Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919 § Harassment getting worse

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

Karaites

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

Qaraimits

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

[2)]

3)]

Karaite

1) exposed sockpuppetry as above under the same IP

2)

3)

4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attack and abusive vandalism of my user page

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socks #4 and #5

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

---

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

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

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

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

Rudeness and anti-English comments

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heavy boomerang

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheep shagger DYK fiasco

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It might (might) have been better had the DYK been ... that Welshmen are sometimes derisively called sheep shaggers?, but as someone pointed out elsewhere, it's such a childish slur to which no one (well, almost no one) would actually take offense. (And ME123's links, especially at the earlier ANI thread, help make that clear -- humor does enlighten, you know.) You need to accept that the community does not see this as a serious problem, even if you do. EEng 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Catlemur's initial post on the DYK talk was I have seen ridiculous DYK before but this a whole new level of incompetence. Therefore, I don't consider describing what occurred after as "unprovoked." Discussion of the DYK should continue at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Sheep_shagger rather than here. NE Ent 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Catlemur is a prime example of how Wikipedia consists of mostly humourless and politically correct people who can't contribute to a building an encyclopaedia, so they resort to bitching about little things that might be considered offensive. The C of E is doing a good job with the Wales contest, and the DYK met the criteria. If it was considered grossly offensive then it wouldn't have gotten through. I don't think it's offensive one bit. I'm friends with Welsh people in RL and I call them "sheep shaggers" as a joke. JAGUAR  11:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} = 122,498 -- which doesn't even count unregistered editors -- should tell us Wikipedia mostly consists of people who manage to build the encyclopedia without very much drama. ANI is a highly skewed sample and best not used to draw inferences about the project as a whole. NE Ent 12:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Catlemur, I find your comments regarding MartinEvans very interesting. The first time I encountered MartinEvans' apparently off-topic interjections, I was here at AN/I discussing something that was VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I did not find it in the slightest bit funny at the time and I felt like posting a message to state that. However, since then, I have encountered Martin's "asides" frequently and because I was not not emotionally involved, I saw the humorous side of them. Perhaps such a strongly negative reaction is an indication to take a step back? Just a thought. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Easter126

There is a massive Sockfarm around the Topic Stuart Styron.

In the Table only SUL works fine...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Krisreeder10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes on a situation re: Anmccaff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird goings on at Edward Beck (psychologist)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crazy socks

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

---

Note:

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

Socks of this guy

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

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

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

Shashohag

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Sock #6

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvios and/or Spam, edit-warring & aggression

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting User:Brahmin girl

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

---

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

Indeffed. Materialscientist (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from IP address

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

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

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

Anything other than reverting/blocking that can be done?

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

• Sockpuppet investigation (see also, this diff)

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

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

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

Meanwhile, these need revdel:

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

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

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

Tag-team reverting

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Has spring sprung?

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

---

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

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

Odd activity at User talk:Niccoskyhubby

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Concerns

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

Update (15 April 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat?

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPYVIO and possible COI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/205.197.242.179/24

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INTDABLINK violation by User:Herostratus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated Pakistani PoV pushing in Kulbhushan Yadav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abusive exchanges with user Nishidani

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

Examples:

Accusations like bible thumping, which I have not done

Refusing to negotiate with other editors

Attacks user with language like 'biblethumping creationist'

etc.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

((1)here

((2)Recap.

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

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

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

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

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

User Nishidan, abusive language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ScrapIronIV

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note that this will be closed very soon. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

IP's with Special page creating serious issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SSSRVsegda2017 evading block

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block Review: 23.119.122.223

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

---

23.119.122.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nürö G'däÿ 04:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nürö G'däÿ 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hopefully the warning will prove to be enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspected sock doing random vandalism

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

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

Creative gossip ignoring WP:MOSCAPS on Manit Joura after warnings

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

Disruptive edits from User:206.207.78.112

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nürö G'däÿ 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Nürö G'däÿ 00:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Repetative disruptive editing on Battle of Lang Son (1979)

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

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

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

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

Shared account User:JackWoodley93

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Ngk44 reverting genre again after multiple warnings not to....

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

Nürö G'däÿ 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Nürö G'däÿ 14:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Nürö G'däÿ 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Nürö G'däÿ 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalist clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now completely disruptive. Admin action needed

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

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

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

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

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

You also claim I bring nothing positive to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2: Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Easter126 (cont)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued vandalism

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

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

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

IP #1
IP #2

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

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

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

Block evasion (hopping) by IP vandal

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Narutolovespokemon

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, as they say, is that. So now we can undo all those redirects. Which is nice. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User:THXGold2004 not here to contribute to the encyclopedia

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please block

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

---

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

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

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

User:Mad Hatter

Summary

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

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

(Pinging @Mirokado and Erick Shepherd:)

Redress

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

Supporting evidence

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

User:Org.aidepikiw

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

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

Vormeph's continued attitude after ANEW warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption at Bopomofo and related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long term pattern of problematic editing - CIR?

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

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

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

96.85.50.97 at Better Off (band)

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

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

64.229.246.209 disruptive behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Ban Proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User :RaffiKojian on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

This report is about user User:RaffiKojian vandalizing page 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and using the page's talk for personal attacks against me. Several times he changed [76] the background section of the article without discussing it on talk page. In two different sections [77][78] on talk page I clarified myself. However he did not respond me in each case instead he accused me of editwarring and calling other users to take action against me. He continuously deletes my other contributions to article without discussing on talk.

My arguments were followings:

The main reason for clashes stem from continuing Armenian occupation and 600.000 Azeris displaced because of the Armenian Agression as it stated in the refernces from UN. I see some users just call all refernced information as propaganda and remove it.

The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is distantly relevant to Azeris from Karabakh expelled by Armenian forces. And it does not overlap with the pervious sentences in the paragraph. So I suggest mention Azeri refugges only. Otherwise we need to take Azeris from Armenia as well. Thanks.

No respond given by the user on talk page. Thanks Abbatai 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Two nationalists POV pushing against each other. Lovely.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I take that back. Abbatai is a nationalist pushing his POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This may call for a boomerang. Abbatai has displayed a reluctance of taking into consideration the overwhelming disapproval of his edits at the talk page. He has continued to edit-war incessantly and this is a cause for concern. The thread below highlights many of these reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Along with User:RaffiKojian, User:EtienneDolet [79] [80] and some other pro-Armenian users acting as a gang in the article 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, removing referenced information and accusing other users of edit war. In 4 different sections [81] [82] [83][84] of the talk page they were invited to reach consensus but they simply ignored all and continued edit war. Thanks. Abbatai 09:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually there was a pretty good consensus... everybody was in agreement except you. You determined that your belief that Azeri refugees are more relevant and deserved a more prominent position, and ignored the consensus that this wasn't a good enough reason. --RaffiKojian (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

By "everybody" you mean pro-Armenian users. However nobody responded me in talk page as I cited. Where did you reach the consensus? Abbatai 20:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know their positions, and how can you say nobody responded to you?? 2 others wrote concerned with your reversions and POV, one of those two and a third user reverted your edits, a fourth said neither is more important, and a fifth user (TipToe) said he preferred both numbers be removed, not just the Armenians. These comments took place in the two sections in the talk page that I named after you. You've replied to them with nothing more than your belief that Azeri IDP are more important, so you've definitely seen the two consecutive sections about you I'm talking about here and here. You at no point stopped reverting the original wording in order to have any real discussion or reach a consensus. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In the first section you cited, you provided no reliable reason for your edits just accused me of edit war. and in the second even I explained it clearly via saying "This is an Armenian source says: 71,000 internally displaced ethnic Armenians live in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. These refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians, were expelled from their homes in 1988-91, prior to the full-scale war in Karabakh.[85] CIA: Refugees and internally displaced persons: IDPs: 622,892 conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh[86]". However you did not respond it either. Abbatai 05:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think all of the edits in question concern the addition or removal of content which is actually off-topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not an abbreviated rehash of the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [87]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for the subject of the article, and that everyone will realize that this is an easier solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a standing Arbitration ruling for Armenia and Azerbaijan? Probably best if this was dealt with there. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that in the background section the number of Azerbaijani refugees was listed, but not the Armenian, so I added the number of Armenian refugees which is also a part of the background to what is going on. Abbatai, immediately switched the order so that the number of Azeri refugees came first - without comment. I reverted to the original wording, asking for a reason and for discussion on the talk page, which he eventually provided in the form of explanation you give above, which neither I nor anyone else agreed with. Me and a couple of others reverted his swap, but he kept going, even though I asked for a real Wikipedia reason to swap the numbers, not his own invented rationalization. I brought it up on the talk page for others to see his edit warring behavior as well. At some point he just removed the Armenian refugee figure completely, again without discussion or consensus. There was no other reasoning ever presented, nor was there ever a break in his reversions. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that he would be the one reporting my behavior, when he was clearly going against the consensus and not willing to talk anything out. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

To add to what I just wrote - I went to look at the two links he shared here where he supposedly explained his actions in this case. The first referenced someone removing the number of Azeri refugees completely, which was not me and I don't see how that comment of his could be considered an explanation for his bringing the number of Azeri refugees ahead of the number of Armenian. The second link he provided has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait did you just said "At some point he just removed the Armenian refugee figure completely, again without discussion or consensus."? I advise you to read talk page. I invited you several times to discuss the issue in talk page but in none of sections I wrote you replied to me. See [88] [89] and here [90] I clarified myself why Armenian refugees should not be includes as such: "This is an Armenian source says: 71,000 internally displaced ethnic Armenians live in the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. These refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of Armenians, were expelled from their homes in 1988-91, prior to the full-scale war in Karabakh.[91] CIA: Refugees and internally displaced persons: IDPs: 622,892 conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh[92]" Again I had no response from you. I do not say what I wrote was absolute truth and it was must for article. However I invited you to discuss it on talk several times you just ignored it and kept pushing your POV [93] [94] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I said that. My mistake, you said you suggest the Armenian refugees should be removed, and then you removed them. Even as me and a couple of others were disputing that the Azeri figure should be moved forward in the article. It's your POV opinion that the Azeri IDPs are more relevant than Armenian refugees who had to flee Azerbaijan should be listed before the Armenians, and your even more POV opinion that Armenian refugees who did not settle in Karabakh are completely irrelevant and should be left out of the article. This is what was said in the talk page to you and in the edit summaries. You need a valid Wikipedia reason to make the changes you were making. You can't just say that the Armenian refugees aren't relevant, but the Azeris are, especially when multiple people are disagreeing with you and you just remove it anyway. I did not ignore it, I discussed it both in the Talk page under two sections I created with your username in them, and in my edit summaries in the beginning, before it was clear you did not care one bit what anyone else thought. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I already disproved your claim ("I did not have any valid reason") in my previous post just check it. You could not have any valid argument except accusing me of edit war. If you did not agree with the information I provided better you would discuss it on talk page not reverting the page multiple times. Abbatai 20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what we had to deal with. Yes Abbatai, you already *told* us that Azeri refugees are more important and relevant and Armenians are not. We get it. We just wanted a real, NPOV reason, but that apparently is asking too much. Let it go. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I explained it on talk page why? Azerbaijani refugees were from Karabakh where the conflict happened and they left their homes because of Karabakh War. However Armenian refugees were from Azerbijan and they become refugee prior to Karabakh War as a result of Armenian-Azeri tension. That is why they are distantly relevant to what is happening in Karabakh. You failed to respond it and never interested in discussing the topic instead you only started a topic claiming: "Abbatai is edit warring" in which you had only accusations against me. In this section as well I invited you to discuss refugges. Abbatai 08:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies use vandalism against my topics

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

---

I've written a piece about MGM. Yes, a highly debatable subject. But I only used peer-reviewed articles and books for it. Still she is undoing everything I write about the subject. The subject has not been covered. There is an article about FGM, but not about MGM. Both are covered in medicine journals. She is also deleting it in the "Genital modification and mutilation". Please, ban her. Honestly, she doesn't like the topic. The subject is definitely important. And since I have only used peer-reviewed articles, I would say that she is definitely a vandal. And redirecting a whole article all the time, instead of starting a discussion about it, is against Wikipedia policy. Please ban her. --Momo Monitor (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:DUE, and WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And Drmies is a male person and not a vandal. Do you think that anyone who disagrees with your very pronounced point of view on circumcision must necessarily be female? Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Acroterion, don't box me in, please! :) Drmies (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I considered labeling you a bald person, but thought that might be a little too indirect. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• VERY thin ice, Acroterion, that you are skating on. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Bespectacled, maybe? Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Momo Monitor: There is an article on Circumcision, which is what you've given the biased label "male genital mutilation" and appear to be trying to conflate with other forms. Your attempted article is nothing but a WP:POVFORK. The existing circumcision article is based on a broader variety of sources and is closer to a neutral perspective than your soapboxing. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• The very naming of their article strikes me as the kind of thing one can expect from a MRM warrior, adding the "MGM" so they wouldn't override another redirect--Male genital mutilation, where I note that Zad86 has a different opinion on what the right target should be, which is fine with me. That whole "there is an article on FGM so there should be one on MGM", we've heard that before. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Male_genitals is a less biased redirect than circumcision, even if circumcision is what MRM warriors intend by it. I'm inclined to think that redirecting to circumcision is still giving MRMs an unnecessary inch. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that now--good point. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• For the sake of filling out the paperwork I've placed an edit-warring note: I'll block Momo Monitor if the name-calling or edit-warring continue. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• The diatribes and edit-warring have stopped for the time being. I'm on the road tomorrow and Friday, so other folks should do what needs doing if this flares up again. Acroterion (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's high time that we accept the truth that vandalism is "any edit in which another user disagrees with". --MuZemike 03:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is a crime! Unless it is done by an admin, or a bureaucrat! Now let me start on free speech... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Ashleymillermu

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 not at all bothered in the least by the bad names being slung at me by Ashleymillermu, but s/he seems to be wasting the time of a number of other editors time with 11 posts of the same HappyValleyEditor is targeting/harassing me story. Seems disruptive to me. No doubt this post will be followed by #12. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly seem to have a bias towards me. I can't help it. Your opinion may be different from mine, that does not probably give you a licence to allege conflict of interest upon me. You started flagging all my articles as conflict of interest and that is unfounded. Yes, I am new on Wikipedia. I may have not been aware of some of the stuff that experienced users like you know. But that doesn't give you the right to do what you did. I have no interest if the articles stay or get deleted, but I don't appreciate an experienced user like you whimsically branding me for conflict of interest. We can work together and contribute, but not this kind of outbursts and targeting that you indulged in. AM (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

AM I have been trying to just talk with you nicely at your Talk page to get you oriented. Please believe me, when I tell you that your sprinting from page to writing bad things about HVE is not helping you, nor anyone else, and it will not change the ultimate decision by the community about what to do with the articles you've created. You have probably noticed that no one is really reacting to your doing that, and it is not likely that anyone will. Will you please stop doing that, and just talk with me at your Talk page for a bit? I'll have something to say to HVE after you reply and hopefully agree to stop.... Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog. Sure, delighted to talk and learn some new stuff here. I really don't have anything against HVE, but his logs are testimony of who started the fire. And I am not writing bad things about HVE. I am just reacting to HVE flagging me for conflict of interest. That is all. AM (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymillermu (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You are going to stop this, right? Please just a yes or no. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I stopped. AM (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! Ok, User:HappyValleyEditor AM is stopping so the fire is out, which i think was the point of your filing this. Filing this was a bit of meeting drama with drama, but ah well. Will you please agree to let this thread be closed now? Also would you please let the content be for now, while I finish talking to AM? That would be super helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for your intervention. I have stopped - but It is important for me to make one closing remark because of an impression that this talk is creating in the minds of others- This ANI notice against me was posted by the user with a claim that some bad names were slung at that user by me. I DID NOT indulge in any name calling. On the contrary the said user who is made this claim was the one who originally posted on public domain that articles written by me were - quoting from that user words "garbage". It is now for the community to decide if it is appropriate for someone to call someone else's writing as garbage and if it was appropriate for an experienced user to have put up this ANI notice to create an illusion that I had indulged in some name calling. Yes, due to my inexperience of how Wikipedia works, I had approached a few people who were on my talk page for help when my article was defaced and then subsequently it was explained to me what the correct approach was and to make amends I have infact written to all those who i had earlier written about this inadvertent overlook. And while this dialog process was happening, the same user goes ahead and makes further edits to my articles - which right now looks so incomplete and pathetic from what it was. Let the community decide if that is fair practice to indulge in. I wish to thank Jytdog for your patience and for explaining the various features that I am now discovering on Wikipedia AM (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In March 2015, Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) had an editing restriction imposed because he was routinely reverting any edit made by an IP address based editor regardless of whether it was vandalism or a good faith edit. The editing restriction was:

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

On the 23rd March 2016, Wtshymanski reverted an IP editor in violation of this ban with this edit.

On the 16th March, Wtshymanski reverted an IP address editor with this edit. This was an indirect revert (by copy pasting) of this good faith edit made by an IP address editor. The ban was enacted precisely to stop this last behaviour.

Note: that the ban was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski was disguising reverts of good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism. This is also a known tactic: to carry out an apparently harmless edit in amongst a raft of other edits to check if anyone is watching. If they are not, it is back to business as usual. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the long ANI discussion about this editing restriction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This was a perfectly good revert. However, a ban applies and it's indefinite. Nevertheless, I find swinging the ban hammer based on a single (good) revert a little too much. The remedy was proposed to break a pattern, and this edit can hardly be said to fit that particular mold. Don't try to kill a gnat with a howitzer... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for the known tactic, unless you have evidence (and show it) that this is a recurring pattern with this user WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about this because although I'd fully support these particular edits (one is vandalism, one an error) there is a problem here that Wtshymanski acquired a richly deserved editing restriction to limit. He is in breach of it.

I favour no action here, as I can't see that any action would be any more than punitive. However he should be reminded that the restriction is in place. Any further reversions like this are likely to attract sanctions.

I'm mostly unimpressed by the IP editor here trawling to find excuses to bring Wtshymanski to ANI weeks after an uninvolved event. In what way is that a constructive action? Is there need for a WP:BOOMERANG here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Andy nailed it. The vandalism revert was brainless. yes W should not have done it, but pointless to punish now. But spank that petty IP. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the best response would be to caution Wtshymanski with no other administrative action. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion If Wtshymanski didn't breach the ban for over a year (block log is clean since 2013, so I can only assume this is the case), and their first technical slipup was not of the same disruptive kind that led to the ban in the first place, perhaps someone should suggest appealing the ban, or maybe putting them on probation where they can revert clear vandalism, mistakes, etc. for, say, six months, before the restriction is lifted entirely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite and infinite are not the same. Kleuske (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

An examination of Wtshymanski's editing history answers your point. Since the ban in March 2015, Wtshymanski has only made a handful of edits (19 to be precise) up to March of this year. He has since then sprung back to life with nearly 200 edits.

Someone above dismissed the second example that I posted as an 'error'. In what way? The IP editor made a good faith edit that was technically correct. It might be argued by some that we don't call batteries as cells in every day parlance but that is not the point. Wtshymanski reverted the edit against his ban. Part of the original complaint was that Wtshymanski was not checking the history prior to his actions.

An editing ban is an editing ban. Either we have them or we don't. At the very least, Wtshymanski should be warned that he has erred. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is interesting, and does make me lean more toward a six-month probation period before all sanctions are lifted than simply immediately lifting the sanctions, but then again you might be just as much at fault, because apparently an IP editor has been trying to goad Wtshymanski into violating their restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not me. I have had no interaction with Wtshymanski for well over a year (apart from placing the required ANI notice on his talk page). Also forgive me but I have had to make this post from an alternative platform because the ANI page refuses to update on my regular PC. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (AKA 212.183.128.252)

The IP who was reverted for their error went to 3RR to push an unsourced and incorrect change, in quite a proscriptive form, "properly speaking, a battery consists of two or more cells". This is simply wrong (1 cell is still a battery), especially when stated so firmly. So whoever reverts it, that's not a statement that belongs in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Before considering a reduction in restrictions, please look at the pattern of behavior here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 7#Talk:PSR_B1919.2B21.23Merge

Some of the above incidents that should have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so Wtshymanski's block log does not tell the whole story.

Whenever a line is drawn that Wtshymanski is not supposed to cross, he stands on the line with his toes hanging over it and makes random short dashes over the line and back. This generates endless debates as to whether sanctions are appropriate for the minor infraction.

Also note that whenever Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself or comment at ANI (statistically, this is a great strategy for avoiding sanctions) but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". If he stops editing, please don't fall for this trick again.

Whenever administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his behavior. He has repeatedly responded to warnings on his talk page with a comment that he has been taken to ANI, no action was taken, and therefore his behavior is acceptable. "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[95]

The good news is that Wtshymanski responds well to even short blocks. A 6 or 12-hour block will cause the specific behavior that led to the block to stop for many months and even years. The other good news is that the vast majority of the time he does really good work, and we have a shortage of skilled engineers who can detect problems in highly technical engineering articles. The bad news is that every so often Wtshymanski pushes the engineering equivalent of fringe theories and pseudoscience, and in such cases he refuses to accept any feedback from the other skilled engineers who are working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of those come from before -- some long before -- the restriction was put in place. Wtshymanski technically violated his ban twice, in a benign manner that others agree with on the substance, but thee also got in fights with IP editors and new editors as four years before the ban was put in place and managed to avoid restrictions because they were right on the substance then as well. Per what the IP said above, technically it would be impossible for a dozen instances of violating the ban to have already gone unnoticed, because they've only been actively editing for a few weeks. Retroactively blocking Wtshymanski for an edit they made back in 2011, because it my have been in violation of a restriction placed in 2015, even for only a few hours, is a terrible idea. I don't know if it was your intention -- I actually doubt it was -- but I know for a fact that there are contributors on ANI who actively try to enforce restrictions ex post facto, and I can't shake the feeling that some of them get their way, so even accidentally giving them their way here would be a disastrous misstep. And fourteen threads on multiple forums (only six on ANI) over more than half a decade is pretty average, and possibly below average for someone who's made on average around 13 edits a day for over a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Where has anyone suggested that Wtshymanski be blocked for an edit made in 2011? Guy has provided some context but that is basically all. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I specifically recommended that Wtshymanski not be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but at least one IP editor is requesting thus, and taking a rather cloak-and-dagger approach to it; posting links to discussions from five years ago may not muddy the waters any further, but it hardly helps the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. My "posting links to discussions from five years ago" helps the situation a lot. This is a case of long-term behavior, and the fact that he was doing the same thing five or even ten years ago is extremely relevant. I presented the following context:

• Wtshymanski does a lot of good work and should be retained if at all possible.
• Wtshymanski is usually (but not always) right when it comes to questions involving engineering and technology.
• Wtshymanski often ends up battling IPs and newly-registered users who are pushing engineering pseudoscience, often for commercial reasons.
• Wtshymanski exhibits long-term problematic behavior and will not collaborate with other established Wikipedia editors who have technical skills.
• Wtshymanski (unlike most editors who end up at ANI) is extremely responsive to sanctions, and a very short block usually puts an end to the particular behavior being addressed.

This is context that will help any administrator who decides to deal with this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• As a sometime critic of WTS, I looked at the two WTS diffs in the original report. The first one was a straightforward vandalism revert that nobody should get worked up about. The second was more problematic but should have been discussed with WTS before bringing it here. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a recent recurring issue, the report and its followup came across as axe-grinding, as per Andy Dingley. I think an admin should leave WTS a talk message linking the second diff and asking him to be more careful, but more immediate action against WTS is not needed. The batteries/cells thing should be discussed on the article talk page. The reporting IP's style also reminds me of a certain someone but I'll leave any decisions about that to others. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove the restriction Because frankly, it's ambiguous and can be wikilawyered to death and has no teeth at all - as evidenced here. What's the use of a ban on reverting IP edits if we're not going to enforce it? Take of off, let WTS go willy nilly all over the project, and let's just look the other direction because, once again, productive editors are above community critique. Save us the ANI discussions for a worthless ban and just take it off (I'm being sarcastic and serious at the same time, get rid of it).--v/r - TP 06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the fact that no administrator seems to be willing to even caution Wtshymanski when he violates this, and the easily-verifiable fact that Wtshymanski consistently interprets administrator inaction as permission, the restriction has already been effectively removed. We might as well make it official so nobody wastes any effort reporting future violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• So today we see the return of Wtshymanski, a first post to this thread asking to have the restriction lifted, then within the hour a reversion of an IP: clearly vandalism, reverted. Yes, this is "clearly vandalism". However this restriction does not have any exclusion clause for "clearly vandalism" - rightly so, because although no-one is going to object over such clear vandalism, the problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement over what is "vandalism" has been questioned in the past.

For today though, I see that someone under an editing restriction choosing to flout it so obviously during an ANI thread is hardly encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Observation of this forum shows that for threads of this type, it requires someone to propose what action is required to be taken and for there to be community support for it. That being the case ...

Proposal 1

That Wtshymanski be formally warned of his breach of his editing restriction and that a block will be imposed for any further breach. In view of the nature of the reverts, I think a block now would be counterproductive, and with the lack of activity for a couple of weeks the admins may well consider it time served.

• Support: As proposer. I would observe that if editing restrictions are not going to be enforced then, taking Guy's point above to its logical conclusion, WP:RESTRICT might as well be deleted in toto. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have read (some) of the above.: The purpose of an editing restriction is to protect the ostensible work of the encyclopedia, not to provide fodder for Jesuitical level discussions of fine distinctions. I would agree with the above proposals to remove the ban. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course the turkey would vote to abolish Christmas! 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• support With an emphasis on "block for future infringement". See above. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose See below. Kleuske (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• If, and only if, Proposal 3 fails, then I will support this because it's better than the alternative. Otherwise, I Oppose. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I might have supported option 1, but as there has now been a further infringement as in the next section, I have to propose: that Wtshymanski be blocked from editing for a period of at least one month. This is to reflect the blatant refusal to abide by this restriction. Certainly, no consideration should now be given to lifting the restriction.

Support as OP and proposer. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, but I don't believe in mandating block lengths. That should be left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Support In view of latest revert, a warning now is pointless. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I just checked, and WP:3RRNO states that reversion of obvious vandalism (including page blanking) is not subject to sanction. If this is correct, then isn't it inappropriate to block him over it? If I've misinterpreted the policy somehow, I'm open to retracting my vote, but for now it seems like this doesn't qualify. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Retracted.

