanctions. Anyway, the thread is getting too long. Let's not make it longer. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tireless edit warring and BLP violations by FreeatlastChitChat

I am pretty sure, either there are issues with competence or IDIDNTHEAR that are leading FreeatlastChitChat to wikihound other editors and create unnecessary edit wars. He is violating BLP on Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by falsely claiming people like Sanal Edamaruku, Tarek Fatah, Amartya Sen, Meera Nanda and many more to be critic of religion. While the template had been protected because of his edit warring and rollback abuse,[216][217] he resumed edit warring without even sorting out the issues raised on talk page. He came to this template by wikihounding my edits and his only motive was to edit war with me. He also made personal attacks like "totally lying his ass off",[218] yet failing to justify his violation of WP:BLPCAT. I think that it is the time when multiple editors indeed have problem with the numerous policy violations of FreeatlastChitChat and I am supporting that another block is necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 You have already been told by a Wikpedia administrator that to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. You are the one obsessed with this article and your personal version of it which only you and one other person share as compared to almost 7 other editors who oppose you based on wikipedia policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLP. You have refused to talk to anyone on the talkpage, and when I opened up a request at WP:DRN a week ago, you refused to accept that too. For you, only your view matters and you have decided not to accept any other view.

Even though a TALKPAGE is the right place to discuss this I will tell you what is wrong with your view of this template. I have already told you that We do not SOURCE ANYTHING in templates. Templates exist solely BASED on the articles which populate them. Just consider the article of Sanal Edamaruku who according to your reasoning is not a critic of religion. Just read his article. It says that

1. In 2012, he was charged by the Catholic Archdiocese of Mumbai with blasphemy. He moved to Finland to evade his arrest.
2. Edamaruku has carried out investigations and demonstrations which helped expose frauds, mystics and god men.
3. Edamaruku has been critical of India's blasphemy laws, describing them as "relics of colonial legislation" which have been abused to "hound and silence" intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs.

ALL of these facts are well sourced in this persons article. How in the name of all that is good and pure can you exclude him from a template listing critics of religion. @User:Begoon this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day. A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas has refused to accept the advice of a Wikipedia admin, He refuses to engage in debate at the talkpage, and refuses to participate in DRN. Just what is a person supposed to do here? @User:Slakr you unbanned me when I said I will adhere to 1PR, when you come online just explain to me how am I supposed to work with this kind of hostility? A COMPLETE refusal to participate in any debate and a complete refusal to even look at the facts which are written right in front of his eyes. What am I supposed to do? And this is not on just one article, every religious article is like some kind of holy shrine to one or two fanatics who treat it like a religious artifact which should be revered by all, they do not give a single thought to wmf:Resolution:Controversial content and think that if something offends their religion, it should be just removed ALONG with the editor who dared to insert it in the wikipedia article And a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded until he is forced to leave the wiki or is pushed into a corner until I say something harsh which is at once reported to ANI. Perhaps it is high time the other side explains their actions as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the above statement from FreeatlastChitchat wherein he states "A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas" which is EXACTLY what HE has been doing at the Racism_in_Italy, specifically the fact that he chooses to delete/revert all mentions of a racist author, Cesare Lombroso, being Jewish, when a) he self-identifies as Jewish b) he wrote an entire book on "anti-semitism" c) he contributed many articles to Jewish publications and d) he is referred to by most historians/academics/biographers as "Jewish-Italian" or "Jewish"...all of which have been heavily sourced and cited. So, in other words...pot meet kettle as they say.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet that admin failed to provide a source about Sanal Edamaruku.[219] By putting up this original WP:SYNTHESIS about only Sanal Edamaruku you are not proving how your WP:BLPCAT violation about these many people is justified. Many editors have asked you to "provide sources" on talk page that would support them to be a critic of religion and you have failed to do so because your biggest aim on this template as well as every other article that I edited and you joined in was to bother me. Your disruption is only wasting others time and not doing any good. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article . I just copy pasted them. Any other objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that every time you evade from saying why you had mass deleted those reliable books (some of which I listed on several occasions) is clear to all the editors. If there were no problem in your behaviour you would not be blocked four time in a year and I don't want you to list the sources here because they are just examples. The main issues are your civility problems and your not actively participating the TP discussions to reach consensus. You did of course broke your promise of "adhering to 1RR" as it is evidenced. Sentences such as "this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day" and "a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded ..." are called Victim playing. Mhhossein (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has also experienced WP:HOUNDING and edit-warring at the hands of this user, I feel compelled to add my voice here. On the topic of Racism_in_Italy FreeatlastChitchat has reverted several edits without participating on the talk page (where there are EXTENSIVE discussions in place) and chosen to simply undo a vast amount of work compiled at the request/challenge of other participating editors with opposing views. I asked for mediation on this topic to gain a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_Italy , to which he declined stating "I would like to [WP:DENY]] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors." which speaks to the fact that he is not willing to compromise or engage in discussion to reach a consensus or have the real facts/timelines be known. This editor is a MAJOR POV-pusher who sides with other like-minded individuals (most likely sockpuppets as has been alleged here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive ) and his edits are absolutely contrary to scholarship and consensus-building. He constantly threatens others with denouncing them for "edit-warring" when he is in reality the one engaging in this behavior (as his previous blocks will attest). I would strongly encourage yet another block and possible ban from certain topics (anyone can take a quick scan through his history, and it will be very obvious upon which topics he constantly seeks to impose his POV).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And we have another editor who has a strong need to put his religious POV into articles. For editors who are just going through this discussion without following the links, The request for mediation has been declined as Trinacrialucente is undoing the edits of three users, yes gentlmen, my edits are endorsed by two other editors, with only one editor trying his best to push forth a religiuos POV. Furthermore, Trinacrialucente has displayed absolute bad faith by stating that I have sock puppets. The SPI archive clealry shows that when closing the SPI an admin noted the fact that the reporter was lying, he also said that "These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks.". I am quite sure that before he posted this comment Trinacrialucente had already read the message about his request for mediation being denied, and his SPI going nowhere because he posted this comment at 22:40, 8 January 2016 while the mediation bot informed him about the rejection on 15:55, 8 January 2016, while the SPI clerk informed him about the futility of an SPI at 01:10, 8 January 2016. So it is obvious that he came here out of spite, being angry at me for having prevented his POV insertions. Even Though I have grown a highly durable and thick hide thanks to the various bad faith comments, threats and insults which seem to be the ammunition used by most POV pushers. I think I have the right to ask this guy one single question. So I would like to ask Trinacrialucente, 'DO ANY OTHER EDITORS AGREE WITH YOUR EDITS OR ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE REVERTING THE "POV PUSHING" OF THREE OTHER EDITORS?. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two others have supported my edits. Feel free to take a look. : ) In fact you probably should have done so before you went on that...direction. All it really did was support our case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm,,, no, you are wrong. The most recent history clearly shows that UnequivocalAmbivalence and RatatoskJones are Reverting your edits, not supporting them. UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly called you out saying "@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop." So my question still remains. If you feel that there are editors who have supported your edits just post a diff where these editors reverted the edits which removed your material. For if these editors who support your edits do really exist, they must have reverted me, or the other two users, when we "edit warred" to remove your "correct edits". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Support taking administrative action: The reported editor is unable to constructively participate discussions of the talk pages. Also, his/her behavior is not based on etiquette. In the summary edit of Nader Mahdavi page wrote: "‬SAFF V please stop your ridiculous reverting".Saff V. (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Comment: Saff V. has failed to mention that he did not read WP:MOS when he was asked and had to be explained on the talkpage how the MOS works, he then admitted that he was wrong and changed the text according to my wording. His own words were @FreeatlastChitchat:Yes, It is right. So, I edit the titles based on your comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never asked you to explain your reversion, I'm just focusing on your uncivil comments, a point mentioned by some other users.Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But you yourself accepted that your edits were ridiculous! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you used again bad word in your answer.Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Err... what 'bad word'...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yeah bad word! 'Ridiculous' means "extremely silly or unreasonable" or "stupid or ​unreasonable and ​deserving to be ​laughed at." It's against WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein Stuff and (*bad word alert*) nonsense. You are effectively trying to mute criticism by removing the language for doing so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein so when I see a ridiculous edit, what am I supposed to call it? you seem to be the owner of wikipedia whose permission I need to edit, and whose express fatwa is required in my vocabulary usage. So Herr Ayatollah what should I call a ridiculous edit from now onward? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't dig yourself deeper. You could of course simply use a more polite language. I'm just asking you to act based on WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you in very clear words. What, according to you, should be the word used when someone encounters a ridiculous edit?. Please do reply to this, you seem to be avoiding this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Rather than yet another block (they don't help, FreeatlastChitchat is blocked all the time and just continues) I would support a topic ban on all articles in some way connected to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment He/She edited Little Satan article by POV terms and sentences without any summary or discussion in the talk page. I reverted his/her edits and opened new section in the talk page but he/she again reverted the article. I said to him first participate in the discussion and after conclusion we can edit. He think just to reverting the article to his/her version.Saff V. (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Saff V. the last edits to the TP are mine. I have explained my edits thoroughly, even made a list of your horrendously bad English which you inserted in the article, plus I have detailed the unreliable sources you used. Instead of answering my questions there or discussing there, you have made this comment. Bad faith editing much?

I reverted your edit and say to you participate in the talk page, but you reverted again and I reverted again and you reverted again and then wrote your reasons in the talk page. You must say your reasons before all reverting. Your style is first revert the article without any summary and discussion. If a user revert your work you revert again and write a short sentence in the summary box.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps you should create the competence to understand what "bad grammar" means when it is written in edit summary? And you should create the competence to understand what "bad sources" means when it is written in the edit summary. For your kind information "bad grammar" written in the summary means that "I have changed sentences which were borderline gibberish and using very poor English" and you should take a look at WP:MOS before reverting me.And when it is written in edit summary "bad sources" it means that the sources I removed are unreliable, and you should see if they fall foul of WP:RS before reverting me. It is not my fault that your English grammar is poor and you want to insert poor English into articles, however it is my job as an editor to copy edit your mistakes, and I do that job regularly. Also it is my job to keep unreliably sourced fringe claims out of articles and I do that quite regularly as well. you should read WP:COMPETENCE before engaging in this kind of arguments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Now I got that FreeatlastChitchat's edits are suitable examples for edit warring! You just don't understand that you have to collaboratively participate the talk page discussions before making such challengeable mass edits, but really why? After you encountered Saff V.'s revert, you made a revert at 07:40 without trying to act based on BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and helping to reach a consensus. After you got sure that the article is as you wish, you made your comment at 7:43. Saff V. reverted you alleging that you've inserted POV into the article, you again acted as if you are the only know-how of the project and kept one reverting. You went up to the red line of WP:3RR (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) which is very far from once again beyond your WP:1RR unblock promise. Note that you've shown enough disruptive behaviour so far (not only in this page) which makes you vulnerable to receive sanctions, in my view. Btw, while I'm not endorsing Saff v.'s reverts, I blame you as the one who refrained from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (Edited Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC))
• Reply to comment Eventhough I can go into an explanation that I was reverting bad grammar I will just say this. Mhhossein says (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) . I say that he is lying his ass off Simple as that, he, is, lying. I challenge him to provide diffs to back up this claim. Simple as that, you said I made three reverts, show me the diffs and I will call it quits, otherwise you are the one lying his ass off. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did 2 reverts (which is still beyond 1RR) and I'm sorry for saying that, It was not intentional. I just did not notice that the first edit was not a revert. But this does not make us ignore your edit warring. What I see is not just a copy editing of the grammatical errors, that was a re-shape needing enough discussion! By the way, your language is very very irritating and although you were warned before by admins, you are clearly ignoring wp:civility. Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have the gal to say that It was not intentional? Just how much of this witch hunting thread have you posted unintentionally? I fail to see how you can write something, press preview, then press save, and still call it "unintentional". What clause of civility have I fallen foul of btw? You were lying, I told you outright that you were lying and challenged you to prove me wrong, what am I supposed to do when you lie through your teeth? say that you are the epitome of truthfulness? Anyway I have caught you spreading falsehood once I will do it again. You say that my edit was a reshape needing enough discussion. I challenge you to point out anything I added which was either from unreliable sources, or fringe, or against wiki policy. I have been telling you again and again, wikipedia is not your holy thing, I can edit it without your permission. Anyway, show me which parts of my edit "required discussion" and "why did they require discussion". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I was bold enough to accept my mistake and say sorry for that and I don't need to explain more as you apparently don't assume my and others good faith. What you called "spreading falsehood" and "witch hunting" are just some parts of your disruptive behavior which is well sourced. Your violation of WP:civility is well spread through out the project (no just this thread) and there's no need to over repeat them (you can follow this and the previous thread from the beginning). On your reshaping the article, I'll discuss it on the its talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

