Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923

IP address repeatedly vandalizing pages.

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

---

199.189.61.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly vandalized the Pat McCrory and Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act articles. First they added biased and insufficiently sourced information to these articles. These edits were undone and attention was brought to the user's page. The user once again added similar information, which was removed. The user was warned again and was directed to go to the articles' talk pages, but refused to do so. Instead, they resorted to removing entire sections from the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act article without reason. The series of warnings given to them by other editors can be seen on their talk page. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been reported at WP:AIV and subsequently blocked. Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 9 May 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.

Request block of User:Caseeart

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

---

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

For months now, Caseeart has been obsessed with me. They have been accusing me of sockpuppetting since September.[1]][2] Despite being told by many editors that I had done nothing wrong, they filed a sockpuppet report against me. When that didn't go their way, they brought a complaint here. They were told to drop the stick. Instead, they attacked me above—repeating the disproven lie that I had socked—and didn't notify me.[3][4]

Since Caseeart was told they were "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG", I request that they be blocked for their recent behavior here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to change the story. Every report that I made was valid and well documented and another administrator might even decide to block you now WP:BOOMERANG.

• Sockpuppeting See Sockpuppet investigations/Malik_Shabazz the clerk administrator actually agreed it was a valid sock-puppet investigation and that Shabbazz was using 66.87.114.76, 107.10.236.42, 66.87.114.248, 63.116.31.198 for edit warring and personal attacks.

The only reason they did not block Shabbazz was because it was "a few months back". But the purpose of a sockpuppet report is also for the record (as you will see below).

• DOPPELGÄNGER account The admins also agreed that the account User:MShabazz is not allowed to be a WP:DOPPELGÄNGER account and they asked Shabazz to change it [5] - because it he/she uses it to edit, and "Such accounts should not be used for editing". Shabbazz did not listen until another administrator went onto Shabbazz's page and changed it [6].

• Previous ANI for "apparent personal attacks by Shabbazz" Let me explain why my ANI was valid. At the sockpuppet investigation - an administrator advised me me about reporting the personal attacks (from the ip's) at ANI which I did. I did not correctly present the case and did not show the list of all the history of personal attacks. -Not everyone bothers looking into all of Shabbazz's history and all the diffs therefore it did not end in a block.

Shabbazz repeatedly laughed at my writing skills:

• "I'm sorry it took you half an hour...I hope your reading skills improve."[7]
• "Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read"[8]

Here is the list of attacks on other users (I believe that all these were aimed at pro Israeli editors - all within a few days and this brought to Shabbazz's block) See this ANIand this ANI

• "suck my dick, ass hole"[9][10]
• "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?"[11]

Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is [sic] you want, I won't".

• "You can suck my dick, too, asshole" [12]
• "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia?"[13]
• "As much fun as it's been, sonny boy, I'm going to bid you adieu."[14]
• This deleted edit summary I think Shabbazz was calling a user "sick in the head"[15]
• deleted personal attack

After Shabbazz was blocked - it was established by the clerk (because of the valid sockpuppet investigation) that he/she appeared to be editing under these IP's and went on with the attacks:

• 66.87.114.76 "fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template"[16]
• 63.116.31.198 "So shove your threat to block me up your ass." [17][18]
• Was my ANI really invalid??

• Above ANI on E.M.Gregory: IP 66.87.114.76 (which was determined to be Shabbazz as mentioned earlier) attacked User:E.M.Gregory and called them a "fucking moron"[19]. This is very relevant to the above discussion since Sean.Hoyland particularly used this diff to report E.M. Gregory calling Hoyland and Shabbaz POV pushers. It was important to show both sides of the story that Shabbazz also attacked E.M. Gregory. But still I deliberately did not name Shabbazz a single time in the ANI in order not to further take the report off track and not to revert the report onto a Shabbazz discussion. (I obviously had no intention at all of reporting Shabbazz - a single diff without name mention - I doubt anyone could even find that diff now).

• Today's attack Shabbazz just called me a "persistent edit warrior"[20] without providing any evidence. In fact Shabbazz did not respond on the article talk page for a few days [21]. It thus appeared that Shabbazz agreed/left the dispute. I therefore addressed his/her concerns and fixed the edit (to my ability and understanding) and put it back in the article - that is in no way or form edit warring (let me know if I am wrong). (Just now, AFTER Shabbazz again |reverted my edit without responding to our talk page discussion - finally after the revert, another user joined in and responded).

I am finally starting to understand why almost all Pro Israeli editors eventually get banned. I never edited the subject and only recently I was pulled in trying to fix something else. All of the sudden I begin getting warnings and I get reported. Something really needs to be done but this is not the place to discuss.

My Statement: I am not aware of the meaning of "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG" I don't understand the words "three microns" and I tried to clarify in this discussion[22] but did not get a response.

I was never blocked and I have no intentions of breaking rules. If an admin determines that I acted inappropriately in any way- please let me know and I will cease to do so, and if necessary will cease to engage in any discussion with Shabbazz for a set period of time and never talk about this issue again.

I will not be available for a while - if any action will be taken (other than closure or warning) please wait until I am back.CaseeArt ^Talk 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a TL;DR acknowledgement that competence is required and you lack competence. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

After this is over I will be taking a short break from editing wikipedia.

Will anyone do anything about the gruesome personal attacks? The first wave of attacks resulted in Blocks for Shabazz and triggered an Arb Comminttee meeting resulting in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 - very strict rules regarding the Israeli Palistinian articles.

All that did not help, because Shabazz just took it a step further and began Personal attacks against pro Israeli editors using ip addresses (in addition to the attacks on me lately). Does anyone have any solution? CaseeArt (^Talk 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Caseeart: It is very simple: your last SPI against Malik was closed. Please don't keep alleging that Malik engaged in sock-puppeting. If you want to pursue it, the appropriate venue is SPI. I also don't see why you bring MShabazz into a totally unrelated dispute. You seem to view everything through the lens of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian". We all have POV, but that does not mean everything we do is determined by our POV. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian Contrary to Shabazz's claim, Last sockpuppet report did confirm that Shabbazz was using IP addresses for edit warring and personal attacks. Also read my response - I did not try to bring him into any dispute I presented a mere diff as evidence to the case. CaseeArt ^Talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Caseeart: I will not be diverted into a discussion about the merits of the SPI case. It was closed, that's all that matters. If you want to pursue it, open another case at SPI. Or if you want an ANI case against MShabazz, open a separate case here; don't bring him up in a totally unrelated dispute. Keep your allegations about sockpuppeting to yourself in the meantime. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian Let me clarify: I was not trying to pursue any case against anyone in any way shape or form, not ANI and not SPI. There is no point of a duplicate SPI - Clerk already warned Shabbaz to stop. I did not metion Shabazz name anywhere, and the Diff was for evidence purposes only. (And if was a mistake on my part to present the "diff" - then let let me be notified (preferably by an admin) that this SPI case is not allowed to be mentioned). CaseeArt ^Talk 05:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed this discussion and promoted it a level. I thought it was related to the prior discussion, which Caseeart tried to turn into a discussion about me -- despite being told to drop the stick and without notifying me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given that you opened this section accusing them of telling a 'lie' that you socked - when you were using both a doppelganger account and IP's to sock, its a bit rich to complain about them dropping the stick and making it about you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Which parts of WP:SOCK and WP:STICK are unclear to you? I never violated SOCK. Caseeart can say it as often as they'd like, but wishing won't make it so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:SOCK actually. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). 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." - you were using multiple accounts and IP addresses for an improper purpose. Specifically logging out and edit warring with IP addresses is covered by the following paragraph where it says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". From the sockpuppet investigation I will quote Vanjagenije directly: "Shabazz was using IPs to edit-war and for personal attacks." You were socking by the explicit definition as per WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 9 May 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.

FreeatlastChitchat comments and revision need addressing please

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

---

@FreeatlastChitchat: this editor has recently decided to include comments such as this in their reasoning for reverting an entry on the very contentious Talk Page about Yadav, that I have been engaging in the debate on for some weeks. The Masked Man of Mega Might has already warned two (2) other editors to not behave in such a manner, and I feel that even though there is a semi block on the article (which I'm not asking to be fully protected), this sort of language is not conducive to having the debate on content. I request some ANI advice and formal decision, please, on the editors obvious inability to leave POV out of this article. I see that the specific users who have been warned, and involved, do not speak English as a first language and it has become quite problematic in the end to attempt any meaningful debate, though not for a lack of trying by various people. I'm making no requests but some further advice please. I have not informed the user, as I am still working out how to correctly use the 'subt-ANI' above, of which I apologies for. I will put something basic on their talk page though

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Notified. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked for advice and here is my advice. Try to find a better source, this source has too much POV language in it, for example "Pak of lies", referring to Pakistan as a country. We should not allow such BS sources to begin-with. As for FreeatlastChitchat, he is calling the source what ever he is calling. His description is not intended towards an editor. I suggest closing of thread. FreeatlastChitchat and thread starter has been advised. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me in your comments, and you have ignored the language used by the editor, to be blunt.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, the language was directed at the source so to be blunt, the source uses harsh, hateful and POV language so he might have put it in milder words but considering that Wikipedia is usually edited by grown ups, the language is not that bad, rather your summary language is not any better than his. Leave him alone please, let him edit in peace. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• When did calling a SPADE as a "SPADE" become an offence?

A nationalistic and highly POV Indian source has been used to insert the falsehood(what else do you call a Lie in Politically correct terms I have no idea, I could tone it down if you want but falsehood is the most PC word for lying that I have atm) that However, Rouhani dismissed this report, adding that RAW's involvement in Balochistan is a rumour. However this is the exact opposite of what Rouhani has said. Don't take my word for it, just take the word of the economic times and the Hindu, both of which are India papers. Every paper will give the information that 1)Rouhani was asked if there were any talks between PAkistans Chief of Staff and him about RAW's involvement and 2)He dismissed the idea of internal discussions about RAW as a rumor. There is not a SINGLE newspaper that claims Rouhani was asked about RAW's involvement and he said NO, RAW is not involved. He is talking about the rumour of internal discussions, not the involvement. I would also like to point out that this has already been discussed on TP and a consensus achieved. We can see here that The NOM was also pinged to the discussion but he conveniently choose to ignore the ping and has now edit warred about an issue which was already decided. So to sum up

1. The nom should learn how to edit wikipedia's controversial topics from a mentor who has experience in dealing with controversial topics. Someone like MShahbaz etc if he is free can take up the task if they are willing. He should be mentored by the said experienced editor who should teach him step by step how to deal with text from nationalistic sources. The mentor should teach him that newspapers like this are prone to "twisting" the words of various international figures in order to "make them say" something which they have not said. The mentor should also teach him that when dealing with such sources it is VITAL that the entire article is read line by line instead of just reading the heading. The nom should learn about fact checking basics too, that when dealing with controversial topics editors must check MULTIPLE sources to make sure that they are putting "facts" in an article and not some POV mumbo jumbo.
2. As far as the (personal attack) WP:NPA about my and other editor's English is concerned, I am willing to let it go if the nom issues an apology.
3. The next time the nom is irked by an issue, he should make sure that the issue is NOT one that has already been discussed. Thread necromancy is quite hilarious in forums and whatnot, but here on wikipedia it just creates a hassle, so the next time the nom thinks someone is doing something wrong, just give the TP a quick look, maybe the issue has already been discussed.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - FreeatlastChitchat is filibustering about the source, but this is not about the source, rather about him. After responding here last night, he went and did two more reverts at the page with language like:

• If you want to tell about the "role of Iran" use an Iranian source not an Indian source. And do not insert Indian claims here
• IF an IRANIAN source exists about this then "insert" it. If it does not exist, keep it out. Inserting a Pakistani source is just as inserting an Indian one

In the process, he was edit-warring with three or more editors and reaching 3RR, whereas I understand that he promised to voluntarily keep to 1RR under the terms of his last unblock. Later he went and did a huge revert at Balochistan conflict undoing a month's worth of edits. All this in a good day's work. It seems to me like Freeatlast is testing Wikipedia's patience.

(For the uninitiated, Pakistan claimed to have arrested inside its territory an Indian national based in Iran and accused him of being a spy, whereas India suspects that he was abducted from inside Iran or the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran is the only country that can determine the truth between the two claims and the Iranian investigation is quite the key to the whole episode.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no smoking gun in your comment either. It seems like people are brewing a storm in the tea cup! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Dragon Fly is just pushing his POV and dragging Freeatlast because of no valid reason, here's why:

• Dragon Fly was himself the one who opened sections after sections after section at Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav about the reliability of ALL the sources mentioned in the article.
• He then went on to say that none of these sources are reliable.
• To the extent that he then explicitly declarers that the "New Indian Express" "is blatantly nationalistic about the matters and doesn't try to be informative. I wouldn't support this source", and that "New Indian Express" "is poorly written. It doesn't cover much, or accurately written" i.e. he rejects the source(s) which does not conform to his views.
• But when the same source/newspaper (New Indian Express) which he had categorically rejected pushes his own POV and opinion, he goes on to do two reverts in a row. this and this (two consecutive reverts against two editors)

I mean, he fills sections after sections at the talk announcing that sources that make up the current state of article, precisely the New Indian Express is not RS and is (blatantly) nationalistic, and thus should be removed, but when the same source supports his POV, he initiates an edit-war and even report the user at ANI for doubting the source?

This is irrespective of the fact that Dragon Fly has been repeatedly and categorically asked to "prove that the sources are not RS" and to "Point out which precise policy does the article in its current state violates". He has been suggested the same thing by another editor and was also advised by the same editor not to characterize mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" and that he needs to check Wikipedia policies. But to no avail. Instead he engages in an edit-war and reports Freeatlast when he challenged him here even though Freeatlast only commented about the source in his edit-summary and not the editor.

I dont know why Dragon Fly is being tendentious and owning the article while saying that he is going to re-write it in its entirety?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment about leniency shown to FreeatlastChitchat

Already there is an active ANI above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_in_Russian_soldier.27s_article and now this. There is also an WP:AE case going on. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. One IP who tried to close the previous discusion two days ago, commented that FreeatalstChitchat is immune to long term sanction. FreeatlastChitchat is not a very good content creator, overall negative to this project. Only those users who like his biased pov support him. No administrator warned him for harassing a new user who created the article about Russian soldier, when he was Wikihounding Mhhossein. 2A03:4A80:7:441:8891:78E4:8E9C:106E (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing nothing but testifying that there is a campaign going on against one editor who I categorize a voice of dissent here on Wikipedia and as every where else in the World, nobody is liking that voice of dissent here as well. People are hell bent to shut that voice. I hope these calls are rejected so that Wikipedia can be edited by people having many different views. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are getting involved, but you consider this as voice of dissent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko. All were wrong with their Keep votes and FreeatlastChitchat was right to check the contributions of Mhhossein and nominated the article for AFD, which harassed the new editor from Sri Lanka who created the article. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:9592:D44A:11A7:480E (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should? Also, what's wrong with nominating an article for deletion? How about you tell the community what policy he violated in nominating that article for deletion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted my concerns, it is for someone with AN/I rights to make a judgement and any decisions. I'm not going to enter into a commentary on the way SheriffIsInTown, TripWire and the other Pakistani editors are behaving. When asked by someone with authority I will make a statement as to the ENTIRETY of this article and its talk page, as this will be the second time it has been done so by the AN/I. I stand by the full list of my comments as being the basis for my reporting this last effort to the AN/I. If I'm found lacking then so be it, but I think the ENTIRE article needs to be AfD'ed or their needs a long and lengthy ARBCOM by numerous senior editors, and as I feel the latter is something that nobody wants to spend time on, which they should imo, then the former is the best course. I'm at the point of considering this an FA style intervention and with said scrutiny, for anything remotely unbiased to be in the article....

Regards,

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This user (FreeatlastChitchat) attacked me personally by saying that I use "sneaky tactics" in wikipedia. This sort of language is not new from him. He is indeed a habitual offender.Ghatus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, FreeatlastChitchat explains in the same comment that why he thinks that you are applying "sneaky tactics" as you seem to be twisting the facts in the source so no personal attack in that. I don't think words "sneaky tactics" are that harsh. Again, as I explained above, Wikipedia is mostly edited by grown-ups and FreeatlastChitchat might have assumed that he is talking to a grown-up. You are not supposed to report every little thing at ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus, the language you have been using on Wikipedia while addressing almost every user you have encountered isn't very Wikipediash either. If you want, I can spend sometime to find some diffs supporting this.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 8 May 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.

Spam blacklist is a pain in the arse

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

---

Philip DeFranco has been vandalized but I can't revert the vandalism as the last good revision contains archive.is, which is on the spam blacklist. Admin assistance required to remove the vandalism. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edits and removed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. It honestly makes no sense to outright block instead of just warn for edits that contain blacklisted links as it's just waiting to be exploited by vandals. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you undo instead of reverting you will get an edit window in which you can also make other changes, such as removing blacklisted urls, before saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 9 May 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.

Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?) on the ANI project 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.

---

Here is the exact text and structure of the users requesting that User:E.M.Gregory be blocked/topic banned for BLP: Diff of vote Diff of vote (Particularly Huldra)

• This restored a blatant BLP violation, claiming that a named living person advocated violent attacks on Armenians when the source said no such thing. Calling it both well-sourced and significant when reverting a removal that specifically calls out WP:BLP, which I note says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. is a violation of both WP:BLP and basic common sense. This is typical of this users work here. ----------Comment by nableezy

• I can confirm that it is indeed an outrageous BLP-violation; E.M. Gregory writes "due to his advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" ...which is absolutely not in the source. However, the source is in Swedish (yes; I can read it), can E.M. Gregory even read the source? (Not that it is any excuse if he cannot.) ------Comment BY Huldra

Making an accusations that the E.M. Gregory restores BLP violations, and purposely leaving out that right afterwards, E.M. Gregory self reverted, by adding a new reliable source and entirely corrected the text that is BLP violation, seems like filing a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment.

There appears to be a lot more on Huldra's selective reporting/not reporting history but won't go off topic (yet). CaseeArt ^Talk 07:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given that E.M.Gregory amended the work to make it BLP compliant the same day (3rd May I might add, 6 days ago): reliable source, wording reflects that used in the source etc. What is the problem *now*? Waiting 6 days to report something as a BLP issue clearly indicates it was not that big of a problem or you would have done it sooner. Leaving out the following diffs where the issue was corrected, as Caseeart points out above, is highly suspect. Firstly it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material, secondly its just highly intentionally misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is like Blue, the detective in Auster's Ghosts, constructing stories to explain the void that is his subject, Black. If you two are going to construct theories to explain the actions of 2 editors in good standing you could at least make the effort to use more robust reasoning before you cast aspersions. I realize many people enjoy imagining things about other people, but alternative theories should be considered, assumptions examined and Occam's razor deployed before writing things like "Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?)" and "just highly intentionally misleading". And what in the name of fuck is this "it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material"? They did employ "edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material" exactly as Nableezy described, edit warring is "typical of this users work here", and it wasn't until several hours later that they noticed that they had, once again, made an 'error' i.e. a very serious BLP violation, one of four, only one of which they acknowledged as an 'error'. Why no theories to explain why it was so hard for E.M.Gregory to see or care about their 'errors', their multiple BLP violations? Why no cognitive dissonance induced by the impossibility of reconciling the blocking reason given by the admin with the statement "a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment". Anyway, I'm sure Huldra and Nableezy can speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Its not anyone elses job to go hunting through EM Gregory's edit history to evidence Nableezy's accusation. If Nableezy wants to demonstrate an ongoing issue with BLP violating edits they need to make that case with diffs. As it stands the complaint *here* is both stale (the problem no longer exists in this case) and has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence. Asking for a block for one edit that has already been corrected without showing the correction is just iffy on multiple levels. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Re-read the ANI report, specifically, my initial 4th diff, E.M.Gregory's statement starting 'The error I did commit...', my statement starting 'It's good to see that you corrected your errors', Nableezy's statement and consider whether it is true or false and what kind behaviorial non-compliance it explicitly describes, consider the size of the set of alternative explanations for why Nableezy didn't post until yesterday, and consider why Huldra, as a Swedish speaker, might comment on the diff. Then consider whether the 500+ active admins had sufficient information to make a decision about E.M.Gregory's policy violations or whether the "complaint *here*...has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it *is* one sided. When you make an accusation that someone made an outrageous BLP violation and dont also include that they corrected it the same day, it is a ridiculously one-sided presentation of the facts. If you dont understand that, I cant really explain it any further to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, Sherlock, my problem was with that edit, in that it was an explicit violation of WP:BLP's prohibition on simply reverting to restore material that an editor has claimed in good faith is a BLP violation. That BLP specifically requires that if the material is to be reinserted without modification it must be discussed and a consensus for it achieved first. E.M. Gregorys edit violated that prohibition, regardless of what happened after that. E.M. Gregory did not do discuss the material (the talk page for the article remains blank), and for that reason that specific edit was a violation of the policy. Not to mention that the material was initially added to the article by E.M. Gregory himself prior to being removed by me. Toodles, nableezy - 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well technically yes that would be a violation of the BLP policy, but since the sourcing was amended 2 minutes later and the wording in the article was amended 3 hours later - before anyone thought to remove it again as a BLP issue - and it has subsequently stayed in the article for the last six days, it is not exactly a pressing incident is it? If you think E.M. Gregory should be banned from BLP's, make a discussion on AN laying out diffs that support your case. Since blocks are (allegedly) not punitive, blocking someone for a past BLP violation that they have since corrected would be punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 9 May 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Boing! said Zebedee: Can we re-open the case? I think there was a total misunderstanding here. This thread was (supposed to be) about blocking/banning users Nablezzy and Huldra, for a serious personal attack, and for attempting to trick an administrator into blocking another user.

“Nobody is going to face admin action for a BLP violation that they, themselves, rectified a few hours later based on a reliable source, six days ago.” Thanks for confirming precisely the problem! User Nablezzy and User Huldra intentionally tried tricking an administrator Ricky81682 into ‘’’taking action’’’ and blocking/banning E.M. Gregory. They reported a 6 day old serious BLP violation edit, and they purposely left out that E.M. Gregory already self reverted a few hours later and rectified the problem. Not only is this a personal attack but this shows dishonesty on the ANI page in order to block (pro Israeli) users. It’s like walking into a police station and committing a crime. This is also dishonesty towards administrators, and is disrespectful and not fair to the involved administrators who already volunteer so much their time and effort to resolve other user’s disputes and ANI’s, - because now the admins need to spend extra time digging through every single claim being made, as it may be intentionally false and misleading. CaseeArt ^Talk 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if he rectified that edit. The bigger problem was the nonsense talk page comments of "Why aren't we talking about so-and-so's hatred of the Jews?". Are you seriously going to defend that kind of editing? Double this with the nonsense about you not dropping the Shabbazz attacks, and I'm not seeing anything but a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, at least there is a confirmation that the actual action had nothing to do with those two last misleading claims - and I will drop it per Ricky81682. Regarding the attacks it was made clear that, that history is only to be brought up if the attacks will persist. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the actual close. It was not a one-sentence summary. (A) I was concerned about the talk page comments. (B) EM Gregory changed it from living person advocating something to associating with advocates which is an indication that it was inaccurate and (C) then called it an "error" that should be ignored based on the total scope of his contributions which is absurd. It was clearly inaccurate and that is no mild difference. The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it. And a month-long topic ban in my view is being extraordinarily generous given the absolutely vile and inappropriate talk page comments for an editor who have been here long enough to know what is and what isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Added strikethrough on request for clarification. I also think that it was overly nice when you gave the user a chance to rectify themselves and then waited patiently a very long time. I've never interacted (directly) with EM Gregory but I could discuss with the on their talk page.- CaseeArt ^Talk 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it." Blocks are not punitive remember. If you are genuinely advocating someone should be blocked for what *might* have happened, that is beyond punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

EM Gregory was topic banned and was not blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone can revert a close of mine if they think I have made a mistake or disagree with it in any way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 10 May 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.

Ecoboy90

The following discussion is closed. 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 check their edits Ecoboy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and possibly block them (temporarily) since they seem to be causing various disruption over the long term. Feinoha ^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw, The user's last edit few edits finally seem to make sense so I don't think there's any need for admin action at the current moment. Feinoha ^Talk 19:10, 9 May 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:Pocketthis making legal threats

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

---

After an image they posted was reverted, Pocketthis (talk · contribs) made this edit, saying in the edit summary Explain "Image Spam" to me Chiswick Chap, and it better be good, or I'll sue you for deformation of character. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) then messaged him about the legal threat and Pocketthis responded with this clarification that it was indeed a legal threat. Aside from Pocketthis's continued aggressive attitude towards others, which is what brought my attention to this initially , this is a clear legal threat. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• This issue was settled before this guy Aoidh (who follows me around just waiting to start one of these investigations, quite childish actually) came here to complain about it. Chriswick Chap and I made our peace, so why this is posted here?... only Aoidh knows. One of my photos was called Spam on the public summary board in an article, and that is a first for me here. I told him to explain himself, or I would sue him for Deformation of Character. He took it as comedy, and then fixed the caption in the article. OVER. Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, not completely over, but mostly over. User:Pocketthis, people around here tend to freak out when legal threats are made, and you need to be really careful not to do that. It's often treated not as a "hey, don't do that" kind of policy violation, but as a "block indef until it's officially retracted" kind of policy violation. Chiswick Chap seems to not be too bothered by it and understands that this was kind of a silly threat made in anger, and as long as you understand that saying you'll "sue for defamation of character" or similar can get you blocked, then yes, I think we're done. But don't take the rule against it lightly, because it can escalate quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• (ec) Considering the exchange is already deescalated, there is zero point to stirring up drama on this board over it. Move along, please, and no other characters will need to be deformed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• I had no idea what I said about suing was against policy. I was just trying to get his attention, and to get him to retract or at least explain the word "spam". I thought he was implying that I made a fake photo. He has since apologized on his talk page, and I accepted, and made friends. I assumed it was over. I will not threaten to sue here again. Thanks for the explanation Floquenbeam, and thanks for ending this Laser brain . Pocketthis (talk) 19:14, 9 May 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.

Harassing phone calls from jayron32

Deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jayron32 made an harassing phone call last night. I don't know how he got my phone number. He threatened to reveal my personal identity to all of the Wikipedia editors if I ever dare revert his edits. What should be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.60 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Complain to your local police; harassing calls may be criminal. I'm sure they will give you precisely the attention you deserve. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Block an obvious troll? John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Another IP recently (about April 15) made a similar bogus complaint about another admin "threatening" him offline. Can something be done with that yoyo, or is Wikipedia stuck with him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I blocked that one too. Probably the same yoyo. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find it. Maybe it was rev-del'd. But it would be interesting to try to see if the two are the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SSTflyer and AWB

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

---

SSTflyer (talk · contribs) recently began created thousands of controversial and unnecessary redirects in violation of AWB and Bot policy. Checking out his recent contributions, he has created "List of people named x" where x leads to a redirect page. Per WP:AWBRULES: "Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue." Last I checked, there is no consensus to create pages of this nature, in fact, consensus seems to sway in the opposite direction. Per a recent RFD discussion, a list of people named x redirect was headed towards delete before the creator mercifully tagged them for G7. (I'd take this batch to RFD, but with thousands of these, it's too unfeasible.) Another concern I have of these edits is the sheer speed in which they were created. He was editing at a rate of 50 edits per minute at 11:32, 9 May 2016. This is absurd. Per WP:BOTPOL: "bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds." Since this is obviously a non-urgent task, SSTflyer's edits should be limited to about 6 edits/minute. 50 edits per minute is way above these guidelines. With all this in mind, I have two requests: 1) that these controversial redirects be deleted and 2) that SSTflyer be banned from using AWB unless the specific task is approved via WP:BOTREQ. Thank you, -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought WP:MASSCREATION was only limited to articles and categories? Prior to my creation of these redirects, I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute, and there has never been any concerns about my speed of editing or my redirect creations. SSTflyer 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am on a mobile device right now, but I should be able to compile a list of redirects I created and place it in my user space later today, to allow an admin to quickly delete all of them using Twinkle. Unless there is consensus to delete these redirects, I do not want to request deletion of them yet. SSTflyer 02:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. At the very least, it'd make an RFD nomination feasible if that's the route we want to take. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list of redirects concerned: User:SSTflyer/hndis. I consider myself to be (somewhat) active at RFD, and I only create redirects if I think they may be useful to readers. In this case, if a reader wanted to look for a list of people with a name, these redirects would aid the reader during searches. None of these redirects meet any reasons for deletion at WP:R#DELETE. These redirects are harmless, and I think that deleting them would cause more trouble than keeping them. I also do not think that I have to actively seek consensus before creating redirects. After all, I do not have to seek consensus to create articles as long as they meet notability guidelines, so why should redirects be different? SSTflyer 03:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the list. Now that a(n) RFD nomination is feasible, I'll take them there as that's the proper place to discuss them. No, you don't need to seek consensus before creating redirects, but per WP:AWBRULES, you need to seek consensus to use AWB to do things that may be controversial. That's a huge difference. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB prior to the creation of this batch of redirects, and this is the first time I have been told that redirect creation using AWB is inappropriate. I have also seen other users, including admins, create redirects using AWB. If WP:MASSCREATION of redirects are to be disallowed per community consensus, sure, I will file requests at WP:BRFA and create redirects using a bot account. SSTflyer 04:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• SSTflyer - Just a word of warning - Incase you're not aware this bloke is probably the most disliked person on this place right now due to his creation of over a thousand redirects ..... I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong however if you're creating them at a fast rate like Neelix had then It may be a better idea to perhaps slow down alittle, Just my 2¢. –Davey2010^Talk 04:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After Neelix, I can't believe anyone would do this. Unless it's an approved bot, the mass creation of huge numbers of redirects by an automated process should be blocked on sight. Jonathunder (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Most redirects created by Neelix are nonsense, while I am actually aware of WP:R#CRD guidelines. That is a major difference. SSTflyer 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone creating lots of redirects (automated or not) is going to get the Neelix tag thrown at them. I guess the question is how likely is it that someone will type in "List of people named Henry Lopes" when looking for Henry Lopes (for example)? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

These redirects are not intended for readers who want to look for a specific person, but rather a list of people with a specific name. SSTflyer 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Above, SSTflyer says "I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute". Being bold is one thing, but creating 17,528 useless pages without a central discussion on the merits is most unhelpful. The rules of AWB access appear to have been severely violated so access should be removed. Given the Neelix situation, my preference would be that people found to be mass-creating anything without extensive prior discussion should be indefinitely topic banned. The community cannot sensibly discuss the merits of 17,528 pointless redirects, so this action is a fait accompli which sets a precedent for anyone wanting to boost their edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What I am saying is that prior to the creation of this batch of "List of people named xyz" redirects, I already created more than 10,000 other redirects using AWB, and this is the first time I have been told that this is inappropriate. I do not consider these redirects to be "pointless", as they serve a purpose to readers. Like it or not, a disambiguation page is a list of topics covered on Wikipedia. There is no rule against the mass creation of redirects. Since this batch of redirects follow a consistent format, it is feasible for the community to discuss whether they should be deleted. If consensus decides so, I am willing to limit my mass (i.e. more than 25 to 50 pages) redirect creations to a separate bot account which has passed through WP:BRFA. As for the accusation that my redirect creations are to boost my edit count, I do not understand how a high edit count benefits me. SSTflyer 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Legacypac: has (correctly in my view) created a redirect discussion on one of the 17,528 at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10#List_of_people_named_Henry_Lopes. @Johnuniq: your comment seems correct on AWB access, but I'm just curious, what is the benefit to an editor in boosting their edit count?? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Other than the goal of making the numbers bigger, some areas of the project lend more credibility to editors with higher edit counts, and moreso with higher edit counts in the mainspace. Now, it's trivial to see how many edits are content and how many are redirects, and when/if they came in bursts as with automated editing or what have you. But editcountitis has been a thing as long as edits were counted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I had not seen this discussion, just stumbled on one of them and thought it was a really bad idea, that if applied widely, would result in thousands of not useful redirects. Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a mistake not to disclose that you have a bomb-shaped camera in your briefcase at the airport before it goes through the scanners. Doesn't matter if it's a perfectly acceptable carry-on -- someone else abused the system and made everyone jumpy. Granted, this is a silly metaphor as the scourge here is pointlessness and the time-consuming chore of pointlessness-cleanup rather than violence, but in this post-Neelix world mass creating redirects is going to draw attention -- and, really, nobody should be surprised about being scrutinized for mass-doing-anything. That said, (a) apparently nobody had ever brought this up as a problem with SST before, (b) he/she created a complete list to facilitate cleanup, and (c) he/she has already offered to stop mass creating redirects and take it through a bot request instead. So the talk of topic bans, AWB access being revoked, etc. seems completely and totally unnecessary. Suggest this be closed with a trout, a suggestion that SST stick to what he/she is saying here, and the debate of the merit of the redirects continued at the RfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. It looks pretty obvious (at least to me) that SST was working in good faith creating these redirects. The issue has been brought to their attention and they've done everything to help. There's a consensus that these shouldn't be created at the rate they've been created at. Maybe they're not needed at all, but that's another discusssion. Now if the mass creation re-starts by the same user, then it becomes an issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with the above comments. The issue seems to stem from from an inconsistency in the bot policy. I'll start up an RFC later to try to get that resolved. As far as the redirects go, they are being handled at RFD. As long as SSTflyer keeps the edit speed down in the future and knows not to create controversial redirects with AWB, I think this issue can be resolved without further admin action needed at the moment. Thanks, everyone. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 10 May 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 by User:Inorap

Inorap (talk · contribs) has been changing the rating score at hip hop album articles. For example, the user replaced "7/10" with "{{Rating|3.5|5}}" at Surf (Donnie Trumpet & The Social Experiment album) [23]. Although having been warned by other editors at User talk:Inorap multiple times [24] [25] [26], the user keeps doing these things over and over again [27] [28]. I think it is disruptive behavior and has to be stopped as soon as possible. 153.204.104.88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please try to discuss this with the user before bringing it here, in future. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on User:Aurevoirbronny

Looking for a quick sanity check on this. This is an account that sprung from nowhere to create article Jason Falinski, a biography of an aspiring politician in Australia. The "bronny" in the username is presumably Bronwyn Bishop, a soon-to-be-ex-MP who has essentially been deposed from her seat by Falinski. Falinski's notability for an article is somewhat contested, although that's not what this is about. What I'm a little more concerned about is that the account managed to pop a serviceable looking article out of nowhere, linked it to a few places, and then disappeared until showing up on their AFD discussion so they could defend it and get in a few cracks at editors for wasting their precious time, without a single newbie error anywhere. Perhaps they've just RTFM, or more likely they've had another account that they're not using for whatever reason. I was tempted to block as an obvious sock account, especially as User:AusLondonder evidently came to a similar conclusion here, but I am somewhat peripherally involved so I'm bringing it here for further review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

I think it's obvious this is a WP:SOCK. I have no personal affection for Bronwyn Bishop but this account is WP:NOTHERE - "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia: Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance", "Dishonest and gaming behaviour: gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty" and "Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business: Narrow self-interested or promotional activity". The experienced editing including use of templates is shown here and also discussed here AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Proxy IP blocking

The following discussion is closed. 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 103.18.58.198 vandalised my userpage for some reason (I have no clue what I did to provoke anyone, aside perhaps from this), and soon afterward, I got more vandalism from IP 185.2.137.220. The two IPs' "Geolocate" links produce radically different results: 103 is from New Zealand, and 185 is from the UK, but it's obviously the same person. Is this sufficient grounds for blocking either one, or both, as proxy servers? And for how long do we generally block them? I remember that we used to block them indefinitely, but (1) that was years before we had ProcseeBot, and (2) we tend to be more hesitant on indefinite blocks than we were ten years ago. No real point in notifying, since I'm not seeking sanctions for petty vandalism at this point; I'm just trying to get the proxy shut down. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

103.18.58.198 reverse DNS's to VPS City and 185.2.137.220.ipaddress.com to gmchosting.com. I believe that's sufficient to ask for a proxy block. --Yamla (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They're both open proxies. I've blocked them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 10 May 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: Radyanskysoldativ

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

---

Does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Has been blocked previously, possibly a block of indefinite duration needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editor was blocked for sockpuppetry. Is there evidence that it's continuing and what other problems are there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Today they appeared from nowhere and reverted sourced material in at least two pages (repeating a similar reverts of a user whom I blocked earlier today). [29], [30] Besides, they have a talk page full of warnings, and I do not see them ever discussing anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This user is clearly affiliated with User:AnnaRedko89 in some way. They share quite a few articles. Radyanskysoldativ also seems to come to the aid of AnnaRedko89 when they are reverted, and they edit in the same way, i.e removing sourced material claiming it propaganda, etc. Eik Corell (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked earlier today User:AnnaRedko89 for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• The two accounts are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 10 May 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.

Abuse By Yamla

The following discussion is closed. 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:Yamla had been abused me for quite a while. he revert my editing work and He's such a abusive and possessive monster I've have ever interacted with. And therefore I'm absolutely not a sock puppet of my user account Moatassemakmal. He's not a wiki material and not trustworthy to others. Also his behavior became very erratic and aggressive and his anti-vandalism and irrelevant blocking was unsanitary. I regret all of you to remove him from Wikipedia at once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.119.214 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see the headline in Wired now: Wikipedia guilty of unsanitary blocking. 15 cases of salmonella reported so far.

John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Moatassemakmal has issued threats of violence as well as a death threat against Yamla just last month. At first, I could have put it down to incompetence, but going over the top in to threats is beyond the pale. I say just drop the site ban and be done with it. Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Moatassemakmal (talk · contribs) continues to edit despite his block. Note that his threat was actually issued against Bearcat (talk · contribs) rather than me. Bearcat's actually going out of his way to determine whether leave my reverts in place or whether the edits should be reintroduced. Moatassemakmal has an unfortunate history of mixing valid edits with misinformation, so Bearcat's efforts are non-trivial. For what little my vote counts, I strongly endorse a site ban. Moatassemakmal's vandalism and ban evasion stretch back years. Note that I am not even the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP has a longstanding pattern of being unproductive and uncollaborative in their editing patterns — while certainly some of the edits they make are legitimate ones, many others are not. Even the legitimate edits very often require somebody else to come in after the fact to clean up formatting errors (I once had to spend an entire afternoon repairing the member tables on a whole series of Canadian provincial electoral district articles, where the information Mo had added was legitimate but the formatting of the edits had broken the table coding) — and with the incorrect or unproductive edits, if they're undone then Mo has a habit of ignoring any explanation they're given for why the edit was unhelpful or incorrect, and stubbornly and persistently reinserting the same unproductive edit again.

And if any page they wanted to edit was pageprotected for some reason, then instead of following the proper edit request process — providing the information you want to see changed, so that somebody who can get past the editblock can make the desired edit if it's appropriate — they would stubbornly and persistently misuse the edit request process to demand total unprotection of the page without actually providing any details of the specific edit they actually wanted. And when that request would be inevitably refused by one of several administrators, they would ignore the explanation they were given, and then simply make the same "unprotect please, reason = because I asked" request again two or three days later.

Then, after this had gone on for far too many months they started expanding the unprotection requests to user talk pages, still without actually accommodating anything they'd been told about how the edit request process actually works. The actual protecting admin in one case was an editor who has since resigned the admin function, and thus didn't even have the ability to do anything about the page protection anymore — but no matter how many times that editor explained that they weren't an admin anymore and couldn't do anything, Mo would simply ignore that response and harass that admin again two or three days later. And as already noted by Yamla above, in my case Mo actually escalated the harassment into a full-on death threat (as well as numerous other less consequential but still uncivil insults to my intelligence and integrity.)

In one case, after several months of this I did finally manage to get Mo to provide the specific details of a specific edit they wanted to make — and since the edit was legitimate, I applied it to the article accordingly. But even then, Mo had only given me one detail out of several other changes that they wanted to make to the article — so instead of putting the issue to bed or demonstrating that they had actually learned how to format a proper edit request, they simply started harassing me again with the same "unprotect please, reason = because I asked" requests, still pertaining to the same page and still without actually specifying any of the desired further changes.