You have misinterpreted the policy (easy to do -- it isn't clear about how it interacts with bans). Let's start with an easy case. Assume that I get banned from editing Wikipedia. Am I allowed to revert obvious vandalism four times because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit. So let's assume that I get topic banned from all banana-related pages. Am I allowed to revert four times on Banana because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit to that page. The 3RRNO exception is only for those who are otherwise allowed to edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted; thank you for clarifying. I retract my vote. --Gimubrc (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - the proper policy regarding this is WP:BANEX, which allows reversions in cases in which no reasonable person could disagree - which I believe stuff like page blanking would be. ansh666 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The policy starts with the phrase, 'Unless stated otherwise...'. In this case: it is stated otherwise because the editing ban specifically states, 'Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address' (my emphasis). As I read the above, this was rendered necessary because the original problem (reverting good faith edits from IP adresses in pursuance of a campaign against such editors) was being disguised as legitimate reversions. It therefore makes sense to ban those legitimate reversions so that not only are judgement calls are avoided, but it also avoids Wtshymanski gradually eroding the boundaries. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The policy is specifically worded that way so that restrictions with the "any edit" wording may still revert obvious vandalism. The "unless stated otherwise" would be "...is banned from reverting any edit, including obvious vandalism...". ansh666 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking back at the original ANI discussion, it seems clear that the intent "was any edit including vandalism" (the original proposal was "any edit broadly construed"). I was aware of a follow up point made to the enacting administrator's page, where he confirmed that "any edit" included vandalism from IP editors. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah found it! The thread is here. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Banning someone for edits no sane person would disagree with seems pointless and counterproductive. This ANI-case reflects the shortcomings of the ruling, not some misbehavior on the side of the subject of discussion. The proper policy is WP:IAR. Kleuske (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating my earlier Oppose for the same reason. Granted 3RRNO doesn't cover this situation, but it seems needlessly draconian to ban him over this. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Continued refusal to abide by restriction

Wtshymanski, in spite of clearly being aware of this discussion about his editing restriction has blatantly and in defiance of the restriction reverted yet another edit made by an IP editor. I acknowledge that the revert was of pure vandalism, but I perhaps need to remind the contributors here, that the restriction was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski, in his campaign to drive IP editors away, was deliberately disguising reversions of good faith edits as vandalism. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, good one, too.Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The ruling is amended with the words "except blatant vandalism" just after "any edit". Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. A quick look at the diff should be sufficient to determine if he's violating any policies, and I'm really loath to block someone uncomfortable with the idea of someone being blocked for reverting unambiguous vandalism, whatever the context. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity; see below)

@Gimubrc: Your response to this proposal gives the very clear impression that you are an administrator when you claim that, 'I'm really loath to block someone for reverting unambiguous vandalism'.(my emphasis) However a quick check reveals that not only are you not an administrator, but you have only had an account since the end of January this year. At the very least, you are not acting in good faith. At the worst, I have seen editors blocked in the past who have falsely claimed administrator privileges. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding; I did not mean to claim or imply I was an admin. I have edited the offending comment to make things more clear, and struck out the original wording. However, please don't be so quick to assume bad-faith deception, rather than a simple miscommunication. I simply weighed in on a matter I had an opinion on. My vote also stands. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also support; I see an IP (surprise) grasping at straws to get a productive editor who hasn't done anything wrong punished, and removing the possible loophole which is presented would be most ideal. ansh666 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Leave the restriction as it is and now start enforcing it too.

The problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement is not trustworthy as to what is "obvious vandalism". I have no problem with him reverting obvious vandalism; I do have a concern with him reverting non-vandalism and camouflaging this under "vandalism". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

As soon as an actual example of that behavior is presented, I'm willing to entertain the assumption that this claim has any merit. I've asked for such examples, but none have been forthcoming. Until that time, WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

How about twelve examples of reverting good faith edits? That is how many examples were given in the original ANI which someone obligingly linked above, so they already have been presented. You obviously didn't take the trouble to read it. I shall provide the link again. The ANI is here. It was reported in the ANI that it only included examples from a restricted time frame in order not to make the ANI complaint too long. There were five initially though it continued to document a further seven reverts of good faith edits after the original complaint was made, several of which were disguised as reverting vandalism when they were not (and a good few reintroduced vandalism that the reverted IP editor had removed). It was also stated that there were copious examples from before the time frame (which I can confirm that there were - actually going back several years). 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That was a year ago. The edits referenced above, however, are fully uncontroversial. Apparantly, his judgement has improved somewhat. Unless you can show me a recent transgression, WP:AGF and WP:IAR apply, as far as i'm concerned. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Too easy to game. If, as Andy Dingley claims (and the edit history seems to back him up) Wtshymanski makes a bunch of edits reverting obvious vandalism from IPs and then when nobody is paying attention slips in reverts of good edits, you would see fully uncontroversial edits at this stage. The only "judgement" involved here is Wtshymanski judging how best to do what he wants without interference from the admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the examples given are not fully uncontroversial. In the second example given in the original post above, the IP made what must be considered a good faith edit given that it was technically correct in every detail. The term battery (in the article's context) is the collective noun for cells. Thus a single cell is technically a cell and not a battery. Thus the IP's edit was resolutely not vandalism. I would agree that WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that as most people refer to single cells as batteries and not cells, that Wikipedia is justified in doing the same - but that is entirely beside the point. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 86.149.141.166. Clearly the decision about whether to call a single cell a battery is a content dispute (and a pretty ordinary one of the kind that happens in the engineering articles all of the time). It should have been dealt with by talk page discussion, and if that didn't work, by dispute resolution -- and indeed the rest of us who work on engineering articles typically resolve disputes like this with little or no drama. This[96][97] was anything but uncontroversial. It was Wtshymanski testing the limits to see if anyone would notice and enforce the restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I was going to be charitable and suggest that Wtshymanski may not have been aware that the original edit was made by an IP editor. But, when I check the article history, I find that Wtshymanski copied back the precise wording from before the IP edit (and therefore an indirect revert for which he is banned). Wtshymanski cannot have avoided but seeing that the eidit was made by an IP editor. By performing the indirect revert, he has made it appear that he has just performed a routine edit, something the wording of his edit ban was clearly crafted to prevent. I agree with Guy that Wtshymanski was deliberately trying to game the system. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Strongly opposed because, based on past performance, opening a loop hole like this will result in the inevitable flood of reversions of IP edits disguised as reverting vandalism, which is where this all began. 85.255.232.149 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for administrator review and close

May we please have a ruling on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As OP, I concur. It is clear that there is a good consensus that some action should be taken by the admins, though opinion is divided as to what. Option 3 is a non starter as it was proposed under the illusion that all Wtshymanski's reverts were uncontroversial. In fact the second of the two in my OP was completely controversial, as others have agreed.

I would suggest that this is not left unactioned, but at the very least, Wtshymanski should be formally warned of his breach and of the consequences of any future breach. 212.183.128.147 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I think it's a bit premature to refer to Option 3 as a "non-starter". Currently, the option stands at three editors in support (myself, Ansh666, and Kleuske) to three opposed (which are an IP that I assume is you, Andy Dingley, and Guy Macon). That's a 3:3 deadlock, not a consensus, and it's a little disingenuous for you to characterize an active debate as a "non-starter".

Likewise, Proposal 2 stands at 3:4 (3 support to 4 oppose), and Proposal 1 is also deadlocked at 2:2 (if we disregard, as we probably should, Wtsh. voting in support of himself). Granted, I'm not an admin and can't give a definitive judgment here, but it doesn't seem to me like we have a meaningful consensus on what action to take at the moment. --Gimubrc (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If #3 is thus failing, doesn't that mean you'd now support #1? In which case, (the very mild) #1 is endorsed. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize a deadlock as a proposal "failing", to be honest. At any rate - I will only support #1 in the event that #3 is not chosen as the solution. I'm thinking of its as a preferential ballot or something: if whichever admin closes this rules out #3, then & only then would I be willing to support #1. This said: my support is for #3, and I oppose #1 unless #3 is declared not on the table by an admin or by unambiguous consensus. I should probably refrain from conditional endorsements in the future, I guess; too much confusion potential. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

My !vote was identified as Option 2 (as OP and proposer). No IP has voted for option 3 which is actually 2 support and 1 oppose. 85.255.232.149 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And option 3 is now 2 support and 2 oppose. 85.255.232.149 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted; I was counting votes based on inferring support from comments rather than just counting the instances of bold text - I'll keep the correct counting method in mind next time. Also, if Kleuske proposed it, and given his comments throughout I don't necessarily think it's out of order to assume he supports his own motion, technicalities aside. I've tagged him so he can comment further and make his support "official" if needed. This said, my point above stands: a deadlocked point which is still being discussed is not a "non-starter", and shouldn't be ipso facto excluded from administrator evaluation. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't count me as !voting unless I write Support or Oppose. In this case, my comment agreed that the examples given are not fully uncontroversial and the IP's edit was not vandalism. That isn't even close to supporting or opposing Proposal 3 (amending the ruling to include the words "except blatant vandalism".) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Second call for administrator review and close

May we please have a ruling on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded; I'd like to see this closed as well. --Gimubrc (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the close is status quo, it would be nice to have some guidance from above, so to speak. ansh666 02:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

New user User:Vermicious Knids? claims to have "sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia" objecting to editors restoring sourced press criticism on the Ann Louise Gittleman article, which is fair enough, but they go on to publicly threaten those editors with "damages both real and punitive" for this "defamation". --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked them for engaging in intimidation. If they agree to stop using legal intimidation then I am happy to unblock, and I have let them know that. I have also asked them what their specific concerns are so we can take a look. HighInBC 15:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock them. They were not making a legal threat. Indeed, they said they "have no grounds to take legal action." What they said, basically, was it's bad to publish a hatchet job and it exposes both the WMF and the responsible editors to possible real and punitive damages. These things are true. Just point them to the bit in WP:NLT that warns them about using words like "defamation" and the reasons why that's a bad idea. What possible good is your block doing? People have a right to describe BLP content as defamatory, and to point out the risks involved in writing and publishing defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment[98] was clearly designed to intimidate through a legal threat. And as for your "people have a right to..." comment, no. They do not. Not here. They are free to create their own web page and say what they want there and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we won't care. But if they want to post comments on Wikipedia they must follow Wikipedia's rules, which include "no legal threats". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people do in fact have a right to describe potentially defamatory content as such. That is not in itself a legal threat or improper use of wikipedia talkspace.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a good example of WP:DOLT. Vermicious Knids? was pointing out possible defamation, but, in stating they contacted Wikimedia's legal department and requesting "any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future", they created a chilling effect that came across as a legal threat. All that's needed here is an explanation to the user that articles can be cleaned up by bringing up concerns on the talk page or at theBLP noticeboard. clpo13_(talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Overt legal threat, maybe not, but intimidation, certainly: "I have sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia notifying them of the intent of those on this page to defame a notable person, which exposes Wikipedia and its principles and any editors involved in potentially dangerous actions that can lead ultimately to damages both real and punitive. I assure you that they will review this and take action so any further actions regarding posting of negative reviews editorials and opinions that have no real purpose except to damage a notable person be noted and removed, and any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future." Those are strong implications. GAB^Hello! 16:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, that's running to mummy. That's, "I'm going to tell the WMF that you're being really shitty editors, and you're going to be in big trouble." And so they should be if the article is a hatchet job. Read. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Why not ping WMF legal to this conversation? I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if they received such a letter they would apply an office Block to the OP. Pretty clearly you can either edit here or take legal action not both. Sending certified mail demanding some action be taken is a common first step to legal action. Seems right to me. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec)It would certainly qualify as a legal threat, EXCEPT it's being directed at Wikipedia itself, not to an external entity. It could just be a bluff, but a few years ago a user named Xanderliptak successfully intimidated the Wikimedia folks into doing his bidding, despite his complaint being bogus. So be careful. Be sure the article's sourcing will pass rigorous examination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not making legal threats merely notifying you of the potential legal ramifications of blatant bias and how it could expose you and Wikipedia to legal action. Please bring it up to the Administrators. This is informational and I cannot threaten anyone as I have no grounds to take legal action. [99] cannot reasonably be considered a legal threat. NE Ent 17:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• The intent of WP:NLT is to prevent the use of overt intimidation to coerce changes to content or exert a chilling effect on other editors. It is impossible to see these comments as anything other than coercive. We block for that. We have a route for people with genuine legal concerns to contact WMF and the editing community, i.e. OTRS. And if people get blocked then clarify that this is not what they meant, they get unblocked. I really do not see why we should argue over the letter of the meaning of the word "threat" when the clear intent of the policy has been met in this way. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention. In fact, it was clear from the remarks quoted above by NE Ent - remarks made before HighInBC flourished his tool - that the user had no intention to sue. This is a person upset by a very negatively-toned BLP. They should be handled with sensitivity and care. Counselled. Helped. Not fucking blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, the comments implied attempts to coerce. If the user clarifies this was not the intent then they can be refactored and clarified and the user the unblocked. Protecting the project against coercion has, IMO, a higher priority than enabling a WP:SPA to continue pursuing an agenda. All things considered, this is a user with a couple of years of history of doing fuck all but promoting a quack. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Before unblocking, someone should find out if he really did contact Wikimedia attorneys or if it was just a bluff. Xanderliptak was never unblocked after running to those same attorneys, nor should he have been. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(Do I seriously need to say this?) It's not a blockable offence to complain to the WMF that editors are defaming people and ask that those editors be sanctioned. My last word on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

He could stay blocked until his true intentions (if any) become known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Two important points: first, this is a WP:SPA whose edits all serve to promote the subject. Second, the subject is a quack. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
— Tim Simonite, Technology Review [100]

does far more damage, long term, than the "intimidation" caused because someone send a letter to WMF legal. Yea, sure this particular editor may not be of great benefit to the project, but a policy of blocking every SPA -- we were all "SPA"s after our first edit -- sends a message "newcomers need not apply." Not good. NE Ent 23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Newcomers who are only here to promote something, "need not apply." As with Xanderliptak, whose sole purpose was to promote his graphic design skills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You say. I disagree: reliability is important, ans SPAs who are here to promote quacks are a resourse which has a massive excess of supply over demand. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course reliability is important and I didn't say "don't block pov editors (spa or not)" -- what I did say is a policy of blocking every SPA is counterproductive, especially when they're not violating policy. "I am not going to sue" is not a legal threat. "I discussed something the WMF legal team" is not a legal threat. Block persistent vandals and trolls and edit warriors and doxers, don't block a newbie because they don't grok the wiki-bureaucracy in the first day. NE Ent 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that we're Wikilawyering over the definition of a legal threat :-) This commentary form the user was clearly intended to coerce, and that IMO was the problem. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." The intention of the user was not in need of clarification The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. It described a desired outcome, it spoke of taking action. We don't allow intimidation here, legal or otherwise. To do so would compromise our neutral point of view.

This recent trend towards tolerating legal threats(carefully worded or otherwise) does not serve our project or our editors. I also don't think it enjoys consensus. I think the block is valid and it should stand until the user agrees not to engage in future intimidation. If they agree to this very reasonable standard then I have no objection to the block being reverse with a close eye kept on them.

I have explained to the user again how they can come back here. HighInBC 03:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Block even assuming that the user didn't intend to issue a legal threat or to make a chilling statement (which is the substance of WP:NLT) the username they chose is one of a species of villains in a children's book. Based on the pointy username they chose and that they went for specific language and then went retroactively to shade it to be not as bad, but the chilling effect is done. If the Legal Office does see merit in addressing the user's complaints, they'll address it. I'd prefer that the user not be unblocked for the Pointy/Disruptive editing that they've already engaged in. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Note I attempted to BOLDLY redacted the post for readability by removing a multitude of bullets above and below the text under discussion here. Somehow it seems my edit overlapped with another resulting in the inadvertent removal of a lot of text. I repaired it as soon as I noticed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note I have unblocked User:Vermicious Knids? based on their agreement not to engage in intimidation legal or otherwise. As far as I am concerned this is more than enough for them to return to editing here. I have advised them on a more appropriate way to make their concerns known. HighInBC 14:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Prince (musician)

There is massive traffic and it is creating errors. Editing is chaotic. There are edit wars where date of death is being added and removed. There are error messages saying the queue is full.

Recommend full protection for 2-3 hours (until 20:00 UTC) as his death just announced. I know there is another board but ANI is for emergencies. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I declined a request for a full lock at RFPP and I stand by my decision. It's a confirmed death, and a high edit rate is to be expected. I just looked again and there's a bit of disruption but for the most part the edits are constructive. Open to other opinions, though. Katie^talk 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I semiprotected the talk page, per RFPP request. Widr (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There was some pagemove vandalism that probably should be revdel'd as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been, and the article move-protected. Perhaps the talk page should be move-protected as well? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've move-protected the talk page to match the article - only admins can move either, if necessary (unlikely though that may be). I also full-protected Prince Rogers Nelson as a redirect to a highly visible page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good call. Katie^talk 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done, Ultraexactzz :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Abbatai

Please look into user Abbatai (talk · contribs)'s edits. Seems to be a single-purpose distuptive (for example, these edits [101][102][103]) user who was warned for his reverts at 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) several times [104][105][106], but no results (for example, this edit he reverted 13 times since April 6 - [107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]). Previously he was blocked 3 times for disruptive editing and editwarring [120]. OptimusView (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello in each case I invited the users to discuss it on talk before changing however I had no respond on talk page. See [121][122] it is absurd those users report me now instead of discussing the issue with me at talk in two different sections. Plus some pro-Armenian users remove referenced information the page needs some action by admins. Thanks Abbatai 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - @Abbatai, listing the Madrid Principles as you have is not supportive of the issue. Your clearly stated Anti-Armenian positions betrays your biased view. My advice is to step back from the argument, as Nationalist Agendas are not supported on WP. I do agree, however, with your concerns of the Armenian newspapers having an agenda that should not be supported on WP either, as the reliability of such source material, Armenian or Azerbaijan, actually being correct is extremely doubtful. All involved need to source reliable independent Journalistic reviews of the conflict. Nuro msg me 01:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Madrid principles was misused in the article at the beginning just one side of story "self-governance of Karabkah" was mentioned ignoring other parts. I had include what it clearly says. Do not get what is wrong with this. Abbatai 10:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I consider that all of the edits in question concern the addition or the removal of content which is actually off topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not rehash the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [123]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for this subject, and that both sides (if there are sides) will realize this is a better solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello, I partially agree with you. The paragraph can be reduced to a few sentences. However you miss lots of points. The things you mentioned on talk: “Aggressive rhetoric by Azerbaijan, something of the previous clashes, military spending and procurement of advanced weaponry by both sides" they all stem from de facto independence of NKR and occupation of Azerbaijan. The entire world except Armenia and NKR call Armenian persistence in Azerbaijan as occupation and UN called withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan several times. Technically all is happening within Azerbaijani territories. And 600,000 to 1 million Azerbaijani refugees are core point as it changed demographic of NKR drastically. Indeed this clashes stem from ethnic conflicts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. So ignoring that facts makes hard to understand why all this happened. Thanks Abbatai 18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You are now raising content issues about what post-1994-ceasefire pre-2016 clashes material should be added to the Background section. If you were to stop arguing about what pre-1984 material from the main articles, material that these core articles can handle better, should be picked out for inclusion in this article, and recognize that none of that material is really needed since a link to the main articles' suffices, them maybe we can start to discuss what the post ceasefire background content should consist of. Because of all the editing disruption concerning pre-ceasefire material, no such discussion has been possible so far. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - No, you certainly did not invite anyone to discuss anything before you swapped the order to bring the number of Azeri refugees forward. You also never gave a real Wikipedia reason for it, merely stating your opinion that Azerbaijani refugees were more relevant than Armenian refugees. A blatantly POV explanation. I asked you to stop, I asked for discussion, I changed the wording, you did not care. Azeris has to come first. Even though at least 3 people disagreed with you and reverted your POV edit, you just kept reverting it back, and eventually completely removed the Armenian refugees without any discussion. That's just plain vandalism, and I also pointed that out on the talk page. You just don't care. --RaffiKojian (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support His edits to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes show a pattern of nationalistic POV pushing, sometimes in a subtle manner. Baking Soda (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Another groundless accusation by User:RaffiKojian. I did invite you just check this: (See talk background/ background refugees sections)[124] Please do not change before discussing it at talk.)[125] and so on. And Baking Soda just deleted [126] sourced information I added the article and accuses me here. Getting funny. Abbatai 15:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Support Per Baking Soda142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fifth Harmony lead section

User Chartgeek9078 claims his edits are helping the article Fifth Harmony. this edit, where I'm trying to keep the lead section simple to readers, to not overkill the redaction with multiple certifications, like accessible for them, avoiding "this was gold, this was platinum, this was also platinum" combined with "this was released this date. Then they released this. This peaked at #", and "they are successful"; all on the lead. The user's response while reverting: "I can do this all day". "The album is GOLD , too bad for you, you dislike it" Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which does not belong here. Neither of you has sought to discuss this on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and you are both edit-warring, and in danger of breaching WP:3RR. RolandR (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Self - inappropriate speedy deletion

Hi, I'd like to request assistance from an uninvolved admin. I've never had to do this before. I just created an article on Douglas Self, an engineer and author regarded as an authority in audio electronics. Two minutes after creation, it was tagged for speedy del under WP:A7 by Dschslava (talk). I immediately contested this on the talk page. About 40 mins later, the article was deleted by Ronhjones (talk) whilst I was in the process of editing the article to add references confirming the subject's notability. I actually had an edit window open when it was deleted! As I explained on the talk page, the article had just been created and tagging it for speedy del within two mins seemed quick off the mark. In addition, I explained that five books, each 500-700 pages, published by Focal Press, a major publisher, must be a credible indication that the subject is significant and is likely to be notable.

I therefore feel:

• The speedy del nomination was inappropriate and against policy. WP:CSD says Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Given that it had only just been created, it is likely that it could be improved.

• The actual deletion was also inappropriate and against policy. WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Given the age of the article (less than an hour) and my comments on the talk page, I can't see how it could be a 'most obvious case'.

I would therefore request that the article is reinstated so I (and others) can continue to edit and improve it. I confirm that I have notified the two users listed above with the ANI-notice template. SmilingFace (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would add that I have no conflicts of interest or links to the subject of the deleted article. SmilingFace (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A one line article is often likely for speedy deletion, especially for a WP:BLP article - you will have plenty of editors watching and tagging. I've no objection to articles being written slowly, but in such cases it's best done in the WP:AfC system, where you won't get tagged. If you think you have enough content to make it safe by the time you log off, then I can restore it, just ask. Or I can move it to the AfC system for you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those five books were by the subject, not about the subject, which is what WP:GNG requires. Lots of people publish books, which does not make them notable. You can find pretty much any answer regarding notability at WP:42 and WP:GNG. I have copied the article to your sandbox for you to work on. In the future, please make sure that any attempted article starts off with at least two (preferably more) professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but specifically about the subject. You can also usually ask the administrator who deleted the page to let you have a copy of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if you have literally copied it to the user's sandbox, so from the history it looks as if you wrote it. As a matter of curiosity, why didn't you move the article to the sandbox to maintain the attribution? - David Biddulph (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Because I just woke up. And I see that he's gone ahead and recreated the article without addressing any of the problems. @SmilingFace:, the reason I copied the article to your sandbox was so that you could fix the problems before putting it back into article space. Do not recreate the article until it cites at least two independent reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, respectfully, the article that I recreated (I still had it in the edit window) and you deleted had FOUR references - it's not the version in my sandbox. It had been fixed! One of the refs was a mention of the subject on Circuit Cellar, a major electronics design website, and another a review of one of his books in Sound on Sound, a notable magazine. I would suggest that these both count as independent reliable sources. Please could you check exactly what you deleted. If you are genuinely unhappy with the refs on WP:RS grounds then please stick the correct version in my sandbox so I don't lose the work I did on it. Thanks. SmilingFace (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, I moved the article to another draft space, and sources that are promoting or hosting his works are not independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Do not recreate the article until it cites at least two independent reliable sources." ...Uh. Pretty sure this isn't a thing. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires that pages in article space to have multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, and GNG is not the criteria for speedy deletion. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And I did not delete or speedy delete the article. I moved it to user space so that it could be improved, because in its current state it would not have made it through AfD. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian, sorry I didn't notice that you'd moved the second attempt to a different place. SmilingFace (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) and Ronhjones  ^(Talk), my concerns about your behavior remain. The article was tagged for speedy del under WP:A7, which references WP:CCS. Both specifically say that lack of notability is not grounds for deletion.

From WP:A7: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

From WP:CCS: Significance is a much lower standard than notability... 2.A claim of significance need not amount to a statement that, if sourced, would establish notability. 3.Therefore, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline, music notability, or biography notability guidelines. 6.Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance.

If I'm missing something, please say, because I can't see how your actions were in accordance with policy. WP:CSD is clear and I believe you both violated it.

From WP:RRULE: ... Administrators must be diligent in observing the Reasonability Rule when enforcing policy. Is it reasonable to conclude, by using Wikipedia policies, that a particular article should be deleted? ...

The issue is the "credible claim of significance or importance". The subject has written five substantial non-fiction books released by a major publisher. These were listed in the article. We're not talking vanity press or fringe topics, but electronic engineering - serious mainstream stuff. And there was nothing contentious in the article that presented BLP issues requiring immediate attention.

I would suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that the subject's books are a credible claim of significance. I would also suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that his books are a plausible indication that additional research has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability. So, with respect, I can't see how your behavior was reasonable.

In addition, I can find no policy that says failure to meet WP:GNG is an automatic reason for immediate deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is advice about new articles - WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. By all means AfD the article if you felt it was a lost cause, and then we could have a proper discussion.

As it stands, Cavrdg (talk) has posted some more refs on my talk page. I believe some of these, in addition with some of mine, will be sufficient to establish notability. So I will recreate the article, and we can work together to improve it, which is what Wikipedia is all about. SmilingFace (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not speedy deleted the article. I moved it to your user space because it would not have survived any of the other deletion processes. Please cite some of the references on your talk page in the article, because they do not affect things if they're just sitting on your talk page. It is less work (even for you) to simply add references to an article to establish notability than it is to look for policies, guidelines, and essays to argue that an article should exist without it. Trying to make an article stand on just rules means that (at best), people have to push the article through the AfD process, which not only means unnecessary work for previously uninvolved people, but also leaves citing sources as the only way to save the article (if an article does not meet GNG, no amount of arguing over rules can save it during AfD). The burden to provide evidence is on whoever makes a claim, and it is disruptive to make others go do one's own homework. Not that you have reached that point yet, and you are still clearly operating in good faith, but your post carries a sense that everyone else should be going through the heavy labor and red tape to prove that the article isn't up to snuff instead of you citing a couple more sources (which, you admit, have been dropped in your lap) just to make sure it meets minimum requirements.