dude seriously? I mean WTH? You accuse me of something and the lie your ass off about it and I am supposed to Assume Good faith? Are you frigging kidding me? So when someone tries to shoot me, I should assume good faith? Have you been assuming good faith? Does spreading falsehood about someone mean that you are assuming good faith? How about this, you assume good faith for a change and stop editing this thread every time I make an edit on wikipedia? ANI threads are not forums, you post your report and wait for others to comment on it, and then an admin takes action if required. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I never need to lie. Why should I have lied when every thing was well recorded even by seconds? As I said it was a mistake which I corrected ASA I got it. The word "WTH" stands for "What The Hell" and/or "What The Heck", right? Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikihounding and harassment by FreeatlastChitchat: Besides the links presented above for being checked against hounding ([220], [221] and [222]), I'd like to add this hounding by him which occurred just a bit ago. Mhhossein (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense and ridiculousness. here other people agree with me, no one disagrees with me, One editor is canvassing another, my comment saves the trouble of them ganging up on the article, ALL OTHER EDITORS agree with me, ALL OTHER editors AGREE WITH ME. I have told you many times, you are not the owner of wikipedia, nor is wikipedia your sacred temple. I have the right to edit and give my opinion, if my opinion is shared by all other editors in a particular discussion, it is not my fault. Perhaps you should start ANI reports about all the editors who have dared to disagree with you? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What you called "ridiculousness" is in fact your hounding! The matter is not whether the editors agree or disagree with you. The matter is your hounding and harassment. Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use that word. It is a BAD WORD ® _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

FreeatlastChitchat gaming the system

Even while this discussion above about the very frequent policy violations of FreeatlastChitchat is ongoing, the user engages in a new trick. Having been involved in repeated edit warring at Muhammad, FreeatlastChitchat takes advantage of a very new WP:SPA who has already sided with him to edit war against Trinacrialucente [223], [224], [225]. Now, first the SPA changes the lead three times [226], [227], [228] and is reverted by three different users who restore the consensus version. Then FreeatlastChitchat jumps in and reverts to "his" version [229] and then immediately requests page protection [230]. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior dishonest. First of all, there was no dispute except for the one created by FreeatlastChitchat at the SPA operating in sync with him. Second, if a user wants to request protection, I find it very bad form to first revert to their own version instead of the established consensus and then immediately request protection to make sure their own POV "wins". This is combination with all the edit warring discussed in the long sections above makes me suggest a topic ban on articles connect to Islam for FreeatlastChitchat. The user has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and taken up far too much of ANI's time already. This user is here to right great wrongs, not build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - on everything related to Islam or religion as whole. He is still edit warring by making pointless edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• More Religio-Political POV First of all this is bad faith level 9000+. Just take a look at my edits and those of the so called SPA here and marvel at the great difference. According to my count, there is a NINETY SIX POINT SEVEN FIVE PERCENT difference between the two version. Furthermore my actions stopped an edit-war, made the article better and restored stability. I will just post what a completely uninvolved user said about my changes and let the closing admin/other editors gauge what I actually did. User:UberCryxic says about my version "I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for" here is his statement. I think you should read what the first line in the protection notice reads "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I think every experienced editor knows this. Furthermore your statement that "This user is here to right great wrongs" is actually quite true to be frank. Removing POV from articles is something I have always done, and wish to continue doing. This is an encyclopedia, not some religious website where everything is "too holy" and "nothing can be touched". If you do not like my edits, talk about them as per policy. The entire time you have been accusing me of bad behavior, you have cited not a single policy which prevents me from doing what I did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of bad behavior. So have a lot of other users, which might explain why you have been blocked repeatedly and why there are several ongoing threads about you. As for this incident, I think I stated it pretty clear. You had been edit warring heavily yourself on the article, then reverted to your own version and immediately requested that version to be protected. You may not like what I say or not agree with it, but don't pretend it's not clear. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud 😆😆😆! Can you please check the difference between revisions here to know why I am Laughing Out Loud! The version user:FreeatlastChitchat reverted to is actually itself the version of user:Jeppiz. I was surprised when I saw this report while checking the recent contributions of user:Jeppiz who seems to have a bad habit of fabricating & falsifying events. I actually intend to report user:Jeppiz for slandering and personal attacks.--Explorer999 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Explorer999 is the WP:SPA I mentioned who already has a long history of personal attacks such as the one above. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? He has clearly shown that you are the one lying here. My revert was to your version of the article and your complaint about it is the height of bad faith. To be frank you should strike your comments after such an egg in the face situation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What personal attack?" For starters, calling other users "liars" as he does [231], and as you do above, is a strong personal attack. However, this is not about him, nor about me. It's about you, but as usual your response to threads about your disruptive behavior is to try to deflect it by personal attacks against other users. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a thread about it but this thread (not started by me) is about your constant disruptions, evidenced by diffs provided by several users. It's rather revealing that you have nothing to say in defence of yourself and just continue to engage in the same behavior that got you here. However, what you fail to understand that even if your revert would be to my version (it wasn't, although very close), it wouldn't change a thing. My initial comment was about the behavior, not about being right or wrong, or agreeing with me or not. WP is not about winning, and I've reported users for violations even when I agreed with them. You seem to think it's a content dispute. It's not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying about someone who "is extensively lying" that "he is extensively lying" is not a personal attack. When you stop lying, people will stop saying that you are lying, but when you continue to lie, then what do you expect the others to say about you?! Do you expect them to say that you are telling truths when you are not! FreeatlastChitchat reverted to the same version which you yourself described here (in your edit summary) as the consensus version.--Explorer999 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat

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 section was originally started by Trinacrialucente as a separate topic and then was moved to this thread by 日本穣 · 投稿 (Note by Mhhossein (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC))

Unfortunately we now have THREE separate threads about the disruptive behavior of FreeatlastChitchat. After his edit-warring behavior evidenced (yet again) on the Muhammad board, where I made a change, was challenged, showed my proof/citations on the Talk page, but was still reverted immediately after the change without the editor even looking, he began to accuse me of edit-warring as is his MO (evidenced in his history and on the two other ANI reports here). Rather than continue the discussion on the Talk page, he issued a warning on MY talk page to which I told him NOT to post on my page again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat. He then immediately did so, simply to bother or disrupt our activity. If this was just one example, I think we could all just talk it out. But there are now THREE SEPARATE ANI incidents on this editor. It is time for all of us to deal with this issue as it is completely unscholarly and disruptive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ([232] and [233]) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB^Hello! 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to keep all about FreeatlastChitchat discussions together. It's ridiculous to have them spread all over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's pretty bleeding ridiculous that you keep gnawing away at this bone. You must realise by now that nothing's going to happen due to the very fact that people are trying to piledrive a conviction. Well, carry on :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gnawing on anything. I just noticed that this section was separate from all the others, so I moved it to make it easier to find everything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Gaming the system by FreeatlastChitchat V2

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.

---

Need I say more than this? Freeatlastchitchat pinged all his stoolies to win a RfD (and as you can see, he admitted it), for the Nikah Mut'ah article. Now he is doing an AfD for example (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_on_the_Hadith), where he used the same users he pinged before (namely User:HyperGaruda, his close mate and User:Eperoton, among many others). I strongly suspect he is using the same tactics for the RfD in Talk:Muhammad#RFC_for_opening_sentence_in_the_lede, a place where this time I called some of the Muslim editors above who protested, to create a balance (something that has been reported too he specially tries to avoid @YdhaW:), where he is using the same kind of insulting behavior that others reported here. I'm gonna ping some of the above protesters now (with whom I disagree on most edits they do, nevertheless), just so the section is kept updated. @Jeppiz: @Mhhossein: @Saff V.: Yeah, we all agree on the fact that Freeatlastchitchat has no manners at all, aside from these facts. --92slim (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply from FLCC. A-K-A WHAT the F-U-*-K

CAVEAT LECTOR: SEEING THIS KIND OF ATTITUDE AND AGENDA TO JUST USE ANY DIRTY TRICK WHATSOEVER TO GET ME OFF ISLAM/RELIGION TOPICS I AM MIGHTILY PISSED OFF AND THE TIRADE BELOW WILL USE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF PROFANITY. What the fuck? I have no other words to say, no other comment to make other than 'What the fuck?

1. A month old debate where each and every editor was one who had disagreed with me on past debates and I still pinged them. First of all why raise this now? Have you been living under a rock for the past month? and furthermore how the hell is pinging uninvolved guys a canvass? these guys routinely DISAGREE with me. and by routinely I mean 8 out of ten times we are at odds. Why don't you bring up my high school exam report and put that up here as well?
2. You say I am doing the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_on_the_Hadith. ARE YOU FRIGGING HIGH? Just read the goddamn debate, I did not even friggin start it. you want to fuck me over so bad, you don see that my name is in the damn comments , not as the nom. PLUS ALL PEOPLE AGREE WITH THE DELETION......INCLUDING YOUR OWN DAMN SELF.....WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? You agree with a discussion then say it is started in bad faith?
3. On the RFC at the Muhammad article you accused me of canvassing, and you said you have proof that I canvassed people to the RFC. I called you out. And I stick to my frigging words. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF I CANVASSED ANYONE TO THE MUHAMMAD RFC? IF NOT THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT I DID IT?

END NOTE: THIS GODDAMN THREAD HAS TURNED INTO A FUCKING WITCH HUNT AND A GODDAMN SALEM TRIAL. THESE GUYS HAVE SUCH A HARD ON TO GET ME BANNED, THEY WILL LIE AND CHEAT TO GET IT DONE. CAN SOME ADMIN READ THE THREAD FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM AND CLOSE IT? EVERY SINGLE DAY SOME IDIOT SEES THAT I HAVE INSULTED HIS BELOVED AYATOLLAH OR HIS SHRINE BY REMOVING SOME POV AND COMES HERE TO ADD TO THIS BULLSHIT.
FURTHERMORE I WANT EVERYONE WHO HAS LIED ON THIS THREAD TO BE SANCTIONED AND BANNED FROM OPENING NEW THREADS/OR RESPONDING TO OLD ONES IN ANI. I THINK THAT IS ALLOWED FOR ME TO ASK. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, you have no other words because you can't defend yourself from your past canvassing, which is now blatantly obvious. Of course, you can try to hide it with your big words and insults, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot hold a discussion normally either. It's a fact, pal. --92slim (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, I don't think CAPS ON shouting helps. Some admins like being admins solely because they like banning and having power over others, so this is just a gift horse to them. Other admins more than anything hate being "inconvenienced". This is all an "inconvenience" in their eyes, you are disrupting the "project" to use their cultish belief system lingo, requiring them to read lots of text and diffs and so on - so with the above you are just providing an easy way for them to avoid the inconvenience by issuing a block. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Can any one do something for such obscene comments? Mhhossein (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat would better simply strike out or reword the uncivil comments, per Wikipedia:Civility. Mhhossein (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What's obscene? He used fucking once and bullshit once. (and fuck a few more times! But not counting that, as you would have heard far worse than me if I'd been in his shoes! lol) I'm not surprised; this fucking thread is a total Mons. Nearly three weeks old with absolutely nothing to show for it. In fact, I'm tempted to go WP:SHOPPING and get it wrapped up. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: It really bothers me how difficult it is for you to behave; I think as long as you use caps lock like that you will not get anywhere. Remember it's not about your edits or opinions, it's about you. Behave normally, and no one will really bother opening a thread again. --92slim (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• @92slim: Wait what?! Me? pinged to an AfD, which FLCC did not start, nor for which FLCC "used" the same editors? For your information, I am watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam among others, so don't be surprised if you see me commenting on these AfDs voluntarily. I also do not see any canvassing at that AfD, given the lack of re/ping/u templates (except for a comment I wrote in reply to someone). - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is 92slim also seemingly "gaming the system" (by his own standards) by inviting editors he calls "editors who edit from a pro Muslim POV"[234] to a RfC: [235]; [236]; [237]. It suggest some insincerity behind this complaint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And I was right Tiptoe, unlike you. The thread was being canvassed. --92slim (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim I would like to ask again. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF I CANVASSED ANYONE TO THE MUHAMMAD RFC? IF NOT THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT I DID IT? By proof I mean a diff. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've done it before, and you've said that you would do it again. Read Preemptive war, and you'll understand. @HyperGaruda: Are you trying to chitchat now? Because we are chatting about it already. You've been pinged before, and it was canvassing, and according to Freeatlastchitchat, you're his stoolie. Read again. --92slim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: More on Freeatlastchitchat's insulting behaviour, which further undermines his credibility. Unbelievable, right. --92slim (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No, i am implying that your whole point about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate on the Hadith is flawed. Let me translate FLCC's three-point list into something less flowery:

1. You're bringing up a WP:DEADHORSE.
2. The whole idea of canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate on the Hadith is absent if one actually reads that discussion.
3. Again, I do not see any canvassing by FLCC in Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. Instead, you have shown suspicious behaviour by notifying three particular editors of the RfC.