This is not the behavior of a person who deserves to be treated as a contributor in good standing — this is the behavior of an unproductive and uncollaborative editor who has very much earned a system ban. So "abuse by Yamla" is not an accurate summary of the situation: Yamla's acting properly in response to the situation, and the OP is simply trying to evade the legitimate consequences of their own behavior. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 10 May 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 User:80.245.197.109 on Talk:Synthesizer

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

---

On the Talk page of article Synthesizer, an IP user 80.245.197.109 (or similar addresses) secretly substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem, and he is doing a personal attack since one year ago. How to stop this long-term personal attacks by specific IP user ? I'm glad if you suggested me several advices or comments. --Clusternote (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is customary, nay, obligatory (and for good reason) to notify the user you are complaining about. I have done so for you. It is also customary to include a number of links to (alleged) transgressions and I note a glaring lack thereof. Moreover, a cursory glance at the talk page you reference, does not bring to light any personal attacks, let alone a pattern of personal attacks reaching back a year. I suggest you reconsider this ANI-request, since in my opinion, it's going nowhere, very, very fast. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is not entirely clear what Clusternote means, as his or her English is in places incomprehensible: for example, what is "substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem" supposed to mean? However, the following two facts are clear: (1) Clusternote accuses an IP editor of making personal attacks in the Talk:Synthesizer page, and (2) he/she claims that the IP editor has done something on that page "secretly". I have looked at every IP edit to that page since the beginning of 2003, and there is no sign of anything that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack, nor is there anything there which is done in any way which could be regarded as "secret". However, looking not only at that page, but also at related editing in other places, such as on Clusternote's talk page, I see that Clusternote has a long history of disruptive editing, including, but not restricted to, the following: persistently replacing perfectly good English in articles with stuff which is not English, and for some reason refusing to accept being informed by native English speakers that he/she has done so; showing an ownership attitude to certain articles; edit warring; refusal or inability to act collaboratively with other editors when there are disagreements; making unfounded accusations against other editors (this report being a case in point). Clusternote, if you continue to do any or all of the kinds of disruptive editing that you have been doing, you may well find yourself blocked from editing before long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 10 May 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.

Acción de un Global sysop en Nah.wikipedia

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

---

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a Global sysop that can attend this case, needed speak spanish because all disscusion is in spanish. Thanks.

Offender: {{nah:user:Marrovi}}

Proyect: Nah:wikipedia (few sysops; actually just me)

Presento dos denuncias juntas para que quede todo reunido el caso Marrovi:

1.-Calumnia y agresiones en mi contra.

Después de un proceso desgastante de revisiones y correcciones en Mantenimiento artículos de Marrovi debido a esta resolución donde ha quedado demostrado y confirmado por las actitudes del mismo usuario Marrovi que mi primer comentario CONSENSO PARA EL BORRADO DE DATOS era acertado, donde se describió su manera de proceder y trabajar en el pasado y que lo ha repetido todo durante ese proceso de mantenimiento que aún continúa. Es decir, si así fue en el pasado y continúa siendo ahora, en el futuro no podemos esperar que cambie. Él mismo ha continuado y traído la discusión a la nah.wikipedia, le pedí amablemente que tachara sus cometarios agresivos en contra de mí, lo cual se niega hacer.

Las agresiones y acusaciones en mi contra se dieron desde Consulta de borrado por argumentación:Comarca de Teotlalpan, donde se puede ver tanto mi actuación como la de él. Ahí claramente se ve que en lugar de argumentar por qué debía permanecer el artículo, busco rescatarlo con trucos y comenzó con intrigas diciendo “por donde vienen los ataques… porque a un usuario le guste o no su contenido“. Durante la misma consulta también señaló esto “el acusante parece ser que solo se ha encaprichado en borrar el artículo… tal vez estoy mal pero veo muy negativa su actitud… Esto es lo que en posgrado conocemos como guerra sucia“, además en la página de discusión del usuario Strakhov [31] me acusaba de conspirar con el usuario Lin linao, lo que también hizo en la consulta de borrado.

Ante tales calumnias yo le pedí moderación aquí, lo que él tomó como una amenaza, y lo ha difundido así tomando la postura de víctima.

Después de la decisión del borrado de Comarca de Teotlalpan y demostrarse un mal uso y entendimiento de este término, procedí a corregir otras páginas borrando los enlaces (ya innecesarios) que redirigían a esa página. Usuario Marrovi entonces me reporta ante el bibliotecario Taichi acusándome de “borrar información a mi antojo”, nuevamente esto es una calumnia de su parte contra mí.

Lo anterior me llevó a establecer el precedente y desenmascarar a Marrovi, CONSENSO DEL BORRADO DE DATOS lo que algunos vieron como un foreo era, y es en realidad un marco referencial, donde queda establecido que se puede esperar de él, y como arriba lo digo, él sigue demostrando y confirmando todo lo dicho ahí. En la lectura cuidadosa de mi comentario cualquiera podrá ver que no expreso ni odio ni resentimiento como trata de achacármelo Marrovi, muy por el contrario, él si muestra resentimiento y coraje contra mí en sus comentarios aquí me llama chismoso, aquí dice: lo él no es capaz de dar respeto, y todavía lo exije como si tiviera una larga cola que le pisen y ahora lo hace haciendo uso de su poder. y aquí dice: Eso para mí me llenó de coraje y rabia. Ante tales ofensas ya procedía una denuncia, sin embargo, decido hablar con él para pedirle que se enfoque en corregir sus contribuciones y (a pesar de su insistencia en acusarme) le digo que no tengo interés en denunciarlo, lo cual cumplo en ese momento.

Después de la intervención de varios bibliotecarios para encauzarlo, comienza a despotricar haciendo acusaciones de conspiración en su contra, hablando de circo y teatro y uso de influencias (nuevas calumnias). Ante la exigencia al apego de las normas de etiqueta tacha algunos comentarios insolentes, únicamente los de las personas con cargo que lo amenazaron con denunciarlo en el tablón, en mi caso, nunca dejo de señalarme como el que dirige “una campaña en su contra”: “los argumentos de ataque que realizó un usuario en muchos artículos que edité, este tipo se llenó de odio hacia mi persona, buscó todo lo posible en Wikipedia para hacer leña de árbol y promover el desprestigio”.

Por la naturaleza del trabajo de mantenimiento, es necesario señalar los errores, cosa que no le agrada en lo personal a Marrovi, este proceso él lo considera como “hacer leña del árbol caído”, él siente que quienes intervenimos lo hacemos con “saña, con burla, con la intención de desprestigiarlo”. En su desesperación se ha enfocado en arrastrarme trayendo la discusión a la nah.wikipedia e intentando provocarme, continuando con señalamientos y acusaciones, lo cual ya no voy a seguir aguantando.

El usuario Marrovi también argumenta contra mí que “ataco a su familia”. Aquí el asunto es que como también se comprobó en el proceso de revisión de sus contribuciones, Marrovi usó la Wikipedia para [promocionarse], como obvia consecuencia, era necesario mencionar aspectos acerca de la persona (no del wikipedista) y corregir la interpretación que él mismo hacia de sus antepasados, que de hecho sigue insistiendo hasta el momento, afirmando que tiene una relevante influencia sefardí (judía) en su región natal y en su familia, aspectos como costumbres, el habla, la gastronomía, cuando en realidad es resultado del mestizaje cultural.

Solicito que detengan al usuario Marrovi en su carrera de calumnias en mi contra, que deje de acusarme por un proceso que es resultado de su propio proceder y cuyas consecuencias tiene que enfrentar. Siento que a estas alturas es necesaria ya una disculpa de su parte. A la vez debe tachar los comentarios que puso en su página de usuario.

2.- Abuso de los recursos de Wikimedia y manipulación de las reglas de wikipedia.

Queda comprobado por las wikis en español, alemán, italiano, catalán y portugués que Marrovi las ha utilizado para auto-promocionarse, a la vez que ha roto las reglas en un par de ellas quedando bloqueada su actividad indefinidamente. La situación con la nah.wikipedia no es muy diferente.

Tres acciones que merecen sanción:

2.1.- Borrado intencional de páginas de discusión para ocultar información, acciones que deben ser revertidas pues afecta la secuencia de las mismas. Ya en la es.wikipedia lo había hecho y se le explicó que esas acciones no eran permitidas y en caso de continuar sería sancionado. Aún mantiene borrado parte de su página de discusión (año 2013) como puede verse aquí.

2.2.- Manipulación de votaciones. Lo mismo hizo en es.wikipedia (29-SEPT-2012) y al comprobarse que utilizó “títeres” para favorecer su decisión, fue bloqueado. En nah.wikipedia quiso cambiar el sistema de escritura establecido por consenso en 2007 (en el cual participó y acepto a regañadientes) esperó pacientemente a no tener oposición para imponer su “ideal de escritura”; a falta de participantes en wikipedia recurrió a la red social Facebook donde lo puso a votación, es decir, que las redes sociales decidan las políticas de wikipedia. Esto no fue más que un engaño pues las personas del Facebook no son especialistas del tema, son gente ordinaria y ninguno de ellos en realidad colabora en la nah.wikipedia. Sin embargo, consiguió otras dos personas que votaran, ahora sí en nah.wikipedia, para establecer su opinión, teniendo un voto en contra. Él dice que esto fue democrático… ¿una votación de cuatro personas para un portal que tiene más de cien miembros? ¿cuál es la decisión de esa mayoría? ¿por qué no votaron? Lo más decepcionante de esta situación es que la resolución ni siquiera la están ejecutando, la estandarización ortográfica que pretendían no se ve por ningún lado, nadie la está realizando, claramente se ven tres sistemas de escritura diferente.

3.2.- Acusaciones, calumnias y agresiones cross-wiki.

A pesar de estar bloqueado en es.wikipedia y nah.wikipedia, ha utilizado espacios de discusión de otros usuarios en varios proyectos para difamar a quienes intervinieron en la corrección de sus errores: En en.wikipedia página de usuario Maunus; en.wikipedia página de usuario Salvador alc; en wikimedia las acusaciones son más fuertes en la página de usuario Marco Aurelio; aún peor todo lo que ha dicho a manera de catarsis en la página de discusión de usuario Nobita.

Esto es sólo un ejemplo de toda una serie de irregularidades en la nah.wikipedia, donde todos pueden escribir lo que quieran y como quieran; no hay revisiones ni coordinación. Este portal necesita urgentemente una auditoria pues da al mundo una imagen mala de Wikimedia; ¿wikimedia sirve de instrumento para un solo usuario (Marrovi)? ¿cómo es que Wikimedia permite que exista una wikipedia tan manipulable?

Mi solicitud es que un Global sysop o Steward revise este caso y si coincide con mi visión, ejercer un bloqueo permanente al usuario Marrovi.

Saludos. --Akapochtli (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. Since all most of your links are to the Spanish WP, that is where you should take your complaints. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... I think Akapochtli is a user on a small Wiki and is requesting assistance. I think pointing Akapochtli to meta and it's Stewards may be a better idea. They can actually help him. Kleuske (talk) 15:08, 12 May 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.

Kleuske was trying to provide a link to the Nahuatl Wkipedia (Nahuatl). David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment, lies, and threat by Ian.thomson

The following discussion is closed. 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 added valuable and informative content to the article Testament of Solomon, and to a much lesser extent, the article Little Nicky. Like the majority of additions that people make to Wikipedia, I did not include sources with those contributions. The user Ian.thompson deleted a large part of my contributions to Testament of Solomon (quotes from the Koran, in particular), which in itself is not a violation of any rules, but then he wikistalked me to Little Nicky, where he deleted my most important contribution to that article, and stated a falsehood in his edit summary while doing so[32] (the truth is that only Little Nicky and the english translation of the Testament of Solomon use the word "flask" for this purpose; no one else does so). Wikistalking harassment is of course agianst the rules, but that was just the beginning of Ian.thomson's bad behavior.

After I mentioned Ian's wikistalking behavior in an edit summary, Ian lied (in violation of the civility policy) on my talk page by saying that pointing out wikistalking is an "accusation" and that it violates the Assume Good Faith policy.[33] Wikistalking is of course an action, not a motive, so AGF has nothing to do with it, and Ian of course knows that.

Multiple times on my talk page, Ian posted half-truths by mentioning various Wikipedia policies while deliberately omitting any mention of the overriding Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia or Ignore All Rules. My edits to the Testament of Solomon that Ian deleted were major improvements, and could be verified by examining the primary sources, so that is clearly a case where IAR applies. Deleting valuable content is one thing; lying by saying that that content violates the rules is another. But this is a relatively minor offense compared to Ian's other actions.

I attempted to appease Ian by restoring my edit to Little Nicky with the 'citation needed' tag added, and by refraining from restoring the Koran quotes that Ian deleted from Testament of Solomon; but because I added other valuable information to Testament of Solomon without sources,[34] that violated Ian's highly sensitive sense of dominance over me, so he aggressively asserted his dominance by deleting the new and important information that I had added, and by deleting other important information that I had added earlier (namely, the mention of the Koran's verses that are based upon the Testament of Solomon), which he had thus far refrained from deleting, all in one edit[35] (along with some other text that I did not add), which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Ian's motive is personal.

But even deleting all of those valuable contributions was not enough to satisfy Ian's sense of dominance; he followed it up by threatenning to block me on my talk page. [36] He said that if I continue to add content without sources, then I would be blocked. That is despite the fact that making unsourced contributions is not one of the grounds for blocking, and it is something that most edittors do; and Ian, as an admin, must be well aware of that fact, so he is lying about Wikipedia's blocking policy. Furthermore, Ian is involved in a content dispute with me, so it would be a conflict of interest for him to block me anyway- a fact which he deliberately omitted. Ian is thus working under the false assumption that I am completely ignorant of Wikipedia's policies, and that I will believe anything that he tells me about said policies. The fact that Ian is an admin, who is lying about the blocking policy, and threatenning to block a user based upon those lies, means that he should be summarily de-sysopped. The irony is that harassing a person, as Ian is doing, is itself grounds for being blocked.

Normally I would respond to Ian's lies by talking to him one-on-one on my talk page, as per the typical dispute resolution process, but the fact that he has threatenned to block me under false pretenses, simply because I contributed valuable information to Wikipedia, means that I have no idea what he might use as an excuse to block me, so I must play it safe by reporting his actions here first before engaging him directly.

I also noticed on Ian's talk page that he has some hostility toward scholars ("Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars"), and my username makes it clear that I am one, so that could factor into Ian's exceptional hostility toward me. I also saw on Ian's user page that he identifies as a 'wiki badger', which is a person who persistently harasses other users; so apparently he wears his uncivil harassment behavior as a badge of pride. Any edittor who identifies as a wiki badger should be monitored by the admins, so that said admins can intervene against their badgering behavior when it occurs.

Some religion scholar (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You failed to notify @Ian.thomson: with the {{subst:ANI-notice}}Template. I have done so for you --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you did right before I clicked save page. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Reading through this, Ian.Thomson who is an administrator was in line with WP:BLOCKDETERRENT which says blocks should "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; or deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;" Adding unsourced information repetitively after warning could be sen as disruptive (Personally I see it this way especially after a warning). You also need to provide sources per WP:PROVEIT. As far as WP:IAR it is for as long as you are improving wikipedia. I don't see how unsourced, unverified information is improving an article. And The Fifth Pillar says about Wikipedia policies "their content and interpretation can evolve over time", It could just be Ian's interpretation. Also accusing him of lying is definitely not civil or Assuming Goof Faith. As for Wikistalking you, when administrators or other users see an issue on a page caused by another contributor they will go and look through that contributors edits and check for the same problem, it isn't that unusual. Just be advised wp:boomerang does exist. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to start proving your good faith by renouncing the word lies. Otherwise we might be tempted to conclude that you have a big chip on your shoulder. It's also a little unusual to see a user with 40 edits who is so adept at linking diffs and using wiki-jargon like "desysop" and IAR. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Some religion scholar: You're a new editor. You also seem to have only one focus at Wikipedia. Ian is a very experienced editor. You're accusing him of all sorts of nefarious motives and actions only because he is trying to get you to comply with Wikipedia policies, one of which is not to add unsourced material to articles. Whether you're right is irrelevant. Unless you have a reliable source to support your material - and putting in a CN tag doesn't help - don't add it. At this point, you're very fortunate you haven't been blocked for your disruptive editing and attitude. But if you persist, it's a fair bet you will be. By the way, a wiki badger doesn't mean at all what you think it does. It's a humorous term and has no sinister implications.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The order of events as I've seen them:

• Here OP added primary source based original research to Testament of Solomon. I originally just tagged it as original research and removed the unnecessary quoting. As is not uncommon, I checked over other contributions to see if similar problems caused by a lack of awareness of site policies had occurred; not to "punish" each individual act, but to clean up after this new user and explain why their edits were cleaned up. As a result, I found that...
• Here OP added unsourced claims to Little Nicky. Not only is the claim unsourced, but the idea of trapping demons in bottles appears in a variety of cultures. Furthermore, the Testament of Solomon, though definitely not written by Solomon and containing no history whatsoever, was not intended as fiction. I left a note explaining the relevant site policies and guidelines and reverted it with an edit summary explaining why.
• OP's reaction was to call the revert "harassment", despite my rather plain explanation of the site's guidelines. I removed that and the Quranic quotations again, explaining that he needed a source in both the edit summaries and in a note on his talk page.
• He later restored the claim at Little Nicky again with a citation needed tag, as if it's somehow me he needs to satisfy and not WP:V. Seeing absolutely no sign that this user was ever going to bother trying to cite a source, I once again removed the unsourced claim from Little Nicky and even the original research from Testament of Solomon, and left a templated warning.

As for OP's claims here: arguing "Like the majority of additions that people make to Wikipedia, I did not include sources with those contributions" goes against WP:V and WP:BURDEN. By the same logic, we get lots of vandalism and advertising, so WP:VAND and WP:NOTPROMO must not be policies. WP:IAR is not a carte blanche. User's post here fails WP:AGF just as his actions elsewhere fail WP:V. I'm not going to call for a WP:BOOMERANG (though his arguments have been a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS), but someone needs to drill at least those two policies into his head.

Also, @Some religion scholar: the blocking policy lists "breaching the policies or guidelines," under "the Disruption section. You, by your own admission, have repeatedly breached WP:V. Temporary blocks for repeatedly adding the same unsourced content over and over do happen. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's obvious to me that this complaint has no merit. Ian.thomson did what may be expected from a experienced wikipedian and is not to blame. The groundless assertions/accusations in the title of this complaint do make me lean towards WP:BOOMERANG for being disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC) (WikiDragon)

• User:Some religion scholar misunderstands WP:HOUND. It's perfectly proper to track a user's edits if one sees cause for concern; the "User contributions" button is there for a reason. And they completely misunderstand WP:IAR, as has been pointed out above. Ian Thomson has been patient with them and has given them detailed information about site policies and practices — handcrafted information, not templated — and by way of thanks, they launch accusations of "lying" and other silliness. I've warned the user on their page that if there's any more of this, I'll block. I should think this thread can be closed now. PS, not a very good job giving the report "an informative, neutral title", btw. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 11 May 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.

RFA ?

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

---

Hi, Umm can someone look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davey2010 ..... I have no idea who the bloke is and have provided no answers (nor was I even asked) ....., Not sure if they're trolling or what ....., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 05:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 - I just noticed that too. I'm tagging it for CSD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 - The page has been deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah brilliant thank you, I've just noticed they were reported at AIV too, Anyway thanks Oshwah & SQL for your help. –Davey2010^Talk 05:48, 12 May 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.

not showing in the source

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

---

in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft it said "Markus "Notch" Persson began developing the game as an independent project while working for King.com and later jAlbum." according to this sources http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27719/Interview_Markus_Notch_Persson_Talks_Making_Minecraft.php and https://minecraft.net/en/ which is not showing according to the sources please fix it or give source that supporting this claim. im posting here cuz i made comment on the talk page long time ago which was not answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.11 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done (diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

the claim is still not found in the source you just delete the part that he develop it while he was working for King.com and later jAlbum but even the part that he developed it alone not showing in the source please fix it or give other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.138 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the implication that the game was started individually (see diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:39, 12 May 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:159.15.129.71 is on some sort of homicidal mission

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

---

They're replacing race summaries in various Grands Prix of 1975 with rantings about decapitating us and leaving Wikipedia edited by limbless torsos.I would report them to Wikimedia but I don't believe 'I will kill every Wikipedian on the planet by cutting off their heads and hands' is really a credible threat. If someone could block them and send them to the nearest big house with white padded walls,that would be nice. Thank you :) Lemon martini (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked, ignored. The IP belongs to Devon Council (probably a library terminal rather than an actual council employee); I've given a longer-than-usual block for a week to give them time to find a new hobby. ‑ Iridescent 10:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't always assume it's not credible... GRAPPLE ^X 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take my chances. ‑ Iridescent 10:52, 11 May 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.

Attacker of Tim Lincecum

IP editor 2600:1001:B010:2138:AC44:B2EA:91C5:ACA3 keeps editing Tim Lincecum to change his team from free agent to New York Yankees. According to Google news searches he is still a free agent; the most recent news is now 9 hours old and that he might be under consideration by the Boston Red Sox. Nothing about Yankees. So it is vandalism, five times in less than half an hour. See, e.g. this edit —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is already protected using pending changes and so any edits by the IP would have to be accepted. I think at this stage it's simplest to just revert their edits and not accept them if they are changes that are not supported by reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If it persists, you could ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Googling the subject gives no indication that the Yankees are intending to sign him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have stopped for now, so no action is needed at this point. I have seen cases where IP users repeatedly vandalize articles, and their IP addresses get blocked for awhile. Is this the page to request IP blocking, and if not, where is that page? Please be aware that vandalizing protected pages creates a burden on reviewers, so sometimes IP blocking can be an additional tool, and may even help convert the vandal to a beneficial contributor to Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

While you can report IPs or users here, the best thing to do here (where the edits are clearly unsourced) is to use warning templates, and after reaching a level 4 warning, report the offender to WP:AIV. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox should be promptly closed per Speedy Keep #2.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the latest edition of Godsy's stalking my edits. No reason he needs a hit list of articles I worked on he wants to kill. For several weeks a remarkable number of pages I touch are promptly touched by Godsy - to the point I believe he checks every edit I make. He has moved many pages back into stale userspace instead of improving them. This is deletion without discussion. The correct action, if one thinks a page needs more refs, is to tag or better yet add the refs, especially on uncontroversal topics like a civil war regiment [37] or a museum page in the middle of an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only thing I've done is fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and correct related problems on multiple articles. You continually disregard WP:STALEDRAFT, by moving content to the mainspace that is unsuitable for it (e.g. User:Abrsinha/Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, Special:Diff/705686655), and have even went as far as moving pages to the mainspace and subsequently personally nominated them for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell). You have also moved pages from the userspace of active users (e.g. User:ONUnicorn/Browning Hill Research, User talk:Legacypac#Browning Hill). Lastly, you fail to do basic cleanup of the content you move to the mainspace (e.g. activating categories, fixing obvious manual of style and format errors, etc.), which I've kindly taken up the task of doing. Your nomination of my sandbox is solely to provide a forum for disruption and to harass me.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It is Godsy that is harassing me. Bringing up two old moves I AfD'd as clearly stated tests that have already been discussed extensively is pretty dumb. As I've pointed out to Godsy - there are over 200,000 pages tagged as having no sources, yet he only focuses on stale drafts I've moved into mainspace that usually contain uncontroversal info that can be easily sourced. Many other editors are happy to perform tagging and cleanup on new pages, but very few editors are skilled at daylighting stale drafts with potential. If I was responsible to get every article I touch up to Good Article status I'd never make much progress on sifting the good stuff from the crap/blank/attack/prohibited copies/etc in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And a page that looks like this [38] when I found it amd responds to multiple Redlinks is not "Unsuitable". Now it turns out another editor found some copyvio and deleted that instead of rewriting it, but that is why we work cooperatively. Someone else could restore and rewrite... Except Godsy has relegated the whole page to stale userspace without notice or XfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For example, User:Admfirepanther/The Genius Files (Special:Diff/706182169) then (not that introducing a copyvio into the mainspace is commendable), un-sourced (except to itself) and seemingly un-notable. The problem is, content fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the mainspace, until it is up to a certain standard (i.e. meeting the core content policies and the notability policy). I simply follow the stale draft guideline and occasionally invoke BRD. If you disagree with the stale draft guideline, feel free to propose a change to it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Godsy does not understand the stale draft guideline and sets a standard for mainspace on articles I daylight that other articles are not required to meet. His actions to rebury content do not improve the encyclopedia for the reader. His restoration of deleted pages into stale userspace does not help the encyclopidia. He is simply harrasising me and whenever I pish back, he drags me to ANi. His latest example is a book series by an author with his own page and pages on most of his other books. If the book series is really not notable as he claims, nominate it for deletion already or better redirect the title amd merge the content to the author's page. Sending the page back into stale draft space and deleting the title helps no one. User_talk:Admfirepanther/The_Genius_Files Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Process is important, and I follow it. "whenever I pish back": Wikipedia is not a battleground. The only other time I've "drag[ged]" you to AN/I is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userspace subpages issue.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Godsy should Find some other user to stalk. Process for the sake of process to acbeive a bad result is not important, it's stupid and disruptive. Godsy has been callimg my page moves "undiscussed" like somehow I'm supposed to discuss moving a stale user draft on it's talk page with myself. Yet he is moving many articles out of mainspace without any discussion. I think Godsy should be required to seek consensus on the article talk page, or run the page through AfD before he moves a page into someone else's (usually long gone editor) userspace. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) B- Your moves are unquestionably bold R- Bold edits are often reverted D- You asked me on my talk page and I told you I'd gladly discuss any reverted move with you; Bold, Revert, Discuss. "I consider review of Legacypac's edits to be entirely properly, given that he has previously done bold-bad things", part of the opinion of someone at the MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Legacypac should keep a log of others' userspace pages that he unilaterally moves to mainspace. With that log, these discussions would be informed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: That exists automatically at Special:Log/Legacypac.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• At the top of the list is Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, which looks like a pretty clear case of cross-space move warring between User:Legacypac and User:Godsy, and in which the last page move is WP:block-worthy disruption, disruption both to process and more serious to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) User:Legacypac promptly fixed the article. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

On the point of general principles, without comment on the particular behavior in this case (which I haven't looked into): In the recent comprehensive RfC on stale drafts, which is still open, there was a question addressing what I think is the central issue here. It asked, Where a userspace draft is moved to mainspace by a user other than its author, but is then found to be unsuitable for mainspace for reasons which would not apply in userspace, should it be returned to userspace rather than deleted? While the RfC is not yet closed, the result in that section at least is a very clear consensus in support of returning to userspace, with many editors commenting. A2soup (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Please see this edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for legal threats, weak as they may appear. I would recommend not unblocking him in any case: he already got a one-week block in April for something which is now oversighted, and from his contribs it's clear he's just here to lark around. BethNaught (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @BethNaught: Thank you. Please note other user pages edited by the same account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 12 May 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.

Addition of unsourced genres

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

---

108.5.112.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been genre warring on Snowing (band) and looking at their talk page, they have a long history of adding unsourced genres to articles and their talk page is just littered with final warnings since January. (Note: This is a different user from the one I reported above and in a different subject area) Opencooper (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

At long last, can we please just eliminate genres from music articles, and thereby reduce traffic at ANI by 15%? EEng 13:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 12 May 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 Sock block evasion

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

---

76.21.72.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a confirmed sock, but is continuing to edit. I'd be grateful if someone could block the address. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion from a static IP. Blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:28, 12 May 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.

Inappropriate username

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

---

Hi all, I feel that the following username is inappropriate: User:Sacksalimmehajer. Whilst Salim Mehajer may be controversial (I agree with the sentiments expressed by the username) I don't think it's appropriate to have a username that solely attacks Mr Mehajer. I would ask they be blocked and advised to choose an appropriate username. - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Report at WP:UAA. This is not the proper venue. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 14 May 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 of Xismrd

Xismrd (talk · contribs) keeps introducing the same false statements in the article Pantheon-Sorbonne University (it is "La Sorbonne", sentences that make Paris 1 looks like the only inheritor of La Sorbonne, etc.), in spite of the fact that he's already been blocked for his behaviour. It is perhaps the same person as IP users, who had the same kind of editing.

Talk page sections:

1. [39]
2. [40]

Examples:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

--Launebee (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

First, you need to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~, so we know who has posted this report.

Second, you need to post a notice to the editor's talk page informing them of this discussion so that they can participate.

Finally, Xismrd's edits mostly occurred in March and they haven't edited since April 24th. It looks like there is a discussion occurring on the article talk page and, right now, that is where the discussion should be occurring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

1 Sorry for that, I forgot! 2 I did, right above your notice 3 He did it again in April. The discussion deals with other topics, not about his type of editing. He just wrote something in March here [45] and never discussed it again. --Launebee (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is, he hasn't done anything to discuss for nearly thre weeks. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

IP:201.81.64.163

All the recent edits by this IP user have been reverted by me or other editors. While the edits have some relevance, the summaries appear misleading and in the case of the article Aloe appeared to conflict with existing cites. I requested cites to support the edits to that article on the IP's talk page. Otherwise, they could be vandalism. Diffs are provided on User talk:201.81.64.163‎#May 2016. All contributions back to 1 May have been undone (except those on Auburn hair) but I have not been able to check the edits prior to this. Posting here and would appreciate further review from experienced editors. Whizz40 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edits started in December 2015 and have been problematic throughout. See for example, [46], [47]. I think a review of edit history and a possible block may need to be considered by an experienced editor. The pattern is disruptive because it is destroying the integrity and information in articles. Whizz40 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I went and looked at a few of the user's past edits that looked significant (±250 characters). At first glance, these edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) look concerning to me, as they appear to add unreferenced content, NPOV violations, or both. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP editor

An IP editor has repeatedly made an accusation that I'm lying relating to the BLP on Pam Bondi.[48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] He may disagree with me, but I've provided a number of reliable sources that support what I say, proving that this isn't something I made up. The IP has not, however, provided evidence to the contrary, let alone anything that would justify calling my a liar. He has been warned several times on his talk page [54], [55], on the article talk page [56] and at the BLPN [57]. Editor notified here [58] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Harizen20 adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi

user:Harizen20 is adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi, in spite of repeated requests not to do so - please help. Ssriram mt (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Arashinc

There has been a discussion on my talk page, on User:Arashinc talk page. I have added referenced information which has been reverted because Arashic says "I am friend of John Connolly (guitarist of the band). I asked him about the credits back in march 2015" and "I disagree with you in this case. U r giving people wrong information. Those songwriting credits r completely false". The changes made by me have been referenced and I am offered to add/assist with alternatively referenced items with disagree with the additions I have made. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note User:Arashinc is now in violation of WP:3RR at Angel's Son and other articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Are they? I don't see a 3RR violation at Angel's Son. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, can you give a diff for the comment? I'm not immediately seeing anything to indicate a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for Angel, my mind was on the difference between text and infobox. The problem covers the whole of the Sevendust song articles.

Some are at second revert, some are already at third revert, for instance Driven (Sevendust song), first revert, second revert Please note shows as a revert of Niceguyedc, but includes my edit. third revert.

Discussions at his talkpage have been deleted here and here. The full discussion on my talkpage are there to be seen. Not sure COI is an appropriate accusation - I think it was somebody pretending to know somebody they don't - see first post on my talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Unhedge

Hi, I have an issue with User:Unhedge. His editing history seems to suggest that he may have a WP:COI, and when I try to talk to him about it, he is rude and refuses to answer my question. He told me to stick to my area of competency, among other things. See my talk page. --TJH2018talk 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@User:TJH2018, thanks, glad you reverted my comments which you took as personal attack (and then subsequently deleted from your talk page) even though you were rude to begin with. Let others be the judge. Everyone edit wikipedia for one motivation or another, as long as they are unbiased and do not rely of unsubstantiated sources (like magazines). My references are based on official documentation, where as you reverted my work despite me leaving comments demonstrating the reasons my version is far more accurate based on official documentations. You didn't bother to understand nor read in detail the subject matter you were editing. User:unhedge 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

unhedge - I don't see where TJH2018 was rude to you; can you please explain? What "documents" are you referring to in your response above? Are these secondary reliable sources that can be peer-reviewed and verified by the public? If not, this sounds like original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, as well as no original research. These guidelines may address your concerns and help you understand which sources constitute as acceptable, and which do not. I also see that you may be involved in an edit war on Imperial Pacific. Be very careful; as violating the three-revert rule can constitute edit warring (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). Please take time to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page before making any more changes there. Failing to do so will result in a block being placed on your account. I will await your response here regarding the documents that you're referring to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a public company stub, the reputable sources are exchange filings which I have included on the talkpage. And User:TJH2018 reverted the work without communicating and then accussed me (the original author) of being rude. The said article already has a long standing version of it in Chinese.unhedge 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit? You seem to have a major conflict of interest here. Please see WP:COI. If you work for this company, you must disclose this, as well as if you are getting paid to edit. --TJH2018talk 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He just got blocked for a 3RR violation. Also, you are completely rude. You cannot tell an editor to 'stick to your area of competency.' That is just an insult, and how would you know what I know anyways? TJH2018talk 17:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018talk 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Comment from yesterday: "You are excused, there is already a well documented version of this in Chinese https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%9A%E8%8F%AF%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E6%B4%8BStick to stuff you know.unhedge (talk) 5:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) thanks"

TJH2018 - Lets not infuse the situation by becoming angry and butting heads with him. I understand that it can be hard at times (trust me... haha), but remember that we're here to assume good faith, look past "rude comments", and try to assist wherever we can. When we stay calm and professional despite what comments are thrown at us and lead by example, it will usually result in him doing the same. When you respond to him with things such as, "Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit?", it only makes the situation worse; remember that we're here to be as peaceful as possible, no matter what :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Agreed. I feel like Spock. TJH2018talk 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TJH2018 - HA! Love it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting review of issue at my talk page

Asking some additional admins to review user talk:Barek#Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload. The IP is now making a claimed threat to have "phoned Wikipedia Corporate offices to lodge complaints" and that a "teleconference is scheduled between us and the administrative office tomorrow".

This is related to long-term sock/meat puppets (going back to 2012) by the producer(s) of a radio/television program. Past disruptions have included NLT, NPA, COI, 3RR, and OWN issues. Relevant links to prior discussions and suspected socks are on my talk page, for reference. (edit: now archived at User talk:Barek/Archive 2016#Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a borderline legal threat, and definitely WP:HOUNDING, but since this is an IP hopper, I do not see anything could be done except for a range block.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. Unfortunately, most of the IPs trace back to Verizon Wireless (plus a handful of other networks) so I doubt a range block is practical either. I'm mainly bringing the issue here to get some additional eyes on the disruption both on my talk page and the related articles - particularly due to the nature of the threat appearing to be a new tactic (they're well aware of legal threats resulting in blocks, so this appears to be an alternate attempt relying on their long-running misunderstanding of Wikipedia's structure as being some form of corporate hierarchy). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no threat of legal action as falsely reported by Barek. Barek is the individual with the long standing g history of disruption. The article to the articles detriment. Also, Barek has several Wikipedia accounts, which falls under the definition of sock puppets. We asked that the reference to Senator Dole be restored. Barek deleted an entire section. We asked that the title card be included. We had to file for copyright protection against Julian Assange several years ago and the result of our suit was Assange changed his programs name from The World Tomorrow (aka World Tomorrow) to simply The Julian Assange Show. However the change was never amended on Wikipedia. Also, we asked as a church organization the article be truthful and accurate. The disruptive edits made to the article by Barek and his friends have been numerous and in collusion with each other for numerous years. It has been suggested Barek is one of our former west coast disgruntled dissident church members, which would explain his personal biased disruptive actions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.202.47 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I blocked this IP for harassment and I suggest that future reincarnations here are treated as block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Rpo.castro

Rpo.castro is engaged in edit warring at S.C. Braga B, S.C. Braga (beach soccer) and File:Sporting Clube Braga.png SLBedit (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You may want to consider reporting this to WP:ANEW. GAB^Hello! 01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of non-free-use rationales on File:Sporting Clube Braga.png and subsquent file removal from articles S.C. Braga B and S.C. Braga (beach soccer) by SLBedit (talk · contribs). I've tried do discuss that on File talk:Sporting Clube Braga.png but seems its just SLBedit (talk · contribs) going on with his point of view without support (as in the past over and over again).Rpo.castro (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I explained why you should not use that logo in more than one article. You are kinda obtuse. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just write your opinion, while I remarked the lack of support of your statement. Myquestions are still unanswering.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand "minimal usage" and fair use. Stop it now. SLBedit (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Minimal usage: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - The articles only have 1 item of non-free content, not multiple. If is was using 2 or more itens when was enough, I that case minimal usage would be infriged, which that's not the case. I just point evidences to you with quotes from WP policy, while you just state what you think with no support.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon of Saint George issues

Following the recent video publication of a student being bullied and then physically beaten to remove the Saint George ribbon, which he wore as a sign of victory against German Nazi Regime in Great Patriotic War, I have opened a discussion on corresponding talk page.

1. For the following several hours, I was questioned by user Ymblanter, that the content is not a reliable source, although it was posted on verified official channel of widely known Ukrainian investigative journalist Anatoly Shariy. Nevertheless, he/she improved the article by stating an in the source quoted claim from involved party. Ymblanter has been using various excuses, until finally he claimed that I was stealing his time and resigned.

2. Just a few moments later, another user My very best wishes, has issued various unsourced claims (NOD is pro-government, police did not interfere=attack was coordinated with it) and then claimed to have "fix this a little". However, in his edit, he reverted (deleted) the edit from (1), which is essentially vandalism.

I would like to report these users as acting strongly biased and not on behalf of Wikipedia guidelines as not constructive, not neutral and disrespectful (Ymblanter - verbally, My very best wishes - by vandalism), with sanctions depending upon administrator, and would like to request the rollback of edits of "My very best wishes". Further more, I can't exclude that edits by these users were of very same nature in the past and should perhaps be reviewed. Thank you.87.78.236.178 (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We had the previous version of this performance yesterday here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And I believe it is time for WP:BOOMERANG. This performance is way too long, and, to be honest, not of the highest quality.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please explain: How does any of the above justify WP:BOOMERANG? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to strongly imply that I and IP: 99.135.170.109 are completely unrelated. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And I would like to say outright that your command of English is not sufficient to be editing content on the English Wikipedia. Competence is required, and that includes being able to write coherently and correctly in the language of the encyclopedia involved, a skill which you do not appear to have -- you're close, but you're not really there. I suggest you confine your editing to the Wikipedia of your native language, or any other language which you are competent in. BMK (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As a full-time copyeditor of the wiki, I observe that many here are not sufficiently literate to edit final copy of an encyclopedia. But in the vast majority of cases, their contribution of content is most welcome, and the little tucks and stitches necessary to tidy their great work is not at all begrudged. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Contributions which serve to bring down the quality of the encyclopedia are certainly not welcomed, whether they're vandalism, test edits, inaccurate information, or are so poorly written they make us look incompetent to our readers. Unless you are planning to attach yourself to this editor as their personal copyeditor and fix everything they do, please don't encourage them. BMK (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer someone who is honest but unskilled to a slippery snake oil salesman anytime. The mistakes of the former are always more easily corrected than the "lapses of good judgment" insincerely admitted to by the latter sort when they are found out. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And I'd prefer someone who is honest and skilled over both of them. Why bend over backwards for someone whose work has to be fixed all the time? If an editor isn't skilled enough in English to write encyclopedia-level articles, they simply should not be adding content -- there's plenty of other stuff to do here which doesn't require proficiency in English. BMK (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the highest quality in every area is preferred -- great taste with high nutrition, Isetta mileage with Caterpillar power, etc. But what we have is better than what we cannot afford. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

We can afford to keep our standards high. In fact, we must. We are, by far, the first "go to" stop for information on the web, and if we're going to maintain that position, we must continue to give our readers accurate and well-presented information. If we look as if we were put together by people who can't write coherently, that position will begin to slip. We have to balance openness with quality, and one cannot win out over the other. BMK (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously not a new contributor - based on their comments, such as this, and the fact they came immediately on the ANI with complaints. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And they perfectly know how to game the system: for Russia, they declare that the main organizations critical to the government are on the payroll of CIA/ZOG/whomever (and of course they would be happy to prove this with references produced in Kremlin), and therefore most if not all sources critical to the government are not reliable, and therefore much of the info should be removed from the article. On the other hand, for Ukraine they take a source which is way below our notability standards and spend the whole evening trying to force it in the article, even though at the early stage I advised them to find a better source, and they did not show a slightest interest. A very typical behavior of POV pushers.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He makes long political rants. Sounds pretty much like that user we both know about. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It could be indeed this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User exhibiting ownership claims

First, I hope this is the correct noticeboard to make this report. I am here to report Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making statements and edits exhibiting WP:OWN of article content. On Captain America: Civil War, after I made some initial adjustments to that article's "Box office" section (the first of a few I was going to do) Joseph undid that change, using the edit summary to state "please let me do all the box office edit part. I've added 100% information there. lemme handle that portion." I restored the change, telling Joseph in my summary that their summary exhibited WP:OWN qualities saying "no one editor "owns" one section or another on an article. this section needs major work, and I'm about to work on cutting it down to a more managable section." (the last bit to tell them my intentions moving forward). Joseph proceeded to undo that edit with their summary a bit heated, as well as attempting to say there is a specific way to present the information (which there isn't).

I then proceeded to tidy up the box office section of the article, here and here, removing some unnecessary records (or "fluff" as I consider it), per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. After making these edits, I placed a notice on Joseph's talk page, where I hoped to expand slightly from my edit summaries why I made the changes I did, since I knew they would be interested in them.