Although I did not handle the speedy deletion, lots of people write books. I'm working one and have outlines for a few more, as are many other editors. 10% of the population of Iceland has written a book. That's really not all that significant these days. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Appears (from even a brief look) to hit some of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Clearly fails CSD and should not have been deleted under those criteria. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been deeply aggrieved by an anonymous editor ViperSnake151 and I want to be completely removed from Wikipedia

I have tried my very best to contain my anger with ViperSnake151 and other anonymous "editors" who know nothing of me or my record and of my work and have chosen to stand in judgement without disclosing themselves. I find this intellectually disingenuous and immediate request that my page be taken down completely and not directed towards anywhere. This is not a collaborative process, this is a hatchet job and judgements made by people with too much time on their hands. I don't need this and won't stand for it. I want Edward Beck (psychologist) and Edward Beck (professor) removed because the editors are completely misrepresenting me, my body of work and my notoriety in my different arenas of achievement. I would rather have nothing listed here than something inaccurate. I hope I have made myself clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredbeck (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Crystal. But unfortunately it is not your article; you are its subject, not its proprietor. As such, it stays (On edit as part of the Middle East Peace article, of course). Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just restored the article, it was redirected without discussion a few days after an AFD closed as keep. -- GB fan 12:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dredbeck: are you familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest? Regardless, as per Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". — Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability and veracity. Carrite (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OP is technically evading a block for these legal threats. And the section "The Scholars for Peace in the Middle East" has me wondering if it could argued that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is applicable (but I'm about to go to bed, so I won't be carrying that out). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch: since this accout was 'created on 13 September 2006 at 08:58', the legal threat was made whilst logged out and editing as an IP... which is now blocked. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not beat the editor over the head with wikijargon. The article is up at AFD and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I'll post a note to the discussion there. Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Failure to yield

I'm coming here as User:Chickensire refuses to stop his disruptive editing after a number of requests from other editors to use edit summaries, and to cite his sources. He also refuses to stop changing geocoordinates on cities. Update: It appears that this user has issues with communication. Assistance needed. --TJH2018 talk 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not involved in the above dispute but I believe Chickensire has a long history of disruptive edits. Chickensire removed the child author category from Gordon Korman twice without an edit description or any other explanation: [127], [128]. I reverted the first edit and posted to his talk page here: [129], but Chickensire reverted again without an edit description. The replies on the talk page seemed nonsensical and disruptive. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I must add that I find most if not all of Chickensire's edits to be unhelpful. This editor is an unfortunate combination of prolific, disruptive, and uncommunicative. Many of (his) edits consist of bizarre campaigns to change wikilinks in an inappropriate way (such as this one), calling for a lot of clean-up in his wake. He leaves no edit summaries, and any communication with him tends to be chaotic and irrational, as in this discussion. Eric ^talk 19:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Another addition: Chickensire is also creating hundreds of redirect pages from names in ancient Greek and other languages, some examples here. They have been adviced in their talk page about categorizing them using {{R from alternative language}}, but never does. --T*U (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be a previous AN/I about him. See 25. At this point, we need some admin advice. Pinging @Zzuuzz: --TJH2018 talk 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Chickensire has had warning after warning but doesn't seem to care. I've done my share of cleanup. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed indef block of Chickensire

• Support - Long term disruption, with no meaningful response either on their Talk page or here, despite notification, calls for an indef. In the end we are looking at vandalism trying to fly below our radar. Time to pull the plug. Jusdafax 11:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely time for User:MaranoFan to receive some kind of severe talking to, punishment or block.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Said user above is showing absolutely no respect or regard for Wikipedia, it's rules, policies and guidelines, or other editors. MaranoFan nominated Like I'm Gonna Lose You for Good Article review today. She has never, ever edited the article. Not once. The edit summary provided for the nominated on the article talk page is: i know this is gonna take some work. But I am willing to take the risk. It is not the responsibility or job of a GAN reviewer to tell the nominator how to improve the entire article on this depth. That is what Peer Review and GOCE is for. GAN is supposed to be a checking that it has met the requirements after being improved by the nominator, not before. Of course, I left a message on MF's user talk saying this just now, but she dismissed it and removed it. Improvement should have been done by the nominator already, which is clearly stated on the Instructions over at GAN here. I removed the nomination for this reason and said this in my edit summary on Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You. MF reverted me, and thus reinstated in the nomination, with the edit summary People don't change. What a great example of it. Shut up and fuck off. That is FA criteria. I'm being sworn at, and this article is not up to GA, yet alone FA. Frustrated, I reverted and reiterated why I removed it once more in my edit summary. MF then proceeded to revert me again, with the edit summary of "No".

No doubt, MF and her allies will say I am creating drama, hassle, and any other label they frequently choose to throw at me, or my personal favourite by MF that I'm "getting in the way," but enough is enough. MF has no understanding of how Wikipedia works. You can't just nominate articles which one has never, ever edited for GAN willy-nilly on impulse. That is not how the process works. No other editor is allowed to do this, and I see many editors doing what I have tried to do. Many of my friends on here have removed nominations by others when they have never edited the article before. It is an absolute joke and me and many other edits, both silent and vocal on Wikipedia on this issue of MF, have had enough. It is creating so much tension that special treatment and double standard are being employed. I'm pissed off of editors not having the balls to clamp down on editors who ignore the rules all the time, and instead telling off and threatening those who do respect the rules. There really is no defence that anyone can provide in favour of MF this time. This kind of reckless, impulsive editing and nominated is wrong and it should not be tolerated. Her refusal to listen to any advice, which even today I tried giving on her user talk, is testament. She is showing that she will never change. It's a shame, because if she would just listen and actually read the rules of Wikipedia, it could be so different and positive. As it is, she thinks she can just do what she wants.  — Calvin999 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Extra: And to top it off, User:Jaguar, MF's new found ally because they both hate me, has no less than 61 minutes after nomination taken on the under-prepared article for review. Now, that would be a very interesting review to watch. We all know Jaguar won't fail it in any circumstance.  — Calvin999 17:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of reviewing the GAN, and I think it's in a pretty good shape. I just need to point out that she's edited it fifteen times between October and December 2015.[130] JAGUAR  17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How wonderfully convenient, Jaguar. Of course, you are bias and not impartial in this issue, so I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise. I stand corrected: she has never edited the article in 2016. So greatly prepared for GAN.  — Calvin999 17:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• I thought you four (not including Jaguar) agreed to stop with all this childish whining, because it was becoming apparent that if you kept it up, blocks were going to start being doled out, and/or an Arbcom would be filed? What is this, the 3rd ANI discussion started up in the last few weeks? Isn't there enough pop music in the world for you to all work independently from one another? This is ridiculous. I hope an uninvolved Admin starts coming down hard on you lot. You're wasting the community's time with your high school-like drama wars. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Calvin999 and MaranoFan for 1 month each, since they seem completely incapable of stopping their incessant battleground behavior. If some other editor in their respective cliques acted inappropriately in this latest drama, someone uninvolved in the feuding point them out to me and I'll block them for a month too. If someone involved in the feuding points it out, I'll block them. if this results in 5-10 people getting blocked, I don't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Spot on, I completely agree. Nothing else is going to stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. It's the only way to be sure. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• If I can chime in, this was a needed block, as both sides need time to step away to settle this issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I just put in a request here that, in closing comments, statements like "Involved editors blocked" be replaced by clear statements such as "X, Y, and Z blocked". ANI junkies shouldn't have to go checking talkpages and such to tell what really happened. EEng 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Okay. NE Ent 20:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: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.

---

Perhaps not serious enough at all for this page, and perhaps this user normally is an angel, but I feel a bit freaked out. I asked the user not to make personal attacks. The user did not respond constructively; added 2 words to the attack, supposedly to soften it. Then removed this. Then pinged me 12 times by tracking me through my contribution list and liking 10 of my latest edits. Since the problems began when I asked the user not to ping me unnecessarily, I feel quite uncomfortable about this treatment/harrassment, which shows a lot of power, I think, but not much consideration. If I'm all wrong to complain here, I sincerely apologize for doing so. Hard to know where to turn, though, with a freak-out like mine right now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• My only comment on this, and then I'm done on Wikipedia indefinitely. As shown in most of the discussion between myself and this individual, I got a little hotheaded, and I got carried away. At this point, I can assure SergeWoodzing and the Wikipedia community that this behavior (as well as the discussion between myself and this editor) is over. Even though I still carry opinions about how SergeWoodzing has approached this situation themselves, I'm not going to voice them anymore since this is getting ridiculous in general and this is no longer serving any purpose for either party. That, and I have to take a break now: I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I cannot allow what happens here on Wikipedia to affect how I feel and act in real life, and this incident has. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing - I think you might have taken this response out of context and may have over-reacted a bit with this edit as a result. Unless I'm crazy or I'm missing something, I don't see Steel1943's edit as an intentional personal attack. Steel1943 then responded with this, which I agree isn't the best way to handle it (in fact, responses like this usually escalate the dispute and make it worse). But instead of leaving it at that, you left a message on Steel1943's talk page asking him to redact the previous response on the article talk page. After Steel1943 makes a response (which, again, could have been a little nicer), you then left a civility warning on his talk page an hour later. Why do you keep messaging Steel1943 about this? It's clear that he wants to drop the stick, but you won't let him. What do you want him to do? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've never been pinged 12 times in a matter of a few seconds before, right after having asked not to be pinged. Maybe I over-reacted to that too? Maybe it's 100% normal that another editor does that to you? I don't know. It's never happened to me before. I'd like him to stop that (nothing lately - phew!) and, when he returns to do a lot more good work with us, to stop directing his comments on talk pages to other editors, which often leads to hard feelings and conduct disputes. WP:s guideline says (in bold type) "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Perhaps I've taken that too seriously also? Thank you - in any case - for asking! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing - I'm not certain what the reason might have been behind Steel1943 "pinging you" (I think you mean thanking you for edits you made?) - maybe he'll be willing to explain here (although I wouldn't blame him one bit for not doing so, in favor of moving on from this). But your statement regarding Steel1943 needing to "stop directing his comments on talk pages to other editors", leaves me both dumbfounded and confused. All he said in this edit was that he believed that your concerns were due to a "preemptive full protection of the article..." (an event or behavior that occurred in the past? I'm confused about this statement and what he meant). It doesn't strike me as uncivil in any way. If anything, he just made a wrong assumption - something you could have simply resolved by responding with something like, "No, actually [this] is why I'm concerned" and left it at that. Or you could have just asked him to explain what he meant. My original question still stands: Why [did] you keep messaging Steel1943 about this? It's clear that he [wanted] to drop the stick, but you [didn't] let him. What do you want him to do? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm amazed by how thoroughly out of proportion SergeWoodzing has blown this. This whole thing originated when Steel1943 pinged SW in an active discussion over a hatnote. Steel's observation that SW's reply was irrationally defensive is absolutely 100% warranted and accurate. Maybe Steel's subsequent behaviour was less than ideal, but it was Serge who followed to Steel's talk page after Steel agreed to stop and continued whining about this flimsy personal attack. There is a point where templating a user over personal attacks becomes itself a personal attack, and Serge has long since crossed that line. Drop the stick already. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me: I was tracked through my conrtibution list and pinged twevle (12) times in a matter of seconds by a user who minutes earlier had not been friendly and whom I had just asked not to ping me. To me, the behavior is extraordinary in the extreme. I can't see how my finding it that way could be unfathomable. It's why I freaked out and started this ANI. If none of you are going to acknowledge that and address it, but continue to ignore it, I see no reason for us to continue this, only so as to subject me to a lot of criticism about other details. I am glad to apologize sincerely for anything I have done in this matter which is unacceptable to you people. Now, please address the reason for my complaint - the 12 pings - please! Or why bother? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone here, inlcuding Steel1943, have acknowledged that they behaved poorly in sending you those notifications, and has appealed to now move on. You're the one coming here basically saying "HEY EVERYBODY! STEEL1943 WAS BAD! LOOK AT THE TOTALLY AWFUL BAD STUFF THAT THEY DID! IT'S SO AWFUL AND BAD AND MEAN AND DISGUSTING! EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION TO THE CRAZY AWFUL BAD STUFF THEY DID! SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AWFUL USER! SOMEBODY'S GOT TO STOP THEM FROM BEING SO RIDICULOUSLY AWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE AWFUL AND THEY WERE MEAN TO ME AND I CAN PROVE IT AND EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS!!!!11" It's only you that needs to address this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Steel1943 has acknowledged his poor behaviour and has stopped. There's nothing more to do here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Except perhaps discourage shenanigans on this page? I'd be interested in any administrator's comments on some of the shenanigans here (including my own, if any). Is this actually a forum where we can get administrative assistance and/or should try to express ourselves with some semblance of decorum? Sincerely yours (administrators - we need you). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a final closing observation - As I noted in the close, people who are harassed often respond emotionally to that. That's why it's so important that we not tolerate the incidents. This page is critically important not just to get admins attention on key issues, but to 'calm down' situations rather than escalate them. It is important that participants here not make situations worse or provoke one another. We have limits to how far that can go with the parties to a particular dispute, but PLEASE do not attack or provoke from outside a dispute, particularly where one or more users were already attacked or harassed elsewhere. It does not help admins or senior users defuse the situation, it does not make you look good or mature, and makes everyone's days longer and more painful. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

BenLrove

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.

---

BenLrove seems to be a new SPA with the single purpose of spamming on talk pages. I assume it's a sock targeting users that aggravated them at some point. Can't say I don't recognize a few names on the list. I'm not sure at what point of NOTHERE it becomes unnecessary to give a warning, but if there is one, this is certainly it. Plz fix. TimothyJosephWood 22:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like spam to me. Seems more like WP:LOVE on a lot of users' talk pages.
@Timothyjosephwood: Make sure to notify User:BenLrove of this discussion. You can do this by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on their talk page. Also, if you think they may be a sockpuppet account, you can open an investigation at WP:SPI. Linguist 111^talk 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Already did, as soon as I posted here. For the record, I appreciate love when it's for a reason, not when it's from a 15 minutes old account spamming for shits and giggles. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrator leaving work and leaves work undone

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 remove the lock from the talk page of Prince (musician). I am not talking about the article page but merely the talk page so discussion can be done.

The administrator who locked it has left work for the weekend and authorizes another administrator to do it. Please do it.

Proof: The talk page is currently semiprotected because of vandalism and BLP violations. I'm off now, but if someone wants to remove the protection in the meantime, I have no objections. Widr (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I merely want to make suggestions on the talk page for real article improvement, that's all. Purple Showers (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Another admin might feel differently but Prince just passed away yesterday and it is common with celebrity deaths for there to be speculation about cause of death and other forum-like discussions which are not appropriate for article talk pages. I think the article and talk page should be protected for a week to discourage this behavior. There is no deadline for improving articles and your contributions will be just as welcome a week from now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying but that just takes away the steam to helping Wikipedia. If people vandalize, hurt them, not the innocent. Thank you. After all, the blocking administrator, Widr, authorizes unblock of the page but just cannot do it because he is leaving work. Purple Showers (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Liz. Per WP:BDP, WP:BLP can apply in recent deaths. Given the notability of this person, I think that the article and its talk page is best left semi-protected for now in order to keep vandalism, BLP violations, unreferenced speculation, and inappropriate/improper talk page discussions from occurring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Cannot argue with the reasoning from Liz and Oshwah above. IMO unprotecting the page would end up being more trouble than it's worth.Leave as is for now. Purple Showers contributions have been less than stellar. See here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iistal

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 is not heeding warnings and continues their disruptive editing. User is also blanking their talk page which leads me to believe, Iistal may be thinking, if I cannot see the warnings they no longer exist. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the user does edit in good faith but may get angry when his edit is reverted (with SundaySmiles). However, Iistal removes warnings from talk page with no intent of changing in the near future, as far as I can see. I occasionally get this way when my edits are reverted though, somewhat angry too. Perhaps we can give Iistal a clean slate first. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but I feel, I've, (and maybe Sundayclose) already given them a couple clean slates. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Iistal refuses to communicate; instead he/she removes others' efforts to discuss on talk pages; one example [131], followed by edit warring with the explanation that "it's not debatable". Admin C.Fred has repeatedly attempted to reason with this editor, apparently with no success. Iistal has two previous blocks for disruptive editing but apparently hasn't learned to stop the behaviors that lead to the blocks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there have been several clean slates and many, many legitimate warnings that could have resulted in blocks but didn't because several editors (myself included) hoped that Iistal would change his behavior. Iistal has made productive edits, but the disruptive editing and failure to learn from mistakes has gotten out of control. Sundayclose (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose causes annoyance and frustration. He has followed me almost from the beginning, which is Wikihounding. I blank the talk page because this user does not seem genuine. Besides, it's my own talk page. I find the fact that C.Fred uses "this edit" as an example of "disruption" is ludicrous, and such unreason is really stressful. I only came here because someone wrote on my talk page that there is a discussion about me. So now you have my side. Also, it's been very frustrating when I have been in the process of leaving replies to someone on my own talk page, then the whole thing gets ruined when another editor (usually SundayClose) posts something meanwhile, then I have to write the whole thing all over again. Iistal (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That edit, in and of itself, was not disruptive. The edit summary, in and of itself, was not disruptive. However, the edit summary provided reinforcement of the view that Iistal was unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors. His recent actions, such as this "quack quack quack" edit summary or describing Sundayclose an an "annoying, hounding troll" in another edit summary, also reinforce that view. —C.Fred (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Complete disregard for BLP guidelines Mlpearc (open channel) 23:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the problematic edits are focused around BLPs and reverts, I'm starting to wonder if a sanction such as a one-revert restriction on biographies of living people, broadly construed, is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem continues despite numerous warnings. Another addition (after two previous reverts by two editors) of unsourced information on a BLP [132]. Warnings have no effect on Iistal. If he had been blocked every time he edit warred or repeatedly added unsourced information he wouldn't be editing for the next three months. Pinging C.Fred and Mlpearc. Sundayclose (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting real annoying. I'm done with this troll. Seeya, Mlpearc (open channel) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It's very frustrating. I have ignored countless policy violations and tried to focus just on the worst ones. But, like Mlpearc, I'm getting to the point that it's simply not worth my time. I've stopped issuing warnings because that's pointless.I will continue watching his edits, but at some point I also likely will give up and let Iisatl wreak havoc on numerous BLP articles. I agree with C.Fred that some sort of sanctions are necessary. I personally would prefer an indefinite block until Iistal can acknowledge his understanding of the problems and his willingness to stop. But I'm sure admins here know better about how to properly take a step-by-step approach to see what's effective. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Another one: [133]. C.Fred, NinjaRobotPirate, and I have repeatedly asked Iistal to discuss instead of continuing to revert. Instead, he repeatedly removed the discussion that I started. This particular edit is one that I have started ignoring because there are so many others that are more serious. Sundayclose (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the uncooperative nature of this person, a time–out may be in order, along with a professed reading and understanding of WP:CIVIL.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone's been there, done that already. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the issues above, the user is also engaging in edit warring of unsourced BLP content: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. That's just unacceptable and screams of WP:NOTHERE. Nymf (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And Iistal's justification for this (and other) edit warring is that his edits are "unchallengable" and "source is not needed". He has used these explanations in several articles. As I have noted earlier in this discussion, Iistal has made some good edits, and I can understand the hesitance to take action because of that, but I think we have reached the point that the damage outweighs the benefits and, even worse, he has no intention of changing his behavior. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

After looking here, I'm pinging @KrakatoaKatie:, would you be willing to have a look at this user? even though I do not consider this a difficult block, but I see no other reason why this user hasn't been blocked as of yet.Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, at this precise moment I'm on the fence on an immediate block (last article edits were several hours ago), but I'd certainly do it if there is one more single solitary BLP violation. My broader concern is that listal doesn't seem to understand BLP at all. If you don't think that someone contesting unsourced material, whether you think it's 'common knowledge' or not, means the material is contentious, what are you doing editing BLPs? So, I would go farther than C.Fred – I would support a proposal that listal be banned from editing BLPs altogether. After all that, if there's another BLP violation, ping me or post at my talk and the Katie hammer shall fall. Katie^talk 23:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a partial review of the user's edits since their last block on April 16 as I didn't think it fair to block them for a third time unless they continued a similar pattern. I see little change in their editing. They don't collaborate. They almost never discuss, and when they do, they are disruptive in the discussion. They are at a minimum uncivil and often attacking, whether in their edits or more frequently as of late in their edit summaries. They appear to focus, not just on BLPs, but more specifically on celebrities, and putting aside the frequent lack of sourcing, their edits are generally trivial and quite frankly annoying. I really don't care how many half-siblings someone has. I don't care about the birth dates of each relative. I don't care about the precise number of days, months, or years, that something happened unless it actually has some relevance to something. They appear to want to add this unencyclopedic material because it appeals to something in their temperament. Precision? Odd facts? Dunno.

And one particular recent edit war really struck me because they insisted on inserting a WP:LINKVIO into an article depspite being challenged on the copyright issue: Sundayclose's revert of the YouTube violation with an edit summary "Wikipedia cannot link to copyright violations") followed by Iastal's revert with the incompehensible edit summary "Don't challenge it then", whatever that means. Based on that review, I came close to blocking but stopped only because of C.Fred's and Katie's involvement. I would block, either a lengthy last-chance block (two weeks?) or an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm on board with a topic ban from biographies of living people, although how broadly construed should it be? Only article about living people, or any mention of a living person in any article? —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's going to be a TB then I say anything covered by {{BLP}} or {{BLP others}}, since both have been violated numerous times. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree if it's a TB it needs to be anything covered by BLP. For example, this edit (although not a BLP violation) is in a non-BLP article but the edit is covered by BLP. I have a question: what about dead people? Iistal has made some of those edits also. Would that be covered, or would it need to be made clear that the TB applies to any human? Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Iistal just restored this BLP edit, which I earlier challenged as unsourced (especially "psychotherapist"}. And Iistal just restored this, which has been reverted as unsourced more than once, and this is the article that Iistal refused to discuss and removed my attempts at discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked Iistal for two weeks after a fourth revert today at Ann Biderman. If he engages, I'll offer a two-week topic ban on BLPs to unblock. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And since Iistal's response to my offer of the topic ban is to question my integrity, I've rescinded the offer. Any other administrator is free to make the same offer; there is an unblock request pending on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that they've been indef'd can someone nuke the 'tribs ? Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP disruption of talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is 108.46.38.116 (talk · contribs), and I think the difs pretty much speak for themselves. The first two are general complaints about WP which the IP posted in other discussions:

• 03:09, April 18, 2016
• 03:11, April 18, 2016

The rest are examples of the IP adding and edit warring back in another:

• 11:24, April 22, 2016
• 16:56, April 22, 2016
• 17:16, April 22, 2016
• 17:17, April 22, 2016
• 17:22, April 22, 2016
• 03:14, April 23, 2016

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours. Talk page "semi"-protected. Thanks Asterion^talk 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nick-D

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 remove this abusive user for stalking and harassment? Thanks.73.220.34.167 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs as evidence when stating stuff like this, and please talk to a user on their talk page before coming here. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

OP is referring to this. Boomerang is the order of the day. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As Rubbish says, 73.220.34.167, no one will consider your request without evidence of how this editor is "abusive" or stalking or harassing you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

IP 73: You were supposed to notify Nick-D of this discussion, so I have done it for you. While we are at it: this gem of an edit summary is probably one of the reasons why Nick blocked you – twice. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This IP account has a long history of Holocaust denial and more general trolling, and I'll block it for a much longer duration if this continues (some examples: [139], [140], [141]. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And I am not as patient as you Nick-D. Given their history of disruptive edits and this baseless report I have blocked the IP. Best case scenario this person is a troll. Given that the IP has had the same owner for months now I have made the block a month long, if it was an account it would be indef. As always I welcome review of my actions. HighInBC 02:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat by Lolwen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Legal threat from Lolwen. Other clear misbehavior can be seen Special:Contributions/Lolwen.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism only account. HighInBC 07:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Battle of Fashion

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 is now the 3rd time this hoax article has been created. Please can it be SALTed to prevent recreation. I have tagged it for speedy deletion Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

salted now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/24.253.208.130 is vandalizing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Contributions/24.253.208.130 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.229.103 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Just revert and warn the offender. When they get to a level 4 warning, report them to WP:AIV. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by Push max Sri after only warning and being blocked (on their own talk page)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Push max Sri was blocked indefinitely by Acroterion for abusing multiple accounts, after vandalising Bongwarrior's talk page (leaving a bogus WP:BADNAME block on their page [142]) and doing the same on my page [143] as well as gross personal attacks there, here and here, for which I gave them level 4im WP:WARNVAND and WP:NPA warnings. After being blocked, they attacked me again on their talk page [144]. Could someone please change the visibility of the last attack (the other attacks against me have already been made invisible) and revoke the user's talk page access? Linguist 111^talk 15:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Streisand effect, personally I don't think you should being content you want rev-deled to ANI. It just garners more attention. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: Well, it doesn't matter now, since an admin has now revdeled those edits. Also talk page access has been revoked, so this case can be closed. Linguist 111^talk 17:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Joha884488 ignores sources at Saint-Tropez

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:Joha884488 repeatedly inserted temperature values in the climate table at Saint-Tropez which were not supported by the source provided in that article. In a discussion on the editor's talk page, the editor refused to accept the sourced data and indicated to keep inserting what she/he considered to be more plausible values. I request that this editor be prevented from editing that article any further. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Michael Bednarek Looks like you both have violated WP:3RR Looking at the logs and I could be wrong but it looks like your at 6 reverts (each) now? There didn't really seem to be any discussion on the issue other than the warnings you posted on Joshua884488's talk page and your warning came off as wp:bite or wp:uncivilwith a lack of wp:AGF from an (Non-involved party comment). Mind you his response didn't seem very open to speaking about the point. Have you considered wp:drn to try to discuss the issue? Could be a good tool to help you. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• This: "You can block me all you want, I don't care. I'm doing this to prove a point." [147] says all that needs to be said about the matter. They seem to have taken their point making behavior to Oristano as well [148]. Jbh^Talk 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference, however, being that in the case of Oristano the edit is correct. The year average (as a mean of the month averages) is 13.4, not 10.03. --T*U (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So it is. Struck and corrected. Jbh^Talk 13:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Aimy in a Cage

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 only cut and Paste. Can we move this back into mainspace? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved, but it seems prematurely; the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimy in a Cage, with the page creator's agreement, was to move itg to draft space until there were more sources, but none have been added. @Bosley John Bosley: Add some reliable sources quickly, or it's going to get moved back. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No response, and I didn't find enough in a search, so for now I have reverted the move and it's back in draft space. Pinging Bosley John Bosley. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I added some sources to the draft. It likely passes WP:NFILM, and someone could move it back to mainspace if they wanted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

...Sorry couldn't get back to you earlier...full time job and all that....no cheeio stained shirt here. The AFD was from 2014 when the film was but a glint in the producers eye.., It is now 2016 and I have watched the finished film...enjoyable but weird ...all about a dystopian community attempting to crush an individual while oblivious to the changing world outside (can you see where I am going with this). Thanks for the improvements...all I can do is cut and paste. Is there not one administrator who can simply move It? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I originally moved it without realising the AfD existed: sorry about that. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bosley John Bosley: I don't understand why you can't use the move button yourself? Also, are you aware of our notability standards for films? I don't doubt that it has now been released, that you have seen it, and that you regard the theme as important, but we need sources - it needs to have been written about elsewhere. And when it was moved to the draft space, it was with a promise that it would not be moved back to mainspace until sources had been added to demonstrate that. When I looked earlier, I couldn't find enough to demonstrate notability, but Isaidnoway added several to the talk page section, and I have now supplemented NinjaRobotPirate's work by adding one of those. However ... someone has now tagged the redirect Aimy in a Cage for speedy deletion, so if it is ready now to go back to mainspace, we will after all require an admin. to delete that redirect first. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I can not understand why I cannot just move it myself...Just tried...just (accidently!) cocked things up. Seems it allows me to cock things up not the correct edit

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.

Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

Bosley John Bosley (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding Huon and their Administrator rights.

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.

---

To whom it may conern,

I'm writing today to bring an incident to one of your Administrators by the name of Huon. Huon has been very rude to me in the IIRC wikipedia unblock channel chat. He has been name calline and even told me to "go to hell". Being that rude to a blocked editor should not be tolerated to the Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia Community. I'm requesting that his rights as a Administrator be reviewed and if necessary revoked. I have asked very nicely in the unblock IIRC chat for him to kindly unblock after I expressed regret and remorse for vandalizing. He continued to refuse to unblock and this time around he called me a F#ck Face and told me I don't belong here. I understand the fact that when/if you're a blocked editor the Admins aren't 100% nice but what Huon did is completely uncallled for. Unfortunately I didn't copy & paste the chat logs so I can use as evidence but if I can be further help in anyway possible then I'm willing to help.

Thanks for your consideration--97.118.110.210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny743 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This series of unblock requests appear to be the background for the request. Looks like you don't have much support from those with access to the channel. Favonian (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The thing is Favonian he was terribly rude.--Danny743 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're blocked, how are you able to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this is not at all the case and on the user's talk page above (The IP), GorillaWarfare confirmed nothing of that sort happened. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 15:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare is lying she/he is doing that to keep Huon from getting fired — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny743 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am adding this to an already closed thread, I hope nobody minds. I have had the irc unblock channel open for a few days now and there are no occurrences of the word "fuck" in any of the logs. Just wanted to set the record straight for posterity that the accusations made here are false. HighInBC 19:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troll IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.187.162.184, related the entry further up that mentions me. Eik Corell (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see why they have a redlink talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

IP is continually reinserting WP:COPYVIO to that page; I am reverting and claiming exemption. Page needs to be protected, or the user needs to be blocked, or both. Scr★pIron^IV 19:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP has also edit warred after a final warning. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Now IP 86.187.165.136 has picked up the campaign after Liz blocked the .162.184 IP. I reported to AIV and am cross-reporting here. This appears clearly to relate to the "WP:COMPETENCE" thread immediately preceding, to echo Eik Corell. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced spoilers to Asia's Next Top Model by MusaGela25

MusaGela25 has persisted with adding unsourced spoilers (at least some of which are incorrect) to Asia's Next Top Model (see here) after I gave them a final warning for adding them, which they have been doing for a month now at Asia's Next Top Model and Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 4) (see the following diffs: [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158] and [159] Linguist 111^talk 13:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not intentionally trying to disrupt the page. Please do not block me, I will just create a new page instead of editing the existing one. Sorry for the inconvenience

@165.230.225.30: If you are MusaGela25, you were warned multiple times to stop adding the spoilers, but you persisted with adding them. It's not plausible that you didn't know what you were doing was disruptive. As far as "creating a new page" is concerned, please make sure that you follow the policies at WP:YFA. Linguist 111^talk 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Per our content guidline WP:SPOILER, we do not restrict spoilers in any way. So, inaccurate content should be corrected, but there is no justification for opposing or removing spoilers per se. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: But the spoilers added were not backed up by a reliable source. At least some of them have been proven wrong by the airing of the episodes. It's more or less original research. Linguist 111^talk 12:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe the word you intend to use is "speculation", not "spoilers". ansh666 12:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Yes. Thanks. Linguist 111^talk 12:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from Cornerstonepicker

This user has a history of making baseless accusations and making disruptive edits all over Wikipedia , assuming new users are unable to defend themselves calling them "newbies" while making condescending remarks at me. He assumed that pointing out an album was Gold was considered WP:FANCRUFT , which obviously isn't. He even claimed that RIAA is not a reliable source for sales because "streams are included" and continuing to make reversions where none were needed. All evidence is on revision history , Fifth Harmony. I've kept the article neutral while adding useful and accurate information in the lead , giving sources and refs while he/she has been continuously reverting for no reason at all. He also made a revertion claiming I didn't reply him on my talkpage when I did. Chartgeek9078 (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which does not belong here. Neither of you has sought to discuss this on the article's talk page, where it belongs, and you are both edit-warring, and in danger of breaching WP:3RR. RolandR (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that both of you have edit warred, as well as added unhelpful edit summaries in your edits and used edit summaries in place of a proper talk page discussion. I do see some discussion here, but I see that neither one of you have any edits or made any discussions on the article's talk page (history) - why not? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox vandal

The sandbox vandal is back. I've caught it very early but be alert. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• You might want to delete up to my edit to your talk page, the sections with the images were still visible when you edit the page, and are now visible when you see the diff where I remove them. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, looks like they've been done now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No actually, they're right here. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Some revdel on that would be appreciated. Thanks. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks resolved. Six month ban by Malcolmxl5. Also, we should consider a NSFW tag on these sorts of things. TimothyJosephWood 01:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There was one person, eight IPs. The files are hosted on Commons so that would have to be taken up there.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here too -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Again at 67.78.42.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 2601:1C0:4901:2191:1D5E:CC5C:E0F3:BC32 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked, etc. I've locked you out of your talk page for a little while, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI This guy is gonna put sum stuff on yo talk page. TJH2018 talk 04:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like he's back, and posted an degrading image which I reverted that. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• There is a new edit filter, see WP:EFN, that should help out here. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Titleblacklist addition request

I'd like to request an addition to the title blacklist. Sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms (see the SPI) have been perpetually recreating the exact same article about Domenick Nati, which was deleted after an AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Domenick Nati). So far, the titles Domenick L. Nati, Domenick Nati II, Domenick Nati Jr., and Domenick Nati have been deleted and salted (well, actually, Domenick L. Nati isn't salted yet, but the rest are), and Domenick Nati I is currently tagged for deletion. It's clear that this is not going to stop (as Nati's twitter bio shows, he's very prideful about having a Wikipedia article), so I think the only way to settle this is to blacklist any combination of "Domenick" and "Nati"; that is, a regex like .*domenick.*nati.*. -IagoQnsi (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[Dd]omenick.*[Nn]ati.* might be more precise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Titleblacklist entries are case-insensitive by default, so no need for the brackets. I suppose dropping the first .* is okay, though I foresee the article "Mr. Domenick Nati" being created after that. But I guess it can always be tweaked as needed. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. Didn't think of the Mr. possibility. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'll let someone more knowledgeable do the title blacklist but I've salted Domenick L. Nati. Not sure about Domenick Nati Jr., that seem to be a blank page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Malcolmxl5: Ah, my bad, the page was Domenick Nati Jr. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Added to blacklist. Draft:Domenick Nati II needs to be taken care of. MER-C 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Shouldn't it be .*domenick.*?nati.* since that middle * is greedy?) Crow^Caw 21:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed. MER-C 23:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

While we're at it, should Jellyfishfilms's article creations be perused and raised to AFD as appropriate? Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As a heads up, the page as been recreated yet again here: Domenick Natti. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Attack page/COI (by socks above)

I found this attack page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_McBride_(rapper) created by WikiWriter76. Can this be speedy deleted? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Update, it seems there might be a PR agency behind these edits. I have opened a report at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lowersace signabot III is malfunctioning

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 bot just removed my talk page, I had to undo the action Victor Grigas (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It was not a bot, and the situation has been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is it a legit bot? The bot who does this talk page archiving job regularly and properly is User:lowercase sigmabot III; note the minor differences in the name. Someone spamming? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

FTR, this is the second time this has happened recently (the other case was a similarly slightly misspelled variation on "Lowercase sigmabot III" – Special:Contributions/Lowercase signabot III) so there is almost certainly Socking involved here too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I originally closed the discussion but was unaware of the whole socking thing so have reopened, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 05:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an "Opinion polling for the United Kingdom..." sock. GAB^Hello! 13:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See this edit by the user Its_tritus808. I'm reporting this per proper procedures. I'm looking into this user's edits right now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: User is now blocked. Going to go ahead and close this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indeffed user's TP

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 happened to come across this edit by an indeffed editor on their own TP. I have reverted it as personal attacks, but I suppose the edit ought to be deleted. --T*U (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision deleted and talk page access removed. BethNaught (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick, clean and effecient! Thx! --T*U (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If this discussion had come 13 minutes earlier, you would have had THX 1138. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan

Crosswiki self-promotional only (and write-only) account with 2 indef-blocked sockpuppets: Chillax96 (April 10), Mohamed Rayazan (April 20). 2 weeks ago was blocked for the creation of Rayazan, a curriculum article about himself, created again half an hour later. Same content was in the articles User:Rayazan, User:Chillax96 and User:Chillax96/sandbox. Now I found that the 2nd sock created Mohamed Rayazan (twice) and User:Rayazan (again). On April 10, when he seemed to stop after the first notices, I assumed good faith but, noob or not, user continued to create articles about himself despite any warning, explainations and blocks. Now, after the 2nd evasion, he was blocked again (2 weeks). User is IMHO clearly NOTHERE, and his scope appears to be the self-promo: he created his curriculum 8 times (also using different NS), used 2 sp and, btw, was indef blocked on Commons too. For this reasons, I request the indef block. For further details: my 1st and 2nd report. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 20:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're after, Rayazan is already blocked. Do you want to open a sockpuppet investigation? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan is blocked 2 weeks, not indef (which is what the OP is requesting). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan is blocked for two weeks, having previously blocked for one week, the others are blocked indefinitely. Two admins have already looked at this issue and handed out blocks, their actions are within the purview of administrator's discretion so I see nothing more to do here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rayazan has been pretty disruptive in his attempts to promote himself. I've deleted many of his pages (which are essentially all one page, about himself), have blocked him for a week (Randykitty later went to two weeks), and have tried to talk to him on his page, which went nowhere. Still, he's young as well as new (yes, I know all his essential details, as I have read his autobio so many times) and I can't shake the feeling that he might become a real editor, provided we don't indef him. Also (sigh) he can just create socks in any case. What, philosophically, is actually the point of blocks? If people want to edit, they'll edit. Now I'm depressed. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: When used properly and appropriately, a block can compel an editor to communicate with an administrator -- and you lament that Rayazan has so far avoided that. When and if Rayazan agrees to communicate, the block will be serving a second purpose. Until then, the block may serve the primary purpose of reducing the burden of cleaning up after him. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammar's Li'l Helper: there's something with your signature, I'm not able to click through to your user page or user talk page. Can you fix that please? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, both Mohamed Rayazan and Rayazan have been protected against recreation. I say, let's see what he chooses to work on when his block is over, if he decides to return to editing. I'm a strong believer in WP:ROPE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: uhm, this solution is ok for me. Anyway, I'll watch user. I would just suggest to protect the title Mohamed rayazan too (never created). Thanks to all users above for participation. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help undoing changes to Bill Kramer and related articles by User:63009kb

User:63009kb (possibly associated with User:166.172.62.216) decided to change the subject of the article Bill Kramer from a Wisconsin state legislator to a fundraising and PR expert with the Rhode Island School of Design. User:RFD reverted the article back (and THANK YOU!!), but I've notice that 63009kb has also gone on a delinking spree. Is there a way to quickly revert a set of changes to multiple articles from a user's contribution list, or is it a one-by-one matter? If one-by-one, I'll get started on doing it. Anyways, thanks. (I will notify 63009kb immediately after posting this.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed the delinking spree and have manually changed the mainspace articles affected. I think I got them all. There are still a bunch of obscure talk pages etc that were also delinked that I have not bothered to address. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've already left a message about usurping articles and why it is not generally considered a good thing. Awaiting any sort of a response. Most of the delinking has already been undone. This might be genuine ignorance about an area where, I must admit I'm surprised, there isn't a policy or even essay more than WP:USURPTITLE so for now I'd say AGF and let's see what happens. Nthep (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks everyone-I also reverted the changes made in the obscure talk pages also-RFD (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• They have continued to remove links, and as such, I have given them a final warning. I also asked them to explain what they expect to accomplish so that we can help them. I do hope they respond. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

IP edits to Frenchie (rapper) and lack of resolution

There has been a recent influx of edits from multiple IPs on the article "Frenchie (rapper)". Up until January it was a redirect page to a separate article, before i opted to dedicate an article for itself coupled with sources & citations. The issue that's arisen recently: while the influx of edits have been largely cosmetic, at this point I've come in dispute with some of the choices of edits. Since there has been a back & forth in edits/reverts, i dont want to engage in an edit war. Most of the discussion has taken place on the 'View History' page in addition to my PMs to these IPs 'Talk pages', where i elaborate on my reasoning. but i can't come to a resolution.

The IP(s) have routinely re-edited "New York rappers" as mentioned in the intro to "East Coast rappers", despite me telling him/her that choice of phrase is not suitable, since East Coast is overly generalized and could refer to any of the states (CT, NJ, PA) when the rappers in question are specifically NY based and can be left at that.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:C7D:14A4:9A00:25B3:A4DC:8271:133

There was no reply to my PM, and another edit was made reverting my revert, and this time around the subject's name (Greg Hogan) was changed to his stage name (Frenchie) in the section titled "Early Life". I reverted the edit, pointing out its appropriate to start off referring to him by his real name when it specifically involves his Early Life & birth.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frenchie_(rapper)&action=history ( 03:25, 23 April 2016‎ | DA1 )

In addition to leaving my previous PM on the Talk Page of the newer IP address, hoping to spark a discussion and come to a resolution.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.71.187.187

Once again no response or resolution, and my revert was reverted. This time around an edit was made adding "Born" tag to the bio/infobox, which is identical to the "Origin" tag. Format precedence requires that we have one or the other, and only both if the two differ. Such as an artist being 'born' in Kenya and moving to Chicago (which becomes his 'origin'/hometown). So now the biobox has redundant lines. Since i cannot get any responses on the IPs' talk pages, i certainly cannot incite a discussion on the article Talk page. I'm hoping an administrator can help out on the matter. DA1 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

On a sidenote, now I'm noticing someone has changed the intro to 1017 Records (the article to which "Frenchie (rapper)" originally redirected to) as "Eric money records" and have deleted the infobox altogether. I'm unsure whether this IP is related or not, but this seems to be a clear act of vandalism. No source was provided for the name change, and there's no reason why the infobox is deleted. DA1 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You should move this discussion to Talk:Frenchie (rapper) so it can draw in more editors. I've found that often editors who use IPs don't even realize they have a talk page, much less check it for messages. Discussion about editing the article should begin on the article talk page so it becomes less about you vs. them and brings in more editors who might be familiar with the subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you recommend I revert his/her edit and point towards discussion at the Talk page? How do I go about getting their attention, since leaving a message on their IP talk pages isn't doing anything. Liz, I'm somewhat skeptical whether we'll be getting input from third parties. The article subject is somewhat underground, and as stated I 'recently' made the article. I'm unsure who's editing but its largely non-constructive & cosmetic, replacing one synonym with another, now he/she is duplicating the citation links when I already put a <ref name="EME"/> tag in the relevant lines, so forth. DA1 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Lithopsian on WR31a

I am experiencing trouble with User:Lithopsian who refuses to engage in seeking consensus on Page: WR 31a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), even in light to resolve this on article talk page: [160] Under this recent edit [161], saying in the comments "My last word." I have tried to engage Lithopsian in discussion on the edits of this page [162], which was made on 11th March 2016. Lithopsian has not tried to resolve these issues at all. So I reverted the Lithopsian whole edit here [163], which Lithopsian now has reverted twice, then continues editing. His only reply has been "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." [164] and this [165].

Evidence on this page suggests there is no abuse been made by me at all, and this is deliberate avoidance of consensus. I am left without being able to edit this page without violating procedures, and the problem issues still [166] still exist. I have advised Lithopsian of further issues with his unjustifiable claims of "abuse" here.[167]

Further evidence of this kind of behaviour of not being willing to reach consensus appears here Talk:Supernova [168], especially the edits on Supernova [169] and [170]

Note: I thought this deemed as edit warring, Ymblanter states this is not the case[171], and referred me to "Please follow the dispute resulotion avenues..". This is why I've come here.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 copyright policy violations

The article R2-45 links directly to an external web source (tonyortega.org) that (according to the text on that page) carries a unauthorized 3-minute excerpt from a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard, copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. My understanding is that this violates WP:ELNEVER. That article also links to a shorter recording on Wikileaks. The local editors accept that copyright is claimed on the material,[172] but they revert my edit when I remove the links. They argue, under various theories, that the Church of Scientology cannot enforce copyright on the materials.[173][174] They also argue that linking is OK if it is for a different purpose.[ibid:"for the purposes of commentary"] The editors involved are Damotclese (talk · contribs), Slashme (talk · contribs), Feoffer (talk · contribs), and Prioryman (talk · contribs). When I removed the link, I was "warned" by an opposing editor that my insistence on following WP:POLICY on this and other issues is "continued tendentious editing".[175] Damotclese (talk · contribs) also copy/pasted a complete Scientology document (purported) into the talk page,[176] in disregard of WP:COPYVIO, to support some point of argument with another editor. These actions suggest some or all of these editors are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to promote a particular view of the subject. NB: I do not represent Scientology, and I have no personal knowledge of the genuineness of those recordings. They may be false (in which case they are fraud or forgery) and they may be true (in which case they violate WP policy on copyright). Whether false or true, the content is inappropriate and against WP policy for external links. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed article now includes a "non-free" scanned image from a copyright Scientology magazine uploaded by Feoffer (talk · contribs)[177]. This should be considered a separate but related issue -- that is, each instance of suspected copyvio should be considered separately. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the Church of Scientology is an organization, they have the ability to claim copyrights on documents and restrict their reference or use by others. If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER. This also applies to the wikileaks source (and honestly, I wouldn't reference anything from Wikileaks if I were writing an article). I wouldn't think that the removal of a reference that potentially violates Wikipedia's external links and copyright policies would constitute as a violation of any discretionary sanctions on an article. However, if articles under the subject of Scientology are under 1RR restrictions, then removing and restoring the sources back-and-fourth is a very bad idea. The question I have is... are these documents actually under a copyright that restricts the use of those sources? My first thought is yes and these sources should be removed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright isn't a black and white argument. There is WP:NFCC and WP:Fair use to consider. If the material provides the best context for the education of the reader, it can be used. I haven't read the article or the diffs, I'm simply pointing out that "It's copyrighted" it's the end-all to this question.--v/r - TP 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I just reviewed WP:NFCC and I'm looking at WP:F now. Striking out my "first thought" from the previous response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Just speaking about the image, File:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png. WP:NFCCP #8 is at issue here. Also, it definitely fails WP:NFC#UUI #15. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree (regarding the image). Still looking into the concerns regarding the sources. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: WP:NFCC #8 is the most subjective criteria of them all. Needs a discussion regarding it on the talk page. Although, I tend to agree with you. NFCC #8 is met when the article is about the NFC and the context of the NFC cannot be described in a suitable way without the NFC.--v/r - TP 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Ignoring NFCC #8 it still runs afoul of NFC#UUI #15 (a pretty clear cut unacceptable use). I'm going to put it to FFD as soon as I'm done with one other thing (if someone else doesn't get to it first). --Majora (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to follow up. I started a FFD discussion on the image. As for the external links, unless we can prove for certain that the person has permission to post that video it is pretty much like posting a potentially pirated YouTube video. As such, it is my opinion that the link should be removed citing WP:ELNEVER. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the image should be deleted under NFCC #8, and I've removed it from the article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As @Feoffer: says, this is a short excerpt of a much longer speech, and it's very clearly fair-use: it's the historical figure who created the topic of the article mentioning it in a lecture. It gives just enough of the speech for the hearer to understand clearly in what context it is being used there. Without hearing the explanation leading up to him mentioning "R2-45" you get the impression that he's just talking about shooting people, but this way you can understand that, yes, he's saying that "R2-45" means shooting someone, but here he's explaining that in his belief system, killing someone is just a very basic way of making the spirit leave the body. Saying that we can't link to an external site because it contains a 3 minute extract from a lecture that lasted an hour or more is a bit extreme. --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but let's be clear about this: this is just an excuse being made by Sfarney to remove this source from the article. It is being used in the article to discuss US government papers published by Ortega relating to the topic of the article - not as a source for the lecture in question. He has only latched on to this copyright claim after (1) attacking Ortega's personal qualities in various places on Wikipedia; (2) claiming that WP:BLP applies either to L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology as a whole - an organization that claims 6 million members, 2 million more than the entire US federal government; (3) that the lecture shouldn't be used as a source because it's paywalled; (4) that a Church of Scientology publication shouldn't be cited because it is somehow "original research"; and (5) that the recording he's claiming is a copyright violation isn't genuine anyway. (Quite a turnaround, that!) In short, this is part of an ongoing campaign of tendentious obstructionism relating to this particular article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

More personal attacks, and no diff links in support. WP:NPA. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Describing your behavior isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. The ANI bearpit isn't the appropriate place to review your behavior in detail. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(1) In Wikipedia, all "statements of fact" are supported with links and references; (2) ANI is not universally considered a "bearpit"; (3) This is very much an appropriate place to review my conduct; and (4) When an issue comes before the ANI, the conduct of all involved editors comes under review. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to point out Sfarney has been on an extended campaign to remove material originating from Ortega and has taken to many venues to complain about our usage of Ortega as a source. The claiming that Ortega is a copyright infringer is but one in a long series of allegations cited as reason to scrub his reporting from the project. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal attack to accuse me of running contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, but fail to provide the diffs to support the accusations. In this most recent case, if a diff were provided, the administrators could fairly judge whether I have accused Ortega of "infringing" on copyright, and they would find I have not. I do not know whether Ortega's recording is the genuine item. But as stated above, if it is not, it is fraud or forgery (or perhaps satire) and we should not link to it. If it is, we violate WP:ELNEVER if we link to it. Wikipedia has different rules from Ortega. We live by our rules, Ortega by his, whatever they might be. The only question before the ANI at this time is whether the R2-45 article violates Wikipedia's policies on copyright, as stated above. If you wish to broaden this question to other issues, follow the rules for discussion on this page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Journalist Tony Ortega included a 3 minute excerpt of a much longer lecture for the purposes of reporting and commentary.[178] Ortega was Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice, his usage of the audio clip is in his reporting is certainly "in a way compliant with fair use". Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's tell more than half the truth. According to the Observer, Ortega was asked to leave his position at the Voice in 2012: “He was increasingly obsessed with Scientology and had neglected almost all of his editorial duties at the paper,” the ex-staffer said. “Sometimes he wouldn’t even edit features.”[179] We would not want that obsession to spill over into Wikipedia such that we forget our own policies about copyright, neutrality, advocacy, and verifiability. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How is Ortega's job performance at the Village Voice relevant to the copyright status of the external link on this article? --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not. It does, of course, dualistically question his presence here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sfarney has been smearing Ortega in various places around Wikipedia to try to make a case that he shouldn't be used as a source. It's part of a pattern of bad editing that should earn him a topic ban under the arbitration sanctions currently in force in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But the first person to bring up Village Voice was in fact Feoffer who appeared to be trying to use it to give credence to Tony Ortega. It seems to be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either both are relevant or neither are. Which means it's difficult to criticise Sfarney for bringing it up in this particular instance as it was a resonable response to Feoffer's comment. The alternative option would be to suggest Tony Ortega's previous position at the Village Voice is irrelevant point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's irrelevant either way. None of the content we're discussing relates to the Village Voice, so there is no point bringing it up. Prioryman (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, your primary problem is with Feoffer and should have been worded and indented as such. Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss all of it without personal attacks WP:PA, and we can keep it relevant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope you recognise that that includes avoiding making personal attacks on the authors of sources, too. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But there's no personal attack (as considered by wikipedia) on the authors of sources in this discussion. If the statement is true, it's as I said above, an acceptable comment in the context of this discussion. If it's not true, it's majorly wrong, but still not a personal attack. To be fair, I'm not sure if anything said on contributions is necessarily a personal attack either (although I only really read this subpart of the discussion), but it's significantly closer to one than anything said about authors of sources. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This question does not appear to have a consensus, yet. Is it still open and under consideration? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^(Discourse) 20:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there isn't yet a clear consensus, so let's make sure that we're aligned on a clear question: is it acceptable to link to a site which includes an embedded YouTube video of a three-minute excerpt from a lecture that is over an hour long, or does that violate WP:ELNEVER? --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping an admin will review this question and decide it one way or the other before it goes stale and gets archived. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^(Discourse) 02:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Section 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.

---

The user, 165.29.42.72, is going from article to article and removing content without any explanation. The user continues to do so, even after the final warning. DarkKnight2149 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Georgewilliamherbert. It's a school IP. Deor (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recruiting matter needing admin attention; no crisis

This arises from a case posted at COIN here that is a big mess and related to the topic of "transhumanism" which has been difficult across the encyclopedia lately, with all kinds of advocacy editing going on, but that is a bigger ball of wax that again I don't want to get into. Just providing context.