This particular ANI subsection seems more like a bad attempt at WP:BAIT, which FLCC unfortunately has taken. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Who should I believe, someone like you, or FreeatlastChitchat, the total disrupter of Wikipedia? I think my accusations are grounded in reality. He did canvass before many times, so it would be unsurprising to see it happen again. --92slim (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"The total disrupter of Wikipedia" - I'd like a badge with that on it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Unwanted warnings by FreeatlastChitchat

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.

---

  Y Merger complete. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This user comes to my talk page to warn me of disruptive editing. Some contents were being removed by Malik Shahabzz. I reverted two of his edits. I am not complaining against Malik Shahbazz in this report (It's a separate content dispute which I will engage afterwards). Malik Shabazz gave me a blue message about edit war. After that Freeatatlastchitchat warned me about disruptive editing. I find that, this user doesn't know what is disruptive editing. He has 3,869 edits on enwiki. Let him explain how these three edits sourced from reliable sites are disruptive. Revision as of 06:44, Revision as of 06:42, Revision as of 06:24. I didn't edit after Malik Shabazz left that message on my talk page. Then what tempted this user to warn me for edits that is not his version of POV?

And please don't group this ANI post with above Freeatlastchitchat reports where I am not involved. --Marvel Hero (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marvel Hero Written at the top of the page is a clear msg in ye olde lingo of Brittonic. Before Thou postest a grievance about a user here, thou should giveth some thought to discussing the issue with them on their user talk page. SO seeing you did not bother with that what exactly what are you proposing here? T-Ban? Hard block? I mean you opened up an ANI thread for some administrative action, please be kind enough to inform me what kind of sanction you have in mind for me. For if this is a simple matter of me leaving a so called harsh warning, you could have just settled it on my TP with some good old chitchat, or replied to the very same warning on your TP and I would have responded. So do enlighten the laity as to what sanctions you seek from this ANi report. (edited after edit conflict) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any right to propose sanction. It's upto administrators.Marvel Hero (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@ but what are you proposing. The reporter usually proposes what remedy should be taken. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The warning for "disruptive editing" by FreeatlastChitchat seems like an obvious attempt to claim ownership of the article and push away other users. The reply above does not seems serious either, with its failed attempt at using Middle English and the hilarious mistake of thinking that Brittonic, a Celtic language, is a synonym for English. If FreeatlastChitchat wants to display their total lack of general knowledge, it's to them. Unfortunately, it fits the general pattern of bad behavior. Any time FreeatlastChitchat is brought to ANI, they make a concentrated attempt to turn the table. I find that disruptive, not Marvel Hero adding sourced content. FreeatlastChitchat requires to know what sanction, so I repeat what I proposed in one of the many other threads about the same user, a topic ban for anything related to Islam. It would seem that suggestions was supported, so I repeat it here. It amazes me that for all of 2016 this far, about half of ANI is about FreeatlastChitchat, half of ANI about all other users combined. Jeppiz (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marvel Hero: You can remove the warnings without consequence. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to my post

@Jeppiz but you lie in your reports. So should the word of a liar be believed? I do not think so. Liars should be punished for disrupting the due process of ANI. Your hilarious and Assuming bad faith comment that I am trying to WP:OWN the article is beyond belief. Just how many edits do I have in the article? And where have I warred to keep my pet version up? Unlike you ofc who is so caught up in owning articles that you do not even realize that someone is reverting to your version of an article. You see a revert and you scream, omg its my article I am going to ANI. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how FreeatlastChitchat seems to have some special pass to get away with anything. Calling other users "liar" is a strong WP:NPA violation, just on top of all the other violations. As for my "lying", WP:OWN is not just about reverting, it's also about trying to intimidate other users from editing an article. I don't see what the lie is, and I hope some admin will remind FreeatlastChitchat about WP:NPA. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You fabricated an entire report against me. So what should such a person be called who fabricates a report. Do be kind enough to respond. I will never use this word again and will only use the word you prescribe. Just tell me what does is such a person called who fabricates an entire ANI report against another. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not write this report, though I did write another some time ago, and still open, in which I provided a number of diffs. This is not the place to discuss that report, as both have discussed it already in the proper place. The issue here is the report by Marvel Hero. Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Without getting too involved, I would like to point out to Jeppiz that they themselves were the ones who brought up the old report(s) when they suggested that the same sanctions they suggested before be imposed and commented on their view of how others felt about those sanctions. If this is not the place to discuss other reports, then they should not have brought them up in the first place. Now that they have brought them up, indeed offered them as evidence as to why sanctions should be imposed, this is absolutely the place to discuss them, and it seems very disingenuous to now say they cannot be discussed just because they don't like which part of it is being discussed. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz you say This is not the place to discuss that report. Yet your very first comment discusses that report. aside from some mental disease that makes you forget things I fail to see how such an action could have been involuntary. so if you are disabled please just thank me for this edit(click "history", find this edit,click "prev"iew, click thank, click yes) and I will have it RevDel'ed and I will apologize to you. However if you are an able minded individual then I would like to ask why are you posting this kind of contradictory bad faith stuff? If this is not the place to discuss an old report, just strike your comments discussing that, write that you apologize for writing that and we shall call it a day. Kinda hilarious that think you are are the only one who can bring in past reports but the minute anyone else discusses that very report he should be gagged. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment - I am uninvolved but this looks ridiculous as much of this page is being taken up with topics related to the same people. That is not the main reason I am leaving a comment, but personal attacks are. I would suggest that you follow your own rules and be more WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Discuss the issue without attacking other editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

ENOUGH, ALREADY!

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

---

It is becoming increasingly obvious that either FreeatlastChitchat is actually disruptive OR all the people dragging him here over and over are. I do not know or care which is the case and have not researched the quagmire enough to even have a relative opinion, but only a blind man in a dark coal mine could be unable to see that SOMETHING needs to be done sooner, not later. John from Idegon (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the 4th (I think) ANI thread related to him that I've come across. I think I've participated in one of them before but seeing their frequency I've come to avoid it. All of the discussions also happen to end up stale, with large bold and CAPS text standing out, which is technically my way of identifying that FreeatlastChitchat was the one to write them. He is certainly the perpetrator, if not the victim. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @QEDK: It is obvious that he is disruptive, and there are too many diffs proving that, apart from the several violations he was involved in, which are of lesser importance to his actual behaviour. I don't think he is able to edit respecting the rules of Wikipedic behaviour, and he's proven to be incapable to do so, apart from the fact that he outright refuses to do so, as you can see from his past behaviour and userpage templates. --92slim (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon and QEDK(I may use a couple of caps again so Caveat Lector again lol). The best way and the only way is for an admin to read what was written against me and then was written by me, ignore the commentary etc because they are just clutter(there is even a blocked anon IP guy going against me just because I called him out on and was against his report to sanction User:Future Perfect at Sunrise . So read both statements, and the diffs attached. Then form a decision. If some one is accusing me of WP:CANVASS the admin should see if any diffs provided show that I canvassed people. If I have been accused of gaming then the admin should look to see if there are any diffs provided which show that I have been gaming the system. the Admin should look for PROOF. And then, seeing this kind of behavior the admin MUST make one of two decisions, If I am guilty of what has been alleged I should be blocked and or banned from Islam related articles. BUT if what was alleged is total fabrication then there MUST be some sort of penalty for the reporters. Just closing this thread and saying "Oh! FLCC was not guilty! nothing more to see here" should not be done again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin intervention needed

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

---

@Nyttend:@Mike V:@Doug Weller:@Philg88:@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Pinging some more admins to deal with this. Rather light example of user's typical behaviour: [238]. --92slim (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin here. This can be called unfriendly but hardly rises to any blockable level. So yes, it's a rather "light" example, and appears then to be used in a tendentious manner, to help bury another editor. That is unacceptable behavior, 92slim, and I consider that blockable. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The User:FreeatlastChitchat curses people and uses caps lock for most of his contributions, refuses to discuss, resorting to behaviour such as canvassing and reverts endlessly (check history), acting in an intimidating manner to most users disregarding the rules of Wikipedic behaviour here constantly. He also blatantly defends his actions and endorses them. There are many other users above who complained too, but he actively sabotaged the discussion above. --92slim (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham:@Zero0000:@Jehochman:@NeilN:@Trappist the monk: Pinging more admins so the issue is resolved quickly. --92slim (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose a one month block to all parties here (FALCC and everyone that reported him for something) for general lack of clue. One month because that is roughly how long all you children with your undies jammed up your cracks have wasted the communities time. You just don't know when to shut the hell up, and it is more than a little annoying. There has been no administrative action here because Y's won't shut up long enough to give them or the rest of the community a chance to speak. There was nothing either side of this so called debate needed to add to my above statement as it was not directed to you nor were any statements made directly about you...yet between the two of you you spewed forth 10,000 characters. Just shut up and let the community do its job for Petes sake. John from Idegon (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof provided above for disruptive behaviour of the accused who sabotaged the discussion all this time. As for your opinion @John from Idegon:, the way you just expressed yourself is not gonna count on your side, since we were all complaining about behaviour. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon So if someone accuses me wrongly and daily adds new accusations I am not even entitled to reply? However I will personally be ready for a 30 day ban if it is guaranteed that during that time admins will look at this thread and make a decision which will lead to definite sanctions. Simple as that. If no one is going to do anything then the 30 day ban is a slap in the face for me to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop disrupting all the time, and using caps lock, and insulting everyone. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Editor is not "disrupting all the time", does not seem to be using caps lock here, and does not insult everyone. Beware of the boomerang, 92slim--and stop pinging everyone. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Simple Proposal

I would like the following proposal be enacted seeing that this is a long thread with quite a lot of diffs. Please be kind enough to give your input. It is high time this was taken care of.