After this, in an edit to the page not to that section, here, Joseph says that they will "have to re write the box office section. all the important informations are removed. lots of work to do" Please note they feel they have to rewrite the section, not readd anything I removed, as I suggested they could do in the talk page post I made to their page. And finally, in a response on my talk, Joseph exhibited some personal attacks, additionally saying that "No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section." (their main editing focus on Wikipedia), though this is not the case, if their talk page and contributions are examined. I hope admins or others can help with this situation. I'm not saying the full extent of my tidying edits should stay, that maybe something else can be brought back. But I don't feel it is helpful when one editor is attempting to control every aspect of this section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Very clear WP:OWN problems here. I don't immediately (without much investigation) see anything leading to a personal attack, though there's definitely some edit warring going on. I think perhaps it should be made clear to the editor that they do not get to own the box office section of articles. I wonder if it's worth enforcing restrictions? I'm not sure it is at this time. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: I felt their response on my talk was a little personal attack-y, but everyone has their own interpretations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to try to resolve disputes using edit summaries. Please bring your dispute to Talk:Captain America: Civil War where other editors can weigh in with their thoughts. Going to the article talk page, rather than reverting, should be your first course of action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't feel that any dispute was trying to be resolved in edit summaries. The reason I started this discussion here was because of the language Joseph used which cleared seemed to violate WP:OWN in my opinion. Since your comment, they have restored the whole formatting as they had it. Not only did that break reference formatting I adjusted to be consistent with the article on the whole, again, it was the whole section, not just parts they felt should have been added back. I have started a discussion regarding it on the talk page (after restoring the section for the ref formatting and my reasons of WP:INDISCRIMINATE), so I do hope that they join the discussion, here or there, so we can make some head way regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur that editor Josephlalrinhlua786 has serious issues. An even bigger problem, though, in my opinion, is his disturbing inability to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. I have pointed out to him several times, to no avail, that Forbes Contributors are not reliable sources (because Forbes Contributors are not on staff, are not subject to pre-publication editing, and are subject only to the contractual right of Forbes to fix stories after the fact) and he needs to stop citing them as such. As anyone who writes for a living knows, there is nothing like writing for an editor under a tight deadline to force oneself to write high-quality work product. Unfortunately, Josephlalrinhlua786 doesn't seem to understand that.

Thus, nearly every film article Josephlalrinhlua786 has worked on has several citations to unreliable sources that will take other editors hundreds of hours to pull out. And no one has the time or energy to do that. So the result is that he is damaging the quality of the encyclopedia and will continue to do so until he is stopped. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: In regards to the Forbes contributors part, forgive me for not knowing exactly where, but there was a recent discussion regarding their reliability, either at the Film project or RSN. But more to your point, for major Hollywood releases, all of the box office information can 95% of the time be sourced by Deadline, who continually updates an article throughout the weekend with numbers. And if not, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter can also be used, most likely before Forbes. And an additional point is they don't seem to also understand that, even though data and numbers are being reported and is verifiable, it doesn't mean it has to be include (again to my original points about WP:INDISCRIMINATE). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles written by Forbes contributors can be considered reliable. Whether or not they are depends on the author's credibility in the subject he/she is reporting on. Some are paid, others are not. Also some receive some level of editorial oversight, while others receive little or none at all. So you can't make a blanket statement that "all" are reliable or unreliable. The recent discussions concerning this are: Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron#Forbes "contributors" are not RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Forbes article by credible contributor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI concern from banned user

Banned user Eaglestorm made this edit recently, bringing up an SPI concern about Whitmore 8621. The IP in question is 122.107.216.220 and it certainly does look like the same person. I'm not experienced enough in SPI to feel confident in doing anything—and I can't make blocks because I'm not an admin—but Eaglestorm's report is valid despite his/her block. (On a meta-note, I don't know whether I'm supposed to notify the IP, Whitmore8621, Eaglestorm or some mixture of the three for starting this ANI thread. I've not notified anyone yet—two of the three are banned and the IP seems like a troll even if they're not the same user.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary makes it pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit itself made it just as obvious but I don't know how common impersonation is. Whitmore was banned 6 years ago and no SPI reports have been filed against them since then. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen falsely accusing me of OR

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

---

On American Nazi Party, which has no reliable sources to back up the claim that the original version of the group founded by George Lincoln Rockwell is the very same as the "new" version founded by Rocky Suhayda out of post office box in Micihigan, I switch over to the past sense and suggest on the talk that if no reliable sources are found to link the two properly, the new organization should not be conflated with the original.[59] The infobox further claims Rocky Suhayda as the new leader of the original group.[60] User:7&6=thirteen reverted my edits, falsely accusing me of original research [61] [62], when in point of fact that is totally false. His responses on the talk did not make much sense and ignored everything I was stating in response.[63] [64] [65]. He then threatened me with a block for 3RR on my talk.[66] We both obviously edit warred, however this editor's attitude, bad faith and false accusations are not going to make any attempt at fixing that article productive, especially since they continue to ignore the fact that there are no reliable sources to assert continuity between the original Rockwell organization with this new "revival" based out of a website and post office box in Michigan. Laval (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There is also this odd response to my suggestion we take this to ANI. [67] There is a barrier to communication here, unfortunately, when the editor in question is demanding sources when in actuality, no sources exist for their claim that the original organization exists. The article even claims its headquarters is in Arlington DC which was the HQ of the old ANP, while the "new" version is based out of a PO box in Michigan. Yet the editor keeps ignoring these problems and demanding sources to prove that the old and new versions are different. Laval (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said he didn't source his contention that the new and improved American Nazi Party has a relationship (or doesn't) with the George Lincoln Rockwell iteration. Whatever became of the old brand of the American Nazi Party and what if any relation does it have to the Dearborn, Michigan iteration? Is this a state secret? I have said he should just source it and put it in the text. All I did was remove any unsourced mention of the Dearborn, Michigan organization. I can't make sense of his responses, so I won't characterize them. I suggested reasonable solutions on the article talk page I am not POV pushing. Just want sources. That is all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You offered no solutions on the talk, just dumping on me and accusing me of original research and demanding sources where none exist, i.e. there are no reliable or verifiable sources to even suggest that the Suhayda group is the same as the original Rockwell group. Only Suhayda is making that claim. Laval (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The point which this editor seems unable to even understand or acknowledge is that the only fact here is that the original group by Rockwell ended a long time ago. A revival was attempted by one of his disciples years later, but it was not the same organization. In 2014, Suhayda (apparently a former member in the old days) created a new website and proclaimed a new revival. But these are clearly different from the original. Why is it difficult for this editor to understand? Where are the sources (beyond Suhayda's own claims) that Rockwell's group and his are the same and thus using the present tense rather than past in the lead? Laval (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The current article does not as it exists mention the Dearborn, Michigan iteration. Doesn't mention Suhayda either. It could. If there is organizational continuity or discontinuity it should be documented and sourced. You have NEVER provided a source for your contention that the Rockwell organization disbanded. This should be resolved on the talk page, and not at WP:ANI. You have chosen not to respond at the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

So we are clear, I did not edit war, and did not violate WP:3RR. Nor did I accuse Laval of doing that. I gave him a caution flag only. And I have tried to resolve this on the talk page and do not get the courtesy of a response there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because I removed Suhayda's name! You're making it impossible to fix the article because the organization ceased to exist a long time ago. You're asserting that it still exists, and this dispute is over my changes to the lead, switching from the absurd present tense (as the organization doesn't exist) to the past. You reverted me based on those edits and falsely accused me of original research, which makes no sense at all. Laval (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can take a look at the talk and see that I responded to his false accusations against me, and I was totally ignored and they continued to attack me as pushing original research. Laval (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No sources. And there still aren't. He has confabulated the connection to Suharda and Dearborn. Not mentioned in the article as it stands. If it ain't sourced it doesn't belong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand that the article is about the Rockwell organization, which has ceased to exist, yet the lead uses the present tense, indicating that it does still exist? Laval (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Where are your sources that the George Lincoln Rockwell version of the ANP still exists? Laval (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you also understand that the article has nothing to do with the Suhayda "revival" founded in 2014? Laval (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you say it ceased to exist. Prove it. We know it existed. Did it disband? Did it transfigure? Did it acquiesce in trademark infringement of its name? If you won't and don't provide a source, any source, then this is just your conjecture, opinion, and, dare I say it, WP:OR or WP:Synth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You want me to prove that it doesn't exist anymore? Do you realize that all the sources used there assert that the organization ceased to exist sometime after Rockwell was murdered? What exactly are you demanding? Laval (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real? This is like demanding I prove the Earth isn't flat or proving that Obama is a US citizen. Laval (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The article makes it very clear, as do the sources used, that Rockwell is dead, he died as a result of a murder many years ago, and the organization became defunct. A revival was attempted by Koehl years later, and the latest attempt by Suhayda in 2014. Neither of those are the same organization as the original. This is a given and it is a fact. Laval (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where the sources say what you contend. "and the organization became defunct." If you've got a source then we can move on to whether we should mention the Dearborn/Suhayda organization. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 12 May 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.

Archbishop Booth

The following discussion is closed. 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 advise how to handle a most time-wasting exercise expended in the last few hours regarding my edits to Lawrence Booth. These disruptions have been initiated by Ealdgyth with support from Hchc2009 and Cassianto. I should be much obliged if Wikipedia Administrators could advise as to how to avoid such an unsavoury turn of events without being bullied off the subject. Many thanks & looking forward to hearing. Best
PS. the origin of the dispute derives from his COA which has been amply referenced by Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies and at www.exploreyork.org.uk. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's documented on my talk page and the article talk page. I've merely requested a source that shows that Lawrence Booth used the coat of arms that is being repeatedly inserted by one user. No sources have been given that show this particular COA was used by Lawrence Booth. I've restrained from taking the OP to WP:AN3 because I'm trying to avoid being nasty or anything. Also trying to get the OP to understand the importance of reliable sourcing. The OP is obviously not very experienced and I would prefer to avoid him being sanctioned for his obvious edit-warring, but its' getting a bit harder to keep explaining what is needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Further note - the two sources given above have been addressed on the talk page with the reasons for why they don't support the given COA. The OP hasn't actually addressed the issues with the sources provided, they just keep saying they support the COA when no one else believes they do. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You may also wish to advise us of this report on our respective talk pages, L'honorable, as per the rules. But then again, you and talk pages don't really mix very well, do you? Cassianto^Talk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you think that this is great fun ganging up on me - but what is required here is a knowledge of heraldry - none of you have demonstrated that & when I tried to put an explanation on the Talk Page it was deleted by edit conflict. Let the Admins decide. Thanks L'honorable (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ganging up on you? I tried to help you! And you have the fucking cheek to bring me here! Cassianto^Talk 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what is required here is documentation which meets wikipedia standards regarding verifiability. It is no one's job to provide sources which verify a claim for someone else. It is as per WP:BURDEN the responsibility of the party who seeks to add information or keep what had been unsourced information with the required sources to verify that information. I am not sure I have seen that in this case. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thank you John for responding & at least now I trust I shall have some breathing space in which to explain in sufficient detail as required. Firstly is the following reference from the notes of an acclaimed heraldist & painter-stainer of York a good indication of Archbishop Booth's COA: qv: 17/88

https://www.exploreyork.org.uk/client/en_GB/search/asset/1018068;jsessionid=5E0DE45E24C4B6C3AEF895F5CE0A66A4.enterprise-14000 ? L'honorable (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC). Secondly the image which is hotly disputed is [Coat of arms of Archbishop Lawrence Booth.svg] & his relationship to the Booth family is very well referenced at Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies. Further explanation as required (although ordinarily this would be more than sufficient & a great deal more so than in most other articles)... please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. perhaps I should point out that should an even greater level of proof/reference be required? just let me know - it is simply that when I added this info, it appeared to me at least, to be well above that of similar articles. Many thanks.

As a nonexpert in the field, I can't see any problems with what you have provided above, although I suppose it might theoretically be open to question depending on, for instance, if the coat of arms were not created until after his death or something like that. However, those concerns are generally best dealt with at WP:RSN, which tends to get more people who are aware of all the intracacies involved. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: thanks John, but the whole point is that John Ward Knowles (unknown to the protagonists) sketched out Archbishop Booth's arms in accordance with the image provided. This as aforementioned can be seen at www.exploreyork.org.uk 17/88. This whole debacle has been blown completely out of proportion - basically by people not looking at the references properly (or not understanding them), who then proceed to become abusive and patronising (towards me - is this good practice?) & even threatening Edit War; this I find wholly unacceptable, unless you think otherwise? L'honorable (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. I was at pains to explain at length on the Talk Page (before it got deleted by Edit Conflict) that these Booth arms predate the foundation of the College of Arms in 1484, thus were not "granted" but were recognised "by prescription".
PPS. shall I forget the whole thing, because frankly the behaviour of this trio makes it pretty difficult to make any edits which do not past muster with them (and by now my name will be such mud - with them! - what is the point? - you have rightly focussed on the veracity of my edits, but there is also the open hostility, disruptiveness and threats of Edit War etc..)

I've explained why that source does not support the COA image being added to the article. This is all laid out on the talk page. We don't argue content here - it's supposed to be about behavioral matters. Please see Talk: Lawrence Booth for why those sources do not support the image being added. I did not bring the OP to this page, I've been attempting to reason with them at the article talk page. However, continually readding information when it's been challenged and discussion is being attempted does get very old. (And I'll point out that there was no notice given to the three editors that the OP complained about here - we didn't get notice we were being discussed.) The OP is new to Wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd extend us the same good faith that we're trying to extend to him. I don't think the OP is a problem nor do I bear them any animus. I just wish that policies would be followed, such as using reliable sources that support the information being added. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: as you can see three against one is not a winning scenario. My info is utterly correct (& even just now my last edit was bumped out by Edit Conflict). The editor above should study my references in detail before making further comment. L'honorable (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I see no evidence of "ganging up"--what I see is one editor who is not able to convince three other editors and has resorted to edit warring and going to ANI. Thank you NE Ent for your edit; you beat me to it, and your edit summary is on point. L'honorable, you narrowly escaped being blocked for edit warring. Good luck convincing your opponents. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well I defer to your judgement (& my point about ganging up is simply that I have hardly been able to type a response without encountering Edit Confict so I don't know how you'd describe that). Not easy to convince anyone of anything in such circumstances. Anyhow - noted & thank you. L'honorable (talk) 02:05, 13 May 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.

• When Cassianto writes "You was Bold" in an edit summary [68], you know he's all worked up. EEng 13:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

• Wikijan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bellevue Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Link to closed 3RR discussion, here which was closed on May 4 with a warning:

• Result: The filer is warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information". There was no 3RR violation by Daithidibarra. Since the filer, Wikijan2016, does 'exhibit a singularity of purpose' and has no edits outside this topic it's possible that a posting at WP:COIN would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)"

I got involved with this because the other editors took Ed's advice and filed a COIN case. In the midst of trying to work through that, Wikijan:

• gingerly raised the legality of edits by the editors here here'
• forthrightly raised the legality again here;
• Said "My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally." And then asked me "Where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia?" here.

They disclosed that they have some sort of personal relationship with people at Bellevue, but their COI coupled with their sense of whatever they think is "right" is so strong that they cannot deal with content based on policies and guidelines, but need to keep referring to morals, and unfortunately, legality, and most importantly ignored the warning they were given by Ed.

User:EdJohnston or some other admin, this user is WP:NOTHERE and keeps bringing up the legal wrongdoing of the other editors they are are disputing with. Please indef them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

The request at WP:AIV has ben redirected here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. I'm unavailable after this morning until Sunday afternoon, so if he makes a clear statement retracting his insinuations/threats, I have no objection to unblocking. Katie^talk 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This sort of intimidation, legal or otherwise, compromises our neutrality. HighInBC 14:50, 13 May 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.

My 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.

---

However accurate some may think it is in spirit :p can an admin sort it please? Many thanks. Attacked by sock. Again. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zzuuzz. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you're in good company: "Danish pig User:Favonian not to vandalism!" Drmies (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm honoured- oink oink! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:57, 13 May 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 Francis Winestone

The following discussion is closed. 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 sure what's going on here, but I think Fortuna may appreciate some eyes:

User Francis Winestone has moved Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to "Danish Pig"[69]

Users informed. Sorry to be short, but it seems a bit weird. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And many thanks User:Chaheel Riens for looking out :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

User has been sock blocked by Zzuuzz. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• And we give a congratulatory plate of Danish Bacon to Zzuuzz, and one to good old Favonian. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 13 May 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.

Content removal

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

---

Over at Visa requirements for Serbian citizens article some IP is removing valid content with references. Short line that is being removed is that the passport that was used previously gave access to only 18 countries vs. current biometric passport that gives visa-free access to 115 countries. This is referenced content which is not really controversial as there is another line in the article that says it's one of the most improved passports over the past 10 years. The user removing it does not seem to understand the notion of original research and verifiable sources and use of references so one of the removals was for example with edit summary stating that the old document was "one of the most influential". Anyway here are the diffs diff diff diff. I can't do much due to the 3RR but content removal for no reason should be dealt with. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

They have been warned, and, if they revert once again without starting a talk page discussion, they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 13 May 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:Cruks

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

---

@Cruks: is violating BLP on Renato Sanches and is disrupting my talk page. SLBedit (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous because I have added a reference showing that the person is of Sao Tome and Principe and Cape Verde origin. Cruks (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

User continues to disrupt my talk page by reverting me all the time. SLBedit (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected the page until it gets sorted. Cruks you need to stop edit warring at User talk:SLBedit. They are allowed to remove anything they want from their talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted back the Sanches page to before the edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit war did not start with my correct edits, instead later by the other user. Please read my reference carefully. Cruks (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Two of the three are in Portuguese and I don't trust Google Translate. The third source, here states 2006 which you changed to 2008. So you both need to sort it out on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD suggest that reverting a bold edit may be acceptable in some cases anyway. The best solution is to achieve some consensus via whatever WP:Dispute resolution method you need rather than trying to argue who started the edit war or what's the correct version to be protected. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Cruks, you are wrong. Once you put the warning (and I'm not even looking at the warning's value for the moment), that was enough. When SLBedit removed it, the user was acknowledging its receipt. Your repeated reverting it back in was dumb. Knock it off. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 13 May 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.

Sources deleted with no explanation.

The following discussion is closed. 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 the title suggests. I found a few sources and posted them. I'm being reverted for posting sources on talk page without explanation. here's my edit. I actually spent few days searching and translating a newspaper article from 1892. That source was not previously known, so I think it might be interesting for other editors to see a contemporary source. I really don't see the problem with my post, and I can't accept my days work being deleted without an explanation. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also pointing to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The removal of content was due to the article being reverted to a previous revision from earlier today, and because of vandalism being added to the article by multiple users. The removal of the content looks legitimate; if there is good content that you feel should be added back to the article, please message me on my talk page and let me know (while also showing me what you believe was legitimate), and I'll be more than happy to assist you with your concerns. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no multiple users. The only one who had posted today was me. My ip had changed, but that was all me. Because of the ip changes I had some trouble signing my post. There was no vandalism. I just posted 3 sources. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the editor why he had deleted my comment and he had deleted my question with and edit summary:"Block evasion and harrassment" [70]. I have an opposite opinion. If he hadn't deleted my post I wouldn't now be spending time dealing with this. I have other articles to edit where my posts are not being deleted without an explanation. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're evading a block, you shouldn't be editing at all. And it's easy to see why that gigantic essay was deleted from the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see why it was deleted. That's why I asked the editor but he ignored me. Because it was gigantic? Can we format it then? Those are 3 newspaper articles and I can't help they are long. I wanted them posted in entirety, since they can't be found anywhere. I actually went and searched for archives for the first one. I had a few days of work translating it from 19th century Serbian Cyrillic to English. If they are too long we can format it, but why to delete them? 141.138.22.91 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Quoting the entire thing sounds like a copyright issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

On the talk page? A 19th century newspaper? Ok, this is really out of my knowledge. I just wanted to point to that newspaper articles. I posted links so everyone can find those articles, but they aren't written on English so I translated them (well, the first and the last one). Is there an any other way to point to an 19th century article which is not written on English to the English speaking editors here on English Wikipedia? If the problem is quoting the whole article I can find a few quotes from the article and delete the rest (although the rest of the article might be interesting to other editors). 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fellow editors, before wasting your time on this, be forewarned that this is more ethnicity-of-Tesla nonsense. EEng 23:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

See this conversation on my talk page. It sounds like I may be getting involved in something with a not-so-great past here, per EEng's statement above. For now, I'm going to give this user the benefit of the doubt until any proof presents itself regarding trolling, socking, etc. - I'm looking into his sources, as well as the article talk page conversation. Is anyone available who would like to assist me with this? I understand if nobody is willing, given that this subject may have a bad past. I'll do what I can; someone's gotta do it I guess. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Anything in particular you want on your headstone? EEng 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Note: Not a death threat or other blockable offense, thanks.

You are going to deep and it seems that you are unaware of that. I simply want to post 3 sources and that's it. Why should I be prevented doing that regardless of the past that topic has? I'm not aware that Wikipedia states that sources can't be posted to a topic with bad past. I'm also warning you not to get involved over there, where it is even forbidden to post sources that someone else doesn't like or considers "nonsense", let alone ban ip editors who are not people. On any other topic I would have no problem at all reporting and editor who keeps deletes sources without any explanation and look how much time I had lost with this one. I've barely touched on other articles I edit today. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Two eyes are better than one. Three eyes are better than two. Plus, it helps the process go quicker if we have multiple users looking into it. Give me some time; like I said, I'm busy with some other projects at the moment. I'll look into these sources and let you know about any issues or concerns as soon as I can. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Three eyes are better than two"???? What is this? The Land of the Cyclopean Cyclopedians? EEng 00:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha... that made me laugh :-). It's okay; I'm going to check the sources, and determine if there are copyright issues, and (hopefully) leave it at that. We'll see.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's nonsense to you, but why should I be forbidden to post sources because it's a nonsense to you? If more people had posted sources like this we wouldn't have such disputes over there, and it seems to me that you are advocating for less sources. And, this is not more "ethnicity-of-Tesla nonsense". If you want that, go to talk page over there. This is about me being prevent from posting a perfectly valid sources with no explanation at all from the person who keeps deleting them, regardless of the topic to which I had posted them. Wikipedia is not restrictive to which topic someone can post sources. I had, in good faith, stopped reverting his acts of vandalism, although I have every right to revert such acts. How would you feel If I went to the topic you edit, delete your perfectly valid sources and say that your interests are "nonsense" and that you can't post those sources? 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

What ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Only just now I noticed this section. Why wasn't I was notified of this? - DVdm (talk)

@Baseball Bugs:, FYI, per the banner message on top of Talk:Nikola Tesla, discussions about Tesla's ethnicity belong on the subtalkpage Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. That subtalkpage was recently semi-protected by HighInBC to prevent this (indef blocked, and therefore block-evading) person to continue disrupting it. You can check the history, the archives, the collapsed sections, and the section Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#IP editor. That is why I repeatedly removed the rant from Talk:Nikola Tesla, and requested semi-protection, which was somewhat surprisingly declined by user CambridgeBayWeather. Perhaps I should have given a longer explanation at the RPP. Sorry about that. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you are free to transfer my post to the correct talk page. But don't delete it without any explanation and by ignoring my inquiry on your talk page by calling it a harassment? You are repeatedly deleting my sources with no explanation and it's a harassment from my part to ask you to explain why are you doing that? That's a very strange logic. I've stopped reverting your vandalism because I didn't want to be disruptive, and if you haven't noticed, your report to protect the page was dismissed. [71]. Apparently, other editors do not see anything wrong with posting sources (what a surprise). You are a long term editor and the only thing that is surprising is that you are acting like a vandal. 89.164.172.23 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." - DVdm (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

But why would we believe you when you yourself are in clear violation a block? You are that vandal that goes around vandalizing pages by deleting sources that go against your POV. Your acts of vandalism are recorded in [this] report from yesterday. 89.164.248.16 (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, no further comment, and leaving this in administrators' hands. - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There you go, I just showed you how unfounded allegations work (well mine version was not so unfounded since your acts of vandalism are recorded in the referenced report). If you deduce that I'm a sock of a blocked disruptive user from me posting sources (as if that is disruptive), then I deduce you are a sock of a vandal that goes around deleting sources and comments he doesn't like based on your recorded acts of vandalism in the referenced report. Like you, I also don't have further comment to that kind of unfounded and bogus allegations. Unlike you, I've already left that to administrators' hands (instead to revert your acts of vandalism and engage in an edit warring) and your request for page protection was already dismissed yesterday. I haven't yet posted those sources again since one of the editors was kind enough to look at them and see if there are copyright issues. I'm not in a hurry to post them. They have been waited to be posted from 1892, few days more won't make a big difference. In the meanwhile I don't intent to waste my time with your bogus allegations. I participate in other discussions where I'm not being distracted by a vandal. 89.164.248.16 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 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.

DARYLMATMAT

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

---

DARYLMATMAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps creating articles on non-notable figures and seems to be only interested in creating pages about some book/whatever called "Another Story". Can something be done about them? Feinoha ^Talk 23:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I already blocked them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow you are sure fast. Anyway it looks like everything's been resolved then. Feinoha ^Talk 23:35, 13 May 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.

Fomenka

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

---

A very persistent IP-hopping user page vandal/troll has either compromised the named account User:Fomenka, or slipped up and used their own account.

Background: A series of IPs (virtually all geolocating to the same Canadian city) have been edit warring since late February to incorrectly state that the Canadian Cadbury Caramilk a chocolate bar rather than a candy bar. Under Canadian Food Inspection Agency labelling requirements [72] only solid chocolate bars may be labelled as "chocolate" bars. The Cadbury Caramilk is not a solid chocolate bar and thus its wrapper calls it a candy bar.

IPs making the edits that have led to the current long-term semi-protection of the article:

• Special:Contributions/142.233.200.24 (on 3rd block)
• Special:Contributions/206.45.41.10 (blocked once)
• Special:Contributions/184.69.46.158 (blocked once)
• Special:Contributions/216.55.216.237
• Special:Contributions/142.233.200.21 (on 3rd block)

Three of these IPs have also trolled or vandalized the user talk pages of editors who have undone the Cadbury edits, User:Canterbury Tail (by 142.233.200.21 and 142.233.200.24) [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] and User:Meters (by 184.69.46.158, 142.233.200.24, and 142.233.200.21 [82]] [83]] [84] [85][86] [87] [88]) The article was protected on April 18, and the user page trolling on my page started the same day. When I had my user talk page protected the IPs switched to daily trolling of my unprotected talk page (by 184.69.46.158, 206.45.41.10, 216.55.216.237, and new IPs 24.114.41.69, 209.171.88.64, 184.68.82.250, 192.219.0.74, 24.114.22.58, and 216.55.216.254 [on 2nd block] ) with [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Fomenka made an edit to my protected talk page [104] with an edit summary almost identical to two previous IP edits [105] [106] and then immediately undid the edit with an identical time stamp [107]. Six minutes later Fomenka posted to his talk page stating "//?? vandalism from my account? Will figure out then return" [108], but later seemingly contradicted this in later posts [109] and [110] by claiming that he or she was editing Wikipedia from work and left the account logged in, caught someone vandalizing my account and reverted it. Sure, it's possible, but I find it implausible considering that Fomenka averages about 12 edits a year (a double digit total in six years) and no edits at all for the four days prior to the attack on my page. It simply does not sound like an account that was likely to have been left open. It's also rather interesting that after more than 3 weeks of daily harassment the IPs have disappeared from my page since Fomenka's edit. I think this account is behind the IPs' edits, and that it should be blocked for block evasion (216.55.216.254 is the most recent active block) and harassment. Meters (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I indefblocked the account since at the very least it is compromized, otherwise it is a block evasion (one of the IPs was blocked, and the block still did not expire).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: For what it's worth, I think your use of "at the very least" is inaccurate. Aren't compromised (read: shared) accounts technically worse than accounts that were used to evade a block? Block evasion can, at least in theory, be forgiven by the community (or even any random admin), but shared accounts are not allowed, right? Of course, I'm not saying it was a bad block or anything - that would be ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion means the account is indeffed, period (this is a sock, not a sockmaster). Compromised means that the owner, in principle, can still gain control over the account, and then the account can be unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

But it's only a sockpuppet, as opposed to a sockmaster, if the account has also been compromised/hacked, which seems pretty unlikely. It seems pretty unusual to refer to an account that predates an IP's block by several years as a sock whose sole purpose was to evade the IP's block. It would only be a block evasion sock if it was created (or, at least in theory, hacked) with the specific intention of evading a block, but in this case the timelime is reversed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:42, 14 May 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:Toby at Cyberlawpractice

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

---

• Toby at Cyberlawpractice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They make the following disclosure on their userpage here; "My declared Conflict of Interest account for IPR, privacy or defamation related discussion interventions (respecting and acknowledging WMF policies)."

All this person has done is hassle User:Risker over a block she made, here: User_talk:Risker#Block_of_User:Luridaxiom, in a somewhat legally threatening way; they ~appear~ to be trying to somehow legally represent the blocked users.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a WP:SOCK and think a CU would be useful, but more than anything, I don't see how this account can function in WP in any way other than to be legally threatening to other users, and I don't see how this account is here to build an encyclopedia. I am suggesting they be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NLT. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 15 May 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.

Unsourced genres and categories

Mattmeine (talk · contribs) has been engaging in adding unsourced genres and categories to articles, as well as removing useful comments. They were warned several times and today I gave them another final warning but they still persist. Opencooper (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Opencooper (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opencooper This behavior bears all of the hallmarks of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs). Unfortunately there hasn't been an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive for some time so I don't know whether there are "stale" problems or not. I seem to remember that there was another ANI thread several months ago where it was determined that SC had returned but I have no idea how to find it. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm they do have the categorizations in common as well as similar topic areas. Regardless, Mattmeine is still doing it; I'd appreciate if an admin could step in to help them cool down and to maybe even attempt discussing their changes. (though if you look at the diffs you'll see how outlandish some of them are such as categorizing Pokemon as horror and suspense...) Opencooper (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Even so, this user should be blocked on behavior alone. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, MarnetteD, this the ani you were looking for? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#User:Schmidt-austin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the one EvergreenFir I do appreciate your taking the time to search for it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Vivvt

There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [111]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
  The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)

Towards me

• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha"
• "Use at least little bit of sense"
• "Would you please stop being a JERK?"
• "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)."
• "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you."
• The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always

I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

Towards others

• "Are you dumb? "
• "Who the hell made you an administratyor?"
• "You are so pathetic. Now onwards my eye will be on you and I will tell you what is its like to get punished for others fault."
• "I should have known that you are a hypocrite and a big time manipulator."
• "You need to look here before talking and adding shit to that article I am more experienced than you here and know much better than you. You don't tell me what I should do."
• "Thank you Vensatry for getting your nose into the matter, which has nothing to do with you."
• "Get the Fuck out of my user page"

Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.

   "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

.Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that because you said above that its small, for me its still big reason. When someone had already started a discussion then you had not rights to revert until the matter was discussed on the talkpage. So, its obvious you are the culprit.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sudden studies or WP:BOOMERANG effect? If I get time I am sure I will find many such wikibreaks that have aligned with non-favourable circumstances just to avoid blocks and bans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You wish. LOL. This post I wrote on 23 April 2016 dont show its sudden. Check facts before accusing someone of something.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're going on a wiki break, go on the wiki break. Don't continue editing under the guise that you have 'studies' to do. It's one or the other, and it's quickly approaching the point where a boomerang is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Krish!, you were editing in the past hour which undermines your claim that you are taking a long wikibreak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz Well, I'm still editing because I have an ongoing discussion about the disputed article. So, Isn't that obvious that I'll be editing? Now please close this discussion as I'm sure the discussion on the article's talk page is enough. Thank you for your time folks.Krish | Talk 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be closed without any action against you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well this is May 2016, if you want to take action for what i did in 2015 and before then i am very sorry that's not going to happen and I think you are trying to provoke me to do something with your texts but i am not interested to fight with you or anyone. This is not a place where you engage in random fights. This is an encyclopedia its better we respect this site.Krish | Talk 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always." 08:03, 1 May 2016
• "moron Dharmadhyaksha" ...." dumb moron" 07:56, 1 May 2016
• "She was never criticised you MORON" 07:32, 1 May 2016
• "Dharmadhyaksha, everything was resolved at the FLC, so your edits are questionable. Plus, Now I'll be checking on you and I know some of your articles require that template and Wait then watch IM coming" 07:52, 25 January 2016
• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" 13:21, 22 January 2016

May 2016 stuff... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you already had mentioned above? and the administrator had already addressed them? Give me a break. Bye Bye......Krish | Talk 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins should take this into account that his behavioural pattern has not changed over the years and he keeps abusing other editors with the strong words. Involved editors have seen this I-won't-do-this drama several times and its really frustrating that its always the other editor who is asked behave with civility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that the 5 edits were posted 2 days ago, it's obvious Krish! is unrepentant with regards to personal attacks. Those should certainly attract a block, preferably an indefinite one. Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Blackmane only three edits were posted 2 days ago so kindly correct yourself. I don't think i deserve a block. I have contributed so much here. I have written an FA, 9 FLs and 10 GAs and am still working on plenty of subjects including two other FLs and another FA. You can't just take away everything from me. It's not like only I had fights or arguments here. Everyone does. By the way, did i tell you this user (Dharmdhyaksha) has a long history of interfaring with my work or should i say had a problem with me for reasons unkown to me. He tried to take me down by nominating two of my GAs, few days after they passed and he was criticised by everyone and the GAs were kept as GAs.

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/7 Khoon Maaf/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huma Qureshi (actress)/1

Plus, he would add a maintenance templates to all my FLs, would remove well-sourced texts, tag the articles with Provide secondary souces, even where everything was sourced perfectly. So tell me what you guys learn about him. What does it mean when you do these kind of things. I still don't know what is his problem with me. My above reactions were for his this behaviour,which I think was wrong as all of my FLs and GAs were reviewed by some established and experienced reviewers. So tell me now.Krish | Talk 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned by SpacemanSpiff "The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have." However, this dos not give you any authority to abuse people. Everybody's trying to do something or other by taking time from their real time. You have no right to insult that time. I dont see a point why should please take your abuse for no good reason. Does not matter if you are admin or wiki founder or feature content writer or a newbie, people are not here to get abused. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, he is not retiring or taking any break for studies. He just nominated another list for FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've corrected my post to reflect this. However, the points still stands that continuing to attack another editor while your previous attacks against other editors was being discussed at ANI is just mind boggling foolishness. Editors get into conflict, this is true, but for the most part it is over content what you have done is made it personal. Regardless of what you have contributed to the project, this is unacceptable. Editors that have contributed 10 times what you have, have been site banned for just this sort of thing. You are very lucky you haven't been indefinitely blocked already. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Look, It`s time to stop beating around the bush about blocking Krish. I propose an indefinite ban on Krish for long term personal attacks against multiple users, as shown above. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, this needs to stop and action needs to be taken Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This reeks of punitive blocking, and I do not believe that the edit summaries thereof rise to the level of an indef. Indef blocks should be reserved for outright vandalism. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I had left a warning on the user's talk page a while ago for making some arrogantly abusive personal attacks towards another user. See [112]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Did I tell you this user is friends with Dharmadhyaksha? Yes they are. By the way please tell me if its right to remove well-sourced stuffs from articles which are featured and everything. Just because he didn't like the way article was?

• And, do you think this is not a personal attack to me Krish! You need to complete your studies. For our sake. You were not pinged in that message because i knew it would not be easy for you to comprehend it. LOL. I will reply to others. Please tell. Making fun of my weak english that i couldn't even understand his text is not an attack?Krish | Talk 06:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've been here for close to 11 years. I've made a lot of friends and enemies here. That doesn't discount my views. You have the right to remove and add stuff so long as it is compliant with policies and consensus, which isn't the issue here. The issue here is your pathetic behaviour towards others, calling them names, and abusing them, which you did and as a net result I left a warning on your talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nowhere did I mention studies. I haven't participated in any discussion on Kashibai. Why are you distorting the conversation by inserting it after my comment? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support long-term ban. This user has, on multiple occasions, made it extremely difficult for me to contribute here. His constant bad-faith and abusive nature made me take a long wikibreak last year, and I wouldn't wish that upon any constructive editor. This has really gone on for far too long, and action must be taken. Pinging some of the other editors (Dr. Blofeld, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Kailash29792 and Vensatry), who have been a victim of his abuse. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Oh my. Look who finally replied to a text related to me. God bless you Krimuk. Please tell the administrators that you used to sen threats on Twitter and troll me there. Please tell the administrators that you have abused me on my talk page and through e-mails. You know I really don't have time for this and I don't think I will show those evidences against you, how much you have abused me here and how uncivil you are. You have finally succeeded in breaking me. I really can't take anymore and I feel like it was my biggest mistake to come here and contribute here. I have lost all the energy today and I ask administrators for a long term ban as I'm really fed up of this accusation of being uncivil and abusive, even when the others editors have been as abusive as me. I gave three years of my life to this site, three presious years of my college life. You don't need to ask your friends to come here and ask for a block for me, I am making this job easy for you. I ask for a block so that others can live here freely as I'm the only one who is making there life troubled. Well done Krimuk you have done the impossible and I wish you all the best for your future.Krish | Talk 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe Krish! would benefit from close mentoring, and Wikipedia would benefit from a mentored Krish! This is what I propose and I'm willing to act as a mentor if the editor will have me as such.--John Cline (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Am not sure and my memory is weak and there have been many user name changes and there have been many editors in similar article domains that keep confusing me.... But i think he has been mentored by @Titodutta: or was it Dr. Blofeld. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely Oppose ban I didn't realise this was still open. I don't watch ANI, it is a dreadful place. Now, having read the thread, I have some questions. Why does it matter if Krish says he's going on a wikibreak. Breaks are personal, and can come in many forms - reducing your editing, changing focus and so on. There are a number of very high profile editors who still edit despite having a wikibreak notice, or even a retired notice it does not matter. I told Krish he was a hair's breadth from a block for the Jerk barnstar and his behaviour on 1 May and when I did, he stopped that behaviour. He didn't stop editing, he carried on the discussion civilly at the talk page of the article. On the other hand, I've just had to warn Dharmadhyaksha for provocation at that same article. There are two sides to this case, I certainly don't believe that one side should be banned outright. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• The discussion has somewhat veered onto a different zone. To begin with, the user in question seems to have apparently misused his rollback privileges on the page. That said, it's high time that Krish's behaviour be monitored. Because this is the nth time that his conduct has been questioned – this being the most recent one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked). He's been around here for 3+ years, yet doesn't have the temperament to deal with people – a few samples (when he was a newbie): 1, 2. And this was just a year ago. I don't see much of a change in his attitude. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, the user's claims of being the victim of abusive messages off-wiki are absurd, because he is the one who has sent me multiple abusive emails. I had then contacted Crisco 1492 and shared screenshots of those messages with him, after which I was advised to block him and the user was warned. In those emails he claimed that the actress Vidya Balan, whose article I significantly contributed to, had payed for my education. I can send you screenshots of those emails if you like. See this, where he misused the "help me" template to write: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are.." Also, he is the one who, as recently as last month, made accusations of paid writing after I spent working on the articles of three actors who work for Dharma Productions. As many of the editors who have previously interacted with him, the user has a long history of being a nuisance and resorts back to his old ways within days of being warned by administrators. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Krimuk90 I give you a standing ovation. You are the best. Why don't you tell Worm That Turned that you were the person who accused me "paid writing", I didn't took your name on my talk page but now I will provide my side of story. That Balan funding your education was the reply to your accusations that I write on behalf of Chopra and she had paid me. I had told this to Dr. Blofeld also. It should be noted that this conversation of him accusing me of paid writing and my reply to him about funding studies happened in Im nort sure but may be in 2012 or early 2013 but then how this user can still talk to me in December 2014 if I sent him abusive emails? Please tell me, it shows that he manipulated Crisco by sending a screenshotfor a diffenent reasons. He used to abuse me through tweets from random accounts saying "Hey Kid, Is Madam Chopra feeding you well?". Then he chose my user and talk page to abuse me and accused me saying She is the "worst actress of this generation"; who can't do any type of role. Just wanted to let everyone know that! :) Chopra is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!. Please tell me how can a random IP can accuse me of what Krimuk already had? It was not a co-incidence, can't be. That time I didn't know much about wikipedia rules or I would have complained about him and those Ips. He then continued to accuse me through random IPs, pretended to be me She is the "worst actress of this generation"; who can't do any type of role. Just wanted to let everyone know that! :) I don't have a life outside of WP because Chopra madam is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!, I don't have a life outside of WP because Chopra madam is paying me to write only god things about her on WP!, and this one where he claims that it was me who was editing my userpage from IPs Plz don't touch my user page!!!!). But I never abused him off wikipedia and I only had arguments with him her like everybody has with one another. I never abused him through e-mails, though we used to chat about so many things, so please don't trust him because he may show you a manipulated version of emails. If he does, I will give my email adress and passwor to you WOrm That Turned, you can check what i used to send him and it was anything but abuse. I have not even erased a single email of his. So I will show you everything if you want. Coming to his above accusations that I had accused him for writing for Dharma Kids, no I didn't I didn't name it I said that why people always exxagerate things on Dharma Kids saying all their films are blockbusters. There I asked for neutrality and equality. I didn't name him but he went and edited that actresses article like what hehas done on Dharma Kids. Coming to more of his accusation. He is no saint. In February, he started expanding Shahid Kapoor article and he added a controversial thing about his relationship in his article. I reverted him Chopra never accepted that she had a relationship with Kapoor like Kareena did. So get your facts right befor adding such stuffs. He claims to be very senior and well behaved but this was his reply to reverting back to his version She doesn't have to. it's not her biography. Then Dr. Blofeld started a discussion at the talk page and we discussed that they never had accepted their relationship and Blofeld agreed to me but Krimuk took this in a wrong way and refused to discuss. As you can see I and Blofeld discussed there civilly, he didn't wanted to discusss because he believes what he says is right and others are wrong. He showed up at the talk page saying I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck. and then he started getting mad and started hid disruptive editing at the article talk page I did such a fucked job taking this to GA!, I am silly. What, will someone put me in jail for it? . and when he was reverted back for his disruptive editing the fact that no one own articles on wikipedia he said Maybe i'll buy it for 2.45$. He removed all his content from his talk and user page with a message saying Chopra is the virginal beauty or something like that and since has been hidden with summary as "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". So please tell me how am I responsible for his bad behaviour? We haven't talked since January 2015 and here is.Krish | Talk 09:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban. That's a bit extreme for my taste. I'd support an absolute last warning that the next time they make a personal attack on another editor they will be indefinitely blocked. The same goes for Dharmadhyaksha per Worm's post above. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I expressed similar concerns about Prashant/Krish to Ian Rose, Cassianto and SchroCat a few weeks back. Sorry to say but Krish! just never seems to grow up. His recent behaviour is a perfect example of why he's not mature enough to edit here. Incredibly childish and never seems to change as he promises. He does contribute some good work but most of his interactions on here are negative ones and he never seems to learn how to avoid them. I think it's best for everybody if he was banned or at least something severe imposed on interacting with people to stop people having to deal with his nonsense. John Cline and some of the others clearly have little experience of this editor, all the mentoring in the world won't change him. When he doesn't feel threatened and is focused on writing he's productive I think, and at times he can even be pleasant, but as Vensatry says, too many times now and just lacks the control to deal with people. Suggest something severe imposed in terms of interacting with others, that might work, but then you'll still get the same petty squabbles over articles. Irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus is for more severe sanctions, then it is as the community wills. There may be a small glimmer of self realisation from Krish! that how they're going about things is just not right considering that a ban discussion is underway. Interaction bans are nasty business and really need some strong reform to have bigger teeth. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, though not necessarily a site ban. Maybe a two-week ban for incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban/Support Sanctions Not sure if practical but perhaps some sort of escalating scale? Next infraction of WP:Civil 1 week ban, and progressively higher from there. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support I agree Krish should be blocked just reading this ANI makes me cringe... I firmly believe that this ani should of been closed days ago... It's obvious that consensus is that Krish is needed to be blocked. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the ban/block The discussion is too lengthy to give in time, though I have had my own frictions with Krish! but banning/blocking him isn't the solution. No one here is so inexperienced that they would do harm to the requisite Wiki page. I believe in the work and dedication by Krimuk90 and Krish!. Coming to Dharmadhyaksha, I really don't appreciate his approach of dealing with fellow users. Arjann (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Arjann also looking for Boomerang? " I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you. I mean it, literally. You and user Vivvt are pathetic" ... "Dumb." This had come on my talk page after 4 of the images this user had uploaded were nominated by me for deletion and which are eventually now deleted. File:Haider film score artwork.jpg, File:Lootera Cover Art.jpg, File:Thalli Pogathey (single cover).jpg, File:Jab Tak Hai Jaan Audio Launch.jpg. The user later also went on to remove a FFD tag from one of the files for which I warned him. Arjann also has a history of making PAs towards other editors. See this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: In this big discussion that involves almost every user I came across on Wikipedia, I will apologise every person on whom I made a personal attack but when it comes to you and Vivvt, I will never do that. A very simple and straightforward answer is here: I agree deleting of images listed above. Let them be named 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order above. I also agree with deletion of 1, 2 and 4 but when it comes to deletion of image 3, your explanation and replies to me over here are completely out of context.