I believe admin intervention is needed for a specific piece of this, namely a WP:MEAT violation via off-wiki recruitment centered around this AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics), which was largely about the work of one person, David Pearce (philosopher), who is also a Wikipedia editor, User:Davidcpearce who edits here under their real name.

In the course of the AfD playing out, that user posted this on a transhumanist facebook page (changed from the original, which I can no longer link); another user who commented on that thread then posted this more strident call to yet another transhumanist facebook page.

In my view Davidcpearce has clearly violated MEAT. When I called that to their attention at COIN, their reponse was "Sigh, sometimes I wonder... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html".

This to me shows disdain for the integrity of the process here. Not sure what is the appropriate action, but this to me calls for admin attention. There is no crisis as the AfD has finished and closed "delete" but the ongoing roil over transhumanist topics continues. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This does need dealing with. The original facebook post is at archive.is/GGtOF - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion continues on the FB thread, since they're apparently unaware that it's being seen. You'll be seeing more of these people in the future, unfortunately. "We ought to crowd-write an H+Pedia article about the issues, processes, and advice for defending the presence of pro-transhumanist material on Wikipedia" "That crowd, in the longer run, could have potential as a transhumanist media presence with expertise in Wikipedia entries." David Pearce: "Perhaps in future the abolitionist bioethics entry can be restored" Lrieber (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC) (aka User:Pawg14)

People are free to talk about Wikipedia offwiki. I focused this ANI on the behavior of a Wikipedia editor who has clearly recruited off-wiki which is a violation of WP:MEAT. Please do not broaden this in an unfocused manner. Please also be careful of WP:OUTING; my OP doesn't violate OUTING as davidcpearce is transparent about his RW identity. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You were the one asking me about off-wiki discussion. Lrieber (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not here. ANIs very easily de-rail, and that is what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, no admins are weighing in, so this is unlikely to go anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

User deliberately disrupting WP as a school assignment

Taylorxfrankel has severely disrupted the article Cornish language five times in the last days [180], [181], [182], [183], [184]. By their own admission, Taylorxfrankel "has" to do this as part of a school assignment and intends to continue "I have to edit the wikipage for Cornish for a class I am taking this semester. Our assignment will be over by May 17th, so after that I will revert the changes" [185]. That's as big a WP:NOTHERE as it gets, so I suggest blocking this user who clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think he is clearly here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but has no idea how - which will not be solved by blocking or banning. The edit warring has to stop, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems he admits he's here just for an assignment. Jeppiz (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears it is part of this class instructed by Chuck Haberl. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Protonk and Adam (Wiki Ed): Just advising you of this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll take a look. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Left a note for the student. I'll email the instructor. Our emphatic guidance for instructors is that they not grade on "what sticks" to avoid this exact scenario, but it's not uncommon for students to get flustered when they see material disappear. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for the Wiki-Ed projects, we need to be more careful how the editors and such are treated because we want to help them learn. Really, this applies to all editors, but there it is. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the instructor (me) is well aware of this advice, and the student has registered along with her classmates through the Wiki Education Foundation portal, so the Content Experts there are also on top of the issue. I have written the student to remind her that I can see her past contributions as easily as anyone else can, and that I'm not necessarily grading her on the current iteration of the article but solely on her contributions to it. Not sure what else I can say at this point.Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, perhaps it might be nice to make a note on the talk page of articles you are using so that the rest of us know what's going on? DuncanHill (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have added a link to this discussion from the article talkpage. I have also asked for the page protection template to be added to the article, as it has now been fully protected. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Coule I say, with all due respect, that I find Nihonjoe's call to only allow administrator to edit the article to be a very bad call. I see no reason why serious users' should not be able to edit the article just because a new WP:SPA has edit warred on the article. Blocking all users from editing an article just because it's targeted by one single troublesome account is (fortunately) not the way we usually solve things here. Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  I have to agree. I'm not going to unprotect and start a wheel war, but I think blocks are a much better way to get the attention of someone who has to edit to pass a class. Katie^talk 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  I agree. I think the most prudent solution probably would have been to create a separate draft properly attributed based off the diff just before the class started and to let the student work off that. Even that could be done now with the proper attribution. When the term is over (or while it's going on), we can evaluate the content and merge it in with the proper attribution and redirect it later. It's no different than anyone else proposing a major restructuring of an article and making a temporary draft. Our policies probably differ from what the class requires but as Katie said, there's no need to wheel war on it. On the plus side, some fairly obscure topics are being improved at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Due to several admins agreeing here, and the fact that the professor has now left the student a message about this, I doubt protection is needed anymore, so I've unprotected. It seemed a reasonable alternative to blocking a new editor to me, but isn't needed anymore (I hope). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There's still weeks to go in the assignment so we'll be here again in mid-May when all the articles in Category:Articles in class projects/Rutgers suddenly get actively worked on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• You're welcome to disagree, Jeppiz, but it seemed appropriate due to the way the editor was acting. I'm perfectly fine with it being unprotected, too, now that the instructor and Adam have addressed the issue. I don't think blocking was warranted (though it was definitely close) in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Nihonjoe, you have my full support. Blocking her would just be a fuck-all solution with no upsides. What happened to when people actually gave a damn about newbies? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent addition of original research, copyright violations to Suite: Judy Blue Eyes

• Gmkoganwiki (talk · contribs)
• Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reported this to AIV, to no avail. User is a single purpose account, adding original research and copyright violations (song lyrics) to article. Has ignored suggestions and warnings, and won't discuss. I've suggested the necessity of WP:RELIABLE sources. Assistance appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This user appears to have stopped readding the material. Could revdelling be required for the copyright violations in the page history? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

RD1 completed and user given final warning for copyright violations. Katie^talk 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: revision 716826707 is still readable. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 15:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Eep! Thanks, good catch. Gone. Katie^talk 16:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and to Malerooster as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Hello. I updated real and accurate numbers of the current delegate tracker, from the Associated Press. The numbers there were a bit not accurate, and I don't know why. But, I fixed it. So I don't get why a rude guy named User:JFG abruptly reverted my edits. He should be warned. Archway (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the user reverted only once going here appears to be s bit rash. You should try discussing this with the user or try discussing on the talkpage first.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason for my revert was that Archway introduced information from a different source against the longstanding consensus on this sensitive issue; I just reverted a second time and advised him to turn to the talk page if he wants consensus changed. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Then talk with JFG and try to understand their positioning. Posting here about such a little thing is inappropriate, as AN/I is generally for when action is needed. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Bain family murders - possible socking

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 has been the subject of contentious edits for some time, with Turtletop unrelentingly adding or attempting to add material that bolsters the case against one of the deceased, who may have been the perpetrator and committed suicide. Since April 19 (a week ago) an SPA newcomer, Thefundermentals, has been editing the article and posting on the Talk page, taking a stance similar to that of Turtletop. At 19:08 26 April 2016 (UTC), Turtletop, using the personal pronoun "I", referred to a statement in a post made by Thefundermentals at 07:24 26 April 2016 (UTC) as though it were he who had made the post. The statement made by Thefundermentals appears at paragraph b) here. It states, "...Laniet was 'working as a prostitute..." The post by Turtletop in which he used the personal pronoun "I" is here and in it he says, "Besides I did not claim she was working as a prostitute. The police did." The state of the Talk page at the time I'm making this complaint is here. The use of the personal pronoun "I" in referring to another editor's post has raised my suspicions and I call for a sock investigation against Turtletop and Thefundermentals. Akld guy (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SSP would be the appropriate venue for this. SQL^{Query me!} 21:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now lodged there. Akld guy (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, but surely this is not allowed?

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:Doctor Papa Jones (who apparently also goes by User:Jonas Vinther) is allowing some unspecified number of random people to contribute from his account, according to his userpage (it's right at the top):

"I have some friends who occasionally make edits using my account."

This is not allowed -- in fact, it's so not allowed that I can't find the rule right off. It's kind of like "Users will be subject to gravity". Presumably an admin can find the rule, if that's even necessary.

There is this Meta page which states "To use [role accounts], consensus must be made". Roll accounts, though, would be for entities such as User:BritishMuseum (or more likely User:VBC_PR_Department etc.). I'm pretty sure that if roll accounts are allowed (which I'm pretty sure not, on the English Wikipedia), they're for properly constituted organizations and not for "me and my housemates and anybody else at the party" or whatever, with no prior OTRS permission required.

In fact, this is a copyright mess now, since the copyright remains with the contributor (it is released for use by others under CC BY-SA 3.0 by pressing the Enter button, but not waived entirely). It's impossible now to know who wrote what, and in theory all of contributions made by people using this account should be rolled back (I'm not advocating going that far though). This is even putting aside potential for the the whole "Well it was my housemate who called you an asshole, not me" sort of thing and so forth. It's just a mess.

(FWIW, I came this user's page after being directed to this ANI thread where it apparently has come that the user is a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally, although the thread was dropped for whatever reason. This isn't directly related to my complaint, but it sure as heck does not incline me (nor should it incline anyone) to be of the mind "Well, yeah, but he's a nazi, so let's cut him a break")... Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

THe policy you're looking for is WP:NOSHARE, and yeah that's an admission that their account is shared, which is clearly not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I guess you didn't look at his user talk page where I posted a message to him about this earlier today. Ideally, you should talk to the editor about issues to try to resolve them before bringing a complaint to ANI unless there is active damage being done to the project. This problem could be resolved by Doctor Papa Jones stating that this was a past practice and he no longer allows other users to edit from his account and remove that statement from his user page. I would like to hear from the editor before passing any judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Immediately starting an ANI discussion rather than simply going to my talk page is extremely dumb, to the point of embarrassing. In this particular case, Liz sets a good example, so thank you for that. And Herostratus, comments such as "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" are obvious personal attacks. Refrain from making such untrue and rude remarks in the future or I will report you! You should instead use your time to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Anyway, I have ensured that only I will edit from my account in the future and also removed the statement from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion Continues

My closure has been called into question. So, by all means - discuss the topic further here. Sorry for stifling the discussion here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close: The ideal situation would be that Jonas had a committed identity in place that he used to verify that he was the person who changed the password. Unless there's a pressing need to indef him and force him to start a new account, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done. Except perhaps screaming "WHEEEE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  What if I still feel like a nazi when I scream "WHEEEEEEEEEEE"? SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness - The rules were explained to this guy. He appears to get it. Fan-flippin-tastic. He says he made a change to comply with our rules. Is this an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia? Can you explain to me how a block would improve the encyclopedia in this case - without using the word 'nazi'? SQL^{Query me!} 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let's not make a big fuss out of an innocent misunderstanding. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy. Herostratus's complaints are both insulting and baseless. Referring to another editor as a nazi is a great way to get blocked. You said "this issue is not going to go away", well I think it is going to go away as it is really nothing to make a fuss about. HighInBC

Well yes but here's the deal. It turns out I was right, and WP:NOSHARE says (emphasis added):

"Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

And as a matter of fact it is regularly enforced. One editor -- an important and useful editor -- had to crawl through glass to save her career her just because another person was using her computer (not her account). She's not the only one.

There are very significant copyright considerations here -- orders of magnitude worse than copy-and-paste moves for instance -- and it's a WMF-level problem if the admin corps no longer cares about this.

But OK. Maybe the admin corps has decided it doesn't like this policy and isn't going to enforce it. Can't make 'em I guess. But it is very very significant and major policy change if you are going to stop enforcing WP:NOSHARE. We have to have an RfC, a CENT RfC I guess, and the copyright people are going to want to weigh in, and the WMF will probably need to have input. It the result of all this (as I would guess is likely) is "Well, no, we like WP:NOSHARE fine", I'm not sure what happens then.

Or you could, you know, enforce the policy, as you've supposed to do. I'm just saying.

As for the nazi thing... it's not related to the matter at hand, but I like to look at the whole situation: the person egregiously, incredibly stupidly, and for a long time, violated a core rule for which the required sanction is termination, and in addition he's a fascist (at the very least, and apparently a nazi sympathizer I gather), which we don't want and cant really have here (see Jimbo's take on the matter, if you care) so getting rid of him is win-win. I linked you the thread earlier (it's here. It was a ANI thread that was initiated by this person and should have boomeranged against him probably, but (losing badly; efforts such as ""But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense!" probably didn't help) he withdrew his complaint and was allowed to do so (a failure of diligence IMO) and so here we are.

Some excerpts:

• "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW)
• "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus)
• "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)
• "he quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is 'anti-fascist and pro-democratic' and claims that '99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap'" User:Jeppiz
• (Addressed to this person): "I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas" ( User:Irondome)
• "I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies." (User:David J Johnson)

According to User:Nick-D, this (which just says it can't be displayed) shows that user self-identified as something -- a nazi or else a fascist, I gather, and complained about the Wikipedia being anti-fascist. Apparently some combination of deletion and page moves have made this material unavailable to view (the intent, obviously) but I would think an admin could restore that.

Apparently according to User:Drmies, speaking at at another thread, this user was issued a topic ban at some point... the thread ("User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS") is here but I haven't read it, as this is getting above my pay grade -- I write articles. It's supposed t be you guys's job to handle people like this. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to keep your issues separate. There is no call for a block for shared accounts because that has been addressed. HighInBC 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jonas was already close to exhausting the community's patience due to the previous stuff (in short, self-identifying as a fascist and adding large quantities of pro-Nazi material to articles concerning Nazi Germany, leading to a broad topic ban which was instituted last November, and a "not yet" conclusion to a simultaneous discussion of whether he should be blocked outright), a light touch response to blatantly violating a core Wikipedia policy here seems inappropriate. I also think that Liz may have erred in her reading of WP:NOSHARE: it states that shared accounts will be blocked on sight. More importantly, if Jonas has been sharing his account it has to be treated as compromised until proven otherwise - how do we know who reset the password and is currently operating it? WP:COMPROMISED seems clear on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D holds a deep personal dislike of me, and I of him, so any comments about my conduct on Wikipedia made by him carries absolutely no weight at all. He would be more than happy to see me blocked and I suspect it's the sole reason he participates in this discussion. And since we're playing a game of Godwin's law, you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too, Herostratus! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You have self-identified as a fascist on your user page, where you also stated that "This user supports far-right politics", and "Make no mistake, 99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else." So herostratus is well within his rights to call you a fascist. Do you have, on the other hand, any evidence that Herostratus is "a fascist and Nazi sympathizer"? Otherwise it would be best if you immediately removed those statements. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you live in your own little fantasy world; there is no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I have never made any pro-Nazi edits to any articles, yet I've been sanctioned for such. Also, bare in mind he called me a "nasty piece of work generally" which is pure horseshit. Face fact! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont see how one could expect more evidence for your being a Nazi sympathizer than the fact that you explicitly stated so on your user page. This is a fact. You may regret that now, but it is a fact you need to face with more integrity than you are doing now. I dont think you are "a nasty piece of work", but your lack of sound judgment and critical thinking in writing about Nazi related topics is obvious to any one who looks over your contributions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sort of seems like the "shared account" thing was burying the headline here. If the user is being disruptive in other ways then the shared account is just a red herring. If there is a problem we should be blocking the user, not the account(people blocked for having shared accounts are often welcome to create another). HighInBC 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Claiming_FA_contributions for other concerns about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up these so-called "other concerns" on the talk page. Case closed. And stay on topic. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood

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:Davey2010 has posted to my user talk page accusing me of disruptive editing and stating that I will be blocked if I do it again [186]. The issue stems from a reversion I did of an edit to the page by User:CDRL102 in which they said that a statement was an opinion. In reality the statement was referenced and was a matter of established fact. I explained my reversion substantially on the Clarawood talk page however this page was changed by Davey2010 and the sections deleted [187] [188]. Instead of taking my comment and explanation on board the immediate reaction from Davey2010 and CDRL102 was to accuse me of ownership and inexperience. Davey2010 has previously stated to me that there are Guidelines and Policies on Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow them and anything I have done has been referenced to such. Davey2010 however, admin or not, seems to have the attitude that he can do anything he wants. This is demonstrated by the original AfD he and CDRL102 raised for Clarawood which was closed after approx 1 hour and which was reinstated after a Deletion Review [189] [190]. In other words he has a pattern of what could be termed disruptive behaviour himself and deliberate ignorance of Guidelines and Policies. I am being accused of not being willing to work collaboratively and unreasonable "ownership" style behaviour concerning the page Clarawood. As I have previously argued in the AfD, talk pages and the Deletion Review this is not the case and there are very substantial references on the page and I have encouraged and asked for any problems others have with it to discuss them particularly on the talk page. The edit by CDRL102 demonstrates the importance of this as they were factually wrong. I have also been accused of reverting every edit anyone makes. This is also quite simply not true, but I have reverted non-constructive edits and explained why I did so. I have followed process in anything I have done here, I have not deleted other people's comments or blankly edited fully referenced material and I have not acted outside normal process and policy. Davey2010 however has done these things and I feel that it would be pointless and impossible to have a rational discussion with him on his talk page which is why I am raising this ANI instead. I have no problem with constructive edits to any page, that is what a collaborative encyclopaedia is about, however I think I am entirely correct when I say that edits must actually be constructive and based on fact and if they are not then it is fair to revert them. I think I am also entirely correct to say that Davey2010's behaviour has not been perfect and I hope this can be looked into Clarawood123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If he tried to do anything to improve that article, then more power to him! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Yep I gave them a strong warning as they've heavily been trying to "promote" the article and clearly do have OWNership issues with it,

Yep I've wiped their article talkpage posts as it was more or less moans over reverts and some were unrelated to the article - I never ever do this however in this case filling the talkpage up with crap isn't ideal either -Most of it belonged on a user talkpage,

Yep I did move the article to a sandbox as CDRL was more than happy to work on it although it was reverted by Sandstein as there wasn't really any consensus at DRV for my actions,

So all in all I believe my actions overall have been okay and the only person that should be blocked is Clarawood123 for their huge amounts of disruption not only on the article but also on the DRV and the AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh and I'm not an admin ..... thank the lord , –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried to edit this page, most of my edits were reverted. It was then userfied to me to improve the quality, once it was put back into Clarawood, User:Clarawood123 deleted my revision and copied and pasted his last edited revision before it was userfied. Since then, I didn't try to restore some of my improvements as I'm not going to waste my time and have it reverted again, although I did try to edit the opening paragraph, which surprise surprise was reverted. So User:Clarawood123 seems to have an Ownership Issue. CDRL102 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Continued problem with User:Davey2010 and others on this page. I raised this ANI some time ago and it descended into attacks on me rather than a resolution of the issue. As shown below the proposed ban of me (by an anonymous user) was opposed. As these discussions went on various editors gradually removed practically every bit of information and referencing from the article in such a way and to such an extent that it is now an absolute nonsense which is seriously lacking in context, facts, background and accuracy and which will NOT give a reader a true picture of the subject. I therefore tagged the article as such yesterday. I did not edit it, I simply tagged. User:Jytdog reverted that tag saying it was disruptive. It was not, so I reverted back to the tags and left a substantial note on the article talk page explaining exactly why as shown here [191]. User:Davey2010 has reverted these tags again stating the article is fine, factual etc..and he and another editor have left comments on the talk page below the explanation of why I tagged & stated the article is non factual, stating that nobody will read the comment and asserting that the article is fine. It absolutely and demonstrably is not, as shown in my talk page comment, and I need help in getting this issue of User:Davey2010's behaviour and the Clarawood page sorted out once and for all. If I revert the tags again it will descend into another lot of nonsense, I am not so sure it won't simply turn once again into an attack on me here, but the fact is there is a non-factual article which I tagged as such and explained as per proper process, and this editor has once again rode roughshod over this asserting things rather than looking at the evidence. I need help with this Clarawood123 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah it's not my behaviour that's the issue here .... it's yours!, I explained why I removed the tags on the talkpage so instead of running to ANI how about you discuss it like a normal human being!, Also stop pinging me as this is getting extremely boring and pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I already did discuss it in detail as you well know and have been ignored. I now am starting to understand why Wikipedia is laughed at in academic and professional circles Clarawood123 (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote an unformatted wall of text. Your wall of texts does not justify your numerous tags. Surprisingly it's not been completely ignored. Changes have been made based on your comments. It has not been fully restored to your preferred version. You preferred version has numerous problems starting with the lead. The sourcing, you have general reference section for the sources you couldn't be bothered to put in the article because you found it impractical to individualize them or something of the sort. But again your wall of text has had action taken. Now if you want to help wikipedia be taken seriously in professional and academic circles you are going to need to become more familiar with it. Below, while you weren't banned, it has been suggested that you consider mentorship. You can find more information about that at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. You, in addition or as an alternative, may consider the Wikipedia:Teahouse as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While mentorship, the Teahouse and dispute resolution all seem like reasonable next steps, I don't see any need for Administrator action at present. The various parties need to calm down and use the article talk page, and may need some mediation in doing so. I would suggest they each refrain from reverting one another's edits and instead discuss anything they feel like reverting before doing so. But as far as AN/I is concerned, I propose we close this thread. WaggersTALK 12:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What happened here seems unfortunate. Clarawood123 was a new editor in February who created an article about a Belfast housing estate, Clarawood. It was an interesting article that really made the place come alive. It had sourcing issues, including several unresolvable ones, but he (I've seen him post that he's male) could have fixed them over time. Instead it somehow all blew up, led to an AfD, requests that he be site banned, and the article is now in a state that upsets him. (Re: the COI allegation, he is probably just someone familiar with the area.)

Clarawood, I suggest you post a list on Talk:Clarawood of the issues you see as mistakes or as misleading, then set about fixing them, bearing in mind that we need sources for anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged." SarahSV ^(talk) 03:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clarawood123: I am not an admin but may I offer some advice from experience? When things get difficult like this, unfailing politeness is really important: stay unruffled, ignore personal remarks, stick to the encyclopedic issues. If someone makes an edit you want to undo, first ask them politely if they could explain why they made it, perhaps also commenting on what you see as the point of disagreement, along the lines of "As I understand the issue, it is foo, which contradicts the bar you appear to have written." It really does help to keep the air clean. Oh, and why do so many experts mock Wikipedia? Because a) they have been thrown off it for grinding their personal career axes, and/or b) they see it as a challenge to their personal authority, and/or c) it is easier to mock a thing than to roll up your sleeves and make it better. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed ban/WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's pretty obvious that User:Clarawood123 has an WP:Ownership problem (I'd also point out that they're a WP:SPA and most probably have a WP:COI). I suggest this be boomeranged back to them with either a straight ban or at least a topic ban with a forced name change.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or ban as proposer. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support either, as per the WP:OWN issue- also noting the sheer amount of different editors' time and effort that s/he has wasted, which could have been spent doing better things. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Many editors are trying to improve the article and they're simply reverting everyone and everything, Personally I don't think even a long block would change their ways so personally think they should be indeffed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - ownership and competence issues are transparent. Not welcome here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I think going right to site ban is over the top. Perhaps a 6 month topic ban, to give this editor an opportunity to demonstrate they can learn the site's editing guidelines and contribute effectively to other areas of the project. Either we gain a productive editor, or they blow it and then they get a site ban. - ^theWOLFchild 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, on this wiki please log in for a support/oppose-statement, it simplifies the evaluation for counters (of course it's anyway no vote.) –Be..anyone (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

*Support a Topicban I notice the article is named Clarawood and that the user is named Clarawood123. With the ownership issue this is rather striking. While I can't say there's exactly a COI but their connection to Clarawood does seems likely to be apart of the reason for their disruption.With an indef topic ban they can build up other contributions outside of their single purpose and in 6 months they can appeal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

oppose as @HyperGaruda: points out Clarawood123 does seem to be mindful of the ownership issue and can be expected to take that into account in the future. They are a new user and should be given the opportunity to correct course. In the event they do not they can be banned accordingly later. As opposed to banning her some more experienced editors can step in and assist in the article such as by fixing the article or tagging an issue with it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose on the following grounds: a site ban is overkill; this proposal is brought forth by someone who either doesn't want to take responsibility for their Wikipedia edits and activity by registering an account or they are a sockpuppet. I'm very uncomfortable giving this proposal any credence based on the fact that the IP proposer could be anyone who has edited here previously under an account or another IP and is currently blocked or are IP hopping or just playing games. And just for the record: the account we being discussed here for some kind of sanction/ban is way too new for anyone to be calling for a site ban, topic ban, and saying they aren't welcome in Wikipedia. WP:BITE immediately comes to mind. Clarawood123 HAS less than 80 edits at this writing. Some folks just don't get Wikipedia at first and mistake it for something other than an encyclopedia project that has extensive rules, guidelines, policies, and the like. To some, it's just an online site where they can add some stuff rather than actually seeing the bigger, more serious picture. What should happen is someone very experienced and/or very patient needs to volunteer to mentor this individual, put them in the right direction, give them sound advice, and get them editing productively, not set them up to create another account and get into the sockpuppet death-spiral. Which is what will happen if they are site-banned or topic-banned. This is a bad proposal and it's a bad precedent to allow an anon-IP to suggest such a strong move and editors going along with this should seriously rethink their agreement with the proposal, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I share your concern with this IP. The major thing really is that the ownership issues cease.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith, guys. If you had checked my contribs, you'd have seen that I've been on this IP for a while. As for my proposal: here we have a blatant promotional account who is trying to force their own POV on an article, without and against consensus, and you're proposing we treat them like any other account 142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been here with this current IP only since January 2016, from what I can see. My concerns are well spelled out and I don't think they are unreasonable. And yes, I do think we should treat them like "any other account" -- something they are and something you are not. If you want to be taken seriously in situations such as this, my suggestion is you also get an account. I'm sure there are admins and other editors who will disagree, however, I am just as certain there are admins and other editors who would agree. It's no big deal to have an account, after all. Why not create one? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Because... it's none of your our business? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this point be forced? No. Is it our business as a community when an IP is looking to have a newbie permanently banned from editing? I think it is. I've said what I had to say, and am fine dropping the issue of this IP not having an account from here on. But I won't keep silent over a permaban proposal when I don't think it's warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those. At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123, if you have identified material currently on the page that is a copyright violation, it's pretty important that you identify that content, because it needs to be removed.