1. FLCC and the editors who reported FLCC and blamed him for disruption ( 92slim, SAFFV, Jeppiz, Mhhossein, Trinacrialucente and D4iNa4) are banned from editing wikipedia for one month via a community ban. Their talkpage access is revoked and they are considered to be retired.
2. After the participants have been banned this entire thread is moved to Arbitration section and an arbcom case is created. Arbcom members then look through the evidence presented to see what merit it holds. They are given one month
3. After one month is over a decision is handed down which gives a lengthy block(At Least 9 months)+Topic ban+Interaction Ban to either the accused or the accusers.
4. If the accused has been guilty he is also banned from ever replying to any community based forums such as noticeboards, AFD's and RFC's. If he is found guilty FLCC is sanctioned to limit his editing to articles and talkpages for one year.
5. If the accused is not guilty and it comes to light that he has been hounded and harassed on ANI multiple times, then FLCC is given the right to contact an admin whenever an ANI thread is opened up against them and request expedited action. This action on their part is excluded from WP:SHOPPING.
6. After the arbcom hands down their decision, the party found to be not-guilty is allowed to request that their ban is rev-delled and removed from logs through stewards.
7. All Bans and sanctions are appeal able after 2 years.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if the above is serious or not but I find it astonishing. A user who:

• has been blocked repeatedly for disruptions [239]
• was formally warned only yesterday by EdJohnston for disruptive editing [240]
• whose latest interactions with me just the last days include repeatedly calling me a "liar" [241] and speculating I have "a mental disease [242]
• tell other users to "shut the fuck up" [243]

now proposes that he can be banned if everybody who disagreed with him are also banned. Banned for what? For reporting a disruptive user? That would set a disastrous precedent: disruptive users could provoke serious users and then "accept" to be banned if the all users who disagreed are also banned. Our "offence" seems to be to have brought this highly disruptive user to ANI and provided ample diffs (please note that the ones in my list above are just from the last two days alone). So should anyone reporting a vandal or edit warrior be banned as well. I find the proposal ridiculous. We have now had three weeks of this already. Can anyone look at the list I provided here and tell me that FreeatlastChitchat isn't a disruptive user? Last but not least, knowing that FreeatlastChitchat's strategy is to goad other users into endless debates to turn the attention away from their own behavior, I don't envisage engaging in further discussion here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You would say that. It sounds like a bloody good idea actually. This thread is a total Mons and that is only 50% FCC's fault. Whatever he has done (and yes I'm sure there's something), you lot have repeatedly come back for another pound of flesh. You are all responsible for the current situation and should (as ironically FLCC proposes himself) be treated as equally culpable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you have posted just as frequently in this discussion, so given that you think posting several times in this thread is enough for a one month ban, I take it you accept the ban to be extended to yourself as well, if this practice of randomly banning users for posting on this thread is put in place? Though I'd still be interested in knowing what the charge against me and others is. For the record, I provided diffs for each point I mentioned, each of which violates a policy. And yes, it's unfortunate that some discussions on ANI grow so long, but to blame users for that is questionable, especially coming from one of the most frequent posters. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting seven times you mean, the maximum post being about three lines? 294 words out of >12,700??? <2.3 % of the text? Yeah righto :D that sounds mildly desparate! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

• I have neither the time nor the inclination to file the paperwork right now, but that "simple" proposal isn't so bad. If I may, I'd slim it down to a. six-month topic ban on Islam-related article; b. strict 1R policy for all involved--that is, just about everyone in this thread except for John from Idegon and Fortuna. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies provided that arbcom makes a decision during that time. Clearly one party is guilty. A decision should be made about that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how I am an ArbCommie these days, I suppose I should refrain from pointing the finger this way or that. As it happens, by now I'm thinking that the blame should be spread equally. Incidentally, Jeppiz is also arguing that maybe they weren't at fault here, etc.--and maybe that is so. Before we adopt a simple solution we'll have to look carefully at which contributors here are disruptive enough--that's most of y'all.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter. You're all adults, or at least you should be, and you're all screwing around here like it's the Internet, like there aren't real articles in this encyclopedia that need work, that you can work on, articles where you might have conflicts in which you can use the typical ways of solving disputes that children and adults all around the world have used for years. I mean, what does it take? You all have a couple of choices, and so do we ("we" = those looking on, exasperatedly). Blocks might start flying around: some of you will get blocked for edit warring, some for POV editing, some for drive-by tagging, some just for being whiny jerks. Topic bans will be handed out, and for each and every one of you it will feel like you're the only one who gets blamed, since you're not allowed to edit anymore in your favorite area.

Your other choice is to sit around the f***ing peace table, hold on to the peace flower, discuss your feelings and your grievances without fighting and screaming, and then come back to the main room where you can play with the others again. (With thanks to Ms. Danielle, in Montessori's Blue Room.) Or you can let this escalate to ArbCom, and then no one will be happy. Your pick: yes, all of you, individually. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies I stand by my edits. And would love to have a permanent decision. To be frank how long does it take? There are like five complaints. Read the complaint then look at the summary of complaint. Loot at the diffs provided. Then read the counter argument and then look at the diffs provided. I am sure an average English reader will not waste more than two hours on this. I don't get what these other guys are afraid of! I clearly suggested that if someone is found not guilty they should have the block removed even from their log. What is there to worry about? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Having a problem with an editor

This is over the Drake Bell article. Now, this could go under Dispute Resolution, but I think otherwise. The editor in question, User:Winkelvi is placing "citation needed" tags all of a sudden after I edited the article, and we've had a bad history. He ignores any means of me contacting him from his talk page, he will just delete the messages. Or replying to him on mine, yet will get on my talk page whenever. Even when I try to place sources in the article, according to him, it is counted as a revert, to remove the tags. So, there is not really anything I can do to help the article even if I try. Also, he thinks Facebook, Twitter, etc., are unreliable, but according to WP:SELFSOURCE, that premise is wrong. Like I said, tried to address that, ignored it, removed the message and removed those sources anyway. I am slightly starting to think this is spite of previous history, but he said he isn't. I would really think he was, as any hint of me sockpuppeting took place (while I admit, I did during my block), there were certain situations where I was considered a sock when I wasn't, as shown in the Transphobic error section of the article's talk page, whenever I was in any sort of trouble, he called me out, and reported me. He never responded to a single talk page discussion I have formed on there. Also, this is my top edited article with 600+ edits on it.

Note: If I placed this in the wrong place, tell me. I feel I have nowhere else to turn and I don't use the noticeboards much. Update: He is still removing and deeming sources unreliable (self-published sources) and placing the tags. Looks like he may ignore this report as well. Also, to point out, the article had 150+ sources before his source deleting. Now it stands at 116. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph Prasad - I'm sorry to hear that you have a bad history with another editor. Can you provide me with diffs where he placed "citation needed" after your edits? Has he been doing this outside that article and on other articles? Or just in this article? Diffs will help a lot here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) If this is over problems with an article, it's unlikely to be that urgent to contact Winkelvi personally (i.e. on their talkpage) over this. While editor talk pages are the right place for dealing with personal clashes, issues and discussions and can sometimes be useful when you feel the issue you're discussing about the article isn't going to benefit anyone else or you think a more personal approach is needed (particularly with new editors); it's not an alternative to discussion on the article talk page. If you have disagreements over the article (whether sourcing, content or whatever), the discussion should be on the article talk page. Even if you think the editor's talk page would be a better location, if there editor doesn't seem to disagree you need to take it to the article talk page.

I see a few comments by you on the article talk page which is good, but many of these are questions or suggestions. If you've left an explanation relating to what you planned to do or had done on the article on the article talk page or contesting what was done by others, and Winkelvi has reverted you but never commented on the article talk page then there would probably be a problem for ANI to look at. If they didn't respond but also didn't revert the changes you implemented, then it not so easy to call it a problem regardless whether they are also reverting other things you do. If Winkelvi does respond on the article talk page and you two can't come to an agreement, then you have a WP:Content dispute so look at WP:Dispute Resolution. Notably, if there is dispute over what counts as a RS, try WP:RSN. Note that bringing disagreements about who should have initiated the discussion on the article talk page to ANI is rarely productive.

Ultimately, even if some behaviour isn't ideal, there's a fair chance nothing is going be done about it based on disputes in one article. You'd need to demonstrate the problems are severe enough to warrant it, e.g. WP:diffs where you've initiated discussion on the article talk page but had no response and still been reverted over that particular issue. Personally, if you've raised the issue on the editors talk page (regardless of whether you should have) and they deleted your comments but continued anyway and didn't initiate a discussion on the article talk, I would definitely fault them. But it can get complicated so I always recommend you initiate discussion on the article talk page first before saying there's a problem.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

N.B. I am seeing signs of tagging overkill on the article. While it is a BLP, unless there's some reason why you feel it's untrue, I have to question the utility of tagging simple uncontroversial appearances like "small role in the Seinfeld episode "The Frogger" in 1998" or "guest appearance on the series The Nightmare Room" or "guest appearance as himself on Nickelodeon's Zoey 101" or "cast as Spider-Man in the animated TV series: Ultimate Spider-Man". Particularly when Drake Bell is mention in our articles on these (even if generally also not sourced). For that matter stuff like "released the lead single, "I Know", on October 17, 2006" or "On April 22, 2014, Bell released his third studio album, his first rockabilly album, Ready Steady Go!, under Surfdog Records, with which he signed in 2012". And that's from ~ the first quarter of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history. And if you look at the page history's time stamps, Nil Einne, and this, yes, he removed my comments and continued. I would try to add something to see if he would revert it (I'm sure if I tried to re-add a Facebook source, he would remove it since he deems it unreliable), but ≥I'm already at three reverts in 24 hours on the page, so I can't remove any tags as he sees it as a revert. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to reply to Oshwah with identing, you should leave your comments above mine, not change my indenting. Take a read of WP:Indent. My indenting was intentional as neither of my comments were a reply to Oshwah, in fact I didn't even see Oshwah's comment when composing my first reply. And I felt my second comment was better stand alone as it largely dealt with seperate issues. BTW you should feel free to move this comment and change it's indenting if you move your comments to but please leave all the others. Also in case you misunderstood my comment, you need to discuss on the article talk page not on Winkelvi's user page. Even if you've already left comments on Winkelvi talk page, you should take it to the article talk page before complaining about lack of discussion since anything else tends to be too unclear for ANI to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Another concerning thing which I noticed from the discussion at SNUGGUMS talk page is that it sounds like Winkelvi is removing dead links even if these were the only sources for the claim and so they were replaced with a cn tag. That's generally wrong, dead links should not be removed, simply tagged using {{deadlink}}, so that other people can try to find a backup of them. It's possible that some of these links weren't reliable sources anyway, but the justification then would be they are unreliable not dead links. And that seems to be the given justification for some, but not all cases. In cases where the info is already sufficiently source removing a dead link even if it is an RS is probably acceptable but again that only seems to be the justification in some cases.

I don't think removing deadlinks for no reason other than being dead is acceptable even if an effort was made to recover the link (see Wikipedia:Link rot), but in any case I'm not seeing any signs any effort was made here. Also some of the links had citation details, making recovery easier.

Notably, I don't see the need to remove the dead link here [244]. While it's a primary source and only supports one of the claims (when the deal was signed), the claim isn't particularly contentious and the source itself was trivial to recover via Wayback Machine [245]. If it was replace with a good RS supporting all claims made in the sentence then sure. But replacing it with a cn tag just seems wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I looked a bit more. I only found 2 or 3 other cases where Winkelvi didn't give a reason besides it being a dead link. (I didn't examine the cases where an additional reason like unreliable source or already sourced was given.) The sources are all trivially recoverable.

[246] Disnology.com doesn't exactly sound like a good source, which was confirmed when I recovered it [247]. Also it seems the sort of thing which will be easy to source and which having an existing unreliable source isn't going to help much in finding a reliable source. However the claim isn't exactly contentious and the source does include an alleged direct quote. (Not particularly surprisingly when taken in context, it was also supported by the next source which looks even less reliable and was later removed.) So while it's less obvious a problem than the signing one, I question whether replacing it with a {{cn}} tag was really the best course of action instead of {{dead link}} or {{unreliable source}}.

In [248] the website name sort of makes me think it's unreliable but actually it's a radio station. However the entire URL (with the part about event) does make you wonder whether it's a good source even if a radio station. Recovery confirms it isn't a great source [249], a listing for an event Drake Bell was at. It also doesn't properly confirm the statement, it confirms he was in the movie and he won the award, but it doesn't actually connect the two. Of course this would only have been known if the source was recovered. Personally despite the misgivings the URL text suggest, I still question whether replacing it with a cn without I presume checking the dead source first was the best course. Or instead tagging it as {{unreliable source}} with explanation if you didn't want to check.

It's unclear to me if invalid source means unreliable or dead [250]. I wouldn't consider a real estate agent blog (using public property records [251]) a good source for this sort of thing though, although if that was the reason, greater clarity would help. It seems to me the big possible problem here is this info simply isn't significant enough to be included in the article which could be countered by finding a good non tabloid non blog reliable secondary source discussing it. So even here, I'm not certain simply replacing it with a cn tag is the best solution. It seems to me {{unreliable source}} with a brief explanation would be a better one.