The MOS:FILM#Soundtrack states in one of the lines: "The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." But when there isn't a official film poster since 2-3 months, an image as cover art isn't extraneous at all. I even mentioned earlier: "Once it releases, feel free to put this claim and delete the file. As of now, it qualifies." So watch out for your own silly mistakes. Arjann (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So your best argument to retain a file was to attack the nominator and remove FfD tag? Your reason if was persuasive enough then the image would have stayed. Btw, thanks to the short term memory i have, i dont remember any previous grudges with you. Which Indian film personality's fan are you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Your are now in a catch-22 situation. I respect my and others' work. I accept my mistakes openly and I learn a lot. So, I feel this is my last reply to you over here. That's it all I can say. Arjann (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand why do you want to keep this as your last reply when boomerang and other behavioural things have started to come out. I was on a mobile device in my last comment and hence couldn't do a good research. I now know that your past grudges with Vivvt and probably me have been because of your obsessiveness towards a certain music director whose articles who create and mostly edit. This trend is very much like Krish. Both of you can't handle criticisms of your favorite filmy personalities and then tend to start abusing fellow editors over content disputes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support We just don't need this sort of thing. Op47 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Oppose only an indef ban. Support a block/ban for one year in duration to allow Krish the opportunity to "finish" their studies and re-educate themselves on standard operating procedure for Wikipedia. Add a proviso that the next time they fail to adhere to Civility policy they recieve an indefinite ban (as they're already a hairs breadth away from an indef already). Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I took the liberty to break up the discussion a little. Too many sub threads and such. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• • May I ask for a mentor please? I still don't know many things about wikipedia though I am 3 years old here, was mostly inactive in 2013 and 14. By the way I need someone to guide me through this. I don't have any friends here who encourage me or support me when I am right but I have people who unite when I do something wrong. I don't get it. If neutrality is the policy of wikipedia then shouldn't they support me when I do some good? Dr. Blofeld has taught me several things here, when I was new and would like to ask for help if he can help me through this. I am sure I will do 10x better in someone's guidance than I used to do alone.Krish | Talk 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd first suggest you strike out your nonsensical support of your own block. I have half a mind to close this discussion and grant that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • All right done. Ricky81682.Krish | Talk 16:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality is a content policy not a behavioural guideline. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack page - Selim Mehajer

Hi all, it appears that Selim Mehajer was just deleted by the admin JamesBWatson as an "attack page", and redirected to Auburn City Council#History.

The page is not in any way an "attack page". Could someone please explain why this occurred?

Interestingly, as I'm the one who created it, I was not advised, warned or informed in any way that it was deleted. I'm surprised it happened, and even more surprised that an admin who sees what they consider to be an attack on another person wouldn't even leave a message warning that person of their behaviour.

What also concerns me is that it seems to be an end run around AFD. Selim Mehajer is a very prominent figure in Australia, and is constantly in the media for entirely notable things that he does. It was in office and is facing an investigation around accusations of conflict of interest, and will be before the courts on alleged electoral fraud soon.

Under the processes that are in place currently, deleting a page in the manner that just occured seems entirely out of process. Firstly, an "attack page" should surely be fixed if the article is of a notable figure, and if necessary someone with oversight rights should hide the revisions that slander the party involved. Secondly, if it is to be deleted, then my understanding is that it should go to Articles for Deletion - and in fact, it doesn't appear to be a candidate as a Proposed Deletion as there is a reasonable objection that Selim is notable enough for his own article. And thirdly, I left a note on the talk page explaining what I was doing, but the admin didn't do me the courtesy of responding to this.

I'm sure the admin was using their best judgement and felt their action was protecting the reputation of Wikipedia and the subject, Selim Mehajer, but I think this action was wrongly taken and I would request that it be reversed. Thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack pages are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G10. I've had a look at the deleted article, and it was entirely a criticism piece showing the man in a wholly negative light. It was written in an editorial style rather than an encyclopedic style, presented allegations as facts, and included a number of negative claims that were not supported by reliable sources. In my opinion, speedy deletion was entirely proper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand. The article still should exist on it's own though. If I was to review the issues and write a more neutral one, is that still possible? I largely took the material from Auburn City Council, I can rewrite it from scratch.

What in particular is the issue though? Also, why wasn't I notified that I was overstepping bounds? I would appreciate that, as a courtesy at the very least so that I can review and correct any inappropriate editing behaviour that I may be engaged in. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The main issue, as Boing! said Zebedee explained, is that the article appears to have been written about a person, and was written entirely with a negative analysis and criticism about the person. There were also allegations presented as facts and with no reliable sources provided. Articles written in this manner about living people will be reported and deleted immediately upon discovery. You're new here; and I understand that you probably didn't understand our policies in this situation. It's okay to make mistakes; we understand and we're more than willing to help you! I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's biographies of living people, neutral point of view, and identifying reliable sources guidelines, as they are relevant to this situation and will provide you with all of the information that you need. If you have any questions regarding the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to here, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and ask. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Understand the POV concern (though I hadn't intended on making it specifically an attack page, but I can see how it may have turned out that way), but every one of the citations was to a reliable news source. I sourced my material from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph and The Australian. I think (but can't recall) sourcing The Guardian as well. I also recall sourcing material from The Daily Mail, which was verifiable and accurate - even if that publication is not has a much reputation as the other sources. What reference was considered unreliable? Also, what allegations were stated as fact? The material I added did not do this, and the other material was taken directly from Auburn City Council#History, which I modified slightly. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, incidentally, I'm not that new around here. I do understand the policies and procedures pretty well. Just thought you should know... - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; I meant no insult. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense taken :-) I never read it as an insult, I just wanted to disclose that even though my edit history may be a bit patchy I'm a reasonably experienced contributor - I only said that to make sure I didn't mislead you in any way. In fact, your response was excellent and if I had been a newbie then I think I would have been informed and happy that I was being treated with honesty and civility.

I do want to ask where I went wrong given the response by Boing! said Zebedee. I don't believe that the text has any material that presented allegations as fact because I took pains to actually make sure that allegations were stated as allegations. I don't mind being told that the article was slanted too negatively, and was thus deleted, but I think I do (politely) object to being told that I presented allegations as fact, when in fact I didn't.

FWIW, I'm not outraged and accept the decision of the admin who deleted the article, however I thought it would be reasonable to appeal the decision on AN/I. I have notified the admin that he is mentioned here under the listed process, I hope that is alright. I suppose I should note that my only criticism of the admin who deleted the page was that they didn't notify me what they had done, at the very least because I was initially confused about where my edits got to and also because I thought that editors who are violating guidelines and rules (even inadvertently) should be at least advised that their editing practices should be altered. I wouldn't have taken offence, and even if I had then it would still have been the polite and civil thing to do. That's my only real issue at this moment, it looks like the decision itself was in line with current policy so I apologise to the wider Wikipedia community for having stepped outside the established norms of editing. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am, however, rather upset that this has been flagged for speedy deletion under the C7 criteria by WWGB, especially as I'm actively working on it. Isn't it normal to allow someone to keep working on the article to show notability before tagging it for speedy deletion? I don't understand how this person is not notable, they aren't just notable in Australia - they are notorious! The amount of media coverage about serious allegations around the deputy Mayor of a major Local Government Area (City of Auburn) within the state of NSW is extraordinary. I mean, he has an AFP investigation for electoral fraud happening right now, amongst other things. A whole special article was written up on him in the major national Australian newspaper, The Australian. I just don't understand how this tag can have been put on the page in good faith. Did the editor not see the talk page? - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of Salim Mehajer who, like a Kardashian, is famous only for being famous. He had a lavish wedding, so do many others. He has no convictions, so charges should not be mentioned according to WP:BLPCRIME. Being a deputy mayor is not sufficient for notability per WP:POLITICIAN. An article cannot be entirely negative. So what is left to write about? What we have, IMO, is a serial self-promoter who has found his 15 minutes of fame, but who has very little in real achievements that could form the skeleton of an acceptable Wikipedia article. You have indicated the scope of the problem with your first pass at the article: all that can be said is he was born, was educated and became a deputy mayor, none of which establishes notability so far. I wish you well, but I think if anything balanced and meaningful could be written about Mehajer, someone else would have done it by now. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We agree to disagree then. I think it's quite notable that he has faced court proceedings many times, pretty much was the main reason the council was put under administration, is currently facing charges of electoral fraud by the Australian Federal Police, and a variety of other things which are notable enough to make every major newspaper write serious articles about him. He still has serious questions to answer about his tender for the John St car park, which is still being investigated. Like I have said, I am happy if you want to take it to AFD, but I think I've established his notability. I'm fine with you disagreeing, but given you want the article deleted for notability perhaps you should take it to AFD? I'm happy to do this myself if you'd like, but I'm concerned it might be viewed as POINTY. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Letsbefiends is quite right in saying that he/she should have been informed of the deletion. Normal practice is that the person who nominates a page for speedy deletion informs the creator of the page of the nomination. It would have helped if I had checked whether that had been done, and on seeing that it hadn't, informed Letsbefiends myself instead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I appreciate you saying this. - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @JamesBWatson: Actually, the directions at AfD say specifically:

      While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion... (emphasis added)

      so if you are saying that it is required, those instructions need to be changed. If you're just saying that it's good etiquette to do so, that's a different matter. BMK (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I wasn't intending to say that it is required, but just that it is usually desirable. That is why I said "Normal practice..." and "It would have helped..." On the other hand, I see that I also said "...he/she should have been informed...", and "should" could be read as meaning that it is always required. However, what I had in mind was something more like "it would have been better if he/she had been informed". 90% of the time informing the relevant editor as a matter of courtesy should be done, but I don't think it would help to make it obligatory to always do so, because occasionally there are situations where it isn't helpful, such as for a new editor who has already recently received a barrage of warning messages, and adding one more, even if done in good faith, is likely to serve no purpose other than intimidating the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For speedy deletion: Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In this case, WWGB should have notified me, but did not do so on two occasions. I would appreciate it if he would follow the very clearly set out rules to give me a fair chance to object and state my case. I understand that on the first occassion the tone was all wrong, but the second time it was nominated just seemed to be forcing the point. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I used the automated csd process at the top of the page, which is supposed to notify the creator. Not my problem if it does not work properly. WWGB (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is very much your responsibility to ensure that you follow the rules when you list an article for speedy deletion, and it is definitely still your responsibility to follow the same guidelines and rules to notify the correct people of the deletion, regardless of whether the automated solution is working or not. I should note that it is not just the creator of the article you should notify, but those who have substantially contributed to the article as well. If this is how you have been tagging CSDs then may I suggest you be more careful? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Some1asks

This editor's latest edit, with no edit summary, reverting me to remove a valid entry from a disambiguation hatnote, brings me to this page. It is the latest in a series of edits to South Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire Council and South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency) over which we have had discussion in the last couple of days. I have attempted to bring in outside opinions by discussing the constituency at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#South_Gloucestershire_constituency (BHG being an acknowledged expert on UK constituencies, as well as having created the article), and now a request for "expert help" on the article. Their disruptive edits include repeated addition of {{Distinguish|South Gloucestershire|Unitary authority}} (producing "Not to be confused with South Gloucestershire or Unitary authority.") in the middle of the lead section of the constituency article (I have since added a sentence conveying the same information, as an attempt to stop this disruption), and addition of rambling sections of text about the relationship between the constituency and local government areas. The editor has removed my various warnings from their talk page and accused me of hypocrisy and ignorance.

I am wary of being accused of edit-warring, but can see no other way forward than to bring this editor and these articles to this page in the hope that this disruptive editing can be stopped. Thanks. PamD 07:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sir John Cope MP, Gloucestershire South Constituency (Hansard list of constituencies), Sir John Cope said, " "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.

• Gloucestershire County at at 1974-1996 did not cover Avon.

• Gloucestershire County from 1996 to current date of 2016, is not any part of South Gloucestershire, (the geographic local government area Unitary authority area).

• Parliamentary Constituencies are hand have been several in the Northern Avon (South Gloucestershire) geographic area.

• BEFORE 1974 both Somerset and Gloucestershire covered larger areas, but when describing the Gloucestershire South constituency - it should (a) be called that as Parliament called it that (again Hansard lists this).

(b) when describing the area 'other' constituencies should not be lumped in and claimed to be in a an ancient South Gloucestershire Constituency..

• The 1996-present South Gloucestershire area is not Gloucestershire, the 1974-1996 area was not Gloucestershire, the PRE 1974 area was not South Gloucestershire but in part only, Gloucestershire South Constituency, (again Hansard list 1803-2005).

Some1asks (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

> Re discussions about 'South Gloucestershire' (UK Parliamentary Constituency)..

• Note that 'Sir John Cope' was Member of Parliament for Northavon, (prior to this see below quote). This constituency was in the then County of Avon. I have used Hansard to link to the list of Parliamentary Constituencies between the years 1803-2005. There is no 'South Gloucestershire' Parliamentary Constituency listed, see Hansard here:

• The term Election in a newspaper will give results (in a General Election) for BOTH Parliamentary MP's and some Councils, including a Non-metropolitan county. a modern Unitary authority and Metropolitan county areas.. BECAUSE not all UK local government Council elections are done at the same time. EG In 2016 most English Councils had local elections, along with Welsh Assembly elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Northern Ireland elections.

• MANY when voting in the UK General Election voted for both a local MP and their Local Councils, plus Parish or Town Councils. (Regional Council Elections are split into two cycles because of the huge volume of votes, and MP's keep the cycles split as it's and indicator of how a national government is doing).

• South Gloucestershire is not listed as a Constituency from 1803-2005 in Hansard, and does not exist now. (South Gloucestershire only existed in the form of a Unitary Authority from 1996 and is 20 years old, there is no South Gloucestershire Parliamentary Constituency).

• 'IF' there is a reference to South Gloucestershire prior to 1996 it's either wrong as the geographic area was Avon, or someone is confusing the geographic area with neighbouring and separate Southern Gloucestershire (County).. Avon existing between 1974-1996. The County of Avon was abolished and the northern parts became South Gloucestershire, (Former Avon districts of Northavonand Kingswood becoming the created area of South Gloucestershire, a Unitary authority).

• Before 1974 a section of Avon (before its creation) was in Southern Gloucestershire, but as the area was and remains highly populated, several MP constituencies existed, and Hansard does not mention a Parliamentary Constituency of 'South Gloucestershire', the area didn't exist, (unless a person actually means Southern Gloucestershire, or Gloucestershire south).

• The Gazette cited, if it is genuine, notes a county representative being voted for, as opposed to a parliamentary representative, I note the different entries!

• Since 1996 the Unitary authority of South Gloucestershire has several Parliamentary constituencies due to dense population.

• I quote a comment written in talk, citing Sir John Cope MP, emphasis mine:

"My constituency covers bits of two separate counties and takes the name of the smaller section (Hansard, Gloucestershire South Constituency, Southern Gloucestershire), "Most of my constituents '"live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire"'.

• The ONLY place were the Geographic areas of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire are linked, is in legislation related to the Lieutenancy areas, and the legislation clearly notes the areas exist solely for the purposes of the act, and are not council or parliamentary areas. (also known in the act as Ceremonial County, as its just the designated area for the Sovereigns representative, as of writing Queen Elizabeth II). (Main Act here . (Schedule of areas for the Lieutenants .

Some1asks (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• In case anyone is puzzled by the reference above to The Gazette cited, if it is genuine ..., the page which had been quoted in discussion at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl is https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41842/page/6430/data.pdf, a page at the website of the government publication The London Gazette. I'm not sure whether the editor wishes to imply that the editor citing it (not me) might have created a forgery or been fooled by one, but either way it seems a Personal attack. The post above is very similar to one at that user talk page, and I have replied to some points there. PamD 05:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This is really a content dispute. The issue here is that in both official and non official publications, compass points tend to get placed as both prefixes and suffixes for the same constituency, even though for rural ones, like the one in question, the official name would have placed it as a prefix. Cope is listed here in Hansard being sworn in for South Gloucestershire in 1974. Same in Hansard for 1979. The official parliament website also lists Cope as member for South Gloucestershire 1974-1983. Claiming that these references from official sites "are wrong" or that this would have been in a neighbouring county is contradicted by the quote which Some1asks posts where Cope himself says that the constituency was mostly in Avon with a small part in Gloucestershire!! There is no need for admin involvement.... yet. However, if Some1asks persists in ignoring sources given and editing accordingly, we may need to come back here. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor's talk page history since they joined us last month makes it seem likely that they'll be back on this page, whether on this topic or another. But as the "last straw" reversion on Gloucestershire which prompted my posting here has not been reverted again, I'd be happy to see this closed at present. Thanks for reading it, if anyone did! PamD 09:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sir John Cope MP, Gloucestershire South Constituency (Hansard list of constituencies), Sir John Cope said, " "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.

• Gloucestershire County at at 1974-1996 did not cover the County of Avon.

• Gloucestershire County from 1996 to the current date of 2016, is not any part of South Gloucestershire, (the geographic local government area Unitary authority area).

• Parliamentary Constituencies are and have been several in the Northern Avon (South Gloucestershire) geographic area.

• BEFORE 1974 both Somerset and Gloucestershire covered larger areas, but when describing the Gloucestershire South constituency - it should (a) be called that as Parliament called it that (again Hansard lists this).

(b) when describing the area 'other' constituencies should not be lumped in and claimed to be in a an 'ancient' Gloucestershire South Constituency. EG taking constituencies that were in Avon, or constituencies in the UA area of South Gloucestershire, and claiming they are or were in Gloucestershire County and in the Parliamentary Gloucestershire South Constituency.

• The 1996-present South Gloucestershire area is NOT Gloucestershire.

The 1974-1996 area was NOT Gloucestershire. The PRE 1974 area was not South Gloucestershire, but only in part was Gloucestershire South Constituency, (again Hansard list 1803-2005). Some1asks (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Some1asks: Please do not change your edits after they have been replied to by other people. Do not change the time on an edit to make it appear that you posted it later than the reply below it. I haven't the stamina to try to unpick the muddles you've just made, but just don't do it again.
• To other readers: be aware that the timestamps on some of the above posts may be confusing. PamD 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Much-needed arbitrary break

Let me see if I have this right... You're alerting community at large to the urgent, urgent, URGENT need to resolve the question of whether Avon was part of Gloucestershire in 1974, or whatever the hell? Are you kidding??? EEng 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Oh, not really ... I think s/he also wants to disprove the existence of a parliamentary constituency called "South Gloucestershire", disassociate South Gloucestershire from the geographical and historic county which would help people to locate it, demonstrate a certain level of ignorance (particularly about hatnotes, and apostrophes, where I've now twice had to replace the one in "Sovereign's representative", but also about County and Borough constituencies and more), and so on. Have a look at their talk page log for more of their history (not the talk page, from which most messages get removed promptly, in a recent case with an edit summary alleging slander). All part of the rich tapestry of editing Wikipedia! PamD 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

But my reason for starting this post was exasperation at yet another reversion of my correct edit, in which s/he was trying to suppress a hatnote link to the constituency from the UAA article at the base name. I eventually created a dab page instead, as less of a waste of my energy than continuing the fight. I've said above that I'm happy to see this matter closed now, although I suspect that it won't take this editor long to be back here in view of their combative and incoherent input. PamD 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Indiscriminate deletion tagging and utterly uncivil comments by User:SimonTrew

A few days ago, I declined a speedy deletion proposal by User:SimonTrew (whose signature is "Si Trew". He responded by calling me "you half-arsed small brained fuckwit".[113] He also placed a second, phony speedy tag on the same redirect, claiming that a just-opened RFD discussion had reached consensus [114] and made a string of uncivil, unfavorable comments about my supposed refusal to participate in the RFD discussion even though he hadn't bothered to / lacked the simple courtesy to notify me of the discussion. Since I learned of the discussion and did respond, he refused to respond to my comments.

Over the last few days, User:SimonTrew has made a long string of speedy nominations which are clearly inappropriate, accompanied by nomination statements which are often bizarre, incoherent, or irrational. For example (and this is nowhere near an exhaustive list):

• Tepre Pacificum, nominated with the statement because Neelix made this up I think it is disgusting it do stink. It's not at target WP:RFD#D2 now do you see. A tepre is no kind of sea in Latin or in Greek, you'll see that this is Neelix nonsense when, I think by now you get the gen. In fact "Tepre Pacificum" is the name Magellan originally gave to the Pacific Ocean,[115], documented by even a cursory GSearch.

• Tartaria Magna, nominated with the statement because Neelix when he felt inclined made up some Latin bad declined, this not a target WP:RFD#D2 confusing I hope my nom's a bit amusing. But said and done this should thus my CSD's a blunderbuss. It is easy to document that "Tartaria Magna" is an older term [116] that is used to refer to the redirect target.[117]

• Utopianists, nominated with the statement The people who have such beliefs are utopians let's be brief this is a made up Neelix word so please delete it how absurd. In fact, it's in such standard works as the Merrian-Webster dictionary.[118]

• Mar del Sur, nominated with the statement because The Southern Ocean which if you take a rough translation from Portuguese is not the Pacific Ocean this is simply Neelix nonsense. In fact, it's a standard phrase even documented in the Spanish Wikipedia.[119]

• Orsino (play), nominated with the statement because Orsino has been played you'll find in several dramas, it's unkind but this one is not quite correct I ask delete this redirect. (Neelix). Redirecting a play to its notable author's bibliography is in no way abusive, and is generally considered appropriate.

• Nuestra Senora de Candelaria Parish Church, nominated with the statement because Nope you can't do that. That would be like saying St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square parish church (despite the fact that St Martin in the Fields is a parish church and a famous one, to inject "trafalgar square" into the middle of it would be absrd. which is what Neelix is doing here. We don't have St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square Parish Church. You can't inject it like that. Since the redirect target is Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church, this makes no sense whatsoever.

• Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria, nominated with the statement because Neelix she was not Duchess in but of.. In fact, a simple google search reveals that the Neelix phrasing is more common than the "Duchess of Bavaria" phrasing thisw editor says is standard.

• Guillitine, nominated with the statement because This is a Neelix redirect. A man who knows a thing or two if Guillot would dispose to chop an I for O I see that's sound but this has its head on the ground. It admittedly did surprise me that this was a plausible misspelling, but Google searches and other online dictionaries treat this as a standard redirect, and it's hardly an unheard-of usage (eg, [120]. A pretty good example of why editors whould check rather than flying off the handle about things they don't like.

I therefore propose that User:SimonTrew be topic banned from matters related to Neelix redirects. Their editing has been grossly irresponsible; their refusal to do appropriate checks before their nominations is clear; their nomination statements are inaccurate, disruptive, and irrational; their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil, and they have refused to engage in discussion. This behavior does not improve the encyclopedia; it has become a pointless personal jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from SimonTrew but I have seen the code word "Neelix" being used indiscriminately in redirect deletion nominations and deletion edit summaries as if the redirect then automatically requires deletion. It's not always an appropriate or a sufficient explanation for deleting a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll also ping Sphilbrick and DGG as I see they've had some recent involvement in the discussion of RfDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Si Trew's heart is in the right place, but he (1) thinks he's funny and has a tendency to belittle and insult anyone he feels doesn't appreciate his lame attempts at comedy (probably the most notorious example), (2) shoots from the hip sometimes without engaging in due diligence (as evidenced by all the above), and (3) has a tendency to flare up in really bizarre ways when people don't agree with him (example which springs to mind, but you can find plenty of others just by dip-sampling his user talk contributions). He does do valuable support in the often thankless but necessary field of cleaning up redirects, and with that in mind I wouldn't object as an alternative to a "no attempts at comedy anywhere other than on your own talk page" restriction; as one of the admins who did the original batch delete of the notorious Tumorous titties redirect-farm which kicked the whole investigation into Neelix off, I can appreciate that it's hard to deal with the sheer volume of Neelix's disruption without getting snappy at times. (As I said at the time—and was opposed by Si Trew, as it happens—I feel that in some ways it would have been better for all concerned to run a damnatio memoriae bot to undo everything Neelix ever created, even though that would mean losing good along with bad; the timesink created by sorting the good from the bad is staggering and nowhere near complete.) ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  (Adding) @Liz:, "Neelix" is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects (see WP:G6). The full wording is any redirects created by Neelix if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. Without it, WP:RFD would grind to a halt; there are literally thousands of these things that need cleaning up. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Add this to Hullaballoo's evidence above (admin only, as it was a no-brainer revdelete for its obnoxiousness). ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, some of that is still visible, and still very inappropriate. [121]. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted hundreds of inappropriate redirects created by Neelix back in 2015 so I know that they numbered in the tens of thousands and many (but not all) are not useful. But I don't think just dropping a Neelix mention in a RfD nomination is a valid reason alone for deletion but that's my point of view. At the minimum though, Si should slow down. Just yesterday, at RFD he was responsible for 18 of the 20 nominations and those are only the redirects he thinks might be controversial, he CSDs more than that. Looking at the six pages full of redirects that Anomie has put together, it's evident that more need to be cleared out but I still think that we should only be deleting or nominating inappropriate redirects and those need to be evaluated independently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll start my comments by confessing to two biases, both in my opinion modest, but worth disclosing. First, I might have contributed to SimonTrew's approach. I'm well aware that doing a mindless task too long can be mindnumbing. Si's approach was to try to inject a little humor into an otherwise mindnumbing task. I'm probably guilty of encouraging him, as I thought some of the early efforts were humorous. YMMV.

My second bias is that while there are not many things in Wikipedia that make me angry, seeing yet another Neelix redirect makes me see red. In my opinion, we as a community failed in the general response. Given the magnitude of the problem, and the rarity of plausible redirects, plus the observation that a missing redirect is exceedingly innocuous, I would've preferred that we mass delete all of them and let anyone create the small handful that might have been appropriate. The community disagreed and I accept that, but it is quite sad that so many, many hours of valuable volunteer time have been sucked up by this cleanup. (I wrote this before seeing that Iridescent has made the same point, earlier and more eloquently.)

Now that I have that off my chest, I've tried to read the CSD nominations without bias, and I believe the vast majority of the Neelix nominations have been valid.

It is possible to carry something genuinely humorous too far, and if some do not find it humorous, that point will be earlier than for those who do find it humorous, so it might be wise for side to back off on the humor attempts. (As an aside my family would find it quite humorous that I am giving advice on humor; I am notoriously bad at it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: "Without [the Neelix CSD], WP:RFD would grind to a halt": That doesn't fit with history at all, RfD thrived long before Neelix redirects were called into question and it should continue to thrive long after (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log). If a redirect doesn't meet one of the WP:R#DELETE or WP:RFDOUTCOMES it generally isn't deleted at RfD. "'Neelix' is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects": It's a criteria for speedy deletion, most of the "Neelix" redirects listed at RfD either obviously don't qualify for it (i.e. don't explicitly meet an WP:R#DELETE or seem truly implausible) or have been declined, so it actually doesn't have much bearing on RfD discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have no intent whatseover of trawling through all these nominations, but one that came up on my watchlist was this one. This was a redirect from a moved page, with incoming links. Had it been speedied it would have left behind a number of redlinks that have no need to be red. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Another one on my watchlist is this where the reason given for deletion is "because Neelix redirect. Just because someone died into the title ain't supplied, it is just normal then to state in main text, there one can relate" which is gibberish. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Simon is doing a thankless task. No one is nominating redirects ONLY because Neelix created them, but tagging his name at RfD is very helpful as if good arguments to delete are advanced Admins often speedy the redirect. We should have mass deleted the whole lot of the redirects but that has not been done. Instead people come here attacking the people working on the cleanup. Oh and now we find his templates are misleading garbage too - see TfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding gibberish rationales on valid redirects should go unthanked. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not quite a thankless task User:Legacypac it is a bit of a sod but that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Neelix in no way made them in bad faith he made them in good faith but we have to decide what to do with them, about eighty percent go CSD, ten percent I tag as keep, the other fifteen percent I list at RfD. (That makes 105% but I keep the shilling from the guinea if that is OK with you). Yes it is not hard work but very boring for both admins and for people like me who speak a lot of languages so have to try to explain in English why a redirect does not make sense in French and so on. I don't mind it, but considering I created things like Old Rouen Tramway and Mariniere out of WP:PNT from French I am not quite as green as I am cabbage looking and I am a bit offended if people think I am. What do I have to have a pic on my user page showing how ugly I look? Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The two that came up on my watchlist, as I linked above, were perfectly valid redirects resulting from pagemoves. They have incoming links, so are serving the proper purpose of redirects. There was no way they were eligible for speedy deletion, and the "rationale" I quoted above makes no sense whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I thought one or two of his earlier comments were quite funny, but I think he has gone a bit further than that. I've just come from his talk page, after I declined an apparently irrelevant CSD request (possibly posted on the wrong page), and left a message about that and a request to tone things down. After saving, I noticed that DGG had already made a similar comment, and saw Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's link to here. I hope that Si takes notice of us and cools things somewhat before a topic ban is imposed. If he doesn't, there's probably no other way. I've declined some Neelix redirects as there are some that are valid, and the rest that aren't at least aren't totally undermining the foundations of the encyclopaedia. They're silly to us, but were probably made in good faith by Neelix. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

My reply and I probably have it in the wrong section. I have no doubt that Neelix made them in good faith, they are a bit mindniming after you do about sixty or seventy a night. The user User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who proposed me for a topic ban I do not believe is in good faith, probably just not quite understanding that when I propose at CSD I tend to list in rhyme and such so that the poor old admins such as User:Sphilbrick can at least get a bit of fun with my really bad poetry. I am starting to assume bad faith with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz because usually it is bold, revert, discuss, with several admins I know from editing over the years (on Wikipedia not personally) the little rhymes and things amuse, when CSD is not abuse. What User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is WP:HOUNDING frankly. If you have a look at my talk page or that user's talk page any question I ask is immediately reverted by that user so I am starting to lose good faith. I was actually thinking that user was a sockpuppet of User:Neelix. I have no problem with Neelix, he in good faith edited and made the encylopaedia a lot better, that was when we didn't have a search engine that nearly worked. He has fetishes for breasts such as I have listed in CSD tonight, but he was in no manner a bad faith editor, there are plenty of top-shelf magazines if you want to do that, you are hardly likely to do it on Wikipedia are you. When I say "Neelix nonsense" that is just really Wikipedia jargon under the WP:66 Neelix concession but I do not understand why, as someone who probably contributes not only to WP:RFD but to WP:PNT and have translated articles from Latin, Hungarian, Spanish, French and some weirdo language they speak in Wales that I am not qualified, under the Neelix concession to list things at RfD.

I believe User:Sphilbrick is an admin and I am not asking for his backup I am man enough to argue for myself, but Sphilbrick seemed to appreciate the little jokes I put in the listings at CSD, which I have been making ever more rime riche. I am not asking for any kinda special treatment, what actually I am worried about is whether User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz actually is an admin or not, which seems something that user will not say. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo has been accusing quite a lot of people around wp and does not respond to queries posted on his talk page.This user does not assume good faith and has been known to disruptivEly edit the encyclopedia, as his block log suggests. I would also like to point out that the username suggests that the user posesses a grudge against the admins and this Indiscriminate harassment of new users may be more of a personal vendatta rather than a desire to work witb the community for improving the encyclopedia.-Account2235 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a keen observation, Account2235, especially since you've been an editor for one day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I am a keen observer as you can observe the user has something about WP's administrators in his signature which prompted the research into this users contributions one thing led to another and 2 days later here I am with all this information.Also note that I had an altercation with the user:Hullaballoo and my view may have been influenced by it.--Account2235 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: You can check if an editor is an admin via Special:ListUsers. clpo13_(talk) 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

{@Cylpo: I deliberately didn't. There is a kinda well I may have it the wrong way but that the user is or is not an admin I believe he or she is not. Then, that user cannot take my things out of CSD and listing at ANI is absurd. I will start defending myself. I do not believe that that user is an admin therefore I do not think that user had any right to speedily keep my listings under the WP:G6 concession to then as a user who has no administration rights then speedily to delete them, I think that is abuse of process and I would list that user here were it not for the fact that user is not an admin. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. The reason I list in rhyme and so on is it is a hard job for the admins to plough through the redirects as much as it is for me to list them. I believe that this user who has declined my nominations at CSD is playing on admin rights without quite saying so because this user never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible to discuss this user's behaviour. I am not standing on cerermony but I genuinely believe that this user does not quite "get it" what we do to make the encylopaeidia better. I don't care what is listed at the CSD's that was because User:Sphilbrick said that I don't want to put words in that user's mouth but something like "I must admit usually at CSD I just roll my eyes but yours always make me crack up". Now, what am I to do? Of course I want it to be simple for admins to delete things but I have to offer reasonable explanation and if I do it in canto, rime riche, iambic pentameter or limerick, so what? That does not make me a bad editor. What makes someone a bad editor is that whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start. Si Trew (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm getting pissed off. Si Trew has repeatedly posted comments such as that I "never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible" and "whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start". I have never deleted "a talk conversation" started by Si Trew, anywhere (unless he's also one of the anon/IP vandals who show up regularly on my talk page). I have never reverted anything on his user talk page; I've just checked my contribution history over the last two years, and I've only made two edits to his talk page, both in the last two days, both template notices which removed nothing from it. I've responded to several of Si Trew's request (despite his often failing to notify me of the discussions, and sometimes actively aboiding notifying me User_talk:Alcherin#CSD_redirects_by_you_know_who; Si Trew has generally ignored my responses and refused to engage, until I opened the ANI discussion. It is frankly next to impossible to take such comments in good faith. When did it become acceptable to so brazenly make such false accusations against other editors? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Si Trew, any editor can remove a CSD tag if it has been wrongly applied. Misapplied CSD tags can result in the deletion of valid pages so it's important that pages that are tagged incorrectly be untagged if there are questions about the tag's appropriateness. And to show I'm not biased, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed two CSD tags I had applied to redirects. I disagree with his reasons but he had a right to evaluate them and judge whether they were incorrect (of course, he was wrong this time but he has the right!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Si Trew thread arbitrary break

• Trew is doing a truly awesome job at RfD,and he has the innate ability to sift shit from piss over there. Trew's wry/dry humor is only for the cognoscenti so don't sweat it. Luridaxiom (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• SimonTrew is using his multiple language abilities on tackling all the Neelix Latin redirects I was afraid to touch. Turns out Neelix's Latin was as bad as his breast fetish and obsession with srewing around with subjects names in strange ways. They are like redirecting Bears and Sun bears at Polar Bears. When processing 50,000 redirects we are bound to mAke the occasional bad call, so let's not get too excited over the occasional questionable CSD. If some potentially valid redirect gets turfed with the misleading crap, the project will not fall apart. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I disagree with the Neelix bashing that goes on at RfD, and have never personally engaged in it, but many users do. I would suggest a blanket statement that everyone at RfD should limit their Neelix directed comments to "(Neelix redirect)", but SimonTrew shouldn't be singled out. Si Trew's contributions to RfD are irreplaceable and of high value. Topic banning them from any discussions there would be a net-negative to the forum.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Everyone makes errors,and I have from time to time had discussions with SimonTrew about a few of his. But considering the amount of excellent work that he has been doing in cleaning up the remnants of the utter mess that Neelix left us with, I can not consider this blameworthy , nor can I imagine that if I were doing the amount of work he has been doing on this that I would do any better. All that is necessary is a reminder to go just a little slower, and bring any possibly doubtful cases to RfD. (the doubtful cases seem primarily those where Neelix made one of his ill-advised redirects but accidentally happened to create one that was actually useful. Distinguishing this can sometimes take subject knowledge and therefore need discussion.) DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If SimonTrew were creating silly redirects I would happily support a ban, but we should give the cleaner a great deal of slack when helping to reverse the absurdities dumped on the encyclopedia by Neelix. While redirects are cheap, the idea that every possible phrase should be made a redirect is unhelpful and it is better that the excesses of the past be cleaned up. If someone really wants to paste "Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria" into the URL and go to the right page, what about Maria Sophie Amalie Duchess in Bavaria and all the other possibilities? Wikipedia's search mechanism is improving, and it should be able to handle most useful cases. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (sort of) Can we just implement a restriction that SimonTrew is required to knock off the humour and leave relevant (and comprehensible) edit summaries? Since that is the main issue. A relevant summary would indicate he knows and understands what he is doing, and would stop annoying others when he does make the occasional mistake. (Actually forcing him to describe what he is doing might help prevent said mistakes). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claiming that "their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil" is almost breathtaking in its irony. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - You can't really blame the bloke for trying to have a laugh after going through the thousands of redirects all "kindly" created by Neelix, I personally would've preferred for all of the redirects to be nuked regardless of whether they were actually helpful or not but unfortunately wasn't the case, Anyway I would suggest SimonTrew perhaps knocks off the humour just a notch but other than that I don't really see a problem and don't really see anything that says "Yes this editor needs to be topicbanned", Also Topicbanning him would mean the Neelix-sorting would take even longer ..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Can there at least be an acknowledgment that some of the explanations for the nominations are practically gibberish? Some are nonsensical. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz I agree some don't make the blindest bit of sense at all but I had a feeling someone somewhere would've been offended etc which is why I left it out entirely but yes the edit summaries/comments need to make sense ... well much more sense really.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose He's doing a bang-up job finding all of Neelix's incorrect redirects. KoshVorlon 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - meh. From memory, this is not the first time OP has suggested a topic ban related to Neelix redirects against overwhelming consensus that they should be tagged and deleted in exactly this manner; Legacypac can probably refresh me on that one. Having personally sifted through a few hundred or thousand or so of Neelix's redirects and the associated RfD discussions since the start, I assure you that "because Neelix" is indeed perfectly valid rationale - some of the redirects he created are so mind-numbingly ridiculous that we created a special deletion criterion for them which amounts to "because Neelix". Because it's not worth anyone's time to try to go through them individually, but Gotch bless users like LP and Si Trew who are trying anyway. SimonTrew: if I could offer one more bit of advice to you from this thread, I advise to assume when applying Neelix-related G6 tags to assume that whichever user reviews will not know anything about Neelix, nor be able to decipher your humour. A clear rationale allows a reviewer to quickly say "yes, this is G6" or "no, I disagree with this rationale and here's why". The "here's why" of course is just as important. Meanwhile, making any revert with an edit summary "absolute blithering incompetence" is a clear personal attack and entirely unwarranted, not to mention not a valid reason to remove a CSD tag. Also unwarranted personal attacks issued in Hullaballoo's edit summaries are "rv idiocy", "it's evident that the nom is either utterly irresponsible or competency-challenged", "per WP:COMPETENCE", "per WP:COMPETENCE" again, "timewasting and nonconstructive", "abusively hasty speedy tagging", "incoherent and invalid", not all of which have been levelled at SimonTrew but at other users tagging articles in good faith. Maybe if the burden of non-admin patrolling CSD is weighing on Hullaballoo, they should take a break. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse the above wholeheartedly. Just how is an admin doing the mind-numbing task of patrolling CAT:CSD supposed to react to a deletion rationale like This well known brand of tum antacid is now a Neelix, I'm not placid, this makes nonsense of the targ it don't make sense so thus I ask it be deleted swiftly by some admin who knows more than I (on a redirect to a French journalist) with anything other than the presumption that they've stumbled on a particularly peculiar piece of vandalism? ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose SiTrew's humor might simply not set well with everybody. I think anyone will harmlessly resort to humor if you try to clean up a lot of Redirects. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm that is very odd. When I go to my page or something it says it must be noted on the user's talk page that there is a discussion at ANI or something like that some banner. It was certainly not noted to me so I only actually found this ANI discussion by accident. User:Lenticel does a lot of good work over at RfD clearing up east asian language redirects so I think it is fair to declare an interest there but I have never met him or her just throough Rfd. Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew, you're a pal, but take care that you don't toss careless accusations, especially here. The notice on your page is here, and you replied to it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not me tossing the careless accusations. It is not me who brought another editor to ANI to explain myself. I should like to know whose careless accusations you mean. This is not Judge Judy. As it happens this has taken a lot of time of mine away from making the encylopaedia better, needlessly. You probably do not live in Hungary and have to speek Hungarian Roma and other languages before you get a loaf of bread. I do know what I am doing. The fact that a bad faith editor, as I suspected, cannot be bothered to reply to any conversation is not my problem.