Otherwise, some general comments:

• Although multiple people have been involved in edit skirmishes on the article, as well as the AfD, attempts to have any discussion at all on the article talk have been weak sauce at best, and not always been done with the best tone, on multiple sides. For example, CDRL102's remark "you're incabable, that's all", is sure to lead to productive discourse, and not at all escalate tensions.
• Davey2010's behavior also leaves much to be desired, such as not blanking discussion on the article talk with such helpful summaries as "Stop filling the talkpage with moans" (please see WP:NPA and WP:TPO), not to mention giving a final warning as a first warning on Clarawood123's user talk, and threatening indef, which is clearly not a thinly veiled "fuck you".
• I am very suspicious of a ban proposal by an IP, especially after four comments, three of which were made by the two above referenced editors.
• To their credit HyperGaruda has made a commendable effort and others should follow their example.

So overall, oppose ban, support not WP:BITEing, recommend certain editors take a few moments of serious self-examination. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I admit I could've discussed it better with them but overall my behaviour was absolutely fine, They deserved a warning months ago however I left off the warnings in the hope they'd get the hint .... which they didnt hence the final...., I stated above on why I removed their talkpage comments and my edit summaries wasn't a personal attack, Ofcourse because you're absolutely perfect and haven't ever made a mistake in your life have you ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly six minutes wasn't enough personal reflection time. Your actions have not been absolutely fine, and saying that they were is not a justification. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I called the User 'incapable' after they again reverted one of my edits, which has been fixed by another editor since. CDRL102 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I find in my travels through life, that insulting people is generally not an effective communication technique. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. Well, that escalated quickly. Taking into account how new Clarawood123 is, you could be a little more considerate. From their comment above, it appears that the you do not own Wikipedia pages message has finally sunk in. Perhaps it is best if someone experienced in the Wiki-MoS checks and old version of Clarawood, such as this one, tagging problems as they go through the page (don't forget to save it to a sandbox), like I did in one section. That way, Clarawood123 can learn what exactly is wrong/unwikipedic, instead of being flooded by vague comments that the article has problems somewhere at an unspecified location. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban - I tried to talk with this user and they are 100% committed to the view everything they have done is fine and everyone else has done wrong, and cannot see their COI. They have resisted all efforts at dialogue to reach consensus (not just with me, but from day 1); this stance toward the community has been and is disruptive and won't stop being disruptive; they have no place here. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - per JYT, and actions smack of WP:TEND. Clearly not here to contribute cooperatively. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - editor has demonstrated an incapability to talk about their editing stances without some way incorporating their commentary/opinion of an editor to it. This is not a battleground. Based on the information that's relayed, Ciarawood123's condescending and ownership attitudes isn't helping anything to resolve anything. Proceeding to start massive discussions so to talk about another editor rather than just make the discussion about what it is about the article they have a problem with is not how to start an article talk page discussion or otherwise seek consensus. It also doesn't help that he edit wars and fights when others challenge him and only trying to get his way. I am not familiar with the subject area and do not make an opinion on anyone's edits at hand, but we don't always have to know which is the right version of an article to know whether an editors perception of collaboration is the correct one. Its about working with others to achieve the one goal to build an encyclopedia, not treating others as opponents when they disagree with you. Its detracting from our goals when we have people on this project that don't seem to know what collaboration and working with others truly means. —Mythdon 07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Response In reply to the last few commenters - a simple search through and perusal of the entire correspondence relating to the page Clarawood, including those comments and talk page sections which have been deleted by other editors - in my view deliberately as part of their campaign to portray me as something I am not - will demonstrate fully that my focus has been on the content of the page and the quality of the information and referencing on it. When some editors have stated that they tried to improve the page but I just reverted as usual, this portays me as a disruptive and non-collaborative editor with ownership issues. But this is not the truth as I have been saying for some time now and which is the reason I raised this ANI. I will offer an analogy. If any of the editors above had created and written a page and then I came on and made edits which left it demonstrably factually wrong would they be justified in reverting those edits? I think they would. Further, if, despite having explained exactly why they reverted, they were then accused of ownership, bias and disruption would this be true? The answer is it would not. As I have previously urged people to do, please do not participate in this without fully looking at the facts and without being completely and utterly honest. The reality is that a number of those involved have not been honest, are guilty themselves of the things they are accusing me of - and worse - and when others with more rational minds have tried to highlight this to them they have blanked it and indeed acted arrogantly and rudely. I have attempted to keep my arguments and comments civil and rational and on key. I have had to defend myself against other editors which is why I have had to mention them. It was me who was the person focussing on content in the first place. As I stated above the article is now in breach of copyright, seriously misreferenced from the first line and factually wrong from the first line. This is because in their haste to make me out to be a fool and defend their friends the editors concerned have acted irrationally and rashly and frankly do not have knowledge of the subject they were dealing with. Pointing this out does not make me disruptive, it does not mean I am moaning, it does not mean I am unwilling to collaborate, it does not mean I cannot self reflect or that I have a conflict of interest - it means that an article which was factual and fully referenced has been vandalised in a way which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. By those who are accusing others ie me of the same actions. I am getting rather sick of this ongoing nonsense myself and sick of constantly having to defend myself from people jumping on the bandwagon without checking their facts Clarawood123 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123, not a word you wrote there acknowledges that you have done anything wrong. As long as you maintain that stance, you are, in my view, going to be an endless source of disruption. Everyone is new, but most new editors do not cause this level of disruption, and most new editors are willing to listen and to learn. If you were self-aware and willing to learn, and not focused solely on blaming others, I would not be supporting a site ban. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Jytdog it does not acknowledge I did anything wrong because I did not. The only thing I appear to have done wrong here - aside from some minor mistakes at the very start - is have a username which some have assumed means I am an SPA. It doesn't, but I haven't had the chance yet to get into Wikipedia and my first article was written about something I am an expert on. Nobody knows what other potential articles I might write or what contributions I may make. As I tried to point out to you, but you were unwilling to reflect on your own actions and words, if an article is fully factual and referenced and someone claims it is not and makes a sweeping edit which then actually does leave it innaccurate and unreferenced, then an editor would not only be within their rights but expected to revert to the original. This does not make them disruptive, but it would highlight the other editor who has left the article in a bad state as disruptive. Me not agreeing with you does not mean I cannot look at myself, it means I do not agree with your analysis, and my disagreement is based on facts and evidence not blind assertion. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You have made so many mistakes. None of them fatal or unusual. The unusual, fatal mistake - the reason this thread is here - is your inability to be flexible, dialogue and learn. You are profoundly unfit for Wikipedia, where the bedrock policy is consensus. I am wrong sometimes, btw. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban for now. Other editors' attempts to deal with the content and ownership issues have been as significant a cause of this situation. This discussion has brought it to a wider audience; the response from Clarawood123 has is not ideal but is understandable. More time is needed. Peter James (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban - This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly? Provide evidence Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It has been, both here and at the AfD. Indeed, some might argue that you were contributory to presenting the evidence yourself. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ban but they just need to learn how to write, I understand what it's like to be a young editor - and so I can see the frustration of why others weren't happy with me - and take it from me, Clarawood just needs to wise up and bit and learn how it all works, move on to a project maybe and help out there. But with a ban they won't learn so it's not a good method. CDRL102 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• To be fair they've been problematic since March and nearly a month later and nothing's changed in terms of their behaviour, How do you know they're young ? ... They could be 85 all for you know ...., Don't get me wrong I would absolutely love to give the editor a chance however with the amount of disruption caused here I honestly can't them ever changing their ways here .... There's only so much WP:ROPE you can give.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion is the first time Clarawood123 (or the article, or the AFD) has been mentioned on any noticeboard. Peter James (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I know?........ –Davey2010^Talk 03:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose(with clarification) - I think the person needs some mentorship, as my first Article got AfD'ed and I didn't like the way it happened, but that is the lessons needed to learn how we are required to format our contributions. I agree that the person has displayed obvious recalcitrance, and am suspicious of the name's involved, but in the spirit of "good faith" think some mentoring would be good. Nuro msg me 02:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment User:CDRL102 advises that I just need to learn "how it all works". Presumeably this would include such issues as not deleting from articles established academic facts which are referenced. For example such as they did as described on the Clarawood Talk page here [192] which was the edit and revert which kicked off all this nonsense. User:Davey2010 states that I have been "problematic since March" and talks of the "amount of disruption caused". Presumeably his own listing of the article for AfD and subsequent actions in closing it after an hour, deleting comments and discussions on Talk pages, threatening me with blocking etc etc and therefore me having to raise this ANI - it was in fact me who raised this about User:Davey2010 - were not in any way disruptive. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made sweeping edits to the Clarawood page. The edit in which they left the page in breach of copyright was labelled "irrelevancy", the edit in which they adopted CDRL102's change to the opening statement was labelled "unsourced WP:OR" despite the fact that it was in fact referenced and was NOT original research as explained previously, they removed a lot of detail under the label "unsourced" despite the fact that it was not only heavily sourced but the source was the official record of the construction by those who built the estate (but of course they had already removed those references as "irrelevant"), they then removed even more stating it was a synth and also that the sources were "crap". If the offical Government record held at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland is a "crap" source then God help us in trying to find good ones. Others have made helpful edits by leaving the article completely and utterly misreferenced in other words there are references on the page - from the first line - which bear no relation to the statement or fact they supposedly back up, there is now some very bad grammar on the page including mispelling, and as I have also previously mentioned the article is factually wrong in multiple places from the outset. People need to get real here, see that my arguments on this have been driven by a desire for proper content and proper procedure; recognise that a number of those attacking me and my actions have been completely in the wrong despite their assertions to the contrary; get this article restored to the way it was before it was vandalised ie my last edit; if there are genuine problems with how it was written then raise those issues particularly in discussion on the talk page where I would be more than willing to learn or amend if appropriate; stop playing the issue as being my inexperience and understand that the actual issue is the inability of some of the above to reflect honestly on their own actions. Contrary to some people's assertions I can and have reflected on my own and as a result have not done anything else except try and defend myself - even though as I have said the page is now in breach of copyright thanks to [User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]] and others. Yours, anticipating that the above mentioned and others will reject this comment and redouble their attacks on me Clarawood123 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you anticipate that editors will start linking to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE too? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood123 is taking all the WP:ROPE that other editors are offering and hanging themselves. I urge the editors voting !oppose to read the intransigence in what Clarawood123 is actually writing here, and reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Intransigence is defined as not willing to compromise; obstinately maintaining an attitude however it is invariably used in the context of someone who does so without reason or rational thought, reflection on their position or reference to accepted norms or processes. This is not what I have done. If it was I would admit so and move on. Instead my staunch position has been held with direct reference to multiple Guidelines and in the face of blank assertion without evidence. There is most definitely intransigence throughout this saga, and rational, sensible and honest minds - after investigation and reference to the full history of it on the various talk pages, AfD, Deletion Review, edit histories and this ANI (which I started about Davey2010) - will be able to distinguish what quarters it has been coming from eg I have been accused of reverting everything anyone else did to the page lots of times, the edit history shows that after a couple of mistakes by me initially over fair use images and trivia, there were only 2 or 3 reversions of edits by CDRL102 over a period of about 2 weeks and they were both explained fully on the talk page. The only other reversions were then the one after the Deletion Review restored the page and the one reverting CDRL102's removal of a referenced fact. User:Jytdog is currently going through the article as it has been left by others ie misreferenced and in breach of copyright etc highlighting references which appear to bear no relation to things mentioned and deleting sections of what little remains. I must point out that if those edits which left the article in this state had not been done then it would not be misreferenced Clarawood123 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. A site ban would be ridicusly harsh on a new editor with so few edits. If anything, a topic ban would be more than enough to check Clarawood123's intentions. Given they have not edited almost anything outside of the topic it has almost the same effect. Still, it leaves plenty of room for Clarawood123 to edit on something else. But before any ban at all, we should ask Clarawood123 to edit also on other topics, and let this one article grow mostly from other contributions for a while (it just passed a deletion discussion, it will most likely not be in any risk of deletion any time soon). And within a month or so, we either have a new editor, or we are sure that we do need a ban. Banning now would be based on a wild guess, that is not fair, nor useful, and quite BITEy. - Nabla (talk)

User:Nabla I get what you are saying in theory, but you should actually come try to improve the article. This person is completely unworkable. I am not exaggerating. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Seems like the more recent changes have gone off without a hitch. Or maybe I'm misreading things. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

They have stopped reverting people, yes, but their comments on the Talk page remain 100% antagonistic and disruptive, and above all, just not helpful. Rather than discussing anything simply, every remark is full of accusation and disdain. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe the user has good intentions, I say we give some ROPE and explain the situation. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

well its pretty clear to me this will be closed "no consensus" but hopefully with a good, clear warning. Let's hope it takes. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and hopefully my final comment No matter how many times those such as User:Jytdog, User:CDRL102, User:Davey2010 or User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi state things about both me and the Clarawood page, or how plausible they sound, or how much other participants latch onto their assertions, it does not make what they are saying about me and the page true. The truth is the truth and the facts are the facts and I have now urged numerous times for sensible admins and editors to please look at this fully and take my comments on board and determine who has been telling the truth and acting appropriately through this affair by reference to the facts. No matter how many times they accuse me of being unable or incapable or unworkable it does not make it the truth. No matter how many times they plant suggestions of disruption, COI, SPA, etc etc it does not make it the truth. No matter how insulting or personally invidious they are to me it does not make their assertions true. As stated previously, multiple times, the article Clarawood is now factually wrong in multiple places, misreferenced in multiple places and in breach of copyright in multiple places. This has only got worse with each edit done by those supposedly "helping" and "fixing" it. This is because the sum total of knowledge most of them have about Clarawood was drawn from the article itself (though I have reason to suspect there are some who actually do and did have agendas to change the page from the outset to fit with their personal views of the estate). Stating this does not make me uncooperative or demonstrate that I have ownership issues, it demonstrates - as it has all along - that I am rightly concerned about the integrity of the article and of Wikipedia. What is the correct position to take here? Support someone who was attacked unjustly and was a victim of lack of process and disruption themselves and allow them to leave the article they wrote in a factual, referenced and legal state? Or support those who have wildly and blankly accused them of practically everything they could accuse them of (without evidence to back any of it up) and leave the article breaching copyright, factually wrong and misreferenced? The answer is also not to delete the article, the article was fine until the recent vandalising. I STILL hope that someone with a bit of clout and sense will look into this fully, see what has gone on here and resolve things to the satisfaction of all, with all accepting things in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration which Wikipedia is supposed to typify. I have tried to follow procedure to allow this to happen, next stage will most likely be arbitration Clarawood123 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Clarawood123, I can see why they are so frustrated with you. You are really so self - absorbed that you cannot see what is happening right here in front of your nose. No, the next step will NOT be arbitration. The next step will be your editing privileges will be permanently revoked. Arbitration is for intractable issues the community cannot solve. You are rapidly assisting the community in solving this, and the solution will be you are site banned. This isn't a court. You have no rights here. If you are site banned, which is what is on the table and seemingly ruling the day, you will never be allowed to edit here again. So just exactly who do you envision is going to file an arbitration case? John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

.... You do realize you're digging a very big hole for yourself ..... Instead of "everyone's vandalizing this" and I'm going to Arbcom" etc etc, What you really need to be saying is something along the lines of "I've learned from my mistakes and they won't be repeated" or "I'll communicate with everyone better", To be absolutely honest I've been pondering on whether or not to oppose the siteban however you're making it extremely difficult for anyone to keep you here and it's clearly obvious you're not going to change your ways which makes the siteban all the more appropriate it, You really need to think about your actions and words from hereon in. –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose ban A ban is not appropriate for good faith editing. Having reviewed the disputes on the page, I am shocked that a ban would be suggested. "The next step" will be whatever it will be, and no one here can yet say what that will be until a consensus is taken, and at this point, consensus is divided. "No rights"? What strange talk this is -- All have rights until it is shown that they abused those rights. Clarawood123 (talk · contribs), please be explicit here about the copyright violations you allege. Grammar's Li'l Helper 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• WURT (Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team) has issued a press release to British newspapers about bias and bullying on Wikipedia. It refers to the Clarawood article as an example. WURT is angry about the unjust treatment of Clarawood123 but it has no connection with Clarawood123. Keep an eye on the newspapers. Ispitinyourgravy (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And you felt the need to create an account ten minutes ago to tell us that...? Cheers :) 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with WERT (Wikipedia Extraordinary Rodent Ticklers), which despite public pressure, has remained conspicuously silent on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose site ban C'mon folks, are we really serious about a site ban for a newbie (account created Feb 4th 2016). Yes they are showing signs of ownership, yes they are argumentative, yes they post irritating "walls of words". But what I am sensing here is that just a couple of editors have got extremely frustrated with this and are lashing out with a subsequent pile on. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appearance of the OP at this noticeboard. It would be totally draconian to impose a site ban, especially under a boomerang. Imagine what message that sends to other newbies here. I suspect Clarawood123 has learned a lot from this experience. ( By the way user:Clarawood123, do NOT go to arbcom - you will almost certainly regret it if you do.) I suggest this is closed with no action taken. Clarawood123 would benefit from some advice, perhaps from a friendly admin, and if they transgressed again, we could easily start to think about imposing sanction then. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose. Site bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not for cases such as these. Clarawood123, I recommend you be careful here and not inadvertently dig yourself deeper. Arbcom will not improve the situation, trust me. Maybe a mentorship or some advice from a more experienced editor? GAB^Hello! 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wayyyy too soon for a site ban. With only 96 edits, no block log, and only for ownership issues and promotional edits (nothing that is egregious or grossly against Wikipedia policies) - there is much that can be done before we even speak of banning someone in this situation. We could offer mentorship or assistance to this user first. If things get worse and/or it becomes necessary, blocks can/should be imposed. If, after multiple blocks and repeated consistent issues continue to occur (to where WP:NOTHERE or other guidelines can be reasonably applied), only then should a ban be considered in this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term abuse

I found these socks used by Bertrand101, and Lpkids2006 but those IPs I found are 180.191.103.1, and 180.190.103.20 Can you please block both of these socks? Comments are greatly welcome here. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• The one is blocked already by MusikAnimal (thanks); the other is not actively warring, or the IP may have already been given up. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes list of Indian billionaires

Look I know this really isn't the right place for this, but I'm not sure what is. This is a very visible place, so I'm here asking for eyes on the above train wreck of an article. Its POV top to bottom and getting worse daily. My inclination would be to just nuke it and start over. As it stands now it has little to do with any Forbes list. Thanks. Not asking for any action against specific editors altho it appears some may be appropriate, so I've made no notifications. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given the table there as much care as I can, but the rest needs help. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The topic could have been raised at WT:INB initially. But anyways.... Currently List of Indians by net worth redirects to the subject list. I would suggest doing it the other way round and keeping only the well sourced entries in it; be it Forbes or any other source. The list would fall well along with other entries at Category:Lists of people by wealth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 20:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is just a reprint of this Forbes list. I'd send it to AfD as articles shouldn't just reproduce content that is available elsewhere on the internet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the generous portion of WP:COAT material...and yeah...it is now literally is just a reprint. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We now have an IP adding a link to a draft into the article. This is too far out of my ken to take any further, but perhaps a bit of page protection might be in order? John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably no. One edit. One IP. Seems like a user who just doesn't understand WP:COAT yet. To their credit, the draft, with some revisions, could probably work as something like Inequality in India. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone reading this feels like writing content, I suggest taking in hand these sources that actually have analysis of (specifically) the Forbes statistics, how its membership has changed in recent years, and what that might represent about Indian society and economy.

• Himanshu (2013). "Some aspects of inequality in india". In Miklian, Jason; Kolas, Ashild (eds.). India's Human Security: Lost Debates, Forgotten People, Intractable Challenges. Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics. Vol. 4. Routledge. pp. 217–219. ISBN 9781136022401.
• Vaddiraju, Anil Kumar (2016). "Indian State and its capitalist growth: Success of a democracy with multiple challenges". In Yin-wah, Chu (ed.). The Asian Developmental State: Reexaminations and New Departures. Springer. p. 238. ISBN 9781137476128.
• Lalvani, Kartar (2016). "The Argument: Balance and perspective". The Making of India: The Untold Story of British Enterprise. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 40–41. ISBN 9781472924841.
• Jain, Anil Kumar; Gupta, Parul (2008-02-14). "Globalisation: The Indian Experience". Mainstream. 46 (8): 13–16.
• Milbert, Isabelle (2015). "Mapping territories of Luxury: Spatial and symbolic reassertion of inequality in Indian cities". In Basile, Elisabetta; Harriss-White, Barbara; Lutringer, Christine (eds.). Mapping India's Capitalism: Old and New Regions. EADI Global Development Series. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137536358.
• Karmali, Naznees (2009-03-11). "India's Billionaire Dropoffs". Forbes.

Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal for that UK referendum guy...

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.

---

...aka Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, given his long-term pattern of reckless disruption and harrassment towards editors like Favonian and the like. GeneralizationsAreBad is in favour of it, but what do you guys think? Blake Gripling (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (Weak) support. It's somewhat of a formality—he's already de facto banned anyway (no admin familiar with his behaviour is going to unblock him). In theory de facto or community banned makes no difference, but in practice it's easier to have a formal ban discussion and the notice on the banned editor's userpage to point to, because recognition of a de facto ban hinges somewhat on familiarity with the case. Admittedly, in this case the SPI case page with its dozens-upon-dozens of socks serves much of the same role when it comes to having a place to point to (hence the "weak" part of my support), so the absence of the discussion-and-tag isn't a big deal in this case. Nonetheless, having them wouldn't hurt the 'pedia any. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Struck the "weak" part of my support, as he's by now becoming prolific enough that already de-facto banned or no, mile-long SPI-record or no, there's no doubt left at all that a formal ban is welcome. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support for the reasons mentioned above. The socks can just be blocked as vandalism-only accounts, since the edits are either harassment or disruption and will be reverted anyhow. For a case like Nsmutte, a ban is more helpful, because their edits are not blatant vandalism. Still, I see no reason not to slap another notice onto the userpage. Note also that the stated master is definitely not the original master. (I have now switched to full support, considering it would help get them blocked on sight based on their usernames before they cause too much damage.) GAB^Hello! 02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support although their names are constantly ridiculous enough that they just get blocked on site. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well it certainly would make no sense to block them off-site. EEng 22:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

EEng#s I meant "blocked on sight" i.e. as soon as someone sees them on here, they block them anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, duh! EEng 01:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support don't see why not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support as the user space vandalism is getting out of hand. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support The behavior is unacceptable. Causing damage at an unacceptable level. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I think it makes sense to have this down as a formality...TJH2018 talk 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support As a formality. User is here to do nothing but disrupt the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Per RickinBaltimore. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per OP. Linguist 111^talk 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's clear that this user intends to be disruptive and blatantly so. A formal ban will make administrative actions easier as far as blocks and enforcement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have little respect for persistently disruptive sockmasters. Let's dot the I's and cross the T's. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sir Joseph 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.

---

User:Sir Joseph, who was recently topic-banned[193] from Bernie Sanders over Jewish religion in infoboxes, (See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016#American politics 2) is repeating his behavior at Talk:Stanley Milgram/Archives/2016#"No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult". As before, I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. As before, he refuses to provide a citation and is implying that those who ask for such citations are somehow anti-Jewish.[194][195][196][197] As before, he is exhibiting "battleground demeanour and repeated indications that he intends to continue the same behavior because he was right all along."[198] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article seems to have been under active sanctions. Milligram article does not seem to be. He needs to tone down his rhetoric certainly but I'm not really seeing anything wrong. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how "wrong" his behavior is, but it certainly is very poor approach to discussion. He refuses to get the point and drop the stick long after an issue has been settled, even after two editors have asked him to do so. Then there are his suggestions (very close to accusations) that editors are anti-Jewish ("The fact that you are taking away someone's Jewishness is troubling and disgusting") and other inappropriate personal comments directed at editors (referring to an editor as "owner", among others). If you look at this in the context of several previous blocks and his long history of the "battleground" attitude on articles related to Jews and Judaism, it adds up to an editor who will not listen to reason (or learn from blocks) on certain topics. It makes discussion on these topics very difficult for other editors. I don't know what should be done, but I think at the very least he needs to be monitored. Thanks for listening to my frustration in this situation. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why behavior that is not okay at one article would be okay at another just because the two articles are about people in different arbitrary (pardon the pun) categories. ansh666 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ansh666—I would say that the categories pertaining to Jews at the Bernie Sanders and Stanley Milgram articles are anything but "arbitrary". Can you please tell me what you find "arbitrary" about them? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - I wasn't talking about WP:categories but more broadly (and note also not the unintentional pun, arbitrary vs ArbCom); above it's noted that Sir Joseph was topic banned because Bernie Sanders falls under WP:ARBAP2 as (obviously) an American politician, whereas Stanley Milgram does not seem to be under the umbrella of any ARBCOM case. My point is that just because this is true does not excuse the behavior. ansh666 01:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bernie Sanders article, of course, got a lot more heat from a lot more editors due to the connection to the current US presidential campaign, but the behavior is exactly the same and the same Great Wrongs are being Righted by the same editor. On the Bernie Sanders page I myself erred in that, when faced with an editor who keeps repeating the same false claim, I fell into repeatedly responding, That was dumb on my part. On the Stanley Milgram page, having learned my lesson, I simply quoted the exact policies that govern whether or not we allow "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox and asked for citations showing that those criteria have been met. Sir Joseph's WP:IDHT behavioral problem lies in ignoring that request, referring to my call for citations as "taking away someone's Jewishness", and referring to my quoting the exact wording of WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R as "making up a new policy [that only applies to] Jewish people". This is the exact same behavior that resulted in a topic ban last time. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Sundayclose's description of the discussion ("long after the issue has been settled... ) is not accurate. In fact, there was and is no consensus on the talk page of whether Milgram is Jewish or not. There were four active participants in the discussion - an anonymous IP who raised the issue, User:Sir Joseph, Sundayclose and Guy Macon. Two other participants - User:Debresser and myself - did not really express an opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness, but agreed for other reasons that the "Religion" parameter should not be included in the infobox. So there was no consensus and the issue could not be considered settled.

I don't want to get into the specific content dispute of the talk page, but I do want to point out that the distinction that Guy and Sunday make between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism is by no means cut and dry; many Jews (like many people of other religions) have no religious feeling but participate in religious ceremonies, while others might be deeply religious but in fact participate in no outward practices. These are also matters which most people don't discuss, and, therefore, there are no published quotes which could prove the religious identification of the subject. It is therefore not at all surprising that Sir Joseph is offended by this distinction, and argues with great vigor - and some level of justification - against it.