P.S. Winkelvi did tag some links with {{dead link}} early on, so I'm a bit confused why they removed others without giving another reason like unreliable or superflorous.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, because this is a BLP, the truth is, without adequate sources, much of this content is eligible to be deleted (per BLP guidelines). Since this was meant to be a housecleaning, and I know a few editors have put time into the article, I felt it better to delete references that weren't needed as well as some from the same source (which was a primary, self-published website of the article subject) stating "invalid" since it was not a good source to begin with and, surely, a better one could be found. The CN tags were, if you take BLP policy seriously, a gift that will allow the content to stand and editors to find sources rather than outright deleting the content. This article has been inadequately referenced for a while. Some sources I left even though they looked arguably dubious to me (a couple were spotted and mentioned above). BLP policy is clear and CN tags seemed the best, reasonable course, rather than cleaning out the article of unsourced content and legitimately pissing off those interested in the article. I'm sure that editors who want to see the article content remain intact can find good sources to replace those CN tags as needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe he is starting again, Nil Einne and Oshwah - reverting even while a discussion is taking place, and stating he will remove it again tomorrow. He also is telling a user to "talk him down off the ledge and help him start seeing sense" as apparently "You know who is exhibiting the same, stubborn, battleground mentality" at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Your help is needed. And another thing to add on to it being spite of me - if you look at the page history, I am the main person who added substantial contributions to the article in a while. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me

I often peruse the reference desk to get some advice on how to perform organic chemistry reactions in the lab. They aren't homework questions, particularly as I have a bachelors' in biochemistry and I am pursuing these reactions on an amateur basis. User:Medeis puzzlingly keeps accusing me of using the reference desk to answer "homework questions" and "professional advice". As far as I know, the restriction on professional advice is for legal advice, medical advice, financial investing advice, the kind of advice you would actually hire a professional consultant for, rather than restrictions on advanced organic chemistry because the questions are advanced or practical in scope. He has made these accusations against me on this basis several times, making personal attacks, and the latest action involves removing a legitimate question outright. Medeis sent me a "final warning" a few days ago on my talk page, threatening to get me "indefinitely blocked" as a sockpuppet, or saying he would report me to ANI. [252] I thought I would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also until two minutes ago, until I further glanced up on the talk pages, I actually had no idea that User:Medeis has been topic-banned from the Reference Desk before. Could I ask for some advice or intervention on the matter, seeing as it is not his first time harassing other users on the Reference Desk? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Medeis in many area and some of their accusations seem IMO careless at times. E.g. the homework questions accusation already seemed bizzare as it never seemed like Yanping Nora Soong (YNS) was asking questions relating what would be considered "homework".

However it has became increasingly clear that YNS is asking questions relating to potentially dangerous chemistry work they apparently plan to try at home, in an effort to produce drugs for self medication. See in particular Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 January 4#Ground glass joints with 2.5 bar pressure relief valve?. While I have some sympathies for the situation YNS finds themselves in, I'm fairly sure from the comments I've seen that I'm not the only one incredibly uncomfortable with this line of question. I'm not sure if Medeis's unilateral deletion was the best move (particularly since for a variety of reasons, Medeis's deletions tend to cause controversy) but in this particular instance it's difficult to fault it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the sock issue, while it appears to be true Yanping Nora Soong has used other accounts in the past, AFAIK these account were basically in good standing perhaps with some people suggesting they were asking a little too many questions and a few other issues which seem irrelevant to the current situation. While there may be some similarites of current with previous behaviour, considering the length of time and the fact there was never AFAIK any formal warning or restriction, I do not believe there is a credible case for sockpuppetry (i.e. misuse of multiple account such as avoiding scrunity). Particularly since it should be fairly obvious why YNS may not want to link their current account with previous accounts from what they've disclosed on their user page. If Medeis still feels there is an issue, they should approach arbcom about this to avoid WP:OUTING and other concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a grave issue. YNS shouldn't be doing what she's trying to do. It could have really devastating consequences. Although, Medeis has violated his sanction (and also given a bad rationale), I think the real issue at hand is that YNS is attempting to prepare unknown medications for herself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been psychiatrically hospitalized over thirty times, I actually have been through over twenty to thirty different medications in the last four years (I've lost count), I've even had electroconvulsive therapy (which they won't give me anymore since my diagnosis was formally changed from MDD / bipolar spectrum disorder to complex PTSD and dissociative disorder NOS). I have attempted suicide several times in severely dissociated or dysphoric states (not a threat by any means, just saying how severe my disorder is). Bear in mind, there are currently no approved medications for the treatment of PTSD. Experimental treatments are risky, but untreated chronic suicidality and dissociation are even more so. Plus, targeting NMDA receptors and sigma receptors are really promising lines of treatment.

I am also not doing anything illegal (self-medication is a human right) and I'm actually only asking for organic chemistry advice, not medical advice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AFAIK Medeis is under no active sanction relating to the RD or removals. (I think none point blank.) The topic ban mentioned above happened 2 years ago but was quickly vacated as lacking consensus (i.e. it's considered to have never happened). Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked up some threads in ANI and it seems there's lots featuring him. I did find the thread containing the community sanction but not the one which overturned that outcome. I simply took YNS' word for it (I still don't know). Now, Medeis might not have a bad conduct but he certainly is a problem user. I'd like to see links to his hounding and personal attacks (if any) before I comment further (not that my comments matter). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a different named user asked the same question just a few days ago, and it was discussed ad nauseam at the ref desk talk page. In short, the ban was lifted 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Self-medication is not a human right, but it's just assumed to be one (just like self-euthanizing is not one but often supposed to be). Now, I'm no chemistry guy but as far as Wnt said on the Reference Desk, do not try it at home, you don't know what products your reaction might yield, hell, you could find the next big drug but there's no surety. Just saying, the consequences are too great. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not currently have any rule or guideline prohibiting the asking of "dangerous" questions. As always, the correct response upon observing a question which one would be uncomfortable answering is to ignore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how much social responsibility one feels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, you should know better. Where commas should be placed and eliminating blank lines that improve readability are important issues, because the almighty Manual of Style says they are, but being responsible for assisting another editor in potentially hurting themselves or producing their own drugs to self-medicate, that's not our problem, for, it turns out, every person is an island. BMK (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen Medeis allege "homework" a few times lately in situations where I think it plainly was not. Now the Reference Desk may have a policy about homework questions, but it's important that we not let the policy be gamed in such a way that, if a person wanted to, he or she could levy a false "homework" accusation against any question and then expect the merits of the question to be debated as if it it were an issue. While I am definitely not fond of chemistry under pressure, I must emphasize the importance of keeping an open door for people to ask such questions. If we happen to talk someone out of trying something risky, this is a very good thing; it is a special case though of the general rule that if we can share useful information, we make people more informed and more informed people will do better, safer chemistry. Though I should note that Soong is actually a much better chemist than I am, which is why the suggestion of using improper vessels under pressure seemed so out of place! (It's a pity our Document Object Model doesn't allow better possibilities for citizen-scientists to embed real-time lab notebooks and coordinate their research through Wikipedia... but I digress)

Anyway, the ANI take-home here should be (a) the question isn't up for debate, (b) Medeis should knock off with the bogus homework allegations - whether you call them assuming bad faith, personal attack or whatever, they're not relevant or productive. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist but I've worked in an art foundry for over twenty years where we do all types of pressure casting and molding and I can't express to YNS enough how devastating the catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel can be. People don't realize how powerful even 10psi can be depending on the failure let alone truly high pressure systems. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Failures that would be fatal if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With chemical reactions you can have the production of gases spiral out of control incredibly quickly with no chance to intercede. Then you're talking the potential for glass shrapnel and the chemicals spraying everywhere. Capeo (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the intention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was good advice. I guess I didn't think of 1.4 atm (gauge pressure; 2.4 atm absolute) as potentially being catastrophic. After all, 1.4 atm * 100 mL = 14 joules. The K.E. of a typical bullet is >500J (in hunting, ~>2500 J -- seeing from Muzzle energy#Legal_requirements_on_muzzle_energy), but an airsoft gun produces an output more on the order of 7.5J, and no one thinks of those things as lethal. My other consideration is that a a litre of water freezing into ice exerts wayyy more pressure on a tight container -- but I guess it doesn't do that explosively. But, after the heads-up, I ordered a specially-designed pressure vessel rated at 10 atm (tested at 15 atm) instead. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, 1.4 atm = 1.4 * 101325 Pa = 141855 kg m-1 s-2. Multiply by 100 cm3 = 1E-4 m3 = 14 joules... that seems to check out. Also, on looking it up just now [253] I should admit that I had a misconception in my mind -- it might actually be possible to use X-rays to find slivers of glass in someone's eye and avoid prospecting for it with forceps, though borosilicate is more difficult than soda lime glass. Even so, I'm not enthusiastic about exploding glassware, even before we get into the toxicity/flammability of whatever is in it. And buying a stronger container just seems like doubling down on the risk to me. You weren't very clear on whether you had any sort of fume hood or blast shield set up at all, which was one of the reasons for concern. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to refrain from answering at this point at length. But I asked YNS whether her questions were homework questions for the simple reason that I did such syntheses in Organic Chem Lab to get my bachelor's degree; i.e., as homework. If it wasn't homework, it was a request for professional advice, both of which the Ref Desk disallows.

Based on YNS's talk page and contribution history, I think it is clear this user has a very long history soapboxing and of resorting to ANI, rather than editting mainspace. Her recent attacks on User:Snow Rise as a patriarchical cisnormative heterosexist (I paraphrase) started by a third person show a focus on using WP as a homepage and forum, rather than an encyclopedia. Likewise there's the request for speculation about how to get executed for a capital crime where no capital punishment exists, which degenerated into a discussion of assisted suicide show a wide divergence from the project's goals.

As a queer myself I can see the temptation to "speak out", but WP is defined as WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think YNS has ever once asked for a reference at the ref desk. The sole problem I see on my account is that I did not notify YNS yesterday when I reverted her latest WP:NOTHOWTO question. But she has never engaged with me, except to revert a warning of mine on her talkpage to follow the guidelines with a revert and the edit summary "LOLZ".

I have nothing against this user, have not pursued her across mainspace, and suggest this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really attacky about deeming someone a member of the patriarchy; most cis males who aren't feminists are by default, members of the patriarchy**, and I wasn't trying to make an attack. I was simply pointing out to him that, "your viewpoint is convenient for you to have, but not convenient for people who belong to more disadvantaged groups". Anyway, the whole issue sprung up up around what it meant for a doctor to make an "error" while sexing a baby, and it turned out we misinterpreted each other to begin with, and I don't think the discussion is antithetical to the project or to the reference desk when it makes evaluate more clearly what sex and gender mean. I wasn't even trying to have a debate, I was simply responding to what seemed like an unintentional microaggression. As Wnt put it succinctly : I've noticed most methods of classifying people that seem convenient to me eventually seem annoying to someone being classified.

**from the lead from our article on patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property..."

Also what's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about seeking the death penalty when you've been imprisoned for life? It wasn't a request for legal advice -- I've never been in prison and do not think I ever might be, certainly not for life (tho if I were black I could not say this with as much certainty), it was more of a burning curiosity especially as I kind of saw it as a deep injustice to be imprisoned for life but not to be allowed the option to die. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standard, yes, "deeming someone" in that matter is indeed a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

YNS, Please simply read the Ref Desk guildelines at the top of the RD pages, as well as Wikipedia:General disclaimer:

Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

And abide by them without interposing yourself in discussions where people innocently use terms such as "transgender" by attempting to shame them. I am certainly on no vendetta against you, and did not file an ANI, or a complaint at the talk page. You may find that engaging with people who've been openly queer since the early 80's, or simply other editors who don't start from the same premises as you, to be informative. And I do still maintain you should only ask for references, and not how-to questions, on how to synthesize bioactive substances. You are looking at matters that require hoods, vents, wash-stations, and so forth by law. We're simply not qualified, and I can quote plenty of other editors who've told you the same thing, if you insist. Please ping me here for further attention if needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOTHOWTO would also be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: It looks like there you started discussing the "cishet patriarchy" impersonally, but got drawn into what seemed like more direct argument. I don't want to confuse personal political opinion with personal attack. Nonetheless, be very careful about the "deeming people", i.e. making or appearing to make ad hominem statements or assumptions about other users. I know there's a rigged game here, that often people use policy as a way to attack people personally and then if they gripe back they get slammed; so don't let yourself become a victim of it. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO AFAIK applies to article space. It doesn't apply to the Reference Desk. I'm also not asking for professional advice -- if I had more chemist friends I spoke to on a regular basis, I'd be asking them in a non-professional capacity. I don't think you also know the difference between "transgender" (a term I identify with) and transgendered (a misuse at best, a slur at worst). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP has made 336 edits to Wikipedia in about 4 1/2 months. Of these, only 74 were to articles, while a whopping 125 (37.2%) were to Wikipedia space. Edits to their own user page and to the photographs they uploaded account for another 69. To be frank, YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, but for reasons of their own. However valid those reasons are to themselves, personally, it is not what we are here for. I very strongly urge YNS to refocus their efforts into editing articles and otherwise contributing to the project in a positive way, as I am afraid that the failure to do so will otherwise eventually end up in a sanction. That's not something that's desirable: clearly YNS has much to offer to the project, but we're not here for any other purpose than to help improve an online encyclopedia, and if they cannot put the vast majority of their energy into doing that, then there is no place for them here. That would be regrettable. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I may, under the circumstances. I just want to point out YNS that they really have no idea whether I am male or female or indeed whether I am cis, and they very well might never know, since one of the most compelling facets of Wikipedia is that participation is not predicated on who you are, but what you bring to the table as a contributor. I've always found that aspect of Wikipedia to be virtually unique in my personal experiences. However, I will state unequivocally that I am a feminist and consider it a defining feature of my life and general morale outlook. And I very much take offense to YNS's unfounded and repetitive accusations and presumptions about myself (and Graeme), which, at this point, I very much consider to have passed into the territory of WP:personal attacks, made as a part of a massive WP:SOAPBOX effort to divert discussions into territories they wish to zealously engage on. In an effort to create one or more foil for their stances, they have made numerous assumptions about the character and beliefs of others (myself primarily) which are not in evidence anywhere in the discussion and from which they will not be dissuaded in asserting. I like to think I have skin about as thick as any editor, but I admit, my patience begins to wear thin for being essentially called a bigot on no more basis than that it provides a convenient rhetorical argument for the insinuating party. I urge anyone who has questions about how tortured their logic is in reaching these conclusions to read the thread in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perspective or background of the contributor does matter somewhat (in certain cases), see Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia? I'm a photographer to begin with, so I find this sentiment puzzling. I actually didn't wish to soapbox at all. Graeme simply mentioned a hypothetical situation of a doctor "being incorrect" in the matter of sexing a baby, and this whole notion of "correctness" with regards to assessing a baby's sex (or correcting their sex) is actually a cause of a lot of suffering. This is not just personal opinion -- actually there are entire communities of individuals whose quality of life has been diminished because of the whole notion of whether a baby's sex is correct/incorrect.

I didn't call anyone a bigot, I am unaware of when unfeminist became a slur. If for you, "transgender'ed is not a slur, then neither is "unfeminist". Honestly -- I'm not trying to be a smartass -- but the whole idea of "sex is biological but gender is constructed," though historically important, has become frequently challenged. In fact, these challenges are well-sourced. See Sex and gender distinction#Criticism of the "sex_difference" vs. "gender difference" distinction. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for the sake of the flying spaghetti monster, I have never said that the word "transgender" was a slur. I am transgender.

You've misread WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS (or not read it at all): it doesn't give you free license to speculate about another user's identity, motives, or beliefs. It concerns only our content and how we apply the sources to determine the shape that content will take. It does not concern our contributors at all, except insofar as it informs how they should approach article content. I'll leave it to others to read that thread and come to their own conclusions about what you were implying about my beliefs and the leaps in logic you made to do so. As far as I am concerned, painting me as an "unsympathetic cisnormative oppressor" and the various other terms you've used, ad nauseum, are quite inflammatory, especially in light of my repeated efforts to get you to stop speculating about what manner of person I am, off-wiki. You've stopped now and that's good enough for me to assume it is a turning point in your involvement there (for which I am grateful) but you do need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on arguing the point, not the user, if you want to get on civilly here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how this discussion actually influenced article content, as opposed to a Reference Desk answer, and secondly, I apologize if you actually aren't cis. However, it seemed reasonable to assume a cisgender background based on rather absolutist** arguments you were making (**I don't think it's out of line to call this so?) -- that there are only two human sexes, and that all humans can be categorized or assigned membership to only one of them. Most trans or nonbinary people who have faced oppression from cisnormativity in society wouldn't make an argument like that. Also, it was not apparent to me that cisnormativity has ever adversely affected you. I was not making a bad faith accusation, or trying to impugn or insult you in any way. The majority of the people I interact with in everyday life, outside my closest friends, hold cisnormative beliefs. Cisnormativity is something I deal with on a daily basis. The same applies to white privilege: most white people in Western countries (or even East Asia) enjoy white privilege whether they realize it or not, unless they have faced societal oppression for not being white enough. I myself, enjoy certain kinds of privilege due to my education and upbringing, that many other people do not. It's not a personal attack to say that someone has cis privilege, it's just an attempt to get a person to try to re-examine the points of view held by those who don't have similar privileges. I don't think it is in violation of policy to note that an absolutist position on sex membership (or categorization) is very convenient to cis people, but not to others.

That aside, I apologize for not introducing references earlier. I was not as rigorous in my answer seeing as our answers weren't a discussion of article content. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether I (or any editor) is cis or trans (or Caucasian or Asian or Catholic or Muslim, or a member of another broad category of person). Nor is any editor obliged to confirm, deny, or in any way clarify their relationship to one of those categories in order to provide a factual, source, or content opinion on the topic. Our personal relation to demographics do not matter in this place--or at least, aren't meant to, if we don't bring them into the mix ourselves. Further, you don't get to yourself say "I am X, therefor, my opinion is more valid for X, and I am going to act as Arbiter and Gatekeeper of X". Those kinds of arguments from authority just won't fly here. Actually, quite the opposite is true on this project: it can be considered very problematic for an editor (especially a new contributor) to work in areas where they have strong emotional or ideological attachments for which they feel inclined to advocate, as this can be a significant bar to exercising WP:Neutral point of view, one of the pillar concepts of activity here. In any event, you definetly are not allowed to say "I think you're probably Y, therefore I can reach the following conclusions on what you think of X." You might very well get that impression about another contributor from time to time (we all do). But keep it to yourself and don't let it influence how you interact with others or how your arguments are presented.

So, using the discussion in question as an example, it's perfectly acceptable to mention theories or data or cisnormative privilege (and especially useful if you provide sources to support these concepts), but if someone has a different take on those concepts, don't accuse them of having blinders on because of factors that you can't know about and which aren't meant to be part of the discourse here in any event. And although you aren't forbidden from bringing your own background into discussion, it's probably best to avoid that too: in discussions on article content, your perspective won't matter much if you don't have WP:reliable sources to back up and WP:verify your position, and your arguments will carry more weight if you seem to be making them on their merits as a dispassionate observer. And indeed these principles of good argumentation and neutral stance generally apply to the ref desks as well, though the nuances are a little different. Approaching these topics from a stance of indifference is not always easy or consistent with how we intuitively treat the underlying issues when they arise in other areas of our life, I know, but it has advantages when we are working on an encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia?

• (1) You focus on one small aspect of what I said, ignoring the larger point: your edits have, by and large, not been focused on improving the encyclopedia.
• (2) It depends on the content of the photographs, and their appropriateness for use on en.Wiki (since you actively reject uploading them to Commons, which they're more likely to be used by other language WPs and be seen and used by non-Wikimedians).
• (3) In your case, 3 self-portraits and 14 other photos [254] do not constitute such an improvement to the encyclopedia as to invalidate my point.

BMK (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually have been constructing references to upload to chemistry articles on article space, I just haven't actually written them to articlespace yet -- User:Yanping_Nora_Soong/literature. Also, I'll just say right here -- of course I want to improve the encyclopedia, but the Ref Desk space is very different from the rest of the Wikipedia space. Do you wish that I stop contributing because less than half of my edits are to article space? Self-portraits aside, quantity and quality of photographs are different metrics -- actually that should apply to edit counts as well.

I would also like to point out that I haven't been blocked half a dozen times for edit-warring. Are you sure you actually want to improve the encylopedia, BMK? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Yanping Nora Soong, I am absolutely certain that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and for not other reason. I'll also note that, in what appears to be the type of action which others have described above, you turned my attempt to advise you about how to avoid what would seem to be an inevitable sanction in your future into an attack on me. I would suggest that such behavior is not productive, and you should consider that not everything which is addressed to you is a provocation which requires responding in that manner. Clearly, I can talk to you, but there's no way I can make you listen, so good luck to you. BMK (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would encourage you to edit some chemistry articles too. I enjoy answering the chemistry questions by supplying references, but really you are not going to get serious professional chemistry advice on the reference desk! Also I am not upset about your interpretation of the genealogical record sex error. We just have to WP:assume good faith all around. There is no need to complain here about the issues raised above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There is a very big problem with your complaint about Soong's edit counts. Soong has a high edit count at Wikipedia:Reference desks because she had several very technical questions to ask, and encountered substantial naysaying and requests for further information from several people including myself. For months, several people at the Refdesk (you can see them there on the talk page now) have been saying that people who seriously ask questions should consider registering accounts to avoid the anti-vandal semi-protection applied to many of the desks for much of the time. Now you come along and say that if an editor's edit counts are invested in Refdesk questions, they're not serving any purpose and there's something wrong with them. We can't have it both ways. My opinion is that asking and answering questions on the Refdesk is a useful encyclopedia building activity, which sometimes suggests direct improvements to articles and in any case is building up a database of raw Q-and-A material that we could use to develop better resources either here or at Wikiversity. I bet those gadgets they advertise on TV that answer questions use our material as part of their database also. In any case, whether or not you think the Refdesk is worthwhile activity, that issue should not be debated just for her alone simply because someone decided to call her question a homework question. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is an accurate evaluation of the situation at all. If YNS asks a certain kind of question at the Ref Desk, and gets the kind of response that indicates that it's not an appropriate question for that venue, and then asks another of the same type of questions, the problem does not lie in the fact that YNS got the same kind of response, the problem lies in the fact that YNS did not take on board that questions of that type are not appropriate. Repeating one's actions and expecting a different kind of result is not a reasonable behavior pattern. BMK (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: When YNS talked about trying to do something under pressure and we said it didn't sound like a good idea, that was not inappropriate. That was the Refdesk doing what it was supposed to do, namely, giving people a chance to share information. (more or less -- to the degree that it was just personal opinions/advice with too few sources, we did let him down, but we're not the ones you're blaming) A question does not become "not appropriate" just because someone thinks something is a bad idea; they were within policy and remain so. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A question to RefDesk is "not appropriate" when it does not lie within the rules quoted above by Medeis. As far as I can tell, all of YNS's questions (or at least the majority of them) have been inappropriate for that reason. Further, your apologia for YNS fails to take into account that the editor has been, essentially, a non-contributor to articles, but a serial questioner at RefDesk, which is an ancilliary aspect of Wikipedia - it could be closed down tomorrow (not a bad idea) and the encyclopedia, which is our primary project, would not be affected at all. I reiterate, YNS is best advised to stop acting as if every comment directed her way is a criticism, stop responding to comments with personalized attacks, stop filing essentially frivolous ANI complaints, stop using Ref Desk in ways it is not intended to be used, and to start making contributions to the encyclopedia her primary activity here. Any other course of sction is almost certain to end up in a sanction. You are not helping this editor by abetting their behavior. BMK (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your dislike for the Refdesk is not a widely shared sentiment and is not policy. My point is that we are encouraging new users to ask questions at the Refdesk, we are encouraging them to register accounts to do so, and thus logically we should not be going around and condemning them for doing what we encouraged them to do. Anyone in the world has been welcome to ask questions they think are interesting and non-trivial to answer under an IP address, and that behavior does not suddenly become wrong because they registered an account. Her ANI complaint was frivolous only in the sense that most of the interaction here is frivolous - unlike the Refdesk, the encyclopedia could do as well without this forum for non-encyclopedic content - it tied into previous discussions of problem behavior by Medeis; I think that if we end up deciding to tell him, as was proposed below, to stop playing policeman, that would be as reasonable an outcome as any. And if a sanction could be reasonable, asking for it is not frivolous. I have indeed criticized her responses a few times, and my purpose is not to defend her right or wrong; in any case, had I been asked, I certainly would never have advised her to venture into this snake pit. However, as my primary interest regarding the Refdesk is in seeing that people are free to consult it without that being treated like it's some kind of offense, I have been a bit careless of your potentially hostile reaction toward her. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't much like the blanket and poorly-nuanced dispersion which BMK made with regard to the RefDesks, but I think I can understand their concern in this instance. As a long-time contributor to the desks, who has often found it to be one of the more rewarding areas of the project to contribute in and who regards it as (in principle) very useful to the project as a whole, I still have deep misgivings about the liberties certain users take in that space--and this includes a number of those who ask questions and (more concerning) three or four who answer questions. There is far, far, far too much discussion that is unreferenced, including a great deal of wild speculation that cannot be referenced or includes winding digressions into original research. The rules concerning banned topic matters are also inconsistently applied, despite consensus on the Ref Desk talk page and broader Wikipedia/WMF principles telling us that they need to be strictly applied. And please, you can dispense with your response that we do not have community guidelines banning/discouraging offering advice in these areas; I know from TP discussions that we do not have the same view of the wording and weight of those principles, and I think it suffices for our purposes here to say we are not on the same page.