The first thing when you work out a problem, is decide whose problem it is. If it is not yours, you can just walk away from it. I love editing Wikipedia so I am spending time to discuss the problem. I ain't accused anyone of anything. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a detailed explanation of why each Neelix redirect should be deleted, but sadly many of them are so indescribably stupid the best explanation I've come up with is "Neelix Nonsense"TM I've CSD'd hundreds of non-existent Neelix invented words, and we meep finding them. Simon Trew's worst nom's make more sense then many of the redirects. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it is the WP:G6 Neelix concession, that was put in place for six months and that six months is nearly finished. I am sorry that my humo(u)r may not go down so well with another editor who does not seem to bother to reply to anything but all this hullabaloo is just getting in the way. I Have to make a guarded choice when I list at CSD or RfD or speedily keep, otherwise we flood the whole lot. I am fed up with explaining myself, if you want to ban me, just ban me. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They won't and you won't be. And someone somewhere will continue to be treated like dirt by admins. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just steer clear of insults, and be plain enough for admins returning from the wilderness who missed the original screening of the show. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose SimonTrew is doing an excellent job and should be lauded for his non-technocratic style.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz has kinda criticised me on my talk page for having a few reverted this morning and I think it is only fair to notify that admin of the conversation here. I am just trogging through them and don't get everything right. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes she does seem to have got her teeth into you 151.230.93.81 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I made a comment Here - Point is that those who are deleting Neelix redirects will eventually get hoisted by their own petard. They are actually doing more harm than good. Tumorous titties obviously refers to Breast Cancer...Typing it into google, even with a typo confirms this...someone at google must think providing such a link is a good idea...Can someone answer, without pontificating, why we think it is a bad idea?...Ironically Neelix's problem was that he too underestimated how humourless many wikipedians are...anyways none of what I have said is any reason to ban/block or admonish anyone. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Bosley John Bosley, have you actually bothered to read what you're opposing? You're writing in support of Neelix, yet by opposing putting a brake on nominating his creations for deletion with joke rationales you're implicitly agreeing that they're not only pointless but so pointless as to be worthy of derision. ‑ Iridescent 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus, BJB, you clearly haven't the foggiest idea how Google works. EEng 13:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Er yes...the Irony was not lost on me...so much so that I added "Ironically" after my first read through...I thought Google was based on an recursive algorithm... Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What Google's based on defies explanation here, but it sure has nothing to do with what "someone at Google must think" about various things. EEng 13:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

...Hmm...setting me up to fail there were you. Guardian articles have been hidden by Google... "someone at Google must think" it would be wise to take into account the EU's right to be forgotten. I think it might be you who needs the fog clearing. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You're setting yourself up just fine all by yourself. The article you link was about Google being ordered to suppress certain search results, which has nothing to do with "what someone at Google thinks" about a given result's worth. Anyway, this has nothing to do with why "tumerous titties" leads to info on breast cancers, which was via an automated process, obviously. EEng 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral. I hate having to be neutral on this, especially since I am quite familiar with Mr. Si Trew and like him. But ... Vitreous (boss) wasn't created by Neelix. It was tagged by Si for deletion due to being a Neelix redirect, but wasn't created by or even touched by Neelix. My cautious side makes me think that if there was one erroneous tag, others could have happened. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: you're probably right but it was on the infamous Anomie list. I do check the hist and look up but I get it wrong occasionally. It still makes no sense so it is better off deleted. It is not as if it is vitreous enamel. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Steely I don't mind if you are neutral you shouldn't hate yourself for that everyone's entitled to my own opinion. To agree to disagree is what we should do at Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

OP posting personal attacks in edit summaries

moving to new thread Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Culi

Hi. I am having some issues with Leonard culi (talk · contribs · logs). The editor persistently fails/ignores to update timestamps despite messages at their talkpage, thus introducing factual errors in a BLP. Examples include [122], [123], [124] and much more.

The reason I bring this here, is because the editor was created when 217.73.143.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a month, after persistently doing the same thing and shorter blocks where not helping. Also today a very similar IP adress 217.73.143.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was editing the exact same articles in the same discruptive manners.

Articles are many, including

• Edvan Bakaj
• Erjon Vuçaj
• Gjergji Muzaka
• Gilman Lika
• Senad Sallaku
• KF Tirana
• ...

and I think it would be better with a block instead of semi-protection as it spans over several articles. Perhaps a rangeblock (if possible) and perhaps the account should also be blocked?

I leave the decisions up to admin, but in my mind something has to be done. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look? Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Bump. Qed237 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been three days; he hasn't edited since your AN/I notice. No blocks now. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm the Gyergii Muzakii is not Hungarian that would be Gyorgy Musak or something so these are all a bit nonsense Turkish? Not sure they are are any good at English Wikipedia. Tirana is the capital of Albania so it could be Albanian language but I am not sure these make much sense in English WP. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep these are all albanian. I think we can keep the ones without accents but the ones with the cedialla and so on

Erjon Vuçaj and Erjon Vuçaj make no sense as a useful search term in English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops this is my fault mea culpa I thought I was over at RfD. None of these are redirects. I dunno why they are at ANI I just came across them because I hang around at RfD, but yes these are all Albanian. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What, yu lookin' for work or sumthin'?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Persimmon plc

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

---

Hi - Please can an administrator have a look at Persimmon plc. An IP keeps adding walls of opinion about the company. I have already reverted it once as has another editor. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked for 31 hours for reasons described at User talk:176.249.158.119. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 15 May 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.

Aggressive revert warring of a possible COI user

New Valery Surkoff (talk · contribs) instantly reverts cleanup tags from the bio they created. The page is an orphan, so probably nobody sees it. Please intervene. I can no longer reinsert them, because I will be in 3RR violation. Judging from this account activity in internet elsewhere and from the zealous attitude to the article I suspect COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are both edit warring so I posted notices to both of your talk pages. Valery Surkoff is a very new editor and I think it's important to provide them with information about editing. Right now, almost all of the messages on their talk page are warnings from you. This article, Dmitry Polyakov, needs the participation of more editors and hopefully this notice will bring some attention to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz, I think it's a poor idea to warn users who do their best to contain some highly disruptive editing, and then come here for help. Valery Surkoff had repeatedly removed tags about the lack of references (it's a BLP totally without references) and about the article being an orphan, with some very strange edit summaries,[125] and Staszek Lem had restored these tags. The removals were so disruptive that I'd invoke common sense on that score.

If you'd like to take on explaining things in a simple manner to Valery Surkoff, that would be great. I tried to explain my block today for continued edit warring, but I guess they didn't understand, and understandably weren't in the mood to. As you say, they're very new, and they're also very aggressive. They said at the AfD that the disagreement about keeping/deleting the article was "similar to the third world war",[126] and have offered an absurd conspiracy theory about tag teaming against them at WP:ANEW.[127] Maybe you can talk them down. I'm inclined to share Staszek Lem's suspicion of COI, but possibly just a fan. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

It is rather unbelievable to have such an aggressive fan of a classical music performer nowadays. Think parent or boyfriend, or even self. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR

User:MehrdadFR is a very problematic editor, who does not appear willing or ready to reform his behavior.

• On the article Public executions in Iran, he has consistently removed well-sourced information from the human rights organization Amnesty International[128], using edit summaries like "rv propaganda", "rv professional liar", "removed false and propagandist material"
• On the page Violence against LGBT people, he removed an image of regarding the execution of two Iranian teenagers (Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni) that allegedly engaged in homosexuals acts with the edit summary "pedophile rapists".[129]. After the image was restored by User:Good Olfactory, Mehrdad removed it again without explanation.[130]
• In Hijab by country, blanked non-controversial information pertaining to Iran without explanation.[131]
• On the page Ahmad Vahidi, remove well sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement in the AMIA bombing, falsely citing WP:BLP in his edit summary.[132]

What can be done regarding this problematic editor? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid only problematic editor here is Plot Spoiler. Point by point:

• There's an explanation Talk:Public executions in Iran#False claims about alleged "beheading in Iran" which is pure fantasy and unfounded in Iranian law (fully available online). When someone is insisting on disputable information and avoiding conversation on talk page, then we can surely speak about propaganda intentions.
• Removing image from Violence against LGBT people was consulted with administrator Good Olfactory (here and here).
• It was blanked because it was biased and without sources. I personally rewritten edited whole section based on first-class academic sources.
• In article Ahmad Vahidi nothing was removed, sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol exists below in text and there's no any dispute about it. Only issue I see is putting it in WP:LEAD because there are much more important information for leading section.

Issues related to Plot Spoiler's editing can be seen here on UANI history where he systematically tries to censor all criticism. Similar problems exist here and so on. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And even after this request, MehrdadFR is engaging grossly POV editing, like this[133]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's properly sourced and factually undisputed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And continues to engage in WP:edit warring and remove well-sourced information on Public executions in Iran without proper talk-page discussion, edit summaries, and against consensus.[134] Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He needs to get blocked for | his BLP violating edit summary. On this talk page he shows a google page as evidence of his claim, which I won't repeat, problem is, this page doesn't support his claim in the slightest.KoshVorlon 16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon, whilst I agree that many of MehrdadFR's edits reasons are needlessly judgemental and PoV, and at times bizarre, in fact HRW and AmnInt do accept that the two young men hanged PROBABLY engaged in non-consensual sex with the 13 yr old boy (though is a 14 yr old a paedophile?). Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, Mehrdad grossly violating policy by calling using "pedophile" appellation for executed individuals, without even proper references[135]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mehrdad seems to be an Iranian nationalist attempting to whitewash his country.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

According with MehrdadFR's edits, he/she has some sort of WP:COI to deleting sourced material without any explanation more than "its bias or propaganda", material which has sources of respectable universities, organitations or newspapers, all in articles about Iran. Like this edit [136]. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see everything was explained two years ago, but still there are individuals who are persisting in pushing outdated misinformation. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III is malfunctioning

The bot is deleting my talk section deleted diff, in the talk page Talk:2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat. I don't understand why the bot deletes the entries, they are neither old or resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir-the-fair (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's curently set to archive threads not replied to after fifteen days. Which means the bot is not malfunctioning; it just means that no-one has replied to your post since. Happy Sunday!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded the time to 30 days. In the meantime, I'll look through and figure out where everything should be. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I've got everything. FYI Samir-the-fair, when material is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, it still exists in archives, and is not deleted. If you would like to prevent a thread from being archived, you can add a new timestamp (using five tildes ~~~~~), and the material will not be archived until 30 days after that. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 16:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent should be removed as an editor

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

---

Hi Wikipedia

I wrote an article about an algorithme, that I have developed while working on a project. I posted the working code, so anybody could see it was working. However to my big surprise I received a notice from wikipedia saying that the user by the name Iridescent had deleted the article based on A11? I invented an algorithme, it is working fine (the code I provided in the article prove that). Beside that the article was written in danish and I am sure Iridescent doesn't speak danish so he wouldn't understand anything of the article. Based on those 2 facts I strongly advice you to remove Iridescent as an editor.

Regards David Hyldkrog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cop77 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Context here, and the article in question is David Hyldkrogs algoritme. Note that (1) the article is written entirely in Danish, (2) there's an obvious conflict of interest, and (3) Cop77 explicitly states that this is something he made up four days ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's very clearly WP:OR, from Hyldkrog's own description above. BMK (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK, this was closed before I got my free shot at Iridescent--no fair. Censorship! What, Iridescent, you don't speak Danish? And you call yourself an administrator??? Favonian, please file the paperwork for this desysop--in Finnish of course. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 May 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 at linguistics articles

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

---

I've come across a pattern of disruptive editing at linguistics articles, notably at Hruso language and Sholaga language. In both of these articles, editors are edit warring to restore various kinds of inappropriate content. Shaiful Ali is adding lengthy notes about what sort of material ought to be added to the article at Hruso language, visible here for instance, while Av1995 has added large amounts of material having nothing whatever to do with the actual language at Sholaga language, visible for example here. This is being done as part of a school project, conducted by Chuck Haberl. The matter was raised at ANI a while ago (see here for the previous discussion), but nothing has been done to stop the ongoing disruption. I think some kind of intervention is needed, as this has become an aggravating problem for editors concerned with linguistics articles. At the very least, it would be proper to request that Chuck Haberl encourage his students not to edit disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Excuse me. I am Av1995. I am not editing disruptively at all. I was told to research about the language and very little is known about Sholaga, yet however more information is known about the people who speak the language. So my research has highlighted that. To conclude, the final assignment was to compile my research onto the wiki stub. All of the information I have put on the page has to do with Sholaga or about it's speakers, the Soliga tribe. My categories are: classification of the languge(Sholaga), names of the language other than Sholaga, The Soliga Tribe which I have clearly provided information about as the speakers of the language, Geographical Distribution which is where the language is spoken, examples being words translated from english to sholaga, and current events which includes how the Soliga Tribe's children who speak Sholaga are being assimilated into society. Lastly I end with my references and external links. I have shown you how every single section relates to the language Sholaga and therefore should in no way be considered inappropriate or disruptive to the current topic of the article. Please stop deleting my edits as I have not put all of the info up as a waste of time. I spent time researching and learning about the language too. If you want to, you may reference my links to question my information. But this is a very strict request to stop taking all my edits away. Thank you.

Av1995, there are two obvious ways that your edits at Sholaga language have been disruptive. Firstly, you have added content that has nothing to do with the Sholaga language, for instance, "The Soliga tribe used the penis of the Sambar deer to treat hydrocele. They also used the flesh of the House crow to treat anemia. The Soliga Tribe is extremely intelligent and knows much about their environment and the use of resources in its community." That is a very good example of something that does not belong in an article about a language. It is not linguistic information. The fact that it relates to the speakers of the language does not make it appropriate to a specifically linguistic article. Secondly, you have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, and have reverted multiple users after they removed your additions. You reverted Kwamikagami here and me here. That is not an appropriate thing to do. If your edits are reverted, you need to discuss the dispute on the talk page, especially when multiple editors revert you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I did not make the entire article about that? That was one section of my edit. And I am new to wikipedia so I apologize if I did something wrong. I am unfamiliar on how to talk on the talk page. However, only the two of you have reverted me. Av1995 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Soliga's use of the penis of the Sambar dear to treat hydrocele is non-linguistic information. It does not belong in an article about a language at all. The fact that you did not completely fill up the article with information about the medical uses of animal penises does not make it appropriate. The talk page of Sholaga language can be found here. Click on the blue word "here" and it will take you to the page. You should have raised the issue on the talk page as soon as you were reverted. Respecfully, multiple users reverting your edits is generally considered a good reason to stop making the edit on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Av1995: FHC is correct - you are being disruptive. I've left a message on your talk page explaining our policy on edit warring and the three-revert rule. We were all new here once and we understand you're a student. However, you are in danger of being blocked from editing, so stop this blind reverting and listen to what the other collaborators are trying to tell you. Katie^talk 09:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm the instructor in question. FHC summoned me to this conversation. I've been working for several months now with Adam Hyland and the Wiki Education Foundation, and I've noticed a pattern of disruptive behavior as well.

• An inexperienced (but well-meaning) editor makes changes to a stub page;
• An experienced (but overzealous) editor reverts all of the new editor's revisions, often without explanation, but sometimes with abusive language (such as claiming that edits made in good faith are actually "disruptive," "unencyclopaedic," or "graffiti," in the hopes of flagging the new editor for punitive measures);
• The new editor either gives up, frustrated beyond hope, and never makes another edit ever again, or re-reverts the perplexing and ill-explained reverts, opening herself to punitive measures. The overzealous editor(s) then uncharitably declares this to be a "revert war" (despite knowing that they are likely dealing with a new editor operating in good faith) and use the new editor's lack of experience to get her blocked from editing.

This is *not* collaborative. It is, in fact, the very opposite of collaboration. It's obvious to me, with all the prurient discussion of deer penises above, that you have an excellent idea of what is "unencyclopaedic" and what is "encyclopaedic," exceeding that of the average newcomer; if you had spent as much time removing only these elements as you clearly have spent trying to get my students punished, then Wikipedia would have some new editors, a few more collaboratively-edited articles, and a whole lot more good will. That is obviously not the tack that you have decided to take here.Chuck Haberl (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'll take a look at the activity above and check back shortly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Without a comment on the quality of the edits or the nature of the response, these issues can be defused if students don't edit to re-insert their contributions without taking to the talk page first. That's hard, because it puts the onus on the new editor to recognize what is happening, why and engage and allows the more experienced editors to wait and review changes. But if a contribution has multiple problems which might merit heavy revision or removal and it is reverted, re-inserting it will only make the communication problem harder. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Adam (Wiki Ed), why don't student editors simply work on Draft articles or ones in their User space? Then, their instructor can see their work but they won't run into obstacles that occur when they try to make big changes on narrowly defined subjects. Then the instructor or a Wikipedia volunteer can make suggestions or point out problems in their work and the new editors won't run into experienced, "overzealous" editors who are just trying to protect the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz. That's normally our suggestion for work like this where a student aims to completely overhaul a page or create a new one. We were not involved with the course when it started up initially and reached out to Chuck in the course of the semester. I suspect that future classes where students use on our training and materials from the start will more heavily involve user sandboxes. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I was originally inclined along those lines, but the tutorial you guys asked me to follow suggested that it was better to get the students involved in editing Wikipedia directly as fast as possible (or did I get something horribly, horribly wrong?). It would have gone better for these students if they had started by making incremental changes to the page first, as I suggested from the start of the semester, rather than large scale revisions at the very end, but as it happens there is currently no way for faculty to mandate that students complete their work in advance rather than submitting it only when it is due.

This is actually the third year I've run this course, and just about every aspect of it works better each year EXCEPT for the Wikipedia part. The first year, in which there were only 30 students and I could monitor things more closely, worked quite well, but the following two years have been trying, to put it lightly. My sense is that the more engaged editors here prefer the stark, clean lines of a stub to what they perceive as amateurish edits, so they revert first and ask questions later. Students panic (because they perceive the other editors' interventions as vandalism), they re-revert, and then the veterans escalate the situation and I get emails (and the ones from Wikipedia editors are seldom very pleasant when it comes to intruders on "their" territory). It basically leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

At its base, it's a problem with the culture, more than anything else. In future years, I'll host a private wiki on our learning management system (we use Sakai) and let the students do their thing without provoking these kinds of unavoidable conflicts.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Haberl, it is quite clear that your students have been editing disruptively at multiple articles. I have attempted, at the talk pages of both Hruso language and Sholaga language, to explain to your students why their edits have been problematic. Shaiful Ali simply ignored me at the talk page of Hruso language, while I had a short and unproductive exchange with Av1995 at the talk page of Sholaga language. Shaiful Ali and Av1995 have both edit warred to restore their changes, and in both cases they've done this even after being reverted by multiple users. That is disruptive behavior. Pointing that out is simply pointing out a fact, not being "abusive". I agree that one has to exercise some tolerance and understanding with new users, but that is different from defending disruptive editing, as you unfortunately appear to be doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For crying out loud... you're the one who has appointed yourself "guardian" of these pages, you should have put in a token effort to make yourself clear to the new editor, if you were going to take the responsibility in the first place. And calling a couple of reverts an "edit war" is pretty rich.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Haberl: FreeKnowledgeCreator and the other editors put in much more than a token effort to explain the changes to Sholaga language, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. The student's explanation for what appeared to every wikipedian involved as disruptive editing, was:

"[I] was only trying to keep it as the way I had edited it because my professor had said he would grade our finals today and that page was my final."

True, this doesn't seem to have happened on the majority of the pages edited by the other students in this project, but it nevertheless leads me to think that similar incidents could in future be prevented if it's emphasised to students that their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it sticks around or not. Uanfala (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed emphasized that exact point at several points throughout the semester, Uanfala.Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not, however, go so far as to say that all of the other editors put in even a token effort. The stage was set when, after three days of sustained edits on the part of my student, ALL of her effort was summarily reverted by one of your veteran editors, who justified his move with only a few words in the in-group house jargon of a certain class of Wikipedia editors ("rv. non-encyclopedic edits and content forking"). This immediately put her on the defensive and the rest is history.

I appreciate that Wikipedians have aspirations to professionalism, but this is so far removed from my own professional experience both as a writer and an editor, having contributed entries to reputable, peer reviewed journals, and edited entire scholarly volumes as well as authored monographs and journal articles, that I'm not sure what standard of "professionalism" the Wikipedian community is aiming for. If I or one of my past editors had treated a submission made in good faith in the cavalier way that he routinely does, we would likely not have a job in our industry for very long. Editing requires much more than just an encyclopedic content knowledge, it demands patience and close reading, and by reverting my students' work in this manner, he has paradoxically demonstrated that these are attributes he is lacking. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should be a better teacher then. If your students are routinely editing disruptively by Wikipedia's standards, they should probably ask for their money back. Really now, one of them thought 'use of penis' was acceptable in a linguistics article? That is so far beyond a joke. Here is a quick tip: 1st lesson of editing wikipedia - if material you add is removed, do not keep replacing it without talking to someone competent. Although really from the examples listed it looks like they did speak to multiple competent editors, they just did not listen. In short, your students are required to adjust to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not required to adjust to your students. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hah, hah! "You should be a better teacher!" "They should probably ask for their money back." My sides! Highly original, no educator has ever been told that before! Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite proud of my students. There were over 120 registered for this course this semester, and near as I can tell, the overwhelming majority made material contributions to the articles on a variety of endangered languages. I've just graded them. It would appear that only one or two engaged in plagiarism, and inadvertently at that (that is, they freely copied and pasted passages of text, but with attribution, which they felt gave them some degree of cover. They were wrong, but they weren't intending to deceive). Those passages were struck down rather quickly and they were informed of their transgression.

Your criticism is where you really fall short of the mark. For all I know, Only in death does duty end, you could in fact be an award-winning educator. If that were the case, though, you'd understand that education isn't just a data dump, from a "sage on a dais" into a pool of passive and completely receptive students, but rather a collaborative process whereby the educator facilitates the students' learning and assesses their progress as they gradually acquire competency in the material. As much as I would like to give every student an "A," at the end of the day some simply won't become conversant in the subjects covered by the course, and their grades have to reflect that. That's ultimately on them, not me; my students are all adults and most of them know that they have to take responsibility for their own performance. That's really what separates adults from children, more than anything they could possibly learn in my classroom.

That's leaving aside the question of whether you've actually ever had the pleasure of taking one of my courses. Chances are that you have not. In 14 years of teaching I've probably only had a thousand or so students. Given that you likely have no direct knowledge of my profession or of me as an educator, you're probably not in a position to criticize anything. Get back to me once you've accomplished as much as I have in the classroom or you've actually seen me in action. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Get back to me when you get off your high horse. You are running a course that requires (and I assume gives credit for) editing wikipedia. It is not even close to being on the scale of a worthwhile use of a students time. And editing badly judging by the above. Your student's editing is directly related to your quality of teaching. Since you have failed in a not insignificant number of occasions to teach them basic editing skills, and you yourself lack a basic understanding of Wikipedia processes, from BRD through to editor interaction and civility, even the most novice of editors can criticise you. Let us not mention you clearly edited articles on which you had a blatant conflict of interest, so add COI to the list. You yourself state you have the same problems with your students editing wikipedia year after year. Well given the students change, frankly that is your fault. So please stop bleating about how great an educator you are, because all the evidence displayed so far does not support that conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Only in death does duty end. There are no high horses here, only facts. This course syllabus, including the exercise, has been evaluated first by my department's Curriculum Committee (consisting of my peer educators in the department), the school-wide Curriculum Committee (which consists of educators specifically elected to that body by the faculty at large), the school-wide Core Curriculum Committee (which consists of educators appointed specifically for that purpose by the Executive Dean of the school), developers at the Office of Instructional and Research Technology (since it has an online section), and finally by popular vote of the faculty at large in our meeting at the end of each semester. This assignment and the course itself had to jump through all these hoops (five by my count) before it could run for the first time, and it has been running for three years now with remarkably few incidents like this. I think I'll trust the professional opinions of all these educators about what is and what is not a worthwhile use of a student's time over that of some random person on the internet.

Now, you tell me, which is more arrogant? A professional educator who has been teaching for over a decade, explaining what he does for a living, or someone who apparently doesn't understand even the basics of how higher education works but nonetheless feels entitled enough to lecture professionals about it? You should really stick to lecturing people about editing Wikipedia, at least you've demonstrated some level of proficiency at that, as opposed to anything else. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add the good folks at the Wiki Education Foundation, which exists solely to facilitate incorporating Wikipedia into classroom exercises such as mine, and with whom I've been working over the past few months. Apparently there are a few things about Wikipedia that even I can teach you! Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Chuck Haberl, the student who worked on Sholaga language must have had access to JSTOR. Perhaps you can point them to http://www.jstor.org/stable/603185, which looks (relatively speaking) like a goldmine. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely let him know. Hopefully our institution has access to that journal through our subscription to JSTOR. If not, there's always ILL.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, these articles should be tagged as works in progress at Rutger's so that (a) people know to leave them alone for the time being and (b) we can keep track of them to clean them up later. This was agreed to last year when we had the same problem. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what the tags on the talk page do? If a student editor behaves as if they aren't aware their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it gets reverted, I think it might be up to us to remind them. Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who "agreed" to that, but I'm opposed to anything in articlespace being marked as a "work in progress", and even more strongly opposed to any article not being able to be edited because some student is fiddling with it. We can accommodate students by having them copy the articles they're working on into userspace and having them work on them there, or they can work on them in mainspace and the instructor can monitor their contributions (and whether they're accepted) through the article's history, but under no circumstance should we present to the public an article that we know has mistakes in it, but that we're waiting for the "all clear" to fix. That's not what we're about. Our responsibility to the general public to present accurate information completely outweighs any responsibility we may have to students and their teachers - and, frankly, students are learning nothing at all about editing Wikipedia if they do it without being exposed to the give-and-take cf communal editing. BMK (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And Chuck Haberl: Wikipedia is sui generis. Its rules and culture make it unlike any other kind of writing experience you may have had. We are not a peer-reviewed journal, we are not (generally speaking) experts, and because of that, we have rules which (we hope) help to guarantee a quality product without those things.

If, for instance, a freelance writer used to publishing in general interest periodicals was to try to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal, I imagine that they might be as put off by the very different set of requirements in place there as you seem to be by the requirements of Wikipedia. Writing and editing here is not like writing and editing anywhere else, which really should be core of what you're teaching your students: drop you preconceptions, and learn what this new and different circumstance requires of you. No one's going to baby your students, most of us don't have time for that, but generally wew will explain things if we're approached nicely. However, if you come to us kicking and screaming because your contributions were immediately deleted because they sucked and weren't referenced (or whatever), we're not going to be inclined to lend a hand. Again, that's your responsibility to teach your students, and if you're not telling them that right off, you're not doing the job that needs to be done. BMK (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I and Adam (Wiki Ed) actually made that abundantly clear, on multiple occasions to the 120 students participating in this exercise, and I'm rather proud that most of the students successfully got the message and made substantial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. So far, two students have been called out for "disruptive editing," which is a tiny fraction of the whole involved in this exercise. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Kwami, I actually asked the students to tag these articles accordingly, as you requested we do last year, but your fellow editors protested this time around and had taken most of the tags down within a day or two. Sounds to me like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Chuck Haberl (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually after seeing this interaction On Chuck's talkpage I think there are bigger problems. 15zulu left a politely worded notification regarding Chuck's students and was met with sarcasm and abuse. Problems appear to be deeper than merely competence on the part of the editors, when the instructor evidences such disdain for Wikipedia's rules and community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing polite about 15zulu's message, it was a condescending and unnecessary intervention, and it only went downhill from there. If he had restricted his comments to Wikipedia policy, that would have been fine, but he decided to lecture me on academic integrity, something about which faculty members and students alike are reminded multiple times every semester. It's a bit like walking into a tailor's shop and lecturing the tailor on the craft of sewing. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, Chuck, I'm sure that's the way you remember it, but here's what really happened:

• 15zulu: "Fyi, I have reverted one of your students edits on Martha's Vineyard Sign Language due to the edits being straight copy-paste. This is copyright infringement and against Wikipedia policy. Just like students can't plagiarize on their essays, they can't plagiarize on their Wikipedia contributions. Please encourage your students to use their own words, to paraphrase, instead of copy-pasting. Thank you"
• You: "Holy shit, 15zulu, you mean to tell me that issues of academic integrity don't only apply to the essays that students submit in class? Say it ain't so! I've been teaching for 14 years and apparently I've been doing it wrong this whole time! I just told them to copy and paste whatever and not to worry about properly attributing anything. Thank you, thank you, thank YOU 15zulu for finally opening my eyes!"

So, you did indeed respond to 15zulu's polite attempt to help out what he thought was a relatively inexperienced editor (not knowing about your User:Leo Caesius account dating from 2004) with flat-out sarcasm. The discussion didn't "go downhill from there", you pushed it right to the bottom of the hill from your very first comment. It's quite apparent that you see any criticism or even a helpful suggestion as an attack on you, personally, and your abilities as an educator. I don;t know why that is, but it can be seen all over your talk page. BMK (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

He immediately stated that he believes that am I perfectly content with students committing plagiarism here and implies very strongly that I have been advising them to do so. I really don't see how that's at all "polite." Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Chuck, he neither said nor implied any such thing, although you may have taken it that way. Unbiased observers can see his exact words, and your all-out sarcastic blast of a response, above, or read the entire discussion on your talk page here and form their own opinions. Someone came by to help, and you hit him on the head with a shovel. BMK (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The condescending tone that he adopted right from the start (and continued throughout his discussion) was neither helpful nor appropriate. How exactly is the advice "FYI your students are plagiarists, stop telling them to plagiarize their Wikipedia assignments" supposed to be helpful? I'm just not seeing it. It's like helpfully advising someone that wife-beating is against the law.

If there had been an epidemic of plagiarism among my students, it might be appropriate to drop a message to the instructor to see what's up, but out of roughly 120 students (this year), near as I can tell there were only one or two such incidents (ever), inadvertent rather than deliberate. Kindly help me out here! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no "condescending tone" that's all in your mind, I'm afraid, and there's no need for you to rephrase what 15zulu said to make it sound worse, since the exact words are just above. This kind of argumentation really isn't worthy of you. BMK (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All right, BMK, let me explain how 15zulu's intervention first appeared to me, since that seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding here.

I created this profile a year ago solely for the purpose of this course, after more or less abandoning my old Wikipedia profile due to an organized campaign to trash it online. I have used this current profile for one or two other projects, but for the most part I'm only interested in using it to help students in this course. I tell my students to keep an eye out for it to let them know that I'm monitoring their submissions.

15zulu then posted an FYI on the Talk page associated with this course. From my perspective, it was if as if someone had walked into my classroom while I was lecturing, and announced to me and my students, "I can see that you're not really familiar with the Academic Integrity policy here. Might I suggest that you reacquaint yourself with it, and tell your students so they stop plagiarizing?" The visitor was apparently unaware that Academic Integrity policies are the one thing to be found on every course syllabus these days, as well as just about the only subject that gets addressed in each and every course offered on college campuses these days, from Astrophysics to Zoology. Adjudicating incidents of plagiarism and other violations of Academic Integrity are probably the one thing with which each and every faculty member will have to deal, at multiple points throughout his or her career, and probably on multiple occasions throughout each academic year. In short, it's like telling fish to be aware of the water surrounding them.

Perhaps you begin to see why pretty much any faculty member would be shocked at being told that their students "can't plagiarize on their Wikipedia contributions," especially in so public a venue (the profile that the instructor has informed them will be responsible for supervising them). Perhaps s/he intended it to be helpful, but it just seems utterly gratuitous to me.

When you combine this with my previous interactions with some spectacularly heavy-handed editors, and literally dozens of perhaps unnecessarily panicked emails from students who were seeing in some cases days of hard work summarily reverted without so much as a "how do you do," right in the middle of our grading period, you can perhaps see why I was simply not in the mood to be reminded for the 1,385,213th time that plagiarism is a "thing." I apologize to 15zulu for taking it out on him/her, even though I still think his/her intervention was completely and totally unnecessary. I'm willing to acknowledge that there are profound differences of "culture" between Wikipedia and a classroom, but in my defense I maintain that the space in which this intervention occurred was on the boundary between the two. Chuck Haberl (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

All very well and good, but this is not your classroom, you are the teacher to your students but not to other Wikipedia editors, and you need to assume good faith about the motivations of other editors who approach you, and not treat them as if their intention is to attack you.

In any case, your students really should have known in advance that such things could happen to them, and were even likely if their work wasn't up to snuff. Several times you've attributed reversions of your students' work to "heavy handed" Wikipedia editors, but you seem not to have taken onboard the simple fact that their responsibility is not to you or your students, their only responsibility is to make articles as good as they can be, and if that means the work of your students is wiped out (regardless of where they are in the grading period), then it was your responsibility, and that of nobody else, to explain to your students why it happened, and to teach them how to avoid it happening in the future. As I said above, sure, we're interested in assisting educators to teach their students how to edit Wikipedia, but that cannot be at the expense of the quality of the material we present to the public. It is our readers that we have an obligation to, not to your or your students, who must be secondary considerations.

I have frequently heard it said that to a certain extent, a teacher in the classroom is like the captain of a ship at sea, and that great leeway is given them in how they go about teaching. But you must face the fact that here, you are not the master of your own domain, here you have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. You said above that you've done this kind of thing for several years, and it gets better every year except for the Wikipedia part, with the clear implication that something about Wikipedia was impeding the smooth flow of your program. I think, perhaps, you might consider that the impediment is not Wikipedia (I've been here since 2005, and it essentially hasn't changed in those years) but your apparent unwillingness to accept the precepts of Wikipedia when it crosses over into your professional domain. I would assume that the folks at WikiEd bend over backwards to make these education projects work, but it's entirely unreasonable to expect the whole Wikipedia community to change the way it does things so that your students can be graded. BMK (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been seeing a lot of good faith assumed here, particularly among some of the more enthusiastic reverted, and it is absolutely, positively not true that any of us are given anything approaching "great leeway" in the way we teach. Ignoring for the moment the vast majority of faculty who are in insecure adjunct lines and don't have leeway over anything, education, including higher education, is probably the most heavily regulated industry in the country, with faculty answerable to multiple and competing levels of authority with regard to the content and delivery of their courses. You seem to have a very strange idea of what we do. Chuck Haberl (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take your word on that, as I have no particular expertise in education. Perhaps you, in turn, might like to take my word regarding the ins and outs of Wikipedia, as after 11 years and over 188K edits to almost 35K unique pages, I think I have a pretty good handle on the place, even if I do sometimes have problems coloring within the lines myself. BMK (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear on how I should take Chuck's apology to me since even though I've chosen not to speak to him since the 7th, he's continued to insult and attack me across three different pages, including this note less than a day ago:

It is a source of some small amusement to me that, after BMK and 15zulu paid visits to my Talk page to leave highly condescending and hostile messages, I discover that they have marked this page for deletion! Funny that it has basically sat around for ten years already with relatively little attention from editors until today. I guess these guys talk a good talk about "integrity" on Wikipedia but they don't actually walk it, misusing their volunteerism here to settle personal scores. "Nice little page you gots here, it would be a shame if it were NOMINATED FOR DELETION if you knows what I mean..." Sad!

To be clear, I only saw Charles Häberl because he edited his user page, which had the link. Since I had been conversing with him, I had the user talk page on my watchlist, thus his userpage edit appeared on my watchlist. When he commented on the lack of notability, I reviewed WP:PROF. Since I didn't find clear notability, I added the appropriate template, so references and notability would be added. I didn't mark his article for deletion, and given he voted for the article to be deleted, I'm unclear on why he's attacking me. He called my messages "highly condescending and hostile", but honestly, he should first look at his own writing. Given his continued attacks, I have a hard time believing his above apology to be sincere. 15zulu (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

So much for "needing to assume good faith" ... Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chuck, WP:AGF doesn't mean I should assume a vandal is trying to help after he vandalizes a dozen articles. It also doesn't mean I need to AGF after you make a dozen hostile remarks against me. 15zulu (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I can see I'm not going to "win" here, and indeed there's nothing to "win" here, so I'll leave you to it. I'm not quite sure how vandals come into the equation, though. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called a comparison Chuck. When you try to argue AGF, first look at how you've responded to me. AGF doesn't require me to believe your qualified apology – perhaps if you left it just at an apology, but you qualified it to say that 'I still believe zulu was at fault'. I find it amusing that you now claim that your students "inadvertently" plagiarized because they didn't know better than to copy/paste but attacked me over it. Regardless, I'm happy your course is over. I'd suggest that next time you have your students edit Wikipedia, that you remind than that "inadvertent" plagiarism isn't allowed on Wikipedia, but given that last time you didn't assume good faith and found such a suggestion as hostile, I'm refraining from making it. My apologizes for my past "hostile" remarks. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, 15zulu. To clarify, though, what rankled me so much was your presumption that educators such as myself (or perhaps just me in particular for some reason) don't educate our students about plagiarism. By the time they've come to me, they've already had 12+ years of education, at which point you'd think this topic might have been covered once or twice. I know you think you have a "gotcha" moment here, or so you're presenting it, but in the link you've cited I was merely defending myself against a rather obvious personal attack on my professional qualifications, which (for some reason) I find myself forced to do again and again here, as your own link demonstrates up-thread. I'm not asking you to understand why I was so sarcastic towards you, but perhaps having read the exchange above, you'll have a deeper appreciation of what it's like to be an educator in America and have your credentials and professional abilities continually assessed and challenged on a regular basis, which is not really the case for any other occupation here. Nobody watches a bunch of Hong Kong action films and decides that they can throw down with a black belt in kung fu, but there's a widespread attitude here and elsewhere that, just because you've taken a few classes or read a few books, you are automatically an expert on the subject and furthermore can teach as well as the next person, and therefore you need no special experience or qualifications to be an educator or criticize educators. Some politicians, including my own governor, have built their careers on this premise. So, if I've been a little trigger happy here, I'm not asking you to excuse me, but perhaps give a thought or two to where I and other educators are coming from.