All of which is to say that it is important that the decision (here) to remove the religion parameter from the infobox altogether be implemented as soon as possible. That would obviate these rancorous and superfluous discussions.

Sorry this post was so long. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I also have expressed no opinion on the question of Milgram's Jewishness. All I care about is whether the requirements of the policies i quoted are met. If you believe that there is "some level of justification" for violating those policies, you are free to go to the talk pages of the policies in question and attempt to gain a consensus to change them. But until that happens we are all required to follow Wikipedia's policies.

Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules) Wikipedia's rules are:

From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.

Show me a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy, and the issue is settled: religion stays in the infobox. Fail to show me that citation and the issue is also settled: religion stays out of the infobox. Nothing else matters. Either there is a citation or there isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of your argument is this: there is a distinction between "ethnic" Judaism and "religious" Judaism, a distinction that is clear to you, and that when a person says "I am a Jew", without qualifying whether he means "ethnic" or "religious", that statement cannot be considered verification of his religious belief.

What I am saying is that the distinction between "ethnic" and "religious" is not clear at all; that people who say "I am a Jew" are not making this distinction, and that your rejection of such a statement as verification of a person's religious identification is unjustified and, to some, offensive; nor is there anything in the policies you cite to support making this distinction in the case of Jews.

But here we are arguing about content. The real point is that your posts in this matter are no less passionate, and no less aggressive, than those of Sir Joseph. The issue raises intense feelings on both sides, and that is why removal of the parameter from the infobox altogether is so important. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the above content dispiute argument here, but I will post some citations to your talk page in case you wish to study this further. Do you have the citation showing self-identification through direct speech I have been asking for? If so, post it., If not, this issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—when a person says "I am a Jew" or "I am proud to be a Jew" that is an affirmation in words that their religion is probably Jewish. Exceptions can perhaps be found but you've blown this way out of proportion. You initiated an RfC containing the language ("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.) I disagree that a source must "specify the Jewish religion". That is an unreasonable demand. You have seized upon one point to the exclusion of all other points. As intelligent editors we weigh the totality of sources. And we don't require of Jews that they make unlikely utterances. A person is unlikely to say "I am proud of my Jewish religion". People do not normally speak that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and post an RfC for replacing our WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT policies with your new "totality of sources" policy. Until you get that change approved, you are required to follow Wikipedia's existing policies. Be advised that ANI is a really bad place to respond with your usual WP:IDHT refusal to acknowledge that Wikipedia has policies that you are required to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this point, at least, is fairly clear; as a very small sample of the distinction, we have List of converts to Christianity from Judaism, all of whom are people who are ethnically Jewish but not adherents to the Jewish religion. I'm not sure how many of them would be offended by the suggestion that their Jewish ethnicity implies that they hold to the Jewish religion, but it's at least obviously inaccurate. So I think requiring clear sources identifying someone as religiously Jewish in BLPs makes sense. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing—Stanley Milgram is not a convert to Christianity. Stanley Milgram has not renounced Judaism. No source even remotely suggests Milgram might not be Jewish. It is reliably sourced that he was born to a Jewish mother. This may not be important to membership in the Christian religion but it is important to membership in the Jewish religion. You are pointing to a group of people (converts to Christianity from Judaism) for whom there is very good reason not to to complete the parameter in the Infobox with Religion: Jewish. But what about Stanley Milgram? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I don't know enough about Milgram to say either way. My point was just that there is most definitely a distinction between Jewish ethnicity and adherence to Judaism, since there are a fair number of people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish but adhere to other religions. So the two should not be conflated. It seems to me that most of the problem here is that both sides see a statement, "I am Jewish." One side considers that a definite statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically repudiated Judaism, while the other considers that it couldn't possibly be a statement of religious adherence unless the subject has specifically stated so. Neither is logically correct, of course. But, AFAICT, Wikipedia's policies mean that, where there is doubt, we don't put it in the article. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• CommentAbove, ansh666, suggests what happens with one page should happen with another page where administrative action takes place. However this again is not the case Sanders Article is under discretionary sanctions while Milligram's is not. You Can read about them and their purpose at WP:ACDS. While the rhetoric Sir Joseph employs, I find distasteful, as Ravpapa points out, there's two sides to this dance, and both sides are shimmying at each other. I'm not really seeing that this has risen to the level of Admin intervention. This seems very much a content dispute that both passionate sides could escalate to require admin intervention. I'd recommend using dispute resolution to settle this which can read about at WP:DISPUTE. I'm looking and I notice that the conversation in question is rather long and clear consensus may have been established, not sure if WP:DISPUTE mentions this, but you can go over to WP:ANRFC and request a closure by an uninvolved Admin or an uninvolved experienced editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• The issue regards what label should or should not be included in an infobox. If needed (and due) an article can spend ten paragraphs discussing what has been said about a person's ethnic or religious background. Guy Macon has described consensus regarding the simple one-word label in an infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it in the article's talk page, but I'm only seeing that here. Sir Joseph, should either drop the stick or open an RFC at the appropriate location. Sir Joseph take note of WP:CONLIMITED.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You missed it (easy to do - it's a long discussion). I posted our policies on this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Coming here from the talk page that points here. Reliable footnotes in that article make clear that Milgram -

1. Milgram and his parents were Jewish.
2. His Bar Mitzvah speech was on the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. He said, upon becoming a man under Jewish law: "As I ... find happiness in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews ... makes this ... an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people--which now becomes mine. ... I shall try to understand my people and do my best to share the responsibilities which history has placed upon all of us."
3. He later wrote to a friend from childhood: "I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I’ll never quite understand."
4. Milgram married his wife in a ceremony at the Brotherhood Synagogue.
5. Milgram's interest in the Holocaust had its basis in what his biographer, Professor Thomas Blass, referred to as Milgram's "lifelong identification with the Jewish people."
6. Author Kirsten Fermaglich wrote that Milgram as an adult had "a personal conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi destruction, and as an insider, as scientist ...."
7. His wife Alexandra stated that Milgram's Jewish identity led to his focus on the Holocaust and his obedience-to-authority research.
8. He shared this as well with Herbert Winer, one of his obedience study subjects, who noted after speaking to Milgram about the experiment that "Milgram was very Jewish. I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research."

Almost all of this was already in the article when Guy started this thread saying there were not citations. That's crazy. Did Guy not read the article? Just look at it. What's Guy up to?

Also, Guy knows (because the article says it, and it was discussed on the talk page Guy points to) that this guy has been dead. For decades. But Guy comes after Sir Joseph speaking about a Biography of Living Persons standard (echoing another editor who carelessly somehow made the same dramatic mistake). Seriously? He's dead. That's a policy for living people. Not dead people. And you are coming after Sir Joseph on that basis? Something wrong here.

Sundayclose says that there was no evidence Milgram was Jewish as an adult. More than once. What? It's just the opposite!! Also-Where is the "as an adult" rule? Where is the "practicing" rule? And did Sunday even bother to read all the above, and the cites, about his lifelong identification with the Jewish people, having his wedding in a Jewish synagogue, speaking to his subject about his being Jewish, at the time he became a man in Judaism speaking (we have quotes) of "my fellow Jews" and "my people" etc? All with good footnotes.

Sir Joseph was totally right here. Guy and Sundayclose have somehow -- stunningly -- missed all the statements and citations to Milgram being Jewish, being Bar Mitzvahed (becoming a Jewish man), saying he was Jewish in his speech, getting married in a synagogue, having a "lifelong identification with the Jewish people" that was the basis for his interest that led to his fame, being a Jewish man, his wife noting that his being Jewish led to his research, and his subject saying Milgram talked to him and was "very Jewish" and talked about it. Seriously. Amazing that Guy and Sunday didn't read this and the sources. And started a witch hunt based on a BLP policy ... for an article on a man dead for three decades. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Anon 199, ANI is not the proper venue for a consensus discussion. This is not the place to make your arguments about Milgram's religion. That belongs on the Milgram talk page. Read the banner at the top of this page. ANI is for discussing grievances about editors' behaviors. Forum shopping is not the appropriate way to develop consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sunday -- my grievance with your behavior here is that you accused another editor, while it was you who were in your behavior saying citations and backup do not exist when they in fact do exist. (You are the one who starts this conversation above writing by the way "I am asking for a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R.") And when it was your behavior in also saying over and over "BLP, BLP" about a guy dead 30 years. That's disruptive behavior. And ANI should focus on your behavior. And then add to it your behavior in after saying things that are not true, and focusing on live people rules for dead people, use that as the basis to for some reason (I dont know any of you before this) attack someone who called you out for your behavior. So great, let's focus on your behavior, and the absurdity of you with this as the basis for your complaining criticizing the guy who called you out. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Again anon 199, if you have a grievance with me or another editor besides Sir Joseph, this is not the appropriate section. Start a new section for complaints about other editors. You have been forum shopping on various noticeboards. This is not the place to do that. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I am purposely not responding to the arguments above about article content -- they belong on the article talk page, not here. The user behavior I am concerned about is simple: when I asked Sir Joseph to post a link to a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy he could not find one, yet insisted that we put religion in the infobox anyway. That's a behavior issue.

I find it to be an amazing coincidence that 199.102.168.8 (the IP belongs to the Brooklyn Law School), Sir Joseph and Bus Stop all hold the same fringe view -- a view that is so unusual that I don't think you could find a thousand people in the US that share it. That fringe view is that the word "Jew" always means Judaism and thus anyone who says "I am a Jew" is self-identifying as a member of Judaism. I do not think that there is any sockpuppetry going on, but rather I suspect that that all three belong to the same small religious group (perhaps something related to Chabad-Lubavitch?) and thus naturally have similar beliefs. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon—I can only speak for myself. I do not maintain that "the word 'Jew' always means Judaism and thus anyone who says 'I am a Jew' is self-identifying as a member of Judaism". Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I had promised myself not to post on this anymore, but I feel it behooves me to point out that Guy's understanding of Sir Joseph's, Bus Stop's and the IP's view is a complete misrepresentation of that view. They are not contending that the word "Jew" always means religious Judaism. What they are saying is that the ethnic and cultural aspects of Jewish identity are not separable from the religious aspects; that these two are intertwined in a complex melange that makes up the Jewish identity, Far from being a fringe view, this view is supported explicitly by almost all the quotes that Guy trots out every time someone challenges him. It is held, I would contend, by most people and certainly by most Jews. On the contrary, the view that the Jewish ethnic identity and the Jewish religious identity are two separate and discreet elements that can be be clearly distinguished, and that a person who says "I am a Jew" might be referring to one and not the other, is the fringe view.

I post this here not to make a point about content, but rather to point out that Guy's arguments in this discussion - his extensive reliance on a long list of Wikipedia policies, not one of which mentions the issue of Jewish identity - his long list of quotes about Judaism - not one of which supports his view that there is a clear distinction between ethnic and religious Jewish identity - and the aggressive tone of his posts, including his dismissive tone and his readiness to complain to this noticeboard - all this confirms my contention that his behavior in this discussion has been no less unseemly than that of his opponents. Ravpapa (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There are other communities in which ethnic and religious identity are commonly or ordinarily intertwined (Greece? Bosnia? Tibet? Some Catholic countries?). However the info-box says 'Religion', it doesn't say 'Religious group born into' or 'Ethnicity' which often goes in 'early life' anyway. Some evidence is required from the individual themselves, otherwise, the parameter is left empty. There are many notable examples of people who happily identify culturally and ethnically as Jewish, but who are unequivocally agnostic or atheist. Such people would have no difficulty in saying "I am a Jew" in exactly the manner Ravpapa describes.

The issue is not what an individual may mean by saying "I am a Jew", even less by marrying in a synagogue, or such-like. The issue is that the WP 'Religion' box means the religious beliefs that the person has made a clear declaration of holding. If, for whatever reason, someone has not made such a clear declaration, what right do we have to presume to make it for them? Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a function of religion which causes the child of a Jewish mother to be a Jew. As editors we can and should take much more into consideration. Is the individual conflicted in his Jewishness? I don't think an Infobox should read Religion: Jewish if the subject of the biography rejects the religion that his birth bestowed on him. But when every source is consistent with him being Jewish, why would we doubt that he is Jewish? It is reliably sourced that Stanley Milgram's mother was Jewish. Additionally he was married in a Jewish wedding, he and his children were bar mitzvahed, and he was a member of a synagogue. I haven't seen all of these sources myself as I do not have access to the book containing them, but if these points are verifiable, I do not think Milgram is conflicted about being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a function of WP:guidelines that we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief, before that info is entered in the info-box. No one disputes that the Jewish community may think of him as 'one of them', that is their business and may be very noble. Whatever the individual's motives for keeping quiet, they are entitled to do so. Pincrete (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—he says that he is Jewish. Why is that not sufficient? You say "Whatever the individual's motives for keeping quiet, they are entitled to do so." He has not kept quiet. Not in words and not in deeds. You say "we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief". How? This is not Christianity, under consideration. A Christian might for instance articulate that Jesus is the Messiah. But what would be the counterpart for a Jew? Should a Jew say "My mother was a Jew"? The man is a member of a synagogue. He says that he is Jewish. He is not "keeping quiet". Synagogue membership is a deed that should serve for Wikipedia purposes as a pretty good indication that the person under consideration is Jewish. Wikipedia should not aim to be a parochial institution. There are many different religions in the world. We should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to determining whether a person is a member of a given religion. When you say "we require a person to have made a clear commitment to a religious belief", what does that mean when under consideration is a person whose religion might be Jewish? What "belief" are you talking about? Judaism does not have a counterpart to the role of Jesus as Messiah in Christianity. Finally, every source is consistent with him being a Jew—bar mitzvah, of himself as well as his children, and marriage, in a specifically Jewish ceremony. Have you seen any source that calls into doubt his Jewishness? Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a position on whether this person is a practicer/believer in Judaism. I do have a position that Bar Mitzvah, etc etc do not equate to religious belief. Above you say I do not maintain that "the word 'Jew' always means Judaism and thus anyone who says 'I am a Jew' is self-identifying as a member of Judaism, but now you argue 'he says he is Jewish. Why is that not sufficient?. There are many examples of people who clearly identify as Jewish, who are not followers of Judaism. People make all sorts of public commitments to their beliefs, and if they don't do so, that is their business, they regard it as private or irrelevant or simply have never spoken. We aren't putting 'NOT a believer in Judaism' are we? Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—what might he say—I believe I was born to a Jewish mother? Do you know of other instances in which we put Religion: Jewish in the Infobox based on an expressed belief? A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. Either that, or a Jew is a convert to Judaism. Stanley Milgram is reliably sourced as having been born to a Jewish mother. Does he own up to being a Jew? Or does he try to hide that he is a Jew? Well, he says he is Jewish, so he is not trying to hide it. What more would you expect him to say? He engages in Jewish institutions—Jewish wedding, bar mitzvah, synagogue membership. What would it take to convince you that Religion: Jewish was justified in the Infobox of the Stanley Milgram article? Don't tell me in abstract terms. Rather, please give me concrete examples. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this particular article. However I stand by my main point, 'religion' means a particular person's publicly stated beliefs. It doesn't mean assessing the balance of probability that they hold such beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

CommentGuy Macon's behavior is similar to the behavior he's here to complain about. And again, this all seems to be more a content issue than anything else. The Anon IP, Sir Joseph, and a few others think being married in a synagogue, etc, and etc show that Milligram is a religious Jew. Guy, does seem to hold these points in contention, but seems to want a specific source that has Milligram say that he is religiously jewish or an academic biography that says Milligram is religiously jewish. This infobox section for religion has to be justified with reliable sources. One side feels that some reliable sources already in the article show that he is religiously Jewish and the other side doesn't. Seems the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN was created for a purpose to help resolve content disputes like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

-Serialjoepsycho-, I don't disagree that RSN might be useful for the biog, but the guidelines are clear, being married in a synagogue, having a Jewish mother, showing interest and respect for Jewish culture, history, issues etc. does NOT make one an adherent of that religion. This issue recently came up in relation to the ex-leader of the UK labour party. It is much more common in UK politics than those of the US, for politicians to treat their religion as a private matter. Why should any individual not have the right to do that if they wish? Pincrete (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no position on the content dispute. A calm rational discussion at RSN, where multiple wikipedia editors univolved can way in, reviewing the sources and the application of the relevant policy seems a better way to resolve a content dispute than ANI. As far as, Why should any individual not have the right to do that if they wish? This is not a relevant question. We have sourcing guidelines, and whether an individual likes it or not, if it can be sourced and it is relevant to the article how would it matter what such an individual would want? I feel like politicians, Bill Clinton for example, would like to have there sex scandals removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A person's right to remain silent about matters that they may consider private or irrelevant, isn't quite the same thing as someone's wish to hush-up matters that are already well and truly in the public sphere! Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we have rules. The rules say that "someone's wish to hush-up matters [of religion] that are already well and truly in the public sphere" means that they do not have their religion listed in the infobox. For that they need to self-identify using direct speech. The rules also say that "someone's wish to hush-up matters [of religion] that are already well and truly in the public sphere" does not mean that they do not have their religion listed in the body of the article. If it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:V it stays in the body of the article. Those are our rules. If anyone doesn't like them, they are free to attempt to get a consensus to change them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you are quoting me, as though replying to me. If you look at my posts, you will see I am arguing much the same as you. That unless a person has made a fairly clear public statement of their religious beliefs, it should NOT be recorded in the infobox. Particularly, we should not delve into the balance of probability that a person practices a religion, based on 'cultural' evidence. Further, if a person has chosen to remain silent, for whatever reason, so should we, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise even in the body of the article. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I clearly misunderstood. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Pincrete—I believe that in few if any instances do we find a verbal articulation of a belief held when we have Religion: Jewish, or Religion: Judaism, or some variation of that in the Infobox. For instance we have for Jack Lew in the Infobox Religion: Orthodox Judaism. But we do not find any accompanying verbal articulation of any belief held. I don't think you will find an articulation of a belief held for any religious Jew. Can you give me any examples of instances in which we find the Religion field used in the Infobox for a religious Jew accompanied by a verbal articulation of a belief held? Bus stop (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any, so I raised the question on the article talk page. See Talk:Jack Lew#Looking for citation for religion in infobox. If you run into any BLPs with other religions in the infobox that don't have citations to self-identification, please let me know. I don't want to inadvertently focus on one religion just because you are focusing on it while making an WP:OSE argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—do you know of any instances in which the biography of a religious Jew has the Infobox completed for Religion and additionally has a verbal statement of belief held? Bus stop (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If policies are not being fully followed elsewhere, that isn't an argument for ignoring the policies. Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete—a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. Would a religious Jew say "I believe I was born to a Jewish mother"? We may sometimes find attestations of belief, in converts to Judaism. That is as part of a conversion process or commentary on the novelty of a change to a new religion. But for the vast majority of Wikipedia biographies of religious Jews, we do not have statements of belief. This isn't something that needs to be "corrected". You are saying that "policies are not being fully followed elsewhere". This might be a good instance to invoke WP:IAR. The policies as written relate to Christians. A religion can be predicated upon the holding of a belief. This may be the case for Christianity but it is generally not the case for Judaism. Judaism does not tend to be predicated on belief as does Christianity. As to the question of whether the Religion field should be used in the Infobox of a religious Jew, there are many other factors that can and should be taken into consideration. The uncalled for and preternatural focus on statements of belief, if implemented at articles on religious Jews in which the Religion field is completed in the Infobox, would be harmful to the encyclopedia. It would result in omitting this information from the Infobox. As we know "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."[199] Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Allow me to make a few comments, Guy Macon willing. 1) You see how the NAGF of GM with the title of this section. 2) He keeps quoting an RFC but that RFC is on atheists in infobox. He snuck in a section on Jews/Jewishness as if it was established policy but the people commenting "support" were supporting the part about atheists in infobox. 3) Milgram is long dead so BLP policies don't apply. 4) Even if it did, someone having a bar-mitzvah, marrying in a Jewish ceremony and being a member of a Jewish congregation doesn't take a genius to say that Milgram is Jewish. Macon has a thing for focusing on people who are Jewish and it is getting tiring. You also see his comments on the talk page. He clearly has an axe to grind and is not here to contribute. I suggest a TBAN from anyone and anything regarding Jews/Jewishness. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes is NOT about BLPs (That would be the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion). Nor is it "RFC on atheists in infobox". It is specifically an RfC on "Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox."[200] with an included list of example religions and example nonreligions. Also there was extensive discussion in that RfC about how to deal with Judaism, with Bus Stop vigorously pushing the same POV he is pushing here, a POV that was soundly rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—a source does not have to "specify the Jewish religion". A source can merely refer to a person as a Jew. Yes, this alone may be inconclusive. We have to look at additional factors, if available in reliable sources. I'm referring to your statement in your RfC that "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother)."[201] Couldn't there be a religious Jew that one or more sources refer to as "Jewish" without the mention of the word "religion"? But if we look at other factors supported by sources we can reach a more informed decision as to whether or not the subject of the biography should have the Religion parameter in the Infobox. Your RfC was problematic because it bundled together so many different things that could possibly be considered for inclusion in the Religion field of the Infobox. It lists examples of "Religions": "Baha'i, Baptist, Buddhist, Caodaist, Catholic, Christian, Confucianist, Hindu, Jain, Judaism, Latter Day Saint/Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim/Islam, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Shamanist, Shiite, Shinto, Sikh, Sunni, Tao, Wicca." Then it lists examples of "Non-religions": "Agnostic, Antireligionist, Apatheist, Atheist, Communist, Ignosticist, Irreligion, Leninist, Marxist, NA, Non-practicing X, Nonbeliever, None, Nontheist, Raised as an X, Secularist, State atheism, Unknown." And then it adds: "("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" You have since relied upon the results of that RfC to argue that a Jew's religion can't be in the Infobox because the source failed to "specify the Jewish religion". We need not edit with blinders on, or at least as concerns this particular question. We should look to all available input from good quality sources to decide whether or not to include Religion in the the Infobox. If you wish community input on just the words "Jew" and "Jewish" you should present a question along those lines in an RfC devoted to just that question—not bundled together with a complex of mostly unrelated questions. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• That's at least the 10th time you have expressed that opinion on various pages. The last time I last answered it was here:[202] Your refusal to listen when anyone responds to you and your continually repeating the same points again and again are disruptive. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—you say above "[a]lso there was extensive discussion in that RfC about how to deal with Judaism, with Bus Stop vigorously pushing the same POV he is pushing here, a POV that was soundly rejected by the community."[203] Anybody can look at that RfC. The community didn't even address your suggestion that "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" The RfC has passed, and you've since been pointing to that RfC in support of an argument that "the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion". The community barely if at all addressed that question. In that RfC the question most discussed is whether or not atheism can be considered a "religion", and related to that, whether an Infobox can read Religion: Atheism. You bundled together questions regarding what can appear in the Religion field of the Infobox with a question involving the distinction between Jew/Jewish referring to ethnicity and Jew/Jewish referring to religion. It is a poorly constructed RfC as regards the question of the significance of the terms Jew/Jewish. Do we find members of the community, in that RfC, discussing whether or not "the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion"? The conclusion of the RfC was that "non-religions" should not be found in the Infobox. The conclusion of the RfC does not support that "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" Your question may be valid. But you cannot gauge the community's support of your suggestion if you bundle together that question with other questions. Please consider creating an RfC on that question only. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• No. I will not waste everyone's time on another RfC based upon your belief that those who responded to the last RfC did not read it. You yourself participated in that discussion and argued the same case you are arguing here. The result was overwhelmingly against you 75% to 25%. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Call for close with no action required

Sir Joseph appears to have dropped the stick, so I would like to withdraw this report as no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support but suggest an admin admonish Guy Macon for his behavior and ask him, short of a TBAN, to stay away from Jews/Jewishness related articles. I would also like an admin to look at the RFC he keeps linking to and issue a ruling that the RFC was on whether or not atheists should be listed in religion:infobox, and it had nothing to do with Jews. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This is a link to the RfC mentioned by Sir Joseph, above. That RfC was mostly about whether "atheism" should appear in the Infobox under Religion. Most of the posts addressed that question. But strictly speaking, included with that question, was what I would term a minor referendum on the word Jew. That language says "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)" That RfC passed and since then Guy Macon relies on that, in addition to other policy language, to advance the idea that the word Jew often refers to "ethnicity". If such a question is to be put before the community in an RfC, it should be the only question in that RfC. That question should not be bundled with other, only distantly related questions. I don't find Guy Macon sympathetic to the minority status Judaism plays in relation to the majority status of Christianity. Standards apt for evaluating Christianity for placement in the Religion field of the Infobox are being applied to Jews. It should be obvious that a non-parochial encyclopedia evaluates each religion according to the standards most appropriate to that religion. There is no perfect solution to this question. But an editor cannot bullheadedly insist that policy be applied where it may not be applicable. I don't think that editors trying to apply themselves to problems, put on blinders and ignore every other factor while solely focussing on just a few slivers of semi-applicable policy. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• support and move it to some form of dispute resolution. And don't see any reason for guy to be admonished or topic banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User page and actions, User:SheriffIsInTown

User page clearly intended to offend, most notably the section "Weapons of Mass Production" with link to image of human penis, a clear reference to rape. This person states that they are a Pakistani national acting as law enforcement (police-car lights and user name, and user boxes) while carrying on a deletionist campaign on pages to do with Bangladesh. The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight, a campaign of murder carried out in the name of law enforcement by Pakistani military, with the aim of exterminating Bangladesh intellectuals and Bengali culture. This person surely doesn't belong in a project to build an encyclopedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a nice hypothesis drawn by the complainant but let me explain to whoever is looking at his complaint. My user page is nothing more than a fun. I definitely did not mean "rape" by "Weapons of Mass Production", its the imagination drawn out by the complainant. I like to categorize the pages that i work on in different sections in police terminology and i did not find any better and fun terminology than this to describe the article Human penis on my user page. There is no deletionist campaign by me on Bangladesh pages. If any content was removed from Bangladesh pages then there must have been a policy reason to do that, for example "content not properly sourced" etc. Here is an example (Removed 5,555 bytes from "Bahawalnagar" for reason "Revert unsourced additions") where i removed content from Pakistan pages which was not sourced and there can be many more examples given like this. "The combination appears to be a reference to Operation Searchlight" is a hypothesis drawn by the complainant which is a BS to put it mildly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown is harassing me continuously from many days. He is supposed to cooperate with newcomers but rather he is involve in WP:BITE. He also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, he reported me at WP:AE in sheer bad faith presenting me there as an nationalist edit warrior (which I am clearly not) by distorting and mispresenting edit diffs. ([204]) He also tried to connect me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page. ([205], not just this, one should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of offensive personal attack he did to those users who are opposing him on talk page-rfc).