In any event, with regard to the rampant speculation in particular, I've been saying for years that if we do not crack down on this kind of behaviour (which flies in the face of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies which the desks are not explictly exempted from), then the larger community will probably do it for us sooner or later. But I admit, in the last year, I've begun to feel like leading the charge to restrict unsourcceable speculation, fishing expeditions and other activities that attempt to make a part of the encyclopedia's process into an almost completely open forum. Which it is not meant to be. It's a reference desk, not a mid-90's online bulletin board for anyone to share any kind of information they choose, regardless of whether it improves the encyclopedia or conforms to broader community rules. Mind you, I'd much rather we started to give temporary topic bans to the worst offenders than that we lay down blanket restrictions on the desks--given that most of our contributors violate the principles of sourcing only intermittently and know where the line between sourceable commentary and wild speculation. But if the choice is between A) laying down some new rules that may complicate our process and B) allowing a general downslide of the desks into subreddit clones because of the activity of a few editors who number less than half a dozen but write literally thousands upon thousands of speculative, unsourced, and frankly often misleading answers to questions, every year--or worse, hijack threads to open discussion into unrelated matters they want to talk about--....well, I know which side I will come down on, alas.

Anyway, putting the issues of the value of the desks and broad violations of their principles aside, BMK is unambigously correct about YNS showing every sign of being WP:NOTHERE. So far. YNS has a long way to go to understanding this project and in internalizing its values. If they stay, I feel this will probably not be the last time the community discusses their behaviour, given their propensity towards a certain kind of paranoia and seeing enemies in people who simply question their approach, activities, and perspectives here, even though they (YNS) are barely familiar with our policies. But, other editors have come here with similar motivations, issues, and difficulties in understanding our process and have eventually become full converts. And all BMK seems to be saying (to my interpretation) is that YNS will be best-served by all of us not treating them with kid gloves and making it clear what is expected of them if they wish to continue to participate here. That's my reading of BMK's comments anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, you've got it right. BMK (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There's only one person I know for sure is on your list of the 3-4 posters, due to a certain unfortunate tendency to shoot from the holster. I honestly don't know, for example, whether I'm on it, or any other editor who tries to look into a question without fully settling it. I don't know which discussions you think go too far off track and which don't, or why it is wrong to "hijack" a discussion by looking into a related issue when you could just post a new header with the issue if it seemed more appropriate (or anyone could move it there). But your take-home message seems to be the same as BMK's: it has been a mistake for me to tell people like Soong to register an account to ask a Refdesk question. As IP's, they can ask questions on the Refdesk Talk Page or such other page as may eventually be designated in some back corner of Wikipedia, and (provided they're not from Australia, in which case they'll probably be blocked as a troll) they can get answers without being dragged through the mud as "NOTHERE" for taking advantage of what we say we offer. True, they can't get pingbacks, but I suppose it's a small price to pay. In Soong's case, it looks like she registered an account to answer a question. Then she decided to upload some photos she had accumulated, and immediately started getting speedy-deletion notices because she'd already had them on the web; from there she must have followed some information about 3RR to end up in an ANI debate, and posting here is definitely a turn for the worse that increases anyone's "NOTHERE" count. Unfortunately, one thing the instructions don't warn new users about is that ANI is not actually useful for anything good, and that raising an issue about someone (as she did with BMK last October over some woman killed on Putin's birthday) creates a long-term adversary in every future proceeding. Well, anyway, you can count it as a step forward that I'll try to remember not to encourage IP's to register to ask Refdesk questions in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: On the contrary, I never have a problem with encouraging anyone to register. It makes for easier continuity of discussion and increases the likelihood of recruiting someone to work on the project longterm (2015 was the first year in several where our recruitment trends moved upwards, and I'd like to see that continue). I'm not sure if that's what BMK is saying either. I haven't seen him suggest as much anywhere above, but I may have missed it. Anyway, where I definitely do agree with him is that, having registered, YNS still needs to familiarize themselves with our community standards if they wish to be involved here. Wikipedia may have been founded on the principle of (and should remain) "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but competency is required. The fact of the matter is, there has evolved a little bit of a discontinuity there as our processes for establishing and maintaining the quality of our content have become ever more complicated and nuanced. I imagine it's even more difficult for someone who comes to the project via the refdesks, where principles like WP:V, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOR are flouted regularly with (frankly reckless) abandon. A contributor who first comes to the project through article space probably sees a much better example of how facts and sourcing are meant to be handled here, and how to keep one's personal impressions separate from the subject at hand (which is the root issue that YNS is struggling with in each of the threads that have been raised here). So where I especially agree with BMK is that no one is doing YNS (or any new editor) a favour by not being blunt about what constitutes good editorial procedure here.

As to the other matter, yes, we all know who "the one" is, unfortunately. But until such time as we have the collective will to address these issues, I see no point in singling anyone out by name. But something definitely needs to be done to remind everyone in that space that it is a reference desk. A forum for providing references, plain and simple--not an open forum for unsourced speculation, soapboxing personal views, advocating a stance, or trying to prove that one is the most knowledgeable person in the world by answering every single last question with whatever they can cobble/synth together from their superficial understanding of the topic and their best intuitions/inductive assumptions about what the answer to the question might be. Reddit awaits for those who wish to pursue these topics in an open fashion in a large, vibrant community with many people (capable experts among them) who want to discuss these things at length and are willing to tolerate some speculation and spit-balling to get there. That's not what we are WP:HERE for, however. RD threads need to be at least potentially valuable to the project. Which means the information in them needs to be sourced. At this point, I think its clear (and more's the pity), that there's always going to be that one guy (and I don't mean our current one guy--there's always going to be one, I fear) who just cannot walk that line without firm rules keeping him/her in check. I think it's time we establish a firm, non-flexible language at the top of the RefDesk that points out that WP:V applies there (same as any other area on the project) and that all information/assertions provided need to be thoroughly sourced (and without WP:SYNTH), at least if there is any reasonable chance they will be challenged. If you think a given claim is so manifestly obvious it doesn't require it, fine. But if you go out on that limb and someone challenges you for the source and you can't provide it, you strike your statement and sit back and be quiet. At this point, I fear that's the only way the space can be brought under control and made to conform with the original intention for which it was established and which reference desks actually serve. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is important, but I think usually people are pretty good about it. Showing up to a Refdesk thread without a source, or at least a wikilink or three, is like coming to a party without a cake or a bottle of booze. It should be a matter of social embarrassment, but we don't need the law on them; when people get hungry they'll figure it out. In any case, I don't think that Soong, asking questions, had these obligations; the questions are generally sincere and interesting, which is all I would expect of them. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about executions and suicide referred to by Medeis is here [255].

Firstly while there was some limited request for speculation in that question but most of it could be answered with refs without speculation. (Some speculation may have been necessary by the OP from these refs, but that is fairly common since a lot of the time there isn't a ref which answers such a specific question. For that reason there may also be some speculation based on refs by respondents.)

The claim it "degenerated" is missing the point, suicide was a part of the question from the beginning and the YNS later specifically asked "Are there routes for a life-sentenced convict to seek official routes to death that wouldn't be classified as a traditional execution". So the possibility of assisted suicide for life-sentence convicts was explicitly related to what the OP was asking about, despite what Medeis or others in the discussion suggested.

Note that the discussion was about avenues under law, it did not venture in to methods or anything of that sort. While some may be uncomfortable with the topic of assisted suicide and I agree we have to be very careful how we handle such questions (in particular why the OP is asking), there's no reason why "what circumstances is assisted suicide a legal avenue" should be disallowed but "what circumstances is the death penalty a legal avenue" is allowed.

The question of when something is crossing in to the territory of legal advice is a tricky one, but IMO that discussion didn't do. Questions about the law can and are asked and answered on the RD. And frankly if you take it to an extreme, I think many would agree it's silly to say we can't discuss with references whether someone who doesn't belong to the Church of England can become the British monarch because we risk providing legal advice. Which is probably why no one has done that.

Actually I considered reverting Medeis, but since they removed it under Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, I decided to wait and see whether the WMF did anything(*). Nothing seemed to happen from the WMF as I expected. But I didn't end up reverting. Even though the discussion there didn't seem to apply to YNS's current circumstances, I was uncomfortable enough with some of the things YNS said elsewhere that I felt it best to let the issue drop.

(*) I presume Medeis did email the WMF as that is a key part of how we respond to people who may be considering self-harm as evidenced by the advice they cited. Deleting comments because you feel they suggest the person could be considering self-half, but not doing any followup would be a very serious breach of protocol as there's a strong risk you could make things worse.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we have two separate issues here:

1. Is User:Medies gaming and/or violating the rules in an effort to prevent User:Yanping Nora Soong's question(s) from being answered? IMHO, yes - clearly. These are really obviously not homework or professional-advice kinds of questions - they don't violate any rules - so this is clearly a misuse of WP:RD - and that should stop. It's a well-meaning, somewhat mild misuse - but Medies needs to be clear that no one user is judge, jury and executioner. A slap on the wrist as a reminder of that would be a welcome outcome - but nothing too heavy-handed.
2. Are User:Yanping Nora Soong's questions acceptable at the reference desks? Well, there are no rules, policies or guidelines saying you can't ask questions about very dangerous chemistry experiments - and Wikipedia is not censored...so, yeah, they are acceptable. Should we step in and informally request that similar questions not be asked in the future? Well, maybe - but it can only be a polite request, we have no rules to make this a strong demand or a block or ban or anything of the kind.

That's really as far as ANI needs to rule here.

HOWEVER there is a case for having a debate - absent the issues surrounding misbehavior from Medies or really terrible (but "acceptable") questions from Yanping. I don't think that debate should happen here - this is not a place for the formulation of guidelines. There should be a discussion over on the WP:RD talk page.

Meanwhile, absent some new rule/guideline/policy - I'd encourage everyone to remember that while it is currently OK to ask questions of this sort - we're not required to give answers to them! I'd strongly recommend that if someone asks a question on a topic for which you think an answer might pose some sort of grave risk - then DON'T ANSWER IT!. Feel free to explain the dangers.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles only. Please re-read it. BMK (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not. BMK (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Two wrong answers that have been tried and failed vs. one right answer that hasn't been tried

While purposely not commenting on the actions of Yanping Nora Soong (others are handling that just fine), and assuming for the sake of argument that everything Medeis/μηδείς did was right this time, it is a demonstrable fact that Medeis/μηδείς keeps ending up here at ANI, and a certainty that she will be back here again and again, all because of deleting or collapsing other people's comments on the help desks.

Wrong answer #1: Block and/or topic ban Medeis/μηδείς. This is the wrong answer because she does a lot of good work, and because the community does not have a consensus to do either.

Wrong answer #2: Do nothing and let this go on forever. This is the wrong answer because many of the Medeis/μηδείς removals are highly contentious and controversial, and are really disruptive.

Right Answer: Restrict Medeis/μηδείς from one activity -- editing what other editors post. There are plenty of other help desk regulars who have proven themselves able to identify what needs removing and take action without any drama or controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty torn on that issue. On the one hand, you're right--this has been a problem area for Medeis. On the other hand, that's a bitter pill to hand an editor--getting restricted from an activity on one of the occasions that said activity was really probably called for and did the project a favour... I'm also concerned about the message that this will send to YNS, who so far has had some real issues with conforming themselves to our policies and is, at best, only partially WP:HERE. I have serious concerns that restricting Medeis at this juncture will play into the somewhat disruptive behaviours of YNS, as these behaviours seem to me to be partially rooted in a victim-complex attitude that I fear validating here.