Likewise, as I stated quite clearly in the passage you linked, just because a student has plagiarized doesn't mean we should automatically assume a conscious deception on their part, merely laziness. That doesn't make it any less wrong, but no investigation of a breach of academic integrity is complete without an understanding of the circumstances surrounding it. That's how we identify what we call "teachable moments." The learning process would be impossible if our responses to such situations weren't tailored to their circumstances. I hope that's clear.

Wikipedia has its own growing role in academic integrity violations. A few years back, a student once printed out and submitted an entire Wikipedia article, complete with blue hyperlinks, as his own work. Part of what I'm trying to accomplish with this course is acknowledging the role that Wikipedia is already playing in informing my students and their work, and trying to get ahead of it. Chuck Haberl (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

In this edit, Chuck Haberl writes:

...I've been creating and editing numerous Wikipedia articles since January of 2006, mostly under another account (not associated with my real name; I use this account only for my students).

This means, of course, that either the Chuck Haberl account or the other account is a sockpuppet. BMK (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Legitimate uses section of the Sockpuppetry policy which covers Haberl's situation, but maybe someone from WikiEd can clarify? BMK (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Haberl's undeclared account appears to be User:Leo Caesius, considering the reasons given here. BMK (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, BMK. I think it's ridiculous to try and get an account created explicitly and exclusively for grading class projects, using the instructor's real name, banned as a "sockpuppet," but I can see where you're coming from. Specifically, you noted on my Talk page, "None of this would have occurred were it not for your piss-poor attitude towards Wikipedia's editors, and your intransigence at working with the community to collegially solve the problems caused by your students' disruptive editing, as evidenced by the discussion above, and the one on ANI. There's no need to lash out at others, all this is entirely of your own making," thus making it clear that you are doing this for retributive reasons. "Nice little Wikipedia user account you've got here, it would be a pity if anything were to happen to it, if you catch my drift"! Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And the beat goes on, Chuck. Keep digging that hole. There is no "retribution", merely an attempt to have a wayward editor follow Wikipedia policy. If someone wants to propose that it's legitimate for current Wikipedia editors to be allowed to create new accounts under there own names for educational purposes without linking to their personal account, and the community agrees to that, it's fine with me, but at the moment, your use of an undeclared alternate account is not covered by the "Legitimate uses" section of the policy. Perhaps this case will provoke that change, we'll see. In the meantime, a less confrontational and supercilious attitude from you to other Wikipedia editors -- like the poor one who tried to give you some tips about editing on Wikipedia because they thought you were inexperienced, only to be met with sarcasm and denigration from you [137] -- would certainly be a welcome change. BMK (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you on my Talk page, don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. The "poor editor" in question wasn't "trying to give me tips about editing on Wikipedia," he was trying to explain Academic Integrity to me. That's a horse of a very different color. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, you don't get to threaten me with a ban from Wikipedia, attempt to eliminate any mention of me from the website, and then suggest that I should be "less confrontational." Less confrontational than whom? You've already pulled all the stops and used the nuclear options. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I don't have the ability to "ban" you (only the community can do that), or even block you for that matter, as I'm not an admin, I cannot "threaten" to do either of these things. I do not, in fact, have access to the "nuclear option", being a mere rank-and-file editor. I have merely pointed out to you the potential results of an SPI report, should you decline to link your two accounts, [138] while admitting that perhaps your case might instigate a further legitimate use of an alternate account, if the community wants that. As for trying to expunge you from the encyclopedia, you yourself !voted to delete the article Charles Häberl, as it was a "personal embarrassment" to you and "hilariously out of date". [139] I did think that was rather odd, since you had edited the article previously with your Leo Caesius account (which you now de facto admit is yours [140]) and therefore could have kept it up to date, since editing with a conflict of interest doesn;t seem to bother you much. (Most of your edits as Leo Caesius can easily be seen to be conflicted.)

As for whatever is making your shoes wet, you might try considering that it's neither rain nor my urine but your own crocodile tears, considering that none of this would have occurred if you had simply properly supervised your students, and responded civilly to the complaints of other Wikipedia editors about their disruption. Instead, you chose to be confrontational - which appears to come to you naturally (me as well, sometimes) - and thus began the brouhaha. BMK (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate: dubbing an account made, using someone's actual name, for the explicit purpose of editing student submissions, as a "sockpuppet" does such violence to that word as it is conventionally understood that it loses all meaning. You might as well dub any and all accounts made for any and all purposes to be "sockpuppets."

As far as my "supervising" my students better, I am actually proud of the work that they have done, the overwhelming majority of which have materially improved the pages that they have adopted, and therefore Wikipedia as a whole. That a few students encountered some difficulties and reacted poorly in the face of a few far-too-aggressive editors is only natural.

Your problems with my "attitude" boil down basically to my lack of respect for a few editors who have themselves been far from respectful or collegial to their fellow editors, and have more or less embarked upon a rather personal vendetta to see me banned from Wikipedia, contrary to your protestations. Chuck Haberl (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this discussion now serves little purpose, as you cannot see (or admit) where you might be at fault, and are content to blame everything on all the bad guys out there attacking you, so I don't plan on participating any longer, since there's little hope of change through further discussion. I'll give you a few days to think about what's gone down here, and perhaps reconsider, and then I'll file an SPI, as you have two accounts which are not linked and which do not fulfill the requirements of the "legitimate uses" section of the policy. That may result in an amendment to the policy, or it may result in one of your accounts being blocked. If you're lucky, the adjudicating admin may see things your way and allow both accounts to stand - but since your User:Leo Caesius account has now been identified, I fail to see where linking them would cause you any problem - except that you would no longer be able to make edits with it that violate the WP:COI policy. BMK (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Logically speaking, either the account that I created under my own name explicitly for reviewing and editing submissions for this class is a "sockpuppet" of Leo Caesius (which is ludicrous, given that Sock Puppetry is by definition "the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose"), or the account that I created over ten years ago is a "sockpuppet" of an account that was only created last year (which is ludicrous, given that it would involve time travel on my part). So, which is it? You might want to get this part straight for the purposes of your report against me. Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Chuck, when I need your advice on Wikipedia matters, I'll be sure to ask you for it explicitly. BMK (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, honestly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I am genuinely confused at what appears to be a logical impossibility. Kindly help me out! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding stems from your misconceptions about the sockpuppetry policy. We call them "sockpuppets" but what we mean by that is not "disruptive secondary accounts", as you interpret it, but "secondary accounts which do not have a legitimate purpose allowed by policy". Many sockpuppets are, indeed, disruptive, but it's not a necessary part of being a sockpuppet. For instance, a blocked or banned user could create another account or use an IP to mnake perfectly reasonable and helpful edits to the encyclopedia, but regardless of their value, these would be the edits of a sockpuppet, although the edits themselves were not per se disruptive.

You hold two accounts which are both editing. The User:Leo Caesius account was the original one, and the User:Chuck Haberl account is a more recent creation. The accounts are not publicly linked, as required by policy, nor does the current account by the current letter of the policy fulfill one of the allowed legitimate uses for a secondary account. I have been quite open in saying that policy might want to be amended to allow the kind of use you're engaged in, and also in saying that an admin may well dismiss an SPI on the basis that while your account doesn't fulfill the letter of the policy, it is a de facto legitimate use. Until one of those things happens, though, (and the second is only going to happen after I file an SPI and it is evaluated), your alternate account is not legitimate, and therefore a violation of policy.

Don't get hung up on the word "sockpuppet". Both accounts are run by you, but neither account is you: one is you anonymous and cloaked, and one is you upfront about your identity. There is therefore no logical fallacy in saying that User:Chuck Haberl is currently a sockpuppet of User: Leo Caesius as far as Wikipedia is concerned, because the more recent account is neither linked to the first, not is it (currently) fulfilling one of the legitimate uses allowed by policy. That could change, of course, but the easiest thing would be for you to simply link the two accounts. Of course, you could no longer make the kind of conflict of interest edits you made when you were anonymous as Leo Caesius - to the article about you, and your department at Rutgers, for instance - because it would be clear that that account is run by you, but the linkage would fulfill policy and negate the need for an SPI. You seem to not be willing to consider that as an option, although I'm not sure why. BMK (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

By way of explanation, BMK, I'd really rather not link my (now largely defunct) original Wikipedia profile to my "professional" profile, because the former has been irredeemably tarnished online. I used to link the two (see revisions prior to 2010, for example this one) but after some unfortunate edit battles (most notably over nakedly Islamophobic content on Park51) some other Wikipedians adopted the "Leo Caesius" identity (which was, up until that point, more or less unique to me online) and subscribed to a series of online forums for the likes of white supremacists and pedophiles. There was a point around 2011 when you could google "Leo Caesius" and some pretty nasty shit would come up. After that point, I more or less gave up on Wikipedia until I started teaching this course and sought to distance myself from my former profile.

The edits on the page about me and my department can be explained by the fact that this was the only account that I had at the time, and indeed the only account I had up until last year. At that point I was much more up front about connecting it to my professional identity, as you can see from the previous revisions on my old user page. I will admit that the edits on the page about me seemingly reflect a conflict of interest, but I only made them because I was frustrated that a) the page was ridiculously out of date and b) occasionally vandalized by disgruntled former students and/or other editors. For the last five years, I haven't bothered making any edits to that page with any account. Chuck Haberl (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Then why not take my very first piece of advice to you and scramble the password of the Leo Caesius account (after requesting that the user page be deleted and clearing the talk page) so you can't use it, and continue to edit from the current account? Then, knowing now what the issues are, don't create another "personal" account without linking them or making sure that the policy has been changed to allow you not to link them? And don;t make COI edits with that account. BMK (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Very well, BMK, I've gone and taken your advice, and there is no further reason for you to waste your time filling out an SPI Report out on me. <redacted> 17:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As you say, then, no need for an SPI. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Egos all around

Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee a Huffington Post or Slate article about how a well-intentioned and potentially useful class project, which could have brought good editors into the fold permanently, foundered on the rocks of misunderstanding, biting, posturing, pissing, dickmeasuring, and generally egos out of control. EEng 22:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Does Slate run those stories? A few things are clear to me. Egos get hurt easily. That's the students' egos, as I think is clear from the two linked language articles; understandable, since as students they are more inclined to think of their work as their work. When BMK starts using bold and italics, you know he's all worked up. Professor Chuck had a particularly nasty exchange with one of our editors where his initial satirical response to a well-intended question set the tone for the rest. (Congrats on the Berlin Prize, by the way: I'll trade you my summer classes for a stay in that lovely house.)

  How I wish that profs would all run their projects through Wikipedia:Education program, with the proper tags on the talk pages (no opinion here on whether they were placed and then removed--please don't remove those), so regular editors can figure out if someone is in a class or not. It took me too long to find https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/explore, and that list there does not tell me whether our professor Chuck is in there; he may well be.

  As for the socking, I think having the two accounts is perfectly understandable--and they should be linked of course, but perhaps a good reading of WP:ALTACCN is helpful.

  This whole thing is not an easy situation to solve. The students were disruptive and edit warring, the prof was belligerent, bad words were spoken on all sides--I propose that we consider all of it below the blockable level, because blocking would just make things worse (better for Slate maybe). I do propose that prof Chuck communicate more, and more better, and prepare his students for the social, interactive part of Wikipedia. And then there's his article--well, we'll let the AfD take its course. Good luck everyone. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the congrats. I've been trying to get away from teaching and admin work so I can finally write, which is why most people get into higher ed, but which becomes a distant memory after the first few semesters of work. This prize finally gives me the first opportunity to get off campus and get some research done in a very long time, at least since I was last in Yemen in 2012.

I'm trying to appreciate things from the perspective of the long-term editors here, but I really can't subscribe to the notion that "the students" as a whole were disruptive. At most one or two students (out of a pool of 120, although to be fair a few had failed out before the end of the semester and opted not to participate in this exercise) raised a few red flags by re-reverting their work. I had announced, on several occasions, that I was able to see the entire edit history of their pages, but apparently that bit of information didn't "take" with those few and they panicked, assuming that they would automatically fail the exercise because someone else had swooped in and reverted their work. As I've tried to explain above, this happened with at most a tiny minority of the students, and quite a lot of the work that the others did was rather good, but a bunch of editors here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I and the Wiki Education Foundation have trained and released a pack of angry vandals on Wikipedia with express instructions to trash the place. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone was claiming that all your students were disruptive, just some of them, but you are are, obviously, responsible for supervising them as well as the non-disruptive ones. BMK (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Chuck, with "the students" I meant the ones discussed here in this thread. I don't know the others since I never saw a list of them--your having such a list helps other editors figure out what's going on (I hate using that Trumpian phrase, but it applies here). If two are a bit disruptive out of a group of 120, then your numbers are pretty damn good. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• • I think the point the good professor is missing is this: No one held a gun to his head and said you must use a Wikipedia education program in your classes. As a professor, no matter how little you like it, you are PAID to teach. Everyone at Wikipedia is a volunteer. Why does it surprise you that it grinds our gears for you to get snarky because you are not doing what you are getting PAID to do and it is wasting our time that we give up for free? John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I must be missing something, because I'm really not sure what your point is, John from Idegon. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling any of you that you have to "supervise" my students for me or volunteer your time here. I frankly couldn't have been happier if some editors had just stepped back and let me handle the students on my own, but unfortunately they intervened rather rapidly, sometimes within minutes of students submitting their edits. Evidently you all must get something out of this or you wouldn't be volunteering your time here or responding with such vigor and speed. I also don't see where you came by this strange idea that I'm not doing my job, but then again I think we've already established that some of you have some pretty weird ideas about higher education. That's pretty much why I'm "snarky," as you put it, not that snarkiness is a rare and foreign quality here. Chuck Haberl (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • BMK, I don't believe I ever claimed I wasn't responsible for supervising any of my students, and where it would have been more accurate to say that one or two students behaved in a manner perceived by some editors to be disruptive, that's really not how this discussion has unfolded. Chuck Haberl (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Chuck, let me make a suggestion, for next time. On your talk page, or even on a subpage with a link from your talk page, set up a list with the account names of your students. You can have them sign in, or just sign their names, and then you have a record as well. And/or post a "welcome" template on all their talk pages--in that case your contribution history is a kind of records of the students you are supervising. I mean, I suppose you are supervising them on-wiki, one way or another, if they're doing this for a grade. Then if someone has a problem with one of their edits, they can figure out that this is one of your students, come to you. and talk it out directly. On-wiki transparency is a good thing, not only because this is a collaborative environment, but also because it makes it a lot easier to help your students. Everyone will be happier as a result. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:28, 17 May 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.

Problem behaviour/edits by User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.

L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk · contribs) is, at least according to his username Lorenzo Iorio (there is a reason this page is salted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio), and is treating Wikipedia as yet another platform to promote his own views concerning frame-dragging, and the surrounding theoretical and experimental results surrounding it with the biggest WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I have ever witnessed in a published scientist ([141]).

Iorio has published several articles on the topic, and probably know more about frame dragging than many other people, myself included. However, this is a fairly contentious and controversial area in physics, at least in the sense there are major disputes with Iorio and others like Ignazio Ciufolini are going at each other with no holds barred (e.g. doi:10.1002/asi.23238). While I'm not taking a side in the dispute, this area and dispute between Iorio and Ciufolini has spilled over Wikipedia in the past (see Talk:Frame-dragging and Talk:Frame-dragging/Archive 1, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Scientific misconducts, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Legal actions by I. Ciufolini against L. Iorio, etc.), with several IP/sock puppets involved over several years (e.g. Gravitom et al.).

So when he recently edited frame-dragging, inserting several reference to his own publications (and this despite a promise to reduce the number of citations to his own work, I reverted with the edit summary "Clear conflict of interest, while you may comment and flag issues on the article talk page, let others improve the article per WP:COI.)" This has been discussed with him before at the teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_480#Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?).

Of course, that made me the target of Iorio's ire, calling me 'an incompetent jerk', again despite the promise to be cooperating and diplomatic. Going by the past behaviour of socks in this area, most of them pro-Iorio, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say this behaviour is extremely unlikely to subside, and we shouldn't abide such gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not to mention WP:PROMOTE/WP:SELF and a bunch of others as well.

So, here we are at ANI. At the very least an editing restriction on Iorio to refrain from editing frame-dragging related articles (broadly construed) is needed because the WP:COI here is just way too high, and I've got little hopes that the next person that make and edit that displeases Iorio will be treated any better than I was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've notified WP:PHYS annd WP:AST of this discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And to no one's surprise, here are more personal attacks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He's received a warning against personal attacks and I agree that his editing behavior is worth looking into. But when there is a talk page discussion going on, I think it is counterproductive to leap to "I'll file an WP:ANI request to get you blocked" in response to another editor.

Wikipedia does not have a good track record of incorporating scholars and experts as editors on the project. I would hope there would be some way to benefit from his expertise while he manages his COI and that needs to rely on communication with the editor. I'd like to hear from editors and admins who have successfully worked with academics on the project in the past to see what can be done rather than immediately reacting with another block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Warnings are rather pointless in this case. Were this a first offence, it'd be premature to call for a block/editing restrictions. But this (combined with the socking history surrounding frame-dragging), is hardly that. Conflict of interests and civility have been explained to Iorio several times already, with little effect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:, one idea I at least proposed regarding Falun Gong some years ago was for an editor other than those under sanctions to create a page or pages in his or her userspace for articles/topics which had yet to be created, which would be entirely under the direction of the editor in whose user space it is contained, which other editors could edit up to the point the pages are moved into regular space. I don't know if that sort of thing would be useful here, but, I tend to think that there are likely to be a lot of spinout articles on many of the topics academics would edit, and I suppose it might be possible to do something similar with at least articles on books, journals, academics who have written on the subject, etc. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is probably an off-beat suggestion, but perhaps the most obnoxious of the two could be "exiled" to Wikiversity where we are more tolerant of deviant behavior. Since both are highly competent scientists, the exiled individual would be allowed to place a prominently situated sisters link at all relevant WP articles. I love writing on Wikiversity because I get to (almost) "own" what I write; then I add a sisterlink to WP when the document is ready. Just don't send us both individuals, please.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Site Ban

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

---

On the one hand, I agree in principle with User:Liz that we should be trying to increase our outreach to scholars and experts in subject-matter areas. On the other hand, it is unfortunately very clear that this particular scholar has no intention of working collaboratively with anyone else. As the above diffs show, he persists in insulting administrators (including by pointing out that they don't have scientific credentials, when they aren't trying to comment on the science) and on calling editors and administrators "jerks" and their edits "vandalizing". I would have preferred to let the physicists and astronomers comment on the merits, and I advised the subject to ask them, but he persists in the personal attacks. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as being too patient. (My own thought is that the English Wikipedia collectively is usually too patient with editors who are net negatives. That is my opinion.) I don't see any point in further warnings. I don't see any middle ground, such as a topic ban on personal attacks (already forbidden) or a topic ban from physics and astronomy (his area of strength and interest). I have to propose a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

a) Today, I was just editing the voice with the purpose of reducing my own citations: I first restored the version including my citations to better edit it later: indeed, I specified that in the comments to the modifications. I was just editing it by removing some citations of mine, when simultaneously Headbomb again removed all and solely my citations. b) Moreover, all here ignore (why?) the long and numerous comments by the US-based editor displaying her/his IP in either the talk page of frame-dragging, in her/his own talk page and in the Spinningspark talkpage in which she/he reiterated the request to reinstate my references.

d) The problem is that admins, who are incompetent to judge on any aspects of that voice and on my own references as well, without any reasons vandalize the voice by deleting all and solely my references. In this way, it is as if they arrogantly claimed to have some scientific motivations to do that, which is not possible. Otherwise, it is a clear conflict of interest against myself (And the users of the encyclopedia). If some of them were convinced that there were too much citations to my works, with intellectual honesty and humbleness, they could (and should) have discussed it in the talk page first instead of brutally and arbitrarilly removing all of them. It is clear that it is this behaviour by them the cause of all this mess. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins do not rule on content (at least not as admins per se), they judge behavior, which does not take any particular expertise in your field. Nor does your own expertise give you a free pass to behave badly. BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Not sure about it but that's overkill. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Causes frustration and waste. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
• Comment - While I have not made up my mind quite yet, remarks such as these are not reassuring in the least. GAB^Hello! 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've blocked the user for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support long term WP:NOTHERE behavior. It is important to go through with this for future incidents. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This editor's battleground behavior and disruption outweighs any positive contribution he has made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this editor has, through various sockpuppets, been engaging in a variety of disruptive behaviours going back years. I've run into them several times e.g. at Lorenzo Iorio and its deletion discussions, a brand new sockpuppet asked me to intervene in a dispute at LARES (the talk page of that article is instructive) etc. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour and a refusal to abide by the rules and community standards. He's treating Wikipedia as a battleground and clearly violating WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Expert or not, Wikipedia does not benefit by allowing him to edit the encyclopaedia. Iorio would be better advised to present his scientific work in the peer-reviewed literature, and leave encyclopaedia coverage of these topics to others. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Modest Genius: SPI is where you make claims of sock puppetry, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'm no expert on these procedures but do note the sockpuppet thread linked above. This is clearly the same person IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what thread you're referring to, but after the rather egregious block evasion, perhaps your comment could be considered prescient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• This one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitom/Archive. Modest Genius ^talk 10:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban based on the grossly inappropriate comment from what seems to me to might be perhaps more deserving of the insults he gave than anyone else here. I have had some, minimal, experience with academics and others who have had widely publicized material that they produced which related to their edits. Many of those experiences indicated that the individual in question was incapable of adhering to conduct guidelines. The IP comment above makes it rather obvious that at least that individual qualifies as such as well. And, FWIW, in the few cases I immediately remember of academics who insisted on editing content directly relevant to their own studies, pretty much all of them suffered the same fate, and justifiably, much to my own regret. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You apparently have little if any understanding of civility, as per WP:CIVILITY. Noting that basic civility is also in general a requirement for the real world, your incompetent, foul-mouthed comments here make it very extremely questionable whether you are qualified to be an editor here, or, for that matter, whether you are ever competent at interacting with real people anywhere else. What I and the rest of the editors here want, is you to indicate that you are an adult by your actions here. I have seen nothing to date which leads me to believe you are capable of doing so. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support obviously, after the above rant, and expressive language which I normally am not bothered by, but on a noticeboard? Really? Arrogant sod is WP:NOTHERE -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph.D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support Yuck! I generally think it is good to have professionals and accademics editing Wikipedia articles I am even inclined to cut such editors considerable slack because expert knowledge is important to this project and dealing with non-experts in one's own field can be trying. That said, this person's behavior here is odious - I would not put up with it from a colleague, an instructor or even a child. PS - someone please range block this guy. Jbh^Talk 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Considering the above block evasion and personal attacks.... We don't need people like this. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I've blocked the IP above for blatant block evasion, and warned this editor that next time is likely to be an indef. I don't otherwise have an opinion as to the sanction discussed here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Anyway, I don't think this is really Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D., since an actual academic expert and molder of young minds would never act so childishly. Also, his English is way below the level one would expect from a member of the international physics community. Probably it's just some jealous rival impersonating him so as to embarrass him. Someone should probably write to his institution to bring this to the attention of the authorities there, so they can assist him in preventing his further humiliation by whomever it is that's actually doing this. EEng 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

His own website indicates that he is currently a school teacher, not an university academic. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Watch -- in a moment he'll appear to remind us that Einstein was, after all, a lowly patent examiner. EEng 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the number of {{RPA}} tags there are in just this thread. Whether or not the user behind the removed attacks is or is not actually Dr. Iorio, the user's behaviour is clearly not intended to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - They've been given ROPE and pretty much used it all .... It's clear that despite this being a collaborative project they're not interested in working with anyone ...., Siteban's the only next best option IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Whatever usefulness this editor had was lost in the sea of incivility. Arguments can be made for how we got to this point, and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future, but the point stands that this editor no longer has any desire to be a contributor. The sock puppeting is only going to continue until they are range-blocked. It's a formality at this point. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I will accept for the sake of discussion that this person may be a great physicist. For all I know, they will soon win the Nobel Prize in Physics. If so, congratulations to them. But as a Wikipedia editor, this person is a total failure because of the destructive free will decisions they have made. Not only are they a failure here on this project, but they are actively and consciously pernicious. We are much better off without them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support had their ROPE and used it, and having to constantly remove these personal attacks proves their inability to be civil -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Pile on support. This should be snow-closed with a site ban. BMK (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support- It's somewhat hard to believe that this user has any formal education due to their rigid unwillingness to work with other users; he is clearly not here to contribute positively or work with others. Even on the one thread you'd think he'd be civil. At this point, an IP/site ban would suit the case. They refuse to cease sockpuppeting. I'm all up for an educated, intelligent, well-versed person here; his attitude outweighs any positive addition he may have made. Zia224 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The comment has been made that the person may not really be a scientist. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, it's a shame to do this to someone with such specialised knowledge who really ought to be an asset to the project. However, edits like this and this are poisonous and toxic, and do an incredible amount of damage to the spirit of collaboration that we try to foster here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 15 May 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.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

NOTE: I had posted this in a thread above that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz had opened a few days earlier, but someone in a roundabout way suggested it should be its own thread, so I've moved it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone who's been around for 10 years ought to know better than to blatantly attack editors through the use of insulting edit summaries, yet treat yourself to this sampling of insult-laden reverts by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz over the last few days:

I made note of these in a thread above a couple days ago: (some have been deleted)

• "rv idiocy"
• "it's evident that the nom is either utterly irresponsible or competency-challenged"
• "per WP:COMPETENCE" (implying that the editor is incompetent)
• "per WP:COMPETENCE" (again)

Since then the abusive summaries have continued:

• "absolute blithering incompetence"
• "idiocy"
• "wretchedly stupid"
• "phony and dishonest deletion tagging"

Hullaballoo has directed their ire at one particular editor involved in tagging Neelix-related redirects for cleanup, and while User:SimonTrew could perhaps be seen as being a little bit overzealous in his deletion tagging, there is no way he deserves to be repeatedly subjected to being called "wretchedly stupid", "phony and dishonest", and an "idiot". Notwithstanding the subthread above, I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well to me it is just pissing on your own bonfire. If you are going to make an argument make it WP:CIVILly. Si Trew (talk)

I think it is fair to mention to admins that the user you mentioned started this conversation at ANI but has never replied to it (I dunno why). Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as no editor deserve to be repeatedly insulted like this, especially someone doing good faith cleanup. There are more insults along the same lines in various recent RfDs as well. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as proposer, in case it wasn't obvious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and support block. This is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and I think further comments like that towards anyone will be actionable under our NPA policy. HighInBC 22:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Civility must be maintained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
• Neutral: PA's are subjective. But based upon the links above, I don't find them particularly offensive. This might just be another example of the civility police trying to wrap people up in cotton wool. Then again, it might be harassment. Either way, I'm not aware of the history. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - No one gets a free pass from maintaining proper civility, and this is obviously not a one-time incident. GAB^Hello! 23:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - We all lose our shit at times but the repeated abuse at SiTrew is completely unwarranted, If you disagree with an editor you then discuss it with them ..... –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Was also personal attacked by editor.Clubjustin (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support with a warning that further personal attacks – directed at anyone – will result in a block. HW has been posting bad faith comments about TTN at AfD, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Maximals. If this keeps up, we may need to topic ban HW from all deletion processes. It seems as though he has trouble contributing to them civilly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Pretty clear cut case of NPA to me. I think a strongly worded warning is needed, if this continues perhaps an admin should issue a block? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. This isn't really about civility. Over the last few years, I've regularly been called far worse things without anyone being willing to take action, This is about deletion practices, and an attempt to intimidate a user who resists overly aggressive deletion proposals. Nobody took umbrage when the now-permabanned harasser Scalhotrod spents months calling me things like "Useless, lazy Editor [who] refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn".[142] Porn publicist Rebecca1990 has quite often called me "dishonest".[143] Nobody gets upset. Right above here, an editor gratuitously accuses me of "bad faith" for a position I've taken and stated consistently for yours, and have often achieved consensus support for. But that's OK with so many of you. You may also note that my supposed victim states, above and elsewhere, that I "has never replied" to comments he's made in this and various related discussions/ That's an evident falsehood, but that doesn't disturb you. He's falsely accused me of "reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible" -- even though I've never reverted his posts on any talk page, and even though he's never posted to may talk page, despite his claims otherwise. Even worse, up in the underlying ANI discussion I opened, he complains that I did not give him notice of the ANI discussion. Not only did I do so, but he responded to my post there by saying he had deliberately ignored it.[144] (Note that the OP here dismisses this as mere carelessness) When did it become acceptable to so brazenly make such false accusations against other editors? Why is misbehaviour like this considered civil?

Earlier today, I posted to a discussion-in-progress, but my comment was caught up in an edit conflict. I didn't immediately catch that because I had to take a phone call and deal with an urgent medical matter involving an elderly relative. (Yes, despite having reached grandfatherly age, I also continue to be a caregiver to the previous generation) After I mentioned that while asking for the simple courtesy of having my timely comments reinstated, one user has made several mocking comments in edit summaries. That's genuinely contemptible behavior. But no one even suggests those comments might be inappropriate.

I'm very critical of User:SimonTrew's deletion proposals. (Again, it doesn't come close to the comments that have been thrown in my direction by people who don't like some of my own deletion proposals, without even a threat of sanctions) His deletion proposals are pften quite poor. Proposals like Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_12#Ibsenism make it evident that the nominator isn't even pretending to do an adequate job of checking their arguments. Hw's managed the unlikely feat of supposedly reviewing Neelix redirects and somehow having an accuracy rate that's significantly below random selection. That's not exactly high-grade editing.

This just an exercise in settling scores. Note that the OP wasn't even civil enough to notify me of their proposal for several hours, until they could be sure of enough of their supporters checked in before I could respond. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Addressing a couple of accusations here:

• When SimonTrew commented in the thread above that he had not been notified, I corrected him, and warned him that making such an accusation without care to confirm its accuracy is often construed as a personal attack. Yes, I did chalk the accusation up to carelessness; I think we can agree that he's been a bit careless lately (see thread above). I warned him more strongly on his talk page.
• I did not post the notice on HW's talk page when I first opened this thread, because it was originally opened as a subthread of a thread in which HW was the original poster, thus I assumed HW was already aware of it; besides, repetitive ANI-notice tagging is also considered disruptive, and my edit should have generated a ping anyway. Another user suggested that this should be a separate thread, so I then moved it, and then immediately one minute later posted the notice on HW's talk page. There were a total of two hours and 30 minutes between originally opening the subthread and moving it here, in which time only Legacypac and SimonTrew had commented.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait - complaining Simon Trew complained incorrectly about not being notified, then falsely complaining about not being notified of a post in a thread Wolfowitz started? Got it. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Based on the evidence here, I think an IBAN would be excessive. The incivility shown is not outlandish, and, while the edit summaries are undoubtedly inappropriate, they appear to reflect strong feelings about the underlying issue rather than malice. Moreover, it looks like the problem between Wolfowitz and SimonTrew is recent and limited to CSD tagging. A block may be warranted, but even that seems a bit much to me.  Rebbing  07:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~

I'm not convinced this is really about Simon Trew, but rather Wolfowitz enjoys removing CSD tags on Neelix redirects and insulting the tagger, as I've experienced quit a few times. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I don't doubt you, but it might be helpful to post a representative diff or two.  Rebbing  16:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to post them - having problems isolating reverts to CSDs to find the edit summaries. Any ideas on how to search that in his contribution history? Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac: It's slightly clumsy, but maybe filter by 'Wikipedia', choose 500 per page, then Ctrl+F for 'speedy'? Don't know a technocratic method I'm afraid! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close to being actionable. Competence is required and from looking at a few of those nominations, it certainly wasnt demonstrated by the nominator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and support block as per WP:NPA. Experienced editors know that being subjected to (self-perceived) personal attacks cannot justify tit-for-tat attacks (as neither can the /quality of work under scrutiny either). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• My argument is not that "tit-for-tat" attacks are justified. My point is that the comments complained of by the OP are far less "uncivil" than comments that have been routinely tolerated for years. It should also be evident that virtually all of the comments complained of criticize the quality of the edits involved, not the editor, in keeping with what have been broadly accepted guidelines. Bad editing is bad editing, and calling it that is a necessity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Such comments should not have been tolerated, and it is not an excuse to tolerate them now. Had I come across the other comments you refer to, I assure you I would have opened more ANI threads.
2. Criticizing the quality of these edits is valid and warranted, and I have been criticizing them myself, but calling them "wretchedly stupid" is a pretty long stretch beyond constructive review.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban and encourage nominator to raise the stakes to a block of at least a month. Frankly, I'm surprised a permanent ban hasn't been proposed. This user has been blocked three times before and been brought to AN/I quite a few times; it's time for a long block that lets him know this community is serious about its standards of behavior. Whatever good work this editor might do is completely counteracted by this despicable vitriol, and this editor has shown no capacity to learn. —swpb^T 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that an iBan is the proper solution here, also because HW spreads the love among other editors as well. HW's edit summaries were certainly insulting, and no doubt intended to be so, but "you're incompetent" isn't the same kind of insult as ... well, you come up with a good insult. HW's attitude, generally speaking, is the problem here, combined with this victim mentality--"treated like dirt by admins since 2006" or whatever. His defense, in this thread, is lousy and serves only to deflect; it's not even close to addressing what's going on. That he may have been insulted by someone in 2014 is irrelevant; the argument doesn't seem to be about standards but about "well they were mean to me".

  To stick to this particular case, though, I've also had my questions about Simon Trew's (linguistic) competence in one or two redirect discussions, so I can understand, to some extent, the frustration. I got nothing against HW, though he seems to dislike me strongly; he's a net positive still, at least in article space, but with every insulting remark that balance shifts a little. I don't know if we still do "civility parole", but I think that a serious block the next time he makes one of those comments is fair. I nominate HighinBC to be on patrol. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about parole, or patrol, I think that enforcement of NPA is plenty. I am not going to dig through their edits every morning, but if I see further reports here or on their talk page I will look into it and respond if needed, as I would hope any admin who is not too busy would do. HighInBC 14:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support a block and interaction ban for a while. If a new editor had left edit summaries like this, we'd likely block them out of hand; civility breeds discussion, which allow articles and the encyclopedia project as a whole to progress. That HW categorizes himself as having been "treated like dirt by admins since 2006" suggests that an earlier perceived unfairness or incivility has festered since at least that time. It might be impossible to reverse that resentment within HW, but we can limit the 'social pollution' that it engenders within newer members, seeing this sort of behavior go without any sort of sanction - and thinking its okay to treat other editors like this. The fact that HW has been here for years makes it even more imperative that some sort of sanction be administered. That HW is also dealing with the care of an elderly family member might be seen as a contributing cause to his bad behavior recently, but cannot be seen as a mitigating factor in how we address that behavior.

  I have no dog in this fight; I haven't interacted with most of the people in this discussion to any extent. I myself have been difficult to work with, due to my interaction with others in discussions. Because of that, I can unequivocally state with confidence that precisely none of the discussions went smoothly after I vented my spleen. Treating others like crap doesn't work. Ever. For the good of the encyclopedia, we have to address this in measures that can be seen by other editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Ha Ha, your joking right?...but then again maybe the lunatics have taken over the asylum...so Support Bosley John Bosley (talk)

• It sort of seems like you are the one not taking this seriously. As it stands I can't draw anything meaningful from your comment. HighInBC 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I think it was related to this comment. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

That in turn is I think related to this RfD. As I've pointed out numerous times, Twinkle does not allow suppression of that warning message, even though posting it often plainly violates WP:DTTR. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Above was a request for diffs. I'm still looking for the ones I was thinking of, but here are some recent edit summaries I found:

• "your repeated dishonesty is far more uncivil, and I don't have to tolerate it here"" [145]
• "phony and dishonest deletion tagging" [146]
• "inept, abusive, and damaging to the encyclopedia" while removing a CSD tag on Neelix redirect [147]
• "incoherent, invalid, destructive" reverting a CSD of Neelix redirect [148]
• "brain-dead hasty tag-bombing" [149]

Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to think I'd never write something like "rv blithering idiocy" in an edit summary—I tend to limit myself to a bland "refuse speedy deletion" instead of just "decline", or use admin rollback, in similar cases—but I think it fairly often. I sure would have for some of the taggings linked in the original thread.
  HW is abrasive, yes, and sometimes extremely so, but he's also just about always right, and that goes a long way in my book. That right there is why we should treat him differently than the hypothetical new user Jack Sebastian brings up: Hullaballoo has already proved his worth as a volunteer here, while most new users never will. There's no need to talk about ibans and certainly not about blocks if he's willing to take this thread as a warning to moderate his wording. (And there's no need to close this as a patronizing "Hullabaloo is formally warned" or whatever. Show me someone who doesn't think a mobbing at ANI isn't, in itself, an extremely severe warning, and I'll show you someone who's never been subject to one.) —Cryptic 23:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, from what I've seen of Simon Trew's "rationales" blithering idiocy is an incredibly kind and gentle way of describing his behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: And yet, still a personal attack. If you can't post a civil response, its time to push back from the keyboard and get some WP:TEA. Like I said, it doesn't matter if HW has been here a while. It doesn't matter if they are usually a good editor. A less-experienced editor would find themselves facing a gauntlet of trout-slapping. The rules have to apply to everyone equally, or they end up meaning precisely jack shit. That means you don't get latitude if you are rude and don't resolve inter-editor problems the right way. If anything, HW's fuller experience means they know full well how they should be acting, and in this case the user just doesn't appear to show anything approaching remorse. We indef block people for less. I am not suggesting such; I am urging us to remember that by avoiding treating HW like any other user, we are living up to that whole cabal stupidity that every Wikipedia critic points to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support for banned from interacting with SimonTrew and me and also Support for blocking for editing. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is clear and in case of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is recidivism. Recently, I was also a victim of his attacks (for example, "reply to troll", "You're a dishonest troll"), other users also (for example, "still crazy after all these years", "trolling porn publicist". Official request for not personal attacking has been reverted by Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz [150] with edit summary "go away". This is recidivism, multiple repeated personal attacks on different users, no improvement in behavior, we should consider - block the account for some time. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• comment leaning on support because even if they are stupid, calling them stupid does not help at all (I know, I have called a few stupid people stupid, and have been called too, how knows if rightfully at that time... It never helped no one). If you can nor argue better than that, you do not belong in a ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Most of all I note that the main fault here is not of either of the two, but a community fault that lets a single editor (Neelix) long lasting misbehaviour cause such a long long clean-up process. (I gave up looking at redirects for discussion) - Nabla (talk) 17:06, 14 May 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.

Sorry to put this after the discussion has closed but I feel I have a right to reply. Thank you for all of your support. Now we can make the encylopaedia better. I was interested to learn that I am not the only one because it did feel like WP:HOUNDING. I am never always gonna make the right call on whether a "Neelix Redirect" is the right or wrong thing, I have to make a judgment call and send it to CSD or RfD. Many are kept, many are swiftly retargeting. Without all this Hullabaloo we could have done it a lot quicker. I am not always going to get it right I don't even think I am going to get it right that is why I list em. Now this nonsense is out of the way we can get on as a collaborative project to make the encylopaedia better. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple NPA violations at WP:VPT

The following discussion is closed. 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:Village pump (technical)

• 11 May. User Fram started a thread with the section heading: A polite version of "Fooled you again suckers, haha" from Jdforrester (WMF) to enwiki.[151]
• 13 May. User Qgil-WMF objected to the inclusion of the username Jdforrester in the heading, per the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks.[152]
• 13 May. I saw the objection, agreed with Qgil-WMF's assessment, and removed the username from the heading.[153] I failed to link to WP:TPO, which clearly supports this removal. I am otherwise uninvolved in this thread, and I am not interested in the issues being discussed there.
• 13 May. User Fram saw the removal and reverted it.[154] In my view, this constituted the first shot of an edit war, in violation of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Edit warring, but that's neither here nor there. To avoid a continuance of the edit war:
• 13 May. I started a thread on the talk page to discuss the issue.[155]
• 13 May. On the project page, Fram responded to Qgil-WMF's comments with non-policy-based arguments. His edit summary was a curt and dismissive "No thanks", and the comments included further personal attack against Jdforrester: Jdforrester can start with retracting his lies and apologizing for them.[156]
• 13 May. On the talk page, some back-and-forth ensued between me and Fram. I elaborated a bit on the NPA basis, and Fram countered with non-policy arguments.
• 15 May. Forty-four hours after I started the thread on the talk page, there have been no comments, on either page, from anyone besides me, Qgil-WMF, and Fram. Apparently the readers of that page do not consider an NPA claim important enough to discuss.