The above user is accusing others including me of being nationalist and just because *I don't share his POV*. A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong pro- Pakistan Army bias and battleground mentality (as also noted by other users on talk page). He is repeatedly removing mass contents from Bangladesh related pages (that he doesn't like). [206], [207] large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

Administrators also please note that he is harassing other users including me by dropping a 3RR template on user's talk pages when they hardly make two reverts [208], [209] but he is edit warring on these pages for what, many months now (just check the revision history of Bangladesh related pages like this) as noted by other users [210] [211]. Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from *Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here [212]. Actually he violated 3RR straight up.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016

administrators please note the time and date these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [213], [214] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead [215]. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [216].

Let me also explain RFC case from the starting.

First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and convert an NPOV article into a POV article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (as noted by other users [217], [218], [219]) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding.

Then he will go and start a premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, [User:Kautilya3]] and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him at talk page.

Then he will do personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page ([220])

He has no fear of admins. He is strongly here to push a specific pro-Pakistan Army POV on Bangladesh-India-Pakistan related articles. This user has a clear battleground mentality. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrators Spartaz.... to quote;[221] SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again].ArghyaIndian (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I will reply to his WP:WALLOFTEXT later but right now I am just pointing out his broken links drama, he posted this comment before he posted his statements with broken links at AE and ANI. @ArghyaIndian What do you think all other editors are stupid here? Only you are the smartest! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have two individuals with strong feelings on this issue, also, note this arbitration request made by SherrifIsInTown against ArghyaIndian. He makes a strong case, however, his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here. This may require admin assistance.

If I may suggest, both of you should edit articles away from Bangladesh Genocide or any individuals or groups associated with it and allow this dispute to cool down. If not both of you may wind up with some sort of restrictions or blocks, neither of you have particularity clean hands in this issue. KoshVorlon ..Doves cried 04/21/2016 15:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KoshVorlon:, your comment is much appreciated but i did not understand the piece "his participation on the Bangladesh Genocide page paints a very different picture of him than what he presents here". Can you please explain who were you referring to? If you were referring to me, can you please further explain what do you mean by that. As i can understand i followed the proper procedures on 1971 Bangladesh genocide , i participated in talk sessions when the matter could not be resolved otherwise, when talk could not bring a consensus, i started an RfC. I do not think there was anything bad about it. Yes, it might be a poor RfC as it had multiple disputed pieces of content in it, not to mention it was my first RfC. I have yet to see if i violated any policies. Otherwise this is just a frivolous ANI request based on imagination and hypothesis of one editor about my userpage and the other is just joining with him because of recent conflicts which i had with him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @KoshVorlon:. Some topic ban(s) and/or blocks would be a big help here, and the offensive user page also needs to be cleaned up or deleted entirely. The bickering and flaming using petty interpretations of wikipedia policies and "the matter could not be resolved otherwise" as weapons, has been tiresomely proceeding on several talk pages, and, as has been so well demonstrated above, seems unlikely to become subdued any time soon. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh needs a chance to repair the pages that have been damaged by this warfare, and the project risks losing those level-headed participants who have managed to stomach this mayhem so far. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything offensive or mean spirited on their talk page. The implication of "rape" is simply not made, this is something you are seeing that is not there. I have not looked enough to comment on the other allegations, but I have to question your interpretation of the user page. HighInBC 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I too have just looked at the user page and can see nothing at all offensive about it. The link to human penis is to our WP page Human penis, not just any random image of a penis. If the OP is arguing this is offensive, then it is our article that is offensive. The reference to "Weapons of mass production" is clearly a bit of fun and totally unrelated to rape. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Er, the suggestion on the user page is that the human penis and its use for "mass reproduction" is a tool available "law enforcement". Surely that is offensive to law enforcement officers everywhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

lol, no it's not what you mean, i suggest, you put your mind to something useful. There is plenty to do on Wikipedia. Remember, you were looking for some sources for Mukti Bahini. Did you add them yet or not? This was really a very bad way to take out that frustration! You went out on witch-hunting and look what you found out and you reported whatever you thought you found bad about me and then made up a fine story. I mean, i commend you for that. That is why WP:OR is not allowed on Wikipedia because people's minds can make up stories and add them to Wikipedia articles, then it's not encyclopedia. That's why i ask people to back their content with sources and people get upset like you did! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

But...bits of fun are my trigger. TimothyJosephWood 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Broken links and all that..... Ugh that should not be your concern. Your attempt of harassing and WP:BITE is pretty clear now. You should rather explain that why you mispresented edit diffs and reported me at AE when I have less then 10 edits in combined talk page and page of 1971 Bangladesh Genocide. You do not wanted to reply, that's ok but I will reply to all of your accusations. (administrators note that he is directly attacking me personally right here by using words like "drama", stupid"... so on). I only participated in talk page discussion, voted in RFC, and raised objections at talk. Many uninvolved and experienced users also agreed with my objections. Unfortunately I initially made mistakes while restoring the old stable NPOV lead (in accordance with talk page discussion [222] but I did asked for the help on talk page (you can ask other users like User:My very best wishes to confirm) and user SheriffIsInTown distorted/mis presented those edit diffs and dragged my name there at WP:AE in sheer bad faith (in his attempt of wp:bite.

As noted by other uninvolved users [223] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=715887046&oldid=715882718 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=716232027&oldid=716201835 (please see the page revision history to get a better understanding) there is an ongoing attempt by him to hijack an NPOV article and convert it into POV COATRACK article (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this).

[224] [225] Mass removal of content (even after being warned by many users [226], [227], [228]), large scale POV pushing on all Bangladesh related articles (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, promoting fringe and preposterous theories on these articles from long time now (as noted by other users on talk pages). Irony here is that he was distribution 3RR templates on other users pages when they hardly make 2 reverts and he violated 3RR yesterday just to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini page that he doesn't like. Here are diffs.

• 18:16 20 April 2016
• 18:20 20 April 2016
• 17:31 21 April 2016
• 17:50 21 April 2016 I have already explained in depth all this on AE noticeboard. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided in my statement at AE).ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry and know how to produce diffs each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. His accusation of me violating 3RR is not correct as he is counting consecutive edits. Also the Mujibnagar edit to which he is referring as large scale removal was the removal of unsourced content and all sections of that page were refimprove tagged since April 2009, these are like 7 years if someone wants to add the sources. The matter with Spartaz was resolved on his talk page so there is no point in referring it here again. I don't think there is anything else worth replying but i will do so if an admin directs me to do so. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am sorry, but this report actually made my day. Thankyou —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang against ArghyaIndian for obvious meatpuppetry

There is a clear evidence that ArghyaIndian acted on behalf of another user when he came to vote in Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#‎RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped and made this comment on 19 April 2016. This was his first edit after a break of 17 days when he made his last edit on 2 April 2016. The reason why I believe that he is involved in meatpuppetry is this edit where he made the mistake of adding the instructions given by another user alongside the actual content, please note the piece in this edit which says "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?". These are clear instructions given by another editor to this editor which means "Go edit this page and replace the text starting from this point to the end with the version being provided". Even his summary lines are being provided by another editor.

I am requesting that this editor be indeffed based on this evidence, all of his comments be stricken at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide.

Hopefully after providing this evidence, I do not need to respond to his WP:WALLOFTEXT in above section but an admin can let me know if I still need to do that.

Please do not close this thread after blocking ArghyaIndian indefinitely as we need to find the other partner in this meatpuppetry. Although, it is quite clear by the edit history of 1971 Bangladesh genocide who that was but I would not name that editor. If admins themselves can identify the other editor then please go ahead and indef the other partner too. That must be an experienced editor who wanted to avoid replacing content along nationalistic lines to avoid discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. That edit completely changed the meaning of article from one side to the other. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Synthesising and picking one editing mistake and presenting it here with different meanings won't help you. After reporting me twice, it's clear that you are not going to stop harassing me further.

Why don't you just report me again to its relevant noticeboard if you think that my account is being used by someone else or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? If you can report me for vague reasons and for false accusations, you can report me at its relevant noticeboard also. I will consider it odious personal attack if you cannot prove **whatever you have said right now** at its relevant noticeboard. I already replied to your further concerns at my statement at AE and on my talk page. You are going off topic to change the direction of all this started by you when you see that it may hit **you** only. And my edit restored the original lead, but you tried to hijack that article and change the meaning from one side to another (as other users pointed out). And why my comments should be stricken? I have all the rights to comment and you do not own WikipediaArghyaIndian (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that there was a relevant noticeboard. Which noticeboard you are talking about "newcomer"? Also how about you explain what the following text meant in that edit and who gave you those instructions: "Edit-- Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide And from "During the nine-month to "END"remove and copy/paste this. Ok?" Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

uhm. You are trying to play smart here. For a user who is here from two years, it is not possible that they don't know about different noticeboards. You think that you can instil fear in me by making accusations like this but you will only hurt from it. I see how long you try to dodge replying to me. right top at this page (section; Meatpuppet investigations) it says, Meatpuppet investigations are handled together with sockpuppet investigations. Any suspected meat puppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet­ investigations. So that is the relevant noticeboard. If you failed to prove, then your should either apology otherwise I will seek admins about your repeated attempts of [[WP:BITE|harrasing]­] me and mass removal of contents from Bangladesh related pages. You first tried to harass me by dropping 3RR and other sort of warning templates, and then reported me directly at WP:AE (when I have less then 6-7 edits on that page/talk page combined) and now here at ANI. You know very well that when you report someone at AE, then your own behaviour is examined as well and you may be sanctioned for it (and you are likely to).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, as I said in my statement at AE and on my talk page, this was nothing but a editing mistake. I was trying to restore old lead but I accidently messed up my notepad and messenger stuffs. If you see the link "en.m." Yes that's mobile web link and that link I copy/pasted in my notepad (I make my edits from mobile only) and copy/pasted old version lead in notepad and pasted there but some that sort of stuffs also got pasted. I was about to do self revert but a patrolling user already reverted me. You see my next edit was absolutely correct (which you intentionally reverted [well you got reverted by VM, yourself because I was correct] under some vague reasons of consensus-- when those recent additions were not even discussed on talk).ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, i am not playing smart, i am honest about it when i say that i did not know that you report meatpuppets at the same place where you report sockpuppets and neither did i know about WP:BITE and WP:BATTLEGROUND until very recently. On the contrary, you know a lot for a newcomer. I agree it was a mistake for you to include the instructions in the content but that mistake gave away your meatpuppetry. I am not denying that you made a mistake. People only expose themselves by mistakes. Nobody purposefully exposes themselves. You have given your statement and i have given mine. I think we need to let admins judge whether that is a clear evidence of meatpuppetry or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Umm.... You are clearly lying here. As I said, you are trying to play smart but you are only going to hurt now. Please note that this user only copy and pasted their comment from AE to ANI again (to further harass me) which I have already replied on AE [229] (so I won't do copy/paste again like this user). I will however, reply to his further comments in which he said that they did not edit warred and whatever they did was correct.

1. This user is not replying but is blatantly lying. If one see the revision history of the Mukti Bahini page [230] then this user made around 6-7 reverts within 1½ day (4 reverts well within 24 hours) just to remove mass contents from lead (that was absolutely sourced in text) which is still there. Here are diffs of 3RR violation;

• 18:16, 20 April 2016
• 18:20, 20 April 2016
• 17:31, 21 April 2016
• 17:50, 21 April 2016 and I am not distorting/mispresenting diffs/evidences like you! Three uninvolved users asking him to stop and told him in their edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [231], [232], [233] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [234].

1. A quick look at revision history of these Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War, Rape During the Bangladesh Liberation War, etc) shows that this user is edit warring, pushing over the top POV, fringe theories from many months (as almost all the uninvolved user pointed out at article's talk page).

1. This user almost emptied Mujibnagar article by removing mass contents (that he doesn't like) and then edit war against uninvolved user here. Here is the edit diffs in which he emptied the Mujibnagar article [235]

As pointed out by an uninvolved user [236] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.

1. Also, no your matter with administrator Spartaz was not resolved on their talk page. Infact spartaz further warned you that not to comment on AE otherwise he is strongly minded to impose T-ban for your edits. He did not replied you further because he said that they are on Wikibreak [237], [238].

1. And you are even further lying when you say that you do not no those policies and etc stuff as you can be clearly seen here [239] saying as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior (as I pointed out, you are here on Wikipedia from two years, so stop fooling others).

1. If no administrator take actions against this user, then it is clear that users like him have a free license to harass inexperienced users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing his nationalistic point of view (in an global source of knowledge-- Wikipedia) from half a decade atleast. I have said what I need to say here.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are just posing here as such, otherwise as I pointed out, you are blatantly lying and distorting diffs. And just to further clarify this. Umm.... You think that someone is using my account or I'm receiving instructions from someone else? So why I did self-revert within a minute? I made one edit on 13:25, 21 April 2016 (I did a editing mistake), self reverted within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016), made another edit (16:30, 21 April 2016) but again did a editing mistake by messing up my notepad stuffs as said earlier but a patrolling user reverted me within few seconds [16:31, 21 April 2016 Dcirovic (talk | contribs) . . (111,377 bytes) (+1,908) . . (Reverted edits by ArghyaIndian (talk) (HG) (3.1.20)) (Tag: Huggle)] otherwise I was doing self revert myself, my next edit was correct! I did these edits, self reverts, asking help on talk page in barely few minutes, myself and you are saying that no no I was receiving instructions/my account was hijack by someone. Lol! As I said, you are free to report me anywhere you want to clear your suspicion but I bet, you will be forced to apology to me for these personal attacks.ArghyaIndian (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Oncenawhile

User:Oncenawhile has been waging a campaign against the regional name Southern Levant for several years now, doing anything and everything to disrupt pages using the term and making personal attacks/being consistently WP:Battleground along the way.

In today's example, User:Oncenawhile deleted two valid sources added and replaced them with "Citation needed" tags. User:Oncenawhile erroneously claimed that the sources didn't include the term Southern Levant and that they were describing something else. This was incorrect, and it was clear that he hadn't read the sources, and yet, the edits were made anyway. User:Oncenawhile then began personal attacks on the talk page. "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." And after I brought up the fact that there were multiple editors disagreeing with the edits, User:Oncenawhile replied "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." User:Oncenawhile's editing style on the talk page appears to be disruptive by design, rather than continuing a single thread, User:Oncenawhile makes a new section for every point, rendering the talk page cluttered and difficult to read/follow. After being shown that the term Southern Levant is in the source, User:Oncenawhile claimed that this was WP:Synth because the author wrote "southern Levant" rather than "Southern Levant". Now this stuff from today in and of itself wouldn't be cause for me to bring it to the noticeboard, but it's part of a several year long campaign this user has waged against the term across all of wikipedia.

Several months ago User:Oncenawhile removed the category Southern Levant from 25 articles, many of which were WP:ARBPIA within the span of a few minutes 1, 2 3 4 5 6789101112131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. In fact, this was done twice (mass deletions) within a span of several months. 1 2 3 21:20, 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Throughout all of this, there are constant personal attacks, for example here where User:Oncenawhile passively aggressively calls me a polemicist (while insulting my intelligence) "I don't think Drsmoo is a polemicist, at least not consciously." and here where User:Oncenawhile 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".

User:Oncenawhile has also taken to arbitrarily going through wikipedia and deleting references to the Southern Levant. For example, here User:Oncenawhile replaces all references to "southern levant" with "the region".

What I'm posting now is just from the past few months, he's been making disruptive edits towards the article/region for about five years now. Given that he described the term Southern Levant as "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose" and "a neologism which began to become popular following Israel's capture of the remaining 22% of Palestine" and given that he's been attempting to disrupt the article and articles that reference it for about five years, it seems unlikely that he will change on his own. Drsmoo (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the edit earlier today which caused a reaction from the editor above, it has since been agreed at Talk:Southern Levant, that two of the three components of the edit were wholly valid (the first sentence still has no source, and the second has been amended to fit a source brought from later in the article), whilst the third component is still being discussed on talk as to whether it constitutes synth.

The category question has been discussed in great detail on the category talk page. The Southern Levant category still contains more content than the guidelines suggest it should - it still has more than Category:China...

The alleged personal attacks the editor points to appear to have been misunderstood. The not a polemicist comment, for example, was the opposite of an attack - it was my perhaps convoluted attempt to show that I assumed good faith. Trust appears to have broken down between us, so I recognize that I need to take even more care. I have tried to rebuild this trust on numerous occasions, but we continue to find our editing relationship to be difficult.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Previous discussions (also begun by Drsmoo):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Oncenawhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Disruptive_editing_from_User:Oncenawhile_on_Southern_Levant_categories Fences&Windows 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. This has been a long-term issue. Regarding Oncenawhile's reply, it's simply inaccurate. Oncenawhile arbitrarily deleted two reliable sources and replaced them with "citation needed" tags. Oncenawhile's reasons for deleting the sources were incorrect, the editor claimed that they didn't reference the subject, but even a cursory glance reveals that they do. Oncenawhile then went to the talk page and immediately started four discussion threads, all on the same subject, while throwing strong personal attacks (calling me a dishonest, saying I have bad judgements, etc). It's the wikipedia equivalent of stomping all over a carpet with muddy shoes, seemingly designed solely to annoy (ie, claiming that the article which references the "southern Levant" is not applicable because Southern isn't capitalized, etc). This has been going on for five years now, and over this time, Oncenawhile has been the sole party making personal attacks. Oncenawhile has a clear obsession with this topic based on what appears to be a conspiratorial view, "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose", and the editor either harasses the article page to annoy other editors away from being involved, or arbitrarily rummages through wikipedia deleting links to the article. Recently, when a wide consensus approved changing Syro-Palestinian Archaeology to the academic standard Levantine Archaeology, Oncenawhile immediately declared the intention to start a new move discussion within a few months unless the page was changed to Oncenawhile's specifications (other editors responded negatively and the editor hasn't done anything yet but I'm sure it will start it up again at some point soon). This nonsense has been going on for five years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I don't see a case against Oncenawhile here. All the alleged "last months" diffs appear to be from 2015 or even 2014. I did not click on all, but none that I clicked of was from 2016. I also don't see any personal attacks. If there is a case to be made, I encourage Drsmoo to open a subthread below with only the problematic diffs and personal attacks from April 2016 and a short description. All I see here is a wall of words and diffs from long ago. Jeppiz (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, your post is incorrect. The first six diffs I posted were all from 2016. Your post seems to have no relation to mine in fact. Would you mind explaining how "Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty." and "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements." are not personal attacks? Or how deleting reliable sources is not disruptive? Drsmoo (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I did say I did not click on the all the more than 50 diffs you provided, especially not after so many turned out to be irrelevant. That is why I encouraged you to post a better argument for your case, if you think there is one. WP:TEXTWALLs are always a bad idea, focus on the essential instead. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute more than anything needing admin action. Mass removal of Category:Southern Levant is cited as disruption, but that category is now heading for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 16#Category:Southern Levant, so that seems to be a moot point. The recent edits to assert that "southern Levant" is quite different from "Southern Levant" seem overly pedantic (as noted by another user on the talk page), but I don't see evidence of anything requiring a block or restriction. I don't read those comments linked to above as personal attacks, though some of the comments are less than the ideal for WP:CIVIL. I suggest using an RfC to try to resolve any outstanding issues that are at dispute. Fences&Windows 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Fences, it's more than just deleting articles from the category, Oncenawhile makes mass edit runs throughout wikipedia deleting links to Southern Levant articles or replacing them with links to other articles (these were never reflected in the edit summary) I detailed this in my first submission to disruptive editing but it was ignored. Disruptive behavior towards Southern Levant articles has continued for five years now. The "southern Levant/Southern Levant" edits are more than pedantic, just as creating four talk page sections within a few minutes, all essentially discussing the same thing is more than being overly specific, these all serve to disrupt the article and annoy/harass the editors working on it.

An additional point is that in the five years that Oncenawhile has been "editing" on the subject of the Southern Levant, Oncenawhile has never once added information or sources. The editor has only removed links, made pedantic tags while demanding that other editors address them, renamed pages away from the name Southern Levant and removed references to the Southern Levant from other articles. Basically, any other interested editors have to constantly be fixing the mess Oncenawhile leaves behind. In Southern Levant articles, Oncenawhile is pedantic and aggressive to the extreme, though never doing anything to fix the (non-existent) "issues". However Oncenawhile's own articles (which the editor constantly redirects Southern Levant links to) are plagued with the "issues" he only seems to see in the Southern Levant. The whole thing is harassment and disturbance. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Four unsubstantiated ANI reports is harassment and disturbance. If you wish to push all the pedantic editors out of Wikipedia, there won't be many left, and Wikipedia will be much the worse for it. You call it pedantry, I call it accuracy. You see yourself as balanced and neutral and me with an agenda, I see myself as balanced and neutral and you with an agenda. The beauty of Wikipedia is bringing editors with different viewpoints together in a collaborative environment. Both of us have been consistent in our ability to hold mature and collaborative discussions. These continued attempts to build a distorted narrative of our discussions in the court of public opinion are unhelpful to our ultimate (and shared) goal of improving the articles and topics we are working on. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not accuracy when you edit and create articles with glaring problems that you then ignore, while making obsessive tags and threats on Southern Levant articles and never making any attempt to address them or contribute yourself. If you actually believed in accuracy you would contribute to the article rather than only adding tags, making threats, and stealthily removing/redirecting links away from the subject. In five years you have not made a single positive (sources, information, etc) contribution to any article with the name Southern Levant in its title. Similarly, if you were interested in collaborative editing, rather than making things uncomfortable for other editors, you wouldn't be making uncivil personal attacks on a regular basis. Drsmoo (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I count six personal attacks against me in your comment.

Separately, it's been more than three months since you moved Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology. Concerns were raise from the beginning regarding the different scope (Talk:Levantine_archaeology#What_about_the_northern_Levant?) of the two names. Are you still intending to make good on your promises to fix this?

As to the Southern Levant article itself, it seems we now have an agreed position. All three of my concerns have now been addressed, and the article is much the better for it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single personal attack in my comment. Your comment "Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements" is a personal attack, because it's a comment on the person/individual. Commenting on specific edits is not a personal attack. Regarding Levantine archaeology, I did not move anything, there was a wide community consensus to move the page which was reflected in the move discussion which then passed. You are the only editor to raise any concerns, surely you're capable of adding the information you deem to be missing, rather than making threats. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you two can discuss the content and not each other, I think the other issues can be resolved. But throwing accusations of harassment and personal attacks at the drop of a hat isn't really going to convince any admins to solve this for you. You both need to cool it with the bickering and discuss things calmly and on the merits - or it'll end up with topic bans and blocks and drama and then someone else will have to fix it. Calm down. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is fair enough. Sometimes I think we're like an old married couple weighed down by history. I am an optimist at heart; I am convinced we can renew our vows and learn to love each other again. Despite everything, I respect Drsmoo and think he is an asset to Wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

All we really need here is a good therapist. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm always interested in working collaboratively Drsmoo (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issue

• Kingo7672 (talk · contribs)

Competence issue--one bad random edit after another, mostly to bios and movie articles. Has racked up an impressive number of warnings in a short time, and the majority of their contributions have been reverted. I reported the user to AIV a few weeks back, and was advised to take it here. After waiting to see if there would be an improvement, I've opted to file this report. Requires either a permanent chaperone or a block. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Going by edits like this one, Kingo7672 might not be a native English speaker. Some of Kingo's other edits are truly perplexing. In this edit, Kingo labels artwork by an artist born in 1970 as coming from Superman's "first comic book", which dates back to 1938. And then there's this unsourced factoid in a BLP. I don't really know what's going on here, but it does seem like we have a problem. Maybe a mentor would work? Those seem to be popular around here lately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And since opening this report: [240], a copyright violation which was reverted, then re-added by an IP. I think it's someone messing around, adding unsourced crap, sometimes made-up stuff, often elaborate 'alt' descriptions to images, just because they can. Sorry for the italics, but my take is that mentoring would be a waste of time. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to note this response made by the user. My first thought is to believe that he's just new and offer help to him/her, unless there's evidence of blatant and purposeful disruption made in bad faith, something I'm not seeing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Redacting this response, per Julietdeltalima's response below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I do see such evidence in the frantic attempts by the two IPs to re-add the highly detailed copyvio movie synopsis at Grimsby (film) almost immediately after this ANI report was filed, which I would be stunned to learn was the activity of someone who was not this user. Couple that with the user's ongoing insistence, after multiple requests to desist, on repeating the very unusual mistaken typographic convention of putting a space BEFORE every comma. If the user was genuinely trying to participate in WP in good faith the user would presumably be making an effort to conform his/her actions to this simple, prosaic request. I suppose the alternative inference is that competence is not feasible for this user, which is equally problematic. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima - Thank you for responding to my thoughts. I got distracted while reading through this ANI and somehow missed the important details described above regarding the timestamp of the copyvio issues added to Grimsby (film). I agree that this now appears problematic and in bad-faith, given that the copyvio issue occured after he made the response on his talk page, and after this ANI was filed. I also agree that the IP appears to be the user being disruptive while logged off. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I have warned the user about comma placement more than once. The user will temporarily place the commas correctly for only a brief period of time after each warning and then go right back to incorrectly placing them. Regardless, I do think that the editor is editing in good faith, even if the edits aren't particularly competent (all due respect to the user). If a language barrier is the problem, perhaps we can ask him about it and then point him to a Wikipedia in his native language. DarkKnight2149 22:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding IPs and socks, this anon is almost certainly the same user as Kingo7672. DarkKnight2149 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the first time I've inadvertently turned up a quacking sock farm. Thanks for the updates. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've filed a SPI for those two edit-warring IPs here. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved with indef and rangeblock. I've added notes at SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, thank you. I agree with Darkknight2149's assessment above, that the edits and grammar of 5.29.105.49 (talk · contribs) appear very much like those of the blocked accounts. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not configuring this as an SPI report in the first instance earlier today; my attention was occupied by IRL issues. User:Oshwah, no self-beating-up, amigo! This is an instance where my involuntary name- and editing-pattern memories kicked in. I just couldn't get there quickly enough today. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• 5.29.105.49 is probably Kingo7672 (unintentionally logged out), but the 86.187 IPs are the same as Special:Contributions/86.187.161.103 and others in reverting edits by Eik Corell, and are unrelated to Kingo7672. Peter James (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)