Given that Medeis' actions in this instance were not unambigously improper/disruptive and the party opening this thread has put their foot wrong in several places (and only opened this thread to "preempt" Medeis raising their own concerns), I'm leaning towards giving Medeis one more chance on this issue, but advising her that she would be best advised to build consensus for such a move on the red-desk talk page next time, rather than acting unilaterally. I don't make this suggestion lightly; I was 100% prepared to support that Medeis receive just the restriction you are recommending now the last time that I saw this issue come up. But this just seems the entirely wrong context. I'd rather risk one more iteration of this (admittedly recurrent) issue than penalize a contributor for doing the right thing and risk encouraging an editor who shows signs of being much more disruptive on the balance if their recent behaviours were to persist. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken. I see no harm in waiting until the next time Medeis/μηδείς gets reported at ANI, or even waiting for an example of an unambiguously bad deletion. It's not like she is going to stop her disruptive editing of other people's comments, and it's not like people are going to stop complaining about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reference Desks are tailored to serve all readers, even unregistered readers, and are regulated by guidlelines (e.g. no homework, no spamming, no trolling, etc) thus questions do get occasionally get censored thus I view the disputed actions between Medeis and Yanping Nora Soong as part of these pages' content disputes which are more properly raised on the reference desk talkpages and which are not the purpose of ANI to settle. Regarding alleged gross misbehavior which is well-meaning advice that can be seen as bordering on bullying above, (in the form of do more editing to mainspace or else (things will end badly)), I'll add WP:VOLUNTEER due to the contributors' worthwhile voluntary contributions. From what I've read thus far, many of the arguments aimed directly at the alleged misbehavior of other editors have not risen to the level of anything actionable, so I suggest closing this without prejudice. --Modocc (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Telling someone that the purpose of an online encyclopedia project is to build an online encyclopedia, and advising them to do more of that and less of other, unproductive, stuff is "bordering on bullying"? I think not, unless the definition of "bullying" has become "telling someone something that is mildly critical or that they otherwise don't want to hear," which I do not believe is the case. BMK (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, and hitting them over the head with the metaphorical stick of WP:NOTHERE, is indeed abusive obnoxiously aggressive if they are not doing anything against policy and not even doing anything which WP:NOTHERE lists as problematic.

Wikipedia has a Reference Desk. You can't blame people (registered or not) for using it to ask questions they're interested in.

If the concern is that the user is asking questions about doing something medically inadvisable that we don't want to be even indirectly helping him with, let's deal with that as a separate question. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your evaluation of the situation in regard to my comment was inaccurate. What I said was, after giving the statistics for the various spaces in which YNS has edited, in which Wikipedia space predominates, that "YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia." That is not at all what you have accused me of, and it it is not bullying. It is not "bullying" to let someone know that they're on the edge of danger and warn them back from it. Such a warped definition does a grave disservice to those suffering from actual bullying. If you disagree, and feel that I have been "bullying", then I suggest you open a thread here to deal with it, but in the meantime, accusing editors of violating Wikipedia policies without providing evidence of such is considered a Personal attack, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I"m sure you and Modocc had no intent on breaking that rule, so I expect that no further accusations of this kind will be forthcoming from you or Modocc unless a formal charge against me is lodged. BMK (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not formally accusing you of bullying and I will not be starting a thread elsewhere at this time. I did use the word "abusive" which was a tad too harsh and I have retracted it. However, the reason there are controversial debates currently running about topics related to bullying is that behavior such as yours -- although it has a long and storied history and is not (in its self-righteously aggressive defense of Wikipedia policy) actually against any current Wikipedia policy -- is nevertheless unnecessarily and negatively aggressive. People don't like it. It's annoying. It makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place to visit. It drives some people away who would otherwise be valuable contributors.

In terms of the statistics you cited, you did not merely accuse the user of not being here to build the encyclopedia, you also linked to WP:NOTHERE. Yet a perusal of the text of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia shows no overlap between this user's behavior and the list of indications of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, and rather more overlap with What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, so I'm a bully, but I'm not an abusive bully, so you feel it's OK to call me a bully without actually formally accusing me of being a bully. How about this: if you link my name and the words "bully" or "bullying" again anywhere on Wikipedia except on AN/I in a formal accusation of violating Wikipedia policy, I will bring a complaint against you on AN/I for making a personal attack on me. I hope that's quite clear. BMK (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say: "Sure, whatever." BMK (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hear, Hear. Yes, User:Medeis gets called out for bad behavior far more often than any other regular ref desk user. At least in the top 3. I keep thinking they might realize eventually that it is not the case that everyone is out to get them, but rather that they are acting problematically. I would support banning Medeis from editing/removing others' posts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) It's not true it hasn't been tried. Or at least it's tried the same way a topic ban or block or Medeis from the reference desk has been tried, i.e it's been proposed and failed. (Note as I said above, Medeis has never really been topic banned from the RD. The brief topic ban was removed after it was found to lack consensus.) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks for at least one discussion with a similar proposal.

I can't recall and can't be bothered searching if there were ever any other serious proposals. There was definitely talk on the WT:RD, and it was probably mentioned in some discussions at ANI but there may have never been any other proper proposals. Then again, I only recall perhaps 1 or 2 actual topic ban discussions for Medeis anyway. (There were other discussions, but many of them never seemed to have solid proposals for action.)

Incidentally I agree with Snow Rise that it doesn't seem a good idea to use this as an example. Actually I would go as far as to suggest it would be a very bad idea. While there has been very little commentary from people who don't edit the RD at least on occasion, what comments there have been concur with my view that if we do get some real discussion, it's likely there would be a fair amount of support at least for the deletion which started this thread. (Even if not necessarily all aspects of how it was handled.) So using it an example is likely to significantly damage the chance of success of any topic ban.

Incidentally, I've long believed one of the reasons we never got consensus for any action was because there never a good proposal i.e. with good examples (in the form of diffs) of the harm/problems. While I still partially believe that, I think Medeis has reduce their deletion frequency and doesn't edit war of deletions much which has made the need and likelihood of action less. (There still seem to be some problematic deletions, including some with weird rationales even some where the deletion was okay, often it just seems sloppy.)

Anyway I mostly wanting to say I've also been wondering for a while now if a big problem is we've lacked any real consensus on what to delete on the RD for a while now. And what balance we do have may be different from how wikipedians outside the RD or at least those wikipedians outside the RD active at AN/ANI would feel about it.

In particular presuming I'm correct about how the deletion which started this is perceived, it highlights the problem. Most of those regulars on the RD who feel the deletion was fine (like me) prefer not to open that can of worms, so we just let it slide. And this isn't the first example. This means it's quite easy to come up with examples which make people think we should continue to let Medeis delete. Even I can see the temptation despite supporting a topic ban on deletions and having seen the mess that can result.

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not claiming I'm any better at avoiding stuff which will make the community outside the RD got WTF. In fact, I'm fairly sure it'll be easy to find examples.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just so, for all of us, I dare wager. The problem is that we've all, over the years, gotten comfortable with the notion that the usual community policies need to be applied to the RefDesks in a very nuanced fashion, owing to its unique format and role on the project. That's a fair position, but the problem is that we all have very idiosyncratic notions of what these nuances mean and just what is permitted--and we've developed them largely in isolation from broader community input. I think we're probably long overdue to take these issues to WP:VPP or WP:CD for serious discussion, both because we have no special mandate to go on our merry way when it comes to policy and broad community consensus and also because positions on the RefDesk talk page long ago grew entrenched, to the point where no meaningful reform of our approach ever occurs, even for issues that have been evident for years now. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Medeis has long been one of the most disruptive editors on the RefDesk, she has been known to tell direct lies about other editors (including myself) to "support" her unilateral and highly idiosyncratic interpretations of guidelines and policies. She seems to view the desks as her personal domain, and the rest of us with contempt. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the underlying problems is that there's a pretty significant mismatch between the de jure list of topics that are prohibited on the Reference Desks, versus the de facto set that we end up arguing about. Right now, the formal list is:

• Medical advice
• Legal advice
• Requests for opinions or debate
• Homework questions (discouraged if not prohibited)

People also tend to be concerned about (and occasionally formally sanction, i.e. by hatting or deleting):

• Requests involving professional advice of any kind
• Requests involving illegal behavior
• Requests involving dangerous behavior

Now, I'm sorry to sound snide, but as of today, with no sanctions against Medeis, there's one more item on the de facto list:

• Anything Medeis doesn't like

If you post a question or an answer that Medeis doesn't like, she will hat it or delete it as she sees fit, and argue about it without reference to actual policy, more or less indefinitely. Most people don't have as much patience as she does for these arguments, so she often gets what she wants. This tends to end up being pretty disruptive. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, but what I "like" or "don't like" is of no importance to my editing. I spend very little time posting about Watership Down and Servalan and tend not to disagree with suchlike which has nothing to do with me. You can always post actual diffs that show otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion of YNS' refdesk questions

Quite apart from the question of Medeis' behavior, I'm concerned about YNS' numerous questions to the ref desk as I have understood them in general from the above reports. (1) It seems that YNS is using the questions to aid in self-medicating or self-treating; (2) It seems the experiments queried are or can/could possibly be dangerous. My concern is that should something untoward ensue to YNS as a result of answers or advice given at the ref desk, her relatives could sue WMF. So I'm worried that we (Wikipedia/WMF) are getting into potentially problematic territory by answering these numerous questions. Lastly, as some people have opined above, I think repeatedly asking such types of questions at the ref desk may be in violation of the ref desks policies, guidelines, rules, and intentions. I can see asking one or a small handful of questions for personal use, but asking numerous questions for the same personal purpose, and potentially dangerous ones at that, probably is in violation of the guidelines, and if so should be discouraged or even stopped. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid question, but it is indeed quite apart from the question of Medeis's behavior, so I would suggest discussing it in a separate thread. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the right place. Anytime someone files a report about another editor on a noticeboard, the filer's actions will be under scrutiny as well, especially in the specific area the reported activities are within. The details are in WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I suggested on YNS's user talk that she try the Reddit chemistry forum for her questions (I got no response). I do think certain Refdesk contributors freak out too often about topics that would be considered perfectly fine in other venues like Stack Exchange (SE). In this case though, the discomfort is understandable, and I'd be up for a discussion with YNS about what she's trying to do (in terms of the Refdesk posts--I don't know anything about chemistry) if she's willing. I'd be up for a similar discussion with Medeis if that could help as well.

  Medeis is a good refdesk contributor whose interventions are in good faith but are legitimately seen as unnecessary a lot of the time. This time, more editors see the concern as justified so I wouldn't support taking action against her regarding this particular incident. But in general, I'd ask that she dial it back some. The other RD contributors aren't idiots, and it's reasonable to look to other examples (other established sites like SE as well as Wikipedia) to get a sense of what can be within our comfort zone, vs. where we're likely to have realistic concrete reasons to worry about stuff. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think IP 173's comments are accurate, in so far as users like SemanticMantis, and StuRat often disagree with my judgments; they want all questions to be answered. But so far no one has posted a single case where I have violated BRD with YNS, and the recent consensus on the talk page at the ref desk has been to avoid protracted debate on the desk itself or the talk page, I see no other issue than that I am a strict constructionist while others think the ref desks are an open forum, plain and simple.

If the editors against me above want to post diffs, they should do so. But when I see things like Guy Macon's attacks an example, I tend to discount them.

Under the current guidelines, we don't deal with speculation or professional advice or do homework. I think the real question is, "Is the Ref Desk a free-for-all?" which I can deal with, or, "Do the existing guidelines apply?" which I can deal with, or, "Should there be new guidelines?" which I can deal with. None of these questions has been answered. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Medeis: If those italicized phrases are supposed to have anything to do with Soong, then I feel like you're still using the same thought process that got you mentioned here in the first place -- you're taking the available policies and testing them out like a ring of skeleton keys on a lock, hoping that with enough wiggling and enough force you can get it to turn. Soong's questions are usually quite answerable ... for someone who can answer them, and we're not representing ourselves as professional chemists and so far I think we've avoided giving him "do it this way" advice about his reactions, though we certainly did give him some "no don't do that" advice, and are you still trying to claim this is a homework problem? I should add that Soong's questions did remind me of some policy worries, but ANI is not the place to make policy, nor is it even the place to come to consensus whether a specific question should be removed from the Refdesk (only whether someone did so wrongly and unilaterally), and even if we did decide to remove questions, there is still no policy saying that any action be taken against the person who posted them. So this isn't the place to discuss Soong's behavior but you're making it sound like we need to continue thinking about yours. Wnt (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)