Especially after the second PA, I believe a short block for Fram would be preventative. Clearly, he does not understand NPA, or doesn't care about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No response 44 hours after a thread started on a page with 3000 watchers should actually be really strong clue there's not a NPA requiring any action. NE Ent 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. There are other possible reasons for no response. When an NPA claim is lodged it should be addressed affirmatively, and your comment does not do that. In any case, to oppose an NPA claim by ignoring it is a vote, not a !vote. You might as well claim that an RfC should fail because the page's 200 watchers outnumbered the 20 Supports 10-to-1. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on the thread the title seems a fair, if snarky, summary of the issue. It is criticizing the actions of a particular individual and, again based on the contents of the thread, it looks like that named individual is going against several RfCs, consensus of several discussions and their own statements so while snarky it looks to be a fair characterization of how that person's behavior could be characterized. Jbh^Talk 12:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You failed to address Qgil-WMF's comments. And if accusing someone of lying is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. Have you read WP:NPA lately? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading further on in that thread it looks like this is moot because the thread seems to have reached a resolution and arguing NPA/not-NPA here at this point would be needless drama as the complaint is essentially stale.

As a general statement though I do not believe that calling someone out when their behavior is not congruant with their past statements and/or reality is a personal attack - not when there is evidence of such. I prefer to avoid "lie" myself but meh... Otherwise we end up with a community where no one can be held to their own past statements/promises or even to a common objective reality. If you want to discuss this principle in general, I would welcome you at my talk page. Jbh^Talk 12:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mandruss: I haven't read the thread at the Village Pump so I don't know what evidence there is in this case, but I seriously suggest you revisit WP:NPA, because accusing someone of lying, being a sockmaster/sock etc is a personal attack only if the editor making the accusation doesn't present evidence for it, or there's no evidence for it in the thread etc where the accusation is made, see WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." (my emphasis). Thomas.W ^talk 13:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Just addressed that point at Jbhunley's talk page. No idea why he suggested to split the discussion, but it's now split. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggested the split to avoid general statements about untruth/deception/lying being seen as statements about the particular editors in this case. Aslo, while I seriously doubt based on the age and inactivity of this complaint, that any admin action will be taken I did not want to clog up this thread or ANI with general musings. Jbh^Talk 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the PA should be removed. And I strongly disagree with the interpretations of NPA presented here so far, I hope and believe that I'm far from the only editor who would, and at some point NPA needs clarification, at least as to whether an accusation of lying is ever warranted, regardless of any "evidence", absent the ability to read other editors' minds. For those who value their integrity, the accusation goes not only to their behavior but to their character and, as such, has no place at Wikipedia. Should I open an RfC at WP:VPP? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civility meme. Not to say Mandruss can't start an RFC if they want to, only that similar good faith efforts in the past have failed to come to fruition. NE Ent 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Mandruss's rather odd interpretation of No Personal Attacks. WP:NPA prohibits things such as Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets. WP:NPA explicitly allows critical discussion of behavior, so long as they are not baseless. Saying someone "lied" is clearly discussion of behavior. It is clearly not an unfounded accusation when there is either evidence that someone willfully made an untrue statement, or when there is evidence they willfully broke their word.

If someone turns all the text on Main Page to pink, says it was an accident, and says they'll fix it, fine it was an accident and they will fix it. If they later come back and say they have no intention of fixing it because their original intent had always been to turn the main page text pink, then it is reasonable to say "they lied". That is what happened here. JDForrester gave repeated assurances that he would not use the Single-Edit-Tab deployment to try to sneak out Visual Editor as default for all new users. Visual Editor was then deployed as default for all new users. He was non-responsive to pings, to repeated posts on his talk page, on Phabricator, to posting of the problem on the project tracking page, or anywhere else. I had to take this issue to the WMF Executive Director. THAT finally got a response that this was a bug, and that JDForrester had somehow missed every single notification (and an implication that he had failed to see it on ANY of the pages critical to his job-responsibilities). Fine.... a big heaping of AGF.... it was a bug and he repeatedly botched the notifications he got and he failed his job duties to follow phabricator and mission-critical pages on a new software deployment, when he knows that any new software deployment may required immediate attention to fix potentially site-breaking bugs. He gave assurances that he would get this taken care of. He then later came back and told us he didn't feel like fixing it, because his intention from the beginning had always been to impose Visual Editor as the default editor for all new users. The truckload of AGF exploded at that point. Even with all possible AGF, JDForrester gave assurances that this would be fixed then willfully went back on that word. You can debate how you'd prefer to describe that, but that is clearly "behavior" and diffs can be cited as evidence that he gave those assurances and that he willfully went back on his word. It is reasonable and acceptable to say "he lied". He only finally relented on the issue after someone in the community wrote a patch for the site-wide javascript to fix it, and because there was a clearly growing consensus that community would apply the software patch to fix it ourselves. I am also hoping part of the reason is that the current Executive Director seems to genuinely desire better partnership with the community, and she presumably also expected this to be fixed after she linked me to JDForrester's response saying this was a bug that would be fixed. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 16 May 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.

Obstructive editing

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

---

Two editors, Bede735 and Collect, are preventing inclusion on the Gary Cooper article of any mention of actor Anderson Lawler. Lawler was Cooper's closest friend as a young actor: he lived with him for a time, and Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society. For such reasons, Lawler features in authoritative Cooper biographies. The continual obstruction by the two editors is presumably because Lawler was homosexual. Their obstruction has been (a) endlessly talked out on the Talk page with clearly spurious reasons given for the obstruction (b) subject to an Rfc, but the subject is so low interest it failed and (c) a Request for Mediation, which failed because the two editors refused to participate, alleging there had been prior Consensus - but the consensus is only their own. The situation has gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness, given the Lawler/Cooper association is well-cited historical fact worthy of inclusion in the article.

The cautiously phrased sentences that are desired to be included are: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome."

Citations would be:

• Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105
• Swindell, Larry The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper, New York: Doubleday, 1980, pp104-5
• Fleming, E. J. The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine; McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina & London 2005, p92
• Vogel, Michelle Lupe Velez: The Life And Career of Hollywood's Mexican Spitfire, (McFarland & Company 1972) p71
• Ankerich, Michael G. The Sound of Silence: Conversations with 16 Film and Stage Personalities Who Bridged the Gap Between Silents and Talkies, McFarland and Company, 1998, pp127-128

The following citations can be easily reviewed:

• The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine (Word search for 'Lawler' in the book preview) :http://www.amazon.com/Fixers-Mannix-Strickling-Publicity-Machine/dp/0786420278/

• The William J. Mann reference can also be read on Amazon by doing a word search for Lawler in the book preview, and selecting the p105 one: http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Screen-Lesbians-Hollywood-1910-1969/dp/0670030171/

• The William Janney's account of the threesome of Cooper,Lawler & Velez (which clarifies the closeness of the friendship) can be read on Google Books here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=N4WhCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&dq=%22anderson+lawler

Suggestions? Engleham (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh beehave!

--EEng

There is an RfC from just last December in the archive of the article talk page on this exact subject. You have made no attempt to discuss this content issue at all. If you had, I am sure one of the names editors would have pointed you to it. Essentially this question has been asked and answered. Recently. My suggestion to you would be drop it like it's a hot potato. You are editing against consensus, DRN rejected the request for mediation due to no discussion on the talk page and there are no beehavioral issues here. Except yours. John from Idegon (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only RfC re Gary Cooper, but about other articles. See also [157] etc. I fear I find the editor might be considered "litigious" were this a legal issue. [158], [159], [160] Pinging Magog the Ogre as possibly having additional input here. Collect (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

John from Idegon You don't appear to have read what I wrote. I acknowledged there was an RfC, but it failed. Why? Because it only attracted the two said editors! Plus one other person who wrote that the claims "need particularly solid referencing." If you review the citations provided they are all rocksolid.

As for Collect's comment, it was merely par for the course. Diversionary, rather than intellectually addressing the actual information. And why does he ping a certain Magog the Ogre, you might ask? It so happens the said person has previously been a mentor to George Ho. And who is George Ho? An editor Collect has previously supported in passive aggressive obstructive behaviour. So Collect is clearly hope hope hoping that Magog will side with him on this issue due to the fact I have previously challenged Ho on his actions. Yeah, schoolyard pathetic. Once again, diversionary puerile tactics, rather than honest adult analysis of the requested inclusion and its citations. And that's all I ask. Which any Wikipedia editor is entitled to expect. Engleham (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes the RfC failed....it failed to support your position. It is a valid RfC with a valid close. This is a content dispute and does not belong here. Continuing here is only going to get you burned. We have RfCs to end disputes. This one is ended. With that I shall leave you all to argue in peace about Hollywood. John from Idegon (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed final sentence "According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome." is supported by the source.

The source reads:

There are two beds in the room. I slept in one, and Andy, Gary and Lupe in the other. All during the night, all I heard was giggling and all sorts of carrying on.

I asked Andy the next morning what was going on over there. He said they were having a threesome a menage a trois. They were a wild bunch.

One possible interpretation is that they actually had a threesome. There is another possible interpretation, keeping in mind that the person telling the story was in the same room as the other three and did not conclude that they had a threesome but asked and were told that they had a threesome, the other possible interpretation is that the reference to a threesome was a joke.

While we may not be able to conclude which interpretation (and there may be others) is correct, I don't think the interpretation implied by the final sentence is certain enough to use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Sphilbrick. I'm happy to change "had a threesome" to "shared a bed".

John from Idegon (talk In no way was it a valid RfC, in the spirit of the RfC policy, when the two individuals objecting to any inclusion, on ANY terms, were the only ones to comment - apart from another who clearly hadn't checked the citations. The only way forward I can see at the moment is to open another RfC, and ensure it remains open until it has opinions from at least 8 to 10 other editors, in addition to the two the dispute is with. Engleham (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

‎Threat/warning by User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100

The following discussion is closed. 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 received the following "warning" from User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100

"You think you are clever to fight Malaysian pay-TV service? You are really stupid!! This is your warning!! Don't fight againist normal Wikipedia users!!" diff

This user is a blatant sockpuppet of ‎blocked User:Revenge Of The Ghost and User:Revenge Of The Ghost 002 and has been listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Low Li Hao 1997 since 11 May, but, so far, no action has been taken. They are the latest in a long line of accounts (see SPI above for some of them), possibly just one person, used to promote Malaysian pay-TV services.

Could action please be taken against User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100 for sockpuppetry and threatening behavior
We have articles on about 195 Malaysian pay-TV channels. I assume a request for semi-protection of them all would be rejected, but with repeated, blatant, sockpuppetry and promotion, other than a rapid response, or a lower threshold for semi-protection, I cannot see how this promotion can be prevented - Arjayay (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock, blocked. Widr (talk) 09:25, 16 May 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.

[Offensive Title Redacted]

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

---

Is this enough to block an editor on their first edit? Debresser (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 16 May 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 at Davide Anselmi ( Composer )

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

---

A new editor (JoannaAlberty (talk · contribs)) has recreated this BLP page, which has been deleted under at least 2 different names, including via an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anselmi Davide (Drummer). The most recent version includes several hidden notes:

* DEAR ADMIN/USER : Please do NOT delete Davide Anselmi's page, he is an important piece of the international music that makes charitable with his albums and classic works in mixed rock..è was honored four times by the BBC, and we'll keep this article remain online for his fans and for all the people who support it, deleting it would be a lack of respect.
* ATTENTION: Please do NOT delete Davide Anselmi's page, because had just been approved, and it is from this morning that we try to get it approved, close to me have the lawyer of David, an engineer of telecommunications and computer network programming applied, we are trying to succeed but not triamo feedback, kindly verify the page. We remind you that we are not playing to those who clear the first page, there is half the law with clear and focused guidelines to those who erase the page.
* ATTENTION: Tedjensen is the sound engineer of Davide and we are all here specifically to approve the page
* ATTENTION: To approve the page are presents: Chris Mustyin ( Lawyer ), Jack lemoore ( Telecommunication Engineer ) , Ted Jensen ( Sound Engineer ), Sarah lonel ( Second Lawyer ), Chistina Malmsay ( Staff Lawyer general manager ).
* NOTE: If you are an user attempting to modify this Copyrightes page, do not edit this page. This page is under Copyright ( Reserved ) for Important person. To edit this page without incurring with the law contact the administration of David Anselmi

(Note bolding added) I have advised the editor of the error of their beliefs. 220 of ^Borg 13:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked JoannaAlberty (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet and will shortly list the account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anselmidavide9981. The article page has been deleted and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 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.

COI editor, User:TheoTPV, mass adding links to "his" book

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

---

TheoTPV (talk · contribs) is mass adding links to his book, please see contributions. Also, is it possible to mass rollback his additions? cc: @Materialscientist:. Baking Soda (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for spam, I cleaned up the latest, someone else had cleaned up the earliest. If he comes back, report here again and point to this discussion, might have to blacklist that URL. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 16 May 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.

Strange accusations

The following discussion is closed. 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 opened a discussion on Scrubs(TV show article) and done some editing on the article itself, until a disruptive user started accusing me that I'm a sock.

[161]

This is a shared IP address. 89.164.108.211 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis. - DVdm (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. Waiting for next IP to appear. - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 16 May 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 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.

---

See edit summary with this edit. It was made in response to me after I restored warning template comments onto the user's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And, despite the IPs... requests, an ANI notice was left on the IPs talk page (diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 17 May 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.

Harassment from Czar

The following discussion is closed. 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:Czar has been WP:WikiBullying and harassing me despite my attempts to follow Wikipedia policy. They have been accusing me of various things (some untrue) despite none of them being breaches on my behalf. This has been continuing on User_talk:Angeles despite my requests for them to stop. While I haven't helped the situation with my responses (and admittedly I made a few accusations myself), this user is persistently hounding, following me around Wikipedia and the rest of the internet in a crusade to exclude me and my community from the conversations regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Eclipse. While I did appeal to my community for help understanding and fixing this matter, I have been perfectly clear that this must be done in an unbiased manner and any COI must be revealed. Angeles (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as harassment. Seems to be this user is using the word "harassment" to win at arguments. I know Czar can't harass anyone, especially that he recently became an admin at Commons. If we knew already that Czar is harassing, then I should have spoken about it at his RFA at Commons. Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see harassment either, all I see is @Czar: advising you of the COI policy. It seems you are in a hurry to throw WP:AGF right out the window. You also appear to have some WP:COI Issues with that deletion discussion, and the WP:Canvassing is concerning. As far as I can tell, Czar's actions are inline with wikipedia policy, guidelines and common sense. He has acted appropriately as far as I can tell. Perhaps you should read WP:Boomerang. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no harassment to be had. Concerning a single- that's right, one- article, Czar identified that you are at the head of Red Eclipse's development, therefore it would have been prudent of you to avoid a conflict of interest. Simply having your name on your own page doesn't cut it, as it's not our responsibility to examine every person who gives input. Since you are the lead developer, your opinion on the subject matter is inherently partial, it can't be taken with the same weight as an outsider's. And about your community? You canvassed, asking people to vote to keep, which is actually a bigger issue. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see proof that I canvassed asking for votes to keep, or violated any other Wikipedia policy. From the start my aim has to been to find people more familiar with Wikipedia policy and anyone/anywhere that might have information regarding reputable sources. I'm perfectly within my rights to try to source this information in order to help improve the quality of the article, even with the Conflict of Interest that I keep being accused of (which wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't already identified myself on Wikipedia as per WP:DISCLOSE). The wording of my forum post is very explicit, so this is just another twisting of my words to gain a false accusation. It is generally accepted that those involved with a subject are more familiar with it, and while I agree their votes are biased, I have been making every attempt to make sure that is known (and never encouraged them to actually vote). I'd say some of the people responding here are biased as well, considering they know this user personally/professionally. Just because the user is quoting their own bits of policy doesn't mean they're not engaging in Bullying and Hounding, they are deliberate attempts to exclude myself and members of the Red Eclipse community from the discussion. Angeles (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the WP:Bullying or WP:Hounding? if you are going to label something bullying or hounding you NEED diffs to support it. SO far what you have shown here is nothing but @Czar: pointing out policy to you. Hounding would be on the same terms as stalking, you've pointed out one talk page post and one article for deletion which are related. He isn't following you around wikipedia from what I can see (unless you provide diffs that show otherwise), and Wiki-bullying Not even close. He has been exceptionally polite in doing so as well. I've seen nothing that indicates any maliciousness on his part. I'm also starting to see some WP:OWN issues now too. Perhaps you should read WP:AOHA because right now this appears to be a WP:PA on Czar. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 08:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

After being given better neutral advice regarding policy, I withdraw my complaint as I didn't fully understand what constituted harassment. I did ask this user to leave me alone, but the responsibility is on me to turn the other cheek. Please feel free to archive this thread immediately. Angeles (talk) 12:55, 17 May 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:WEIGHT

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

---

So an admin has now decided to weigh in on Salim Mehajer. Well, the more eyes the merrier I guess. Except that he has not bothered reading anything in the talk page and has solely decided that there is "too much text" (including the references I've included, which must take up a quarter of the content). So it looks like I'm about to beer blocked, over too many reliable references! Thus must be a first.

Anyway, this is a last ditch attempt at asking for a sane decision. How is it that I can be accused of being obsessive when all I've done is document what has been extensively written about in the media? I mean, is the one paragraph I wrote about Mehajer almost killing two women not significant? Or what about him almost going to jail for driving an unregistered car without a license? Or his many speeding fines and other offenses he racked up whilst he was s deputy mayor?

I've asked all these things on the talk page, but yo no avail. I've had the same editor who had deleted that material I am absolutely forbidden from using primary sources - even to confirm company ownership! They gave accused me of not checking sources, of not documenting things, of doing original research - and yet they have contradicted themselves each time.

So look, if you must block me, go ahead. But could you at least let me hash this out on the talk page? So far my questions haven't been answered in at way. Genuine questions which haven't been answered. Material that was entirely I contentious was removed by this editor, and yet I'm told that two editors - one of whom has been trying to get the article deleted for some time now, seems to be able to hold it hostage? I mean, I've researched the heck out of this I good faith and I'm about to get "disciplined"? How does this happen? - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By repeatedly and blatantly violating the core policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for you as you are plainly editing with an axe to grind against this person. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

203.217.39.91/Letsbefiends, I know you hate me, but I will add my 2c. If you had stuck to serious matters, like the pedestrian collision, that might have got through. But watering down the section with trivial stuff like illegal U-turns made the section untenable. Likewise, adding all the minutiae of company details and ABN numbers moved that section into the realms of trivia and an irrelevant directory. If you look at the articles of similar players, like Alan Bond and Rene Rivkin, you will not find such detail. It was not a good judgement call, and here you are. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the registered account here, User:Letsbefiends for an indefinite period, and blocked the two IP accounts for time-limited periods. My rationale for the indefinite duration block is on Letsbefiends' talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 May 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.

Concerns about copyright and referencing

The following discussion is closed. 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 contributions of User:Rberchie is troubling and concerning. The user is not only a serial copyright violator but have also added numerous fake references to Wikipedia articles. Like user:Wikicology, they created hundreds of articles that are either unsourced or fortified with fake references. see my comment on their talk page. I followed Wikicology case from the now archived messy ANI thread to the Arbitration request. (Redacted) I discovered that User:Rberchie is part of Wiki Loves Women as a Wikipedian in residence. Having editors like Rberchie to serve as Wikipedian in residence will be counter-productive. Peter Damian and User:Mendaliv may be interested in this discussion. Idiot Guruman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was your ninth post??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, it seems to be a fair question. Most of the images (except that one of him in Wikicology's his office, and that other) seem OK; but he is totally gilding his sources. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be a fair question, but it also seems fair that Rberchie gets a chance of actually answering the questions posed. He has last been active on the 16th and the questions were all posted today (the 17th), some four to five hours ago. There's more than a small chance that Rberchie simply isn't aware of any of these questions, let alone this ANI-thread. At least one of the alleged copyright infringements on commons wasn't even uploaded by that user. All in all, way too soon and way too sloppy for WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not bad for a ninth post though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a thread title change. "Second Wikicology" is just going to get you blocked for harassing Wikicology, and probably get this thread prematurely closed as started for divisive reasons. My suggestion is that if there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to the hundreds of bad articles, it might be worth taking a look. Still I agree with Kleuske that giving Rberchie a chance to respond before coming to ANI would have been a good idea. But now that we're here, well... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the thread title to the actual issues at hand. Also, Idiot Guruman, I'm offended by your smear of "hundreds of editors like Wikicology from Global South" which maligns many editors without any evidence and also verges on colonial racism. I suggest you strike that accusation. It is especially galling to see such sweeping insults from an editor with 12 edits! Did you create this account just to make this complaint? Liz 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Christ, I didn't even process that. I've redacted that sentence as flat out inappropriate and distracting from the point of this thread. OP may merit sanctioning here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this via UAA. I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but this editor who appears out of nowhere to harass a user, that's not OK and I blocked them indefinitely. DoRD, you know about this already; Mike V, you looked into one of the IPs before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 May 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 Attacks by Tquirk91

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diff on my talk page. Violation of WP:NPA, Best I can tell its because I reverted some vandalism he/she did at Lime (fruit). Kind of entertaining but I have a feeling the editor is wp:nothere --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Huon (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

don't think technically a personal attack as this whole thing, which I'm quite sure is not original, is for comedic effect...definitely silly, inappropriate behavior though..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 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's PA using his account while s/he is away at a conference

The following discussion is closed. 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 edit summaries: removing section from user talk page, editing article (adding unsourced content), followup copyedit. Do we turn a blind eye to this situation where two people are openly using the same edit name, or should an admin intervene? PamD 21:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether you wish to call it a shared account or a compromised account, an immediate block is needed until the actual User can make an email appeal that indicates either it was compromised or that he understands the need for unique accounts. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account. They can use UTRS or email to explain why and how they gave their password to someone else and how they'll never do that again. Katie^talk 22:39, 17 May 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 2-2Hello2/Kiddler Fidxler

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

---

Over the past few days I have been doing some recent changes patrol. A new account was created today 2-2Hello2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a username remarkably similar to my own (TwoTwoHello). When I pointed this out to them, they responded that "it is just a strange coincidence i guess".

Ah, as I was typing up this report the user name has been changed to Kiddler Fidxler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is similar to user Brucie "kiddie fixdler" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was vandalising the Bruce Forsyth article, among others, over the past couple of days. Although the new account has made a couple of vaguely constructive edits, the rest are not and include vandalising my user page [162],[163], removing content [164] and then restoring it with an edit summary calling themself a vandal [165], and a couple of unnecessary copy/paste page moves that need undoing. The user is clearly not here and needs blocking. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. DS (talk) 23:08, 17 May 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.

Tendentious editing by the user Oatitonimly

This editor seems to be determined to replace all mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to "Turkish invasion of Armenia." There is currently a requested move discussion started by them but they are trying to replace all mentions of Turkish American War in various articles with their preferred POV in the meantime.([166], [167],[168],[169] [170][171][172][173]) Worst of all they even tried to alter the posts of other editors on a talk page.

Tiptoethrutheminefield warned them about this but they seem to be continuing with deleting/replacing the mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to their preferred version as shown in above diffs. There is also evidence of canvassing, [174],[175] where they seem to be notifying the editors they think would support their proposed move. I think Oatitonimly is not here to build an encylopedia but rather to push an agenda, and I think this type of revisionism should not be tolerated. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't replace all, just some where I thought it necessary. There are multiple redirect links for a reason. Not all those edits are adding the alternate name, some I was removing things that simply didn't belong.[176][177] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[178]

He warned me the name were red links so I changed them to make them work. I notified Marshal because he had proposed a previous renaming discussion for the article similar to this, so I wanted to alert him. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You thought altering talk page posts of other editors by removing the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" was necessary? You also deleted it from see also sections of articles, those sections are for related topics which Turkish-Armenian war clearly was. Forgive me, but I find it hard to see your editing pattern anything but a campaign to remove all the references of "Turkish-Armenian war" from Wikipedia. I also recommend you read WP:CANVASS because notifying an editor because they share your goals on a matter is the definition of canvassing.Darwinian Ape ^talk 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oatitonimly keeps changing every article that has Turkish-Armenian War mentioned despite being warned and reported which is in fact is nothing less than vandalism, to add insult to injury they are edit warring to keep their changes and claim vandalism in their edit summaries just look at the contribs of the editor, there is nothing but disruptive editing, which is hard to keep up. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are they? if to look on Oatitonimly last edits, he is reverting the same ip 95.208.241.193 which seems to be backed by you like here [179][180] etc. And it is a clear case of content dispute so please assume good faith and don't call it a vandalism. Lkahd (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I use they as a gender-neutral pronoun as it's common in wikipedia. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Also, WP:NOTSUICIDE it's very hard to believe the editor doctored the talk page posts of other editors in good faith. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just glancing over before dinner, anyone reckon WP:ARBAA2 might be applicable? Not that Oatitonimly has been warned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the topic was under discretionary sanctions as my involvement started with the proposed move in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But a quick research reveals Oatitonimly was aware of the sanction since they started an AE request based on the same sanction They may not be officially notified but certainly aware of the sanction. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Lkahd is very correct in that you are lacking in good faith. Just like your IP friend, you keep reverting other changes besides the name, for example you deleted a source to something additional I added here.[181] The first time I wanted to rename all uses, and it was my mistake that I hadn't realized I was doing it on old talk discussions, but this time I only wanted to add the alternate name to a couple pages in order to add some balance. And if you won't object, I'll be undo the reverts you did that took away other changes I made but I'll leave the article name as it is, in order to stop this edit warring. Though I hope you'll realize I was just trying to give the invasion redirect a couple more links and let them remain, I left the majority in the war link. Oatitonimly (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The edits are not actually tendentious: the article had previously been called "Turkish invasion of Armenia (1920)" and many sources have been presented in the renaming discussion that use the "Turkish invasion of Armenia" wording. I reverted Oatitonimly's edit in the AG talk archive [182] and advised him [183] that this was not appropriate editing and that it would also probably be best to wait before altering wikilinks related to the article title currently being discussed. Of course altering another editor's words is a big faux pas, but a one-off incident like this can be put down to inexperience. The same could also be said for the altering of the wikilinks. My objection to them was that Oatitonimly was deleting links that worked and replacing them with dead links (because there is no "Turkish invasion of Armenia" article or redirect). This again is probably down to inexperience. Personally, I think Wikilinks that are "see also" type links should have the exact wording of the article title they lead to, but for wording inside article content there is not a need to make an exact duplication, as long as there is no deception. A wikilinked phrase like "the 1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia" that led to the Turkish-Armenian War article could be completely appropriate wording, depending on how the containing passage is worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

NB, I do not think there is any pov as such between "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia", however, the latter is more descriptively accurate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Had the editor stopped after your warning I wouldn't have reported them. But removing links from see also sections of clearly related articles as "doesn't belong" and edit warring to keep their preferred version in every article that mentions Turkish-Armenian war, despite not achieving a consensus in the talk page of the original article combined with the previous behavior shows a clear pattern of disruptive behavior and a lack of respect for consensus building. It's not the content itself I object to, which is just a content dispute, it's the editor's behavior in unilaterally imposing the content change in all articles in Wikipedia behind our back without any sort of consensus. Darwinian Ape ^talk 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My warning was specifically about altering other editors' words. I don't see that act being repeated. And was also about not turning working wikilinks into dead ones. That too has not been repeated, I think. The rest was just advice. I don't see what you claim to be "revisionism" in the argument about whether "Turkish-Armenian War" should be "Turkish invasion of Armenia" - both terms are in use, but I prefer the latter because it is more accurate descriptively, and because it follows the title format found on many Wikipedia articles, not the least being 2003 invasion of Iraq. And even if the former is the one that consensus decides on for that specific article title, there can still be good reasons to use the latter wording as links in other articles. I haven't gone through all of Oatitonimly's edits on those other articles to check if he has had those good reasons. But I do find Oatitonimly's edits to be rather pointless (and thus, yes, pointlessly causing disruption) because without any accompanying backing argument they can be (and are) easily reverted. He needs to be encouraged to discuss things on the talk pages, present arguments for each major edit change, and realize that not everything needs to be fixed in a day. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I outlined my reasoning for the content dispute on the talk page of related article, I wont reiterate here. The edit pattern of the editor looked to me a clear attempt of whitewashing every instances of the use "Turkish-Armenian war" to bolster their move request and I am not convinced that they were trying to improve the articles by replacing it with their preferred version. I'm glad that you also see these edits as causing disruption. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his editing, especially at the start when he was breaking wikilinks and editing other people's words, has been disruptive, one could even say eagerly disruptive - but I think "whitewashing" is overstating the ambition of the edits: both "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia" are used by sources, and one is currently the title, the other a past title and now a redirect. "Tendentious" is also overstating things, and the "not here to build an encyclopedia" assertion you made at the start is just not justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When almost every edit of the editor was an attempt to replace the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" with "Turkish invasion of Armenia" Considering the determination, bordering on zealotry, I think whitewashing is not an overstatement.(there are at least twice as many examples of this replacement campaign as I initially reported) There is also the issue of canvassing, edit warring and altering other editor's posts. And while it's possible to see each of these transgressions alone as inexperience, combined it's a clear NOTHERE like behavior. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you claim is being "whitewashed"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian War" obviously. See their comment in the move discussion in regards to the common name argument right before they started the rampage of replacement: "Less words will always yield more results. You also have to consider how many of these are Wikipedia WP:FORK"(referring to google search results) I think they believe(erroneously) that by replacing the instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian war" they will alter the google results or something. But given that the disruption seems to be stopped for now, I am OK if the admins would like to give the editor some rope, hopefully the disruptive behavior will not be repeated, although I'm not optimistic. This is not an area I am particularly interested in so I think it's unlikely we will collaborate in other articles after the move discussion. But I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a general bias in Turkish related subjects.(though limited my experience may be) There are some editors, unfortunately, who seems to be going to some enormous lengths to cast Turks in the worst possible light. I don't doubt there are proTurkish counterparts guilty of similar crimes, but they don't seem to be prevalent. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Some could think you have just revealed a pov agenda. But, I think, to have said so openly what you have just said is only revealing a failing of some Wikipedia articles to properly convey correct information. Those articles should have informed you enough for you to realize how disturbingly wrong (and actually offensive) that "to cast Turks in the worst possible light" opinion is. The Turkish-Armenian War article is not at all well written - I would like to improve it but it is currently protected thanks to Oatitonimly's unproductive edits. Maybe revisit it in a few weeks or months and see if you still stand by your opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing at the AE:

Unfortunately Oatitonimly continues with the disruptive behavior by canvassing at an AE request that they reported. I told them in the AE request that it was not an appropriate behavior. In turn they asked me to delete my comment "out of human decency," accusing me of battleground mentality on my talk page. I told them I would delete, if they acknowledge in their request, that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that the editors they pinged can see there is foul play in notifications and act accordingly. As of now they did not comply with my request. They also accused me of gaming the system, which is a clear projection since they were the one who tried to justify their canvassing by trying to find loopholes in policy.(see the conversation on my talk) They also accused me of editing "while carefully avoiding the 3RR." which is a clear misrepresentation and an assumption of bad faith. I gave this editor the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that they would see what they are doing is wrong and disruptive, but the problem is they don't seem to understand what they did was unacceptable. They are coming up with excuses that are less and less convincing. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This [184] does not seem to be actual canvassing, Oatitonimly did not place any messages on these editors' talk pages. The effect would be the same if he had said "it would be useful if they were here" rather than "I invite them". Or is there a way that those editors would have known just by having their names mentioned? However, the post itself seems rather weasely worded (by mentioning them by name Oatitonimly implies that all those editors have had problems with the editor being discusses, but without having to present evidence to prove it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Oatitonimly did not place any messages on these editors' talk pages." I don't see how that matters. The end result is the same. It's more efficient if you look at it, rather than sending each of them a message, just posting one message and ping all of them at once. Also it seems the editwar at Turkish-Armenian War continues right where they left before the page protection. Darwinian Ape ^talk 23:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Canvassing" is not just a word - it is an activity. He posted no invitations on the talk pages of those editors, or on any other pages, and no ping code was used in the post he made naming those editors. So I don't see how that one post can reasonably be called canvassing. 18:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

Here is the quote of the post:"User:DatGuy User:Ferakp User:EtienneDolet User:KrakatoaKatie User:Amortias User:Mr.User200 User:Jim1138 User:Cahk These users have all been involved with Gala19000's tedious editing and given him various warnings, both shown above. I invite them all to come here and give their thoughts if they wish to" (emphasis mine)(also editor used brackets to ping) It requires a great amount of mental gymnastics to think they did not intend to ping those editors just because they didn't the use ping code, editors were pinged regardless. Yes, canvassing is an activity that can be accomplished by pinging editors in an AE case. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the ping code? I do not know what you mean by "editor used brackets to ping" and "editors were pinged regardless" - names alone don't ping, brackets alone don't ping, the word "ping" pings! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield yes it does. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand corrected. What is the purpose of ping then, if annoying alerts are so easy to make with just a user wikilink? I suppose a question to ask is, if I didn't know that links did this, did Oatitonimly, is it something that would be common knowledge? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I think ping tag just puts an "@" sign to the name. It's probably made so it would be user friendly, many new editors may not know the ping tag and try to just wikilink the userpage, as most likely is the case here. I think it would be quite naive to think Oatitonimly didn't know it, given the nature of the message they crafted. Darwinian Ape ^talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it again I think you are right. Because "user" has been added in front of each editor's name, the intent was to communicate to them the invitation. It is not something that would be accidentally typed with an ignorance of its effect. I've no opinion on whether it was an inappropriate invitation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7 editing archive of closed RfC

(Ping User:I JethroBT...)

User:Kendrick7 After unsuccessfully attempting to undo the result of an RfC[185][186] decided to edit the archive to remove the decision by the closing administrator.[187][188][189][190] He also re-introduced a typo.

I am assuming that this is just a good-faith attempt to fix something he thinks is wrong, so a warning and an explanation of when an archive can and cannot be altered should resolve this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

All I did was restore what the archive said to begin with.[191] I believe such information is immutable once it is archived. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

[ Citation Needed ]. Free clue: when you assume that an experienced administrator does something that isn't allowed, you really need to cite the specific policy where you think it is forbidden. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the WP:JANITORs are able to just re-write Wikipedia's history as if we were living in Nineteen Eighty-Four that would be news be me, @Guy Macon:. Our archives are a meaningful measure of where we are and where we've been. Otherwise, why do we bother with archives at all, if they can just be rewritten at any time? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you talk to the admin about it before you came here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I was called here. I would have liked to have had that convo before Guy made a thing of it, but the admin is on vacation.[192] He probably needed one, Bugs, and I can't fault the guy for that. He was clearly under a lot of pressure to do such a retroactive change. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for that link to a Wikipedia policy that says he wasn't allowed to do that. So far all I have seen is "because Kendrick7 doesn't like it". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

C'mon do we really need a policy that says that archives are archives, per WP:Commonsense? We simply can't allow admins to close things one way and then a month later change their minds about it, and then to rewrite history to say they were always about the other way in the first place. We mustn't say that is AOK, for obvious reasons. I'm sure that @I JethroBT: thought this made sense. It doesn't. I don't think he should lose the mop over it; it was just a dumb thing to do. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Ahh, but the fact is that I JethroBT Did Not "rewrite history to say they were always about the other way in the first place". He went back and struck through the words, left a dated note,saying " see below" and left a link to the explanation of the change in his decision. Yes, he changed his mind and left a clear record, which you erased. You have removed the evidence of his actions to suit yourself. Going into archives and making changes to the history (his story) of someone's words and actions is so...unethical, that it doesn't need a written rule to state that it is wrong. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If an admin did it, the presumption should be that he has a good reason for doing it. If you think it was done in mistake, you should raise the incident here, not revert the admin. Anyway, no harm, no foul. Let's consider the issue raised, and await the admin's response. In the mean time, you should leave the archive alone. LK (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Kendrick7, common sense tells me that Wikipedia could have made the archives uneditable (as the history pages are) but chose to make them editable by anyone. I edit archives where needed (usually to fix a link that now goes to an archive, occasionally to add something like "Note added on (date): This was later resolved at (link)." As long as the added material is clearly signed and dated I see no problem and nobody has ever complained.

Despite your false accusation that JethroBT "re-wrote Wikipedia's history as if we were living in Nineteen Eighty-Four" and your snarky edit comment saying that he "did a dumb thing", he did a very smart thing that is not only allowed but encouraged by Wikipedia policy. He struck out (rather than deleting) the obsolete information and left a note (properly signed and dated) explaining where to find the current information.

Did you bother reading WP:COMMONSENSE before invoking it? It clearly says:

"When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons."

So again I ask, where is the policy that told you that archives are "immutable"? Where is the discussion where consensus on this was reached? So far all I have seen is "because Kendrick7 doesn't like it" stated three different ways. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's an archive, and thus obviously not meant to be edited? No one likes a pedant. Jtrainor (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

...exactly as it says at Help:Archiving a talk page. DMacks (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not finding any language on that page that says anything about whether an archive can be edited other than a see also link to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Would you be so kind as to quote the exact language on that page that you are referring to? --14:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

§Continuing discussions states "Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion." One can debate the "given"ness of that premise, but it's true technically in some archiving methods and others here have made the claim that it's philosophically true. Then "When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread." so clearly there is an avenue to continue an archived discussion, and it isn't simply circumventing whatever one thinks makes the archived item itself immutable. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• The important thing is that the closing admin left an unmissable new thread on the main discussion page, where it would pop up on watchlists, explaining what he's doing. Kendrick7 is making a fuss over nothing. EEng 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• So, I was challenged on my initial close of an RfC. I revised my decision based on their arguments because they were compelling and consistent with guidelines/policies. It was important to me that these changes be made clear to editors, and part of that involved orienting folks from that recent RfC in the archives to a newer discussion. It also involved striking part of my closing statement because after being challenged, as I decided my initial conclusion was wrong. The complaint is that archives shouldn't be edited. I agree with that sentiment; they don't normally need to be edited. But I think there was a reason in this circumstance, one that helps editors understand what happened in this complicated topic and why. And great thing is that editors aren't bound by the words on a template when there is a good reason to do something different. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Lute88, edit-warring and pro-Ukrainian POV pushing

I basically come against the edits of this user on a regular basis. Typically, they just revert my edits, either with a bogus edit summary, or with unconvincing edit summary. If I revert them, they immediately revert me again, sometimes making up a new edit summary. Apparently, I am not the only one, they were previously blocked for edit-warring. My experience is that they revert everything which can be considered remotely critical to Ukraine. I will not provide all references, their talk page contains enough evidence substantiating what I write, just to give an example, our last intersection was in Book of Veles, a proven hoax which at some point was included to the high school program in Ukraine. I added this info reliably sourced, and Lute88 reverted saying it is a blog (it is not) and did not discuss it at the talk page any further. Fine, that was solved by User:Altenmann, which is much appreciated. Today, I added to Holodomor genocide question a criticism of one of the historians cited there. Well, reliably source. Lute88 first reverted, saying this is not in the source. Fine, I reformulated. They reverted again and moved to the talk page, saying it ia WP:COATRACK. I suggested that they reformulate it themselves and return to the article in whatevever form they want. They said the material is not notable and refused to do it. Well, it just can not continue like this. This is not how Wikipedia should work. I suggest either topic ban from Ukrainian topics (which is apparently not the only topic they are interested in, so they will still have to do a lot on Wikipedia), or at least placing them under 1RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is underway, and there doesn't seem to be any edit-warring, IMO, at least on my part. And for the record: I didn't revert you, but rahter moved the offending para to Talk.--Lute88 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you just removed from the article everything I added, on two occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. The para is in discussion at Talk. I'm not interested in creating a filibuster out of a such a minor bit, but lets not have double standards.--Lute88 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. You do not want the material to be in the article, and of course you are not interested in modifying it in any way you find acceptable. You are just interested in removing it. This is your usual behavior, and your talk page has plenty of examples when you run into trouble with other users reverting essential material. It is great that you finally agreed to discuss smth after I said I will take you to ANI, but you should have not reverted reliably sourced material in the first place. We are not now discussing Russian-Ukrainian relations, we are discussing your behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My behavior is impeccable. If you want to have that para in the article: lets find acceptable sources, preferably not proKremlin. Thats what them talk pages are for.--Lute88 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Polit.ru is reliable and pretty much anti-Kremlin.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And also - the section is about a historian's view of a question. Questions of his _general_ competence and/or tendentiousness should go on his own article, not where you had them.--Lute88 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

However, propaganda is already in the article, and you are removing criticism of the propaganda. This is deteriorating the quality of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking about this page, Lute88 reverted your edit per WP:BRD [193]. Quoted source does not really support the statement about the "majority of historians". A discussion is taking place. This is minor content dispute. Speaking about another page you mentioned, here Lute88 removes text sourced to a Ukrainian language website marked on the top as "blog" [194], so this is something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

With so many on-sight reverts, some of the reverts may accidentally be reasonable (and the Book of Veles one was not). Their talk page consists almost exclusively of warnings for edit-warring. Therefore I believe that a topic-ban or a 1RR restriction is long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you should probably submit an WP:AE request because this subject area is under discretionary sanctions. But I do not see any recent evidence of misbehaviour by this user. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what I am going to do if this request does not attract any attention of administrators, as commons pretty often with ethnic conflicts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You just issued her a notice of discretionary sanctions. Perhaps this will be sufficient. Keep in mind that your diffs with misbehavior by user on AE should be dated after this notice. My very best wishes (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I remember this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem here worthy of your attention, contrary of the overall impression of nothing but content disputes between Wikipedians. I'd like to believe that Lute88 means well, but disruptive editing practises are a fact, such as routine use of false edit summaries (i.e. WP:COATRACK, WP:POV about books of history, etc.) coupled with one-click removal of entire sections (and/or online references) from Wikipedia articles on nationalist's grounds. This has been going on for a long time. Pretty much any critical third-party commentary about Ukrainian nationalism is WP:COATRACK for Lute88. [195] [196] [197] The results are often disturbing especially in relation to antisemitism (changing "yes" to "not" in citations, which actually defines vandalism). [198] Poeticbent talk 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I took part in discussion you linked to [199] and tend to agree with Lute88. Main point here is that crimes by German Nazi and their local supporters on the occupied territories should be included in "Holocaust pages", such as The Holocaust in Ukraine, rather than in "antisemitism pages", such as Antisemitism in the Soviet Union, Antisemitism in Russia, Antisemitism in Ukraine, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, speaking about your last diff, this is not a vandalism by Lute88. This edit was made by Lute88 in December 2014 and since then remains on the page, even though a lot of people edited this page since then. No wonder because her edit was actually consistent with the quoted source that blames Nazi rather than Ukrainians as the primary perpetrators of the genocide in Ukraine. Is that a good faith argument on your part? My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Lute88 does not practice outright vandalism or massive edit-warring. If they did, they were already blocked, and there were no need to open this topic. All their reverts could have, in principle, be discussed in a civilized way. The problem is that, as Poeticbent correctly noticed above, they revert on the spot everything that remotely looks critical towards Ukrainian nationalism (and they do not seem to be interested in the rest of the articles - for example, in Anti-Ukrainian sentiment they started edit-warring because of one sentence, calling it COATRACK, and ignored my repeated reminders that the rest of the article is below Wikipedia standards. Well, in Holodomor genocide question they reverted twice and did not express any interest in working in the article beyond reverting a sourced statement, saying on different occasions that it is biased, COATRACK, and is not in the source. Then you came, and only then something started at the talk page. In Book of Veles, they just kept reverting, providing different reasons, though 10 seconds is enough to find several reliable sources demonstrating that the book is in Ukrainian school program. Again, they did not express any interest of doing anything except reverting. And this is just in every single Ukraine-related article they touch. Yes, sometimes what they do can be interpreted by other parties as having a point, or possibly having a point. But this is exactly the style of editing which we call disruptive editing - and, well, block users who are persistent.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see only two recent reverts by Lute88 on each of these pages [200],[201], she took part in discussions and did not prevent recent editing of these pages by other users (edit histories above). This is hardly someone really disruptive. One would need a much stronger evidence on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

While there may be some issues, stuff presented here does not seem particularly excessive to warrant serious sanctions.--Staberinde (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If the admins would look into the page history, then it would reveal that this page is effectively WP:OWNed by a gang of disruptive editors such as Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs) [202], Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) etc., sometimes supported by their associates such as this Lute88 or My Very Best Wishes [203], who will always erase absolutely everything they Don't Like and will add everything they for some reason do like. So the problem is wider than only Lute88. Dorpater (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dorpater, you jump into a discussion which doesn't appear to concern you, just to throw around some gratuitous personal attacks around at other users. Which is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Should you get WP:BOOMERANGed now or do you think a separate section should be opened up just for you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Dorpater, if you actually looked at the edit history of the article in question [204] you'd notice that I haven't made an edit to that article in... FOUR YEARS. Which sort of begs the question... why are you dragging me into this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, I just looked through your editing history Dorpater to try and remind myself who exactly you were. So... do I need to file an SPI? Or how about you just drop this account and move on to your next one like you've been doing with all the other ones and save us both a bunch of time. [205] [206], etc. Ok "Lokal"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of multiple account use are seen as personal assaults so instead of "threatening" me with "boomerang" or launching this or that it may well be that I'd need to start an AE request concerning your behaviour. The outcome of which would most probably be a topic ban from the whole EE area for you. Decide yourself. Dorpater (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said that I was part of a "gang" that controls this article, despite the fact that I haven't edited the article in four years! *That* is a "baseless personal attack".

And your - brand new - edit history - does show the exact same interests (European political parties, anti-Muslim stuff, Ukraine and Eastern Europe) as a certain indef banned user. I'll be happy to file an SPI. You can go to WP:AE if you want to, your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to file such a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, here it's off-topic (and I'm curious about "anti-Muslim stuff" I supposedly promote here ;)). I mentioned you because your editing those years ago is fully in line with the current custom there whereby an article supposedly devoted to a dispute has been kept so partisan that one major view is not even mentioned there.Dorpater (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"I mentioned you because your editing those years ago is fully in line ..." - in other words your personal attack that I was supposedly part of some gang despite not having edited the article in four years was completely baseless and now you're just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Dorpater, I'm afraid you've let your POV slip. Not only did you restore content from someone who is neither an expert in the field, nor relevant to the article (other than being well known in the West: which isn't a qualification for inclusion, but does qualify as POV pushing), you also upped the ante by tweaking the restored content here so that it read as being not only redundant, but as blatantly WP:WEASEL and an exercise in heavily loaded language using your own direct translation from the Russian.

At the heart of your accusations is an article specifically dealing with the positions of experts who do or don't believe Holodomor to be genocidal in nature, how they have formulated their opinions, and why they maintain their positions on the issue. Your action was to reinstate WP:UNDUE content with an extra dash of hysteria (i.e., "provocatory shriek [...] by Ukrainian chauvinists"). Not only does it read as unadulterated propaganda straight out of a yellow press blog, but was/is grammatically awkward. Oh, what am I saying? It's abysmal (but great copy for the likes of Izvestia and other yellow press).

So, before you go on with asking admins and other editors to delve into what you are decrying as being implicitly 'cabal' and OWN activity, I would ask that they take a little look at behaviour of the accuser and the calibre of 'neutrality' this 'cabal' is suppressing. What, in fact, is being rejected is the highly POV content of a highly POV editor working as an SPA. The questioning and quashing of such content is not conspiratorial but the expression and manifestation of good editorship skills on behalf of the intervening editors. N.B. I fully support VM's proposed BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

User:LeonRaper

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

---

LeonRaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used Wikipedia for soapboaxing and acted uncivil toward User:Thomas.W, saying "I think you should do your homework in the future before you make negative statements about anyone" after receiving a final warning for harassment. He received a notice for having a conflict of interest and has created and then recreated an autobiography, although it was moved to the draft namespace. Also has been reported to ANEW. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 13:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I really tried to help this user create a neutrally-worded, referenced article. I don't know if he's notable or not but I assumed good faith and gave him the benefit of the doubt. He claims to be around 80 years old and I took that into account. The discussion didn't go well, with him saying we were giving him "BS about web links" and so on, but I tried. Since then, several editors have tried to help him. I noticed the AN3 report last night and gave a look; I had to contact Oversight because he was giving out phone numbers of third parties for us to call to verify his claims. I think he's now exhausted the patience of the community and he needs to stop. Katie^talk 13:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I think a temporary block may be necessary. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 14:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I support a block. I tried helping him out, it wasn't getting anywhere, he kept on emailing and talking me even when I stopped doing anything to the page. By the looks of it, Theroadislong is having exactly the same experience with him.

That and the constant flurry of the same questions at the Teahouse, getting the same responses, and him doing basically the same replies.

Frankly, he seems to be only to self-promote, rather than being here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse discussions here, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 480#New proposed Wikipedia web page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he understands either Wikipedia itself or the etiquette of technology or both; which may not be his fault, but can't be allowed to disrupt in any case. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly agree with all of the above I have tried to help him too, but he appears to be incapable of reading any of the copious advice he has been given. If he is notable we can create the article without his "help". Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to help in the past also, but he does not appear to understand. This could have to do with him being 80 along with a stroke 2 years ago. I have looked for sources to get something published but could not find any. Not sure where to go with him, but he is not making it easy to work with him. -- GB fan 16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I came in to this via an OTRS request for help and have, along with many others, to help him and to try to find sources for his biography. Because of that and his stated age, I have given him much more rope than I would be inclined to give most users. He seems to be unwilling to learn this sites policies, procedures or even follow simple sinstructions like indenting and signing his posts properly. Now that his draft has been declined again today amd with no real prospect for more sources with better coverage, it is time to explain to him that there will be no article. If, after that, he continues to act disruptivly then an indef for NOTHERE is in order. Jbh^Talk 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) His autobiography (Leon Raper) has been speedied twice for lack of notability, without stopping him, instead he tried to create it again through AFC (as Draft:Leon Raper), where it so far has been declined three times for the same reason, but he still doesn't get it, in spite of repeated attempts by a considerable number of editors here to explain things to him, and help him. So even though I feel sorry for him I feel that it's time to put a stop to it. Thomas.W ^talk 16:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a tad bit more care and gentleness could have been used in explaining how Wikipedia works to him (not that this is required)..For one thing, he seems to be under the impression that the editors he's been interacting with are employees of Wikipedia and he's upset at the "customer service" he's been receiving..It seems too that perhaps too many people were piling on in a sense and continuously referring him to policy pages that he simply didn't/wasn't capable of understanding instead of just allowing one or two editors deal with him on a more personal level...I think a block when be unsavory at this point, particularly toward an apparently good-natured elderly man..Wikipedia does have an interest in public relations..I could be wrong..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. Consider yourself the recipient of the Good Natured Barn Star  :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A good point, but it wouldn't solve the main problem, the repeated attempts to create an autobiography, with no sources that establish notability, and even more repeated attempts to add his own name to a list of award recipients, with no sources at all. Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well he has been all over the place basicly forum shopping for help. He has emailed several editors as well. The reason he keeps getting policy quoted to him is he seems to be more concerned about his article than anything else. At least three editors have explained the issues to him as well as giving him links to policy pages.

  Why he thinks editors are employees is beyond me. I have explicitly told him that the editors trying to help him are volunteers using their own personal time. He has just worn out a few different iterations of editors in his quest for a biography on Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 17:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

He seems to genuinely believe that information contained within an article about himself (particularly directions to websites) could be useful to the community of swing dancers (particularly the community in southern California?)...this may be true but it may be very niche too/not Wikipedia notable/not able to be sourced etc...I think it's true too that he would simply like to have an article about himself on some level..for various reasons he may not be able to understand Wikipedia/Wikipedia policy...so, indeed, at some point he'd have to be moved along if this is the case...idk..but you can't but feel sorry for the guy when you look through his interactions..perhaps some of the links to some of his sites can be added to the "swing dance" article..I have no idea..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reading LeonRaper's talk page left me with nervous jitters and a stomach ache. I don't think this user will ever be capable of understanding how to edit Wikipedia, and is only here to create an autobiographical article about a non-notable person, so there's really nothing reasonable to do except to indef block for WP:CIR. It's unfortunate, I wish it weren't so, but the evidence is irrefutable: this editor cannot seem to learn, and will simply keep abusing our resources and the patience of editors who attempt to help him. I wouldn't be adverse to a final warning before the block, but I have no doubt that the block will be the ultimate solution. BMK (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree--and I'd hate to make that block, but ... oh wait, it's time for me to clock out. I'll leave it for the next admin to make this necessary but disagreeable block. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah well. I made it a NOTHERE block. BMK, will you do me a huge favor and leave a kind note for the editor? (Without bold and italics, if you know what I mean...) I really have to go, but I think the editor deserves a note, sort of repeating what you said here. Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. BMK (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. BMK (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an eighty-year old man. What the fuck is going on? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how old or how young you are, you still have to be able to understand and follow rules and procedures. As Jbhunley pointed out above, he's been given a great deal of leeway because of his age, which is confirmed by his talk page. An editor who was not 80 who repeatedly recreated an autobiographical article deleted for non-notability would have been blocked faster and with less delicacy, so I don't think there's a valid complaint that he's been mistreated or mishandled. BMK (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, don't you think "He's an 80 year old man" is sorta an ageist complaint? My mother is 81, my mother-in-law will be 90 in a few days, I regularly work alongside people in that age range, and, while some adjustments may have to be made in consideration of their relative mental acuity, all of them are still competent human beings. There is no reason why we should expect an 80 year old man not to be able to comprehend and follow standard rules per se, especially when they're given a great deal of assistance and leeway. BMK (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This. My parents are roughly the same age and are perfectly capable of working within our guidelines. I find it interesting that LeonRaper claimed to have coded all those websites but couldn't manage wikimarkup, which is way simpler than HTML (at least to me). Oh, well. I might see him at UTRS sometime. Katie^talk 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I must've been feeling uncharacteristically sympathetic last night. Good work everyone! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 03:07, 18 May 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.

Apparent proxy edit for a banned user

The following discussion is closed. 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 appears that User:The Wordsmith has made an edit on behalf of banned editor User:Thekohser. Our policy states: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying)...". I will revert the edit and notify The Wordsmith. - 2601:42:C104:28F0:D139:A61E:D642:7FDD (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A good example of wp:IAR and wp:BURO. I hope you are not serious about keeping this atrocious sentence:

Deyonta Davis (born December 2, 1996) is an American basketball Who played for...

I have undone your revert on behalf of myself. Hope you can live with that. - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've done the same and so have many others, so I don't see a problem. We aren't talking about major edits or problematic edits (soapboxing, vandalism, POV, etc), we are talking about fixing an obvious mistake. If the suggestion is of the type that I would have done myself had I seen it first, then I don't see a problem with making it regardless of who suggests it. The fact remains, Deyota is a player, not a basketball, so it seems spiteful to not make the edit. thekohser is banned but the point of not proxying for banned users is to deny them a platform, it isn't to avoid fixing spelling or grammar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Sneaking this in for the record: WP:PROXYING states (my emphasis added): "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." As the edits were clearly productive and anyone could independently decide to make the same one, its allowed by policy. IAR and NOTBURO not required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 18 May 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.

Short military bios in Draft

Working through a page of stale Draftspace pages I am coming across dozens of very short pages on WWII German military people and at least one holocaust surviver. Typical examples found with several warnings and many deletion notices at User talk:Mad7744 but no evidence of any response. Earlier he was doing this in mainspace but now is doing it in draftspace. I suggest an Admin go through his page creations and delete all similar pages rather then us having to tag each individually. He is a prolific page creator, pretty much all on military bios.

• [207] many page creations
• 88 mainspace pages - 28 deleted so far [208] Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

He's creating stub articles - nothing wrong with that, they're in Draft Space not article space. KoshVorlon 11:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of copy violation claim

Well, i'm not sure whether to go here or directly to WP:ARBPIA, but let's try here first without sanctions and stuff. It seems that user:Sean.hoyland removed the copyvio template from template:Palestinian territory development, violating the procedure guidelines. There should certainly be a discussion on whether this is a copy violation or not (concerning the usage of six maps in series to promote a certain political agenda), but semantics aside Sean violated the technical procedure, which is highly problematic.GreyShark (dibra) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, your copyvio claim was malformed, claiming it is a copyright violation of a home page for the office of the Palestinian president. There is nothing on there that is close to these maps. Besides that, these maps arent copyrighted by themselves, and aggregating them does not magically confer copyright on them. Regardless of that last bit, your edit was malformed in that it claimed a copyright violation of a website that doesnt in any way resemble the image shown on our page. nableezy - 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy has the right of it, I think - the source doesn't include the material tagged as a copyvio. Greyshark, if you have evidence that the maps are taken directly from some other page, feel free to post it here for discussion. If your concern is that these maps, in this format and this sequence, present some message that matches a message presented elsewhere, and that THAT is what is being copied... no, that's not quite how copyvio works. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, thats a template thats transcluded on 3 fairly often read articles here, a template that you nominated for merge and nominated for deletion. A copyright violation accusation is fairly serious and it shouldnt just be used to remove material you disagree with as part of some checklist of ways to remove material from Wikipedia. Putting that copyvio template on this has somewhat far-reaching impacts, and given how long youve tried to have the template removed by other means I have to question the motivation in using this tactic now. nableezy - 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've interacted on this template for quite a while; recently while reading the Mahmmud Abbas' webpage, it did strike me that the source for the images is his and "Palestinian territory development" is highly misleading, actually being a copy-paste from Mahmud Abbas' page. Looking into more resolution and details, the images indeed morphed into a slightly different style over time. However, i would take a deeper look whether earlier versions were a copy-paste; i assume that the original copyvio thus could have been corrected (if indeed copyviolated).GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The logic above is not completely sound. A single set of events may bring a whole slew of charges by a prosecutor without raising that "question", even by the most aggressive defense. A single inclusion may be a violation of multiple rules or laws, and while a prosecutor's office can try them all at once in court, an individual on Wikipedia can often manage only one process of appeal at a time, given the individual's limited resources. Let us not give any weight to that argument. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Maps are indeed copyrightable and the site has a copyright notice, I'm not sure what the issue is. If the tag has the wrong URL, so redo with correct URL but we all know what site he's referring to so we know that the maps are not allowed here without permission. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  Assuming GreyShark09 is referring to http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823, there is no copyvio: the template and the linked page use similar maps to express similar ideas, but absolutely nothing has been copied. --Carnildo (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2016

• None of the maps match each other in addition to the fact the Palestinian Authority's copyright notice doesn't really matter because the maps they created exist in public domain. I have made those maps myself long ago using other sources and the PA's maps have some serious mistakes. Some are technical and some are for the purpose of misleading and those mistakes are not repeated in template's maps. It would be like saying the map used in the article of the United States is stolen from the website of the American Congress while the map of the US exists in so many other places.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 03:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the technical procedure with respect to copyright template removal and I removed it anyway here with the edit summary "surely you don't mean http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823" because there is no evidence of copyright violation, exactly as I would have done if a vandal had added the template, thus making Wikipedia content inaccessible to readers. I've asked GreyShark to carefully explain and justify their edit atTemplate_talk:Palestinian_territory_development#Copyvio_allegation and at User_talk:Greyshark09#Copyvio. Instead they came here. If this proves to be a misuse of the WP:COPYVIO as a tool in an ARBPIA related content dispute (to which I am not a party) there should be consequences, a warning at the very least. Copyright violation is a serious matter and the tools for dealing with it should never be misused. There are 500+ active admins and this is a matter that would benefit from admin attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As a single topic editor in ARBPIA space, i guess you are more familiar with the edit-warring on that topic. If you strongly feel that i'm a single topic editor as well and spend my days over edit-warring on ARPBIA pages, you are welcome to press charges. Per WP:GF i decided not to go to topic sanctions page, due to the fact that the copyvio is a fairly technical issue; I'm still not sure you are eligible to remove the copyvio template by yourself. Are you?GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking Sean Hoyland jumped the gun too quickly here. | this image, which is featured in the template comes from | this image on commons, which in turn is a photograph of a professionally produced image made elsewhere. Per Wikipedia's own rules, this image is copyrighted and therefore the claim of copyright infringement looks plausible. I'm not a huge copyright expert so I won't replace the copyright notice on the page, however, it looks like Greyshark is right , however I defer to our resident copyright expert's opinion to be sure!

It's entirely possible that I jumped the gun, but I don't think the information you have provided indicates that that is the case. The UN map is, as far as Wikipedians know, in the public domain, which is presumably why it's in Commons rather than Wikipedia, and a map derived from that UN map will not be a copyright violation as far as I'm aware. That was also not the stated reason for the application of the copyvio template. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Greyshark, did you

• a) apply the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation
• or b) apply the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright.

If a), you applied the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation, can you explicitly confirm whether the following statements are true or false

• your edit summary 'the map is almost entirely a copy-paste of the Mahmud Abbas webpage under "Palestinian position on current issues"' is referring to the maps in this page available via the "Political Position" link in president.ps/eng
• you are claiming the maps in the template Template:Palestinian_territory_development are "almost entirely a copy-paste" of the maps in this page

If, as you say here, "The copyvio is so evident to me (in earlier versions of the map collage)", provide an example diff for a revision of the "earlier versions of the map collage" you refer to that violate copyright.

If b), you applied the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright, describe those reasons so that admins can decide whether they are compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. In evidence is an effort by "Greyshark" to remove, on spurious and deceitful grounds, maps showing the evolution of territorial control in Israel/Palestine in the past 80 years. Why? He doesn't like the reality these maps demonstrate being observed and known. It turns out he's tried to airbrush these maps out of Wikipedia before. This is not the sort of person who should be contributing to an encyclopedia on this topic. I'm sure he will continue to, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, my knowledge of copyright isn't great, however, my understanding of it is , that wikipedia follows the Berne Convention when it comes to copyright, that is, that an item is copyrighted by its creator on the moment of it's creation, and thus is considered copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that the work is Public Domain. This would make that image copyrighted, and not public domain. KoshVorlon 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume the statement "This would make that image copyrighted" refers to the UN map made by @Zero0000: to include the boundary of previous UNSCOP partition plan, derived from the original UN map, and released into the public domain by Zero, with the standard Commons template that states "Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide." If so, that is not relevant to this issue because a) that image is not used b) that was not the stated reason for the use of the copyvio template and c) derived works such as [209] are not copyright violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland on the actual map itself there's nothing on it that says it's public domain, therefore it can't be assumed that it is, rather, copyright is assumed under the Berne Convention. KoshVorlon 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map… nableezy - 15:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether anything can or cannot be assumed about that UN map is not relevant to this case because that map is not relevant to this ANI thread and the template at issue. Discussions about the copyright status of the UN map should take place in Commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, what appears to be happening is that the maps here in the template are user-made SVG versions using data from maps that are under copyrights. While a specific map image may be copyrightable, the data on that map is not, so the user recreating the SVG versions is in the clear (this is part of what The Graphics Lab functions as to make free versions of copyrighted images that are otherwise based on uncopyrightable data. So there doesn't appear to be any copyright violation here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The amusing thing here, of course, is that the PA and countless other organizations would be quite happy to license maps for use in Wikipedia articles for the price of an email or phone call. But, again: This not about copyright. It's about hiding facts that don't suit "Greyshark's" political agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Murphy: There should be penalty for blaming people for WP:NOTHERE on ANI discussions the way you do. You clearly don't know user:Greyshark09's agenda and neither do I (He is somewhat mysterious). There's a discussion about copyvio so keep it a dicussion on copyvio. Thanks--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday kid. I can observe his behavior, a pattern over quite a period of time, and deduce his agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Which would be a personal attack absent you actually presenting the evidence, so dont do it. If you feel he has an ulterior motive, take it to the NPOV or COIN noticeboards and make your case there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The pattern is already presented here. A request for merge, then a request for deletion of the same template. Wait that didnt work, how else can I hide the material. Oh oh oh I know, a copyright violation claim, that completely blanks the template! Brilliant! nableezy - 15:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Using an existing map, even one copyrighted, to make a new map that shows the same geographical shape is not usually a copyright violation. It is actually more of a violation to copy the coloring and presentation (if the latter is creative enough). The basic idea is that copyright protects creative content, not the pre-existing factual basis if it is well-known. Greyshark should make a case on the copyright pages, which I'm confident will not be successful. It is ridiculous to add highly dubious tags and demand that nobody remove them on pain of being brought here. Zero^talk 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I looks to me as though Greyshark has wasted a significant amount of everyone's time. Given his two previous attempts to have the page removed using unrelated arguments, we should set a high bar when considering whether this was an intentional and deceitful misuse of Wikipedia process. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean like your actions at the Israel Palestine conflict page?19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs)

Remember, you brought me to ANI, not Oncenawhile. I asked you some simple and straightforward questions above (starting with 'Greyshark, did you'). Answering those questions would clarify matters. It's important to establish why you applied the copyvio template when there doesn't appear to be any evidence of a copyright violation. You can provide a simple and straightforward answer to that question and then admins (and editors who may need to interact with you in ARBPIA) can decide whether you followed due process, whether you made a mistake or whether you employed deception. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Id very much like to see even a token attempt at answering those questions as well Greyshark09. nableezy - 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistent incivility by user Vormeph

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

---

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

User @Vormeph: has been consistently disrespectful to other users, with a history (over the last two months) of edit warring, WP:NPA, POV-pushing and failing to get the point. He has been warned, blocked, etc. several times, at some point listing a "naughty list" of other editors (disclaimer: including myself) on his user page, which was forcibly removed by an admin.

Offensive behavior:

• "UCaetano is Iranian himself (it says so on his userpage) so he naturally has a bias towards Iran and his argument that Iran and Persia are used interchangeably. For argument's sake, he needs to terminate his bias and execute the actions of the majority faithfully lest he be discredited as being a worthy diplomat" here
• "Just a few more steps and you'll come to your senses with reality." here
• "When are you going to come out of your shell and realise that a bit of UV light won't harm ya?" here
• "His comments borderline on trolling, therefore I've resorted to blanking him until he appeals to reason.", " It may have been in your hay days, but no longer. If you cannot grasp this reality, then burying your head underground as the world goes by is your only option I'm afraid. If need be, I can provide a shovel free of charge at your disposal." here
• "Unfortunately, such editors are nationalists and have abused the concept of consensus to advance their interests. It is a growing worry that editors such as @Rwenonah:, @LjL: have become swayed over this." here
• His previous "naughty list" on his user page, removed by @KrakatoaKatie:
• Other editors who have been subject of his WP:NPA attacks: @LouisAragon:, @McGeddon:, @Aidepikiwnirotide:

Before his current wave of offensive behavior, he previously called other editors eunuchs, told them to bend over, for which he was blocked. This isn't a single occurrence, this is consistent incivility despite multiple warning and blocks. Here's my latest warning to him, which he just removed shortly after. He's been brought up here multiple times as well. This is besides the consistent POV-pushing over several months in Talk:Iran, which I won't go over. Please take a careful look at this situation. Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: You must love me so much to the degree that you'd follow whatever I do on Wikipedia. If you would like to go on a date some time, then I suggest good conscience and perhaps some more from you than posterior poking. Vormeph (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's enough – not going to put up with comments like this one. Blocked one month for NPA and harassment. Katie^talk 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I've removed personal attacks from their user page and warned that they'll face an indef block if I see such attacks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your swift action. Best, UCaetano (talk) 13:17, 18 May 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.

• ...and since he took it upon himself to threaten retaliation on his talk page, I increased his block to indefinite and revoked both email and talk page access. Katie^talk 14:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Constant additions of unsourced content

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

---

Reporting Qaz102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for constant additions of unsourced fan-based content after multiple reverts over several days, and after being told to discuss it on the talk page, which they have not. The added content is [210], and the reverts are [211], [212], [213], [214], listed at The Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they haven't repeated it since their final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The final warning was added after their last revert, which was only an hour ago. As mentioned, this has been going on over the past few days. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I take that back. They added it again, this time with further unsourced fan-based content [215]. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, 24-hour block issued for edit warring to insert OR. Will escalate if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 18 May 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:HeroChaos

The following discussion is closed. 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 have a look at this user page. Particularly administrators. But be careful, he'll take you to ArbCom just for lookin' at him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, see this template he seems to have created, and already used once at Moxy's page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they also edited as 146.0.229.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per the continuing of this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers User:Samtar. God only knows how come he's still here! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a single edit to the encyclopedia, and he's definitely earned the NOTHERE block I just gave him. It's my day, I guess. Katie^talk 13:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, in this life, we get the vandals we deserve eh _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:37, 18 May 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.

Bomb Threat to Wikipedia

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

---

[216] contains a threat to blow up Wikipedia headquarters. This was issued by a school IP address, contains a grammatical mistake, and does not appear credible. I have emailed emergency@wikimedia.org as per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm to ensure they are aware of the threat. They have acknowledged receipt. I believe no further action is required. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that someone suppressed the revision in which the unblock request that contained the threat was made, but they did not redact it from or suppress the subsequent revision containing the declined unblock request - and so it was still there in the latest revision for all to see. I've now redacted the threat and have rev-deleted the revision containing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 18 May 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:Some1asks

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

---

Blocked by User:Yamla, is now threatening to sock. can someone please revoke T/P access please; I gently advised him as to undesirability of his actions but WP:NOTHERE at all, any more. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats, too. Can someone swing the banhammer, please? Kleuske (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Bbb23. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

new sock - Mum Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 87.112.150.22 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Mike V. --Yamla (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible error in Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. 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 verify: Illustris project This page displays different content in ""overview"" section than available in edit form and also it violates NPOV (it advocates creationist pov).--Asterixf2 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How does it advocate that? I suggest it does no such thing (it wouldn't even mention the Big Bang if it did!). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It did, because of template vandalism, but doesn't anymore. Thanks for the report, User:Asterixf2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah it had already been removed. See what you mean. Nice one. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:57, 18 May 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.

Alert! There's a possible error in Wikipedia! EEng 07:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts

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

---

• Blackhammer27 (talk · contribs)
• Ibet1234 (talk · contribs)

These two accounts are both editing the same two pages, and the accounts were created at the same time. (IP's cannot open SPI investigations, so I brought it here instead). Can a check-user confirm a link between these two accounts? Thanks. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? But seriously, thank you for bringing them to attention here. Both are vandalism-only accounts, so I've blocked both of them indefinitely, regardless of any socking issues. Given the backlogs at SPI and the ease of dealing with simple vandals, you'll probably get faster responses if you vandals as vandals rather than as socks. That's not a complaint about what you're doing (keep it up, and you shouldn't get anything except thanks); it's simply an observation about the speed with which we tend to deal with different types of problematic editors. Nyttend (talk)

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

Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping: Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking

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

---

CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERSTALKING

I am disturbed at the prospect that Wikipedia would provide users with the tools to track other users across pages, no matter how experienced or trusted or how respected within the in crowd of wikipedians. If this is the case, then this is a policy that enables cyberbullying and cyberstalking.

On the Glycemic index page, User:Grayfell arrived, assessed my wording and the veracity of my cited sources and reverted my edit within 1 minute of it being posted. Grayfell's edit comment on the Glycemic index: Revision history reads, "Edit warring, overly promotional wording, one of those sources is far, far too spammy to be usable." Previously, I had heard of edit warring but I am not familiar with how an edit war is conducted. Citing it as an excuse to justify a revert is alarming.

I am not interested in playing silly games with other wikipedia users.

Yet warring with other users appears to be Grayfell's goal. I had previously noted, he has been engaging in this activity for over 18 months. The very next section on Grayfell's Talk below where I advised him of this post is titled Michael Wiseman. It too is telling. The thrust and counter thrust of blocking and reverting each others work might be fun for dedicated users but I have no interest in it. I feel that as users involved continue to seek out new targets to keep themselves entertained, a dangerous atmosphere that promotes cyberbullying and cyberstalking will inevitably develop. At 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)User:WriterWithNoName says

“Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account?”.

My answer is simple, grayfell is playing a game and WriterWithNoName is just another playtoy victim.

I have now looked at Grayfell's user page and found that he does have a connection with multi-level marketing and Utah as I suspected. Whether Grayfell has an existing negative association with the Usana company, the supplements industry, multi-level marketing, the state of Utah or whether he is so deeply attached to his edits that he cannot tolerate changes being made by others or whether he has become too wrapped up in the world of wikipeadia that he needs to revert other users edits to get some kind of satisfaction, he clearly has demonstrated a personal vested interest in his dealings with me. This interest has obscured his ability to maintain a detached impartiality in his dealings with the Usana page or with me. Furthermore, his comments have become personal as they have addressed me directly.

I fear that Grayfell has spent too long in the wikipedia culture without a compass. I expect he has lost sight of the fact that wikipedia was established as a source of information for the benefit of humanity. This is an unrestricted resource that children use. If grayfell wants to play games, then perhaps a massively multiplayer online role-playing game would be a more appropriate pursuit. Having him and others of his ilk preying unidentified users is a recipe for disaster.

It is time for grayfell to be blocked and leave the wikipedia community. He needs to take a better look at the world outside.

ORIGINAL POST TO THIS PAGE STARTS HERE:

Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping on the Usana Health Sciences page over the past 18 months

I would like Administrator intervention because I don't understand what have I done to justify a revert let alone threats of blocking? Furthermore, I reiterate my request of 5 May 2016 that Grayfell be blocked from editing the Usana Health Sciences page and if he is found to have engaged in anything more serious I ask that he be blocked entirely.

I am not the first user to have difficulty with Grayfell while editing the Usana Health Sciences page. Over the last 18 months, Grayfell has reverted every significant revision and I note that many of those users no longer appear active, so perhaps you could look into whether they have been erroneously blocked.

ON THIS OCCASION:

Grayfell asked for more context about the TGA. He deleted the context I originally provided, so I provided an alternative from multiple sources both primary and secondary. (The government agency itself and a journal article about the government agency. Surely a government regulator is a viable source but I provided the other source as well.)

I provided more material, up to date material from sources that were already listed on the page. (I went to the ConsumerLab website and found a 2016 survey the results of which I added with the 2011 materials.)

I deleted a report by a non-scientifically trained journalist (yes, I have looked up his bio on the Time website) who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of his own non-clinical non-peer reviewed trial because that report has the encyclopedic veracity of a unicorn.

I added a reference to the GI symbol program and outlined its veracity. In particular that it is a not-for-profit foundation run by the University of Sydney and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. (In my original edit, I also included data from their testing.)

I also added similar details to the Glycemic Index page and elevated the GI Symbol Program to it's own section (given that it is a widely accepted Australian and now international standardised testing procedure). Rather than just revert the page, on this occasion, the entire section on the GI symbol has been removed by Grayfell.

Previously he has cited comments that cast individuals in an unreasonably positive light and reverted any changes that provide an opposing point of view. Grayfell has cited an article titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" to say that Minkow is a fruad-buster and pastor, even though the theme of the article makes the point that he is in fact a serial-swindler. The article establishes a long standing pattern of deception and distortion against companies over the decade in question. Grayfell only deleted this reference when this hypocrisy was pointed out on a post 5 May 2016.

WHEN IS SOUND JUDGEMENT OBSCURED BY VESTED INTEREST If we look at the edits made on the Glycemic index: Revision history, Grayfell would have barely had time to read the changes made to the page that I edited, let alone determine if the sources I provided are reputable in the one minute between my post and his revert. Grayfell stated on his talk page, "The edits to Glycemic index were sourced to the main gisymbol.com page (which doesn't discuss the symbol and is a primary source) and totalwellbeingdiet.com, which appears to be pure spam. " The gisymbol.com page is the non-profit health promotion foundation established by the University of Sydney, Diabetes Australia and JDRF Australia (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation). This is a reputable source. The totalwellbeingdiet.com is a program run by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is the peak research body in Australia. This too is a reputable source. Both of these would have been obvious and easy to confirm if Grayfell was acting with detached professionalism. Yet he was getting personal.

The article by John Cloud is about a non-clinical, non-peer reviewed trial with a sample size of one conducted by a non-scientifically trained journalist who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of this trial. As such he is the primary source, who has a financial interest in writing stories that engage readers on behalf of his employer who has a financial interest in publishing such stories. The article would make for a good movie along the lines of "Supersize Me" or "That Sugar Film" however it has no encyclopedic value.

According to guidelines as demonstrated by Grayfell's edits and edit comments, it is a primary source and primary sources are completely inappropriate as can be seen by his deletions and comments. Therefore by Grayfell's rationale references to the John Cloud article is also completely inappropriate. Yet, over the past 18 months, Grayfell has chosen to retain this article and has consistantly reverted attempts by myself and others to delete it or edit it to highlight its less than encylopedic nature.

MY VIEW: Granted, I may not have adhered to policy all of the time. (My interactions with Grayfell have made me aware of many policy areas I had never even considered might be relevant to my edits.) However, I have not acted vindictively or with malice. I have simply tried to expand the available knowledge base. I have always tried to delete elements that have limited veracity. Where unsubstantiated opinion has been offered, I have tried to provide an alternate point of view. I have listed things, because lists simplify understanding and seem to abound on Wikipedia.

I expect that this has become something personal for Grayfell. Stalking me around on other pages and deleting my work is not exactly impartial, particularly when my last edit was a simple edit to the Glycemic Index page. I feel that Grayfell has educated himself in the rules and procedures and placed himself in a position where he can erroneously revert any change made to the Usana page. It makes wonder if other users have experienced this problem in the past. It also makes me wonder what personal connection he has with Usana, supplements and the state of Utah. Perhaps a review of his edit history might shed some light on that.

CONCLUSION: I would like a sockpuppet check of the following user IP addresses: 172.58.41.35 and 113.172.26.48 in association with Grayfell. I would like Grayfell blocked from the USANA Health Sciences page if not Wikipedia as a whole. I will be notifying Grayfell of this post via his talk page.

Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry.

Kind regards 122.148.118.18

PREVIOUSLY ON 5 MAY I WROTE: As both an informational and financial contributor I understand how important it is that this source be open and free. I understand that it is not possible to employ vast numbers of editors to fix problems and that it is necessary to have well meaning, community minded individuals to volunteer their time to make Wikipedia great. I acknowledge that I have made errors at times and am grateful that we have a wonderful community who have quickly picked them up.

Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page.

Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also."

Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune [Forbes] titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements.

I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this.

And then there was the "possible vandalism" by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision.

I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page.

I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry.

Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Who's going to close this one? Awful report. Doc talk 06:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.

As someone recently said, "Holy wall of text Batman!" Which was funny.

Unlike this report.

Actually, on a re-read, that closing paragraph has a possibly threatening undertone...?

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevant article is at USANA Health Sciences. USANA has no direct control over their article, and forwarding it to them will probably do little more than confuse someone in their office for a few minutes. Beyond that, this is a content dispute. I agree, there's a bit of menace in that last paragraph, but not a legal threat as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"A bit of menace;" just so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 18 May 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.

Large List of School / Shared IP's (Avoiding Massive WP:AIV Disruption)

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

---

Hi all, I've been doing a lot of patrolling and have come across a very long list of school / shared IP addresses that may (or may not...) need blocks. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I don't want to create a significant backlog there. I hope this doesn't come across as being disruptive, but I thought it'd be better to post this here than create a huge mess to clean up at AIV. Thanks. 2607:FB90:8023:4CDB:0:3B:FA1:101 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list:

UPDATE: All IP's have been blocked. Discussion may now be closed.

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

Abusing multiple accounts

• Angelgotti5 (talk · contribs)
• Da1988347 (talk · contribs)
• Dannyhrgl (talk · contribs)

Can a check-user take a look into a possible link between these accounts. IP's cannot open SPI cases (so I had to file it here...). These accounts were created less than a half-hour apart from one another, and they all have edited the same page with similar editing patters. Thanks. 172.58.41.35 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But Da1988347 and Angelgotti5 don't have the same editing pattern on John A. Gotti, on the contrary. 172, possibly you misread Da1988347's long edit summary here: they're actually removing the unsourced claim that Gotti helped the FBI. A little later, the pro-Gotti editor Angelgotti5, who claims to be Gotti's sister,[217] reinstates the statement about helping the FBI, as well as removes a lot of negative information. And while Dannyhrgl also removed negative stuff, their single edit isn't much in the style of Angelgotti5. So I don't really see any of them as related. Bishonen | talk 05:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

And the user Dannyhrgl, whilst perhaps being overly fond of his caps-lock, has made one edit, about nothing that touched on the edits of the other two (that is, nicknames). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 05:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking

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

---

Holy wall of text... here, I have broken it down to a smaller section.

CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERSTALKING

I am disturbed at the prospect that Wikipedia would provide users with the tools to track other users across pages, no matter how experienced or trusted or how respected within the in crowd of wikipedians. If this is the case, then this is a policy that enables cyberbullying and cyberstalking.

On the Glycemic index page, User:Grayfell arrived, assessed my wording and the veracity of my cited sources and reverted my edit within 1 minute of it being posted. Grayfell's edit comment on the Glycemic index: Revision history reads, "Edit warring, overly promotional wording, one of those sources is far, far too spammy to be usable." Previously, I had heard of edit warring but I am not familiar with how an edit war is conducted. Citing it as an excuse to justify a revert is alarming.

I am not interested in playing silly games with other wikipedia users.

Yet warring with other users appears to be Grayfell's goal. I had previously noted, he has been engaging in this activity for over 18 months. The very next section on Grayfell's Talk below where I advised him of this post is titled Michael Wiseman. It too is telling. The thrust and counter thrust of blocking and reverting each others work might be fun for dedicated users but I have no interest in it. I feel that as users involved continue to seek out new targets to keep themselves entertained, a dangerous atmosphere that promotes cyberbullying and cyberstalking will inevitably develop. At 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)User:WriterWithNoName says

“Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account?”.

My answer is simple, grayfell is playing a game and WriterWithNoName is just another playtoy victim.

I have now looked at Grayfell's user page and found that he does have a connection with multi-level marketing and Utah as I suspected. Whether Grayfell has an existing negative association with the Usana company, the supplements industry, multi-level marketing, the state of Utah or whether he is so deeply attached to his edits that he cannot tolerate changes being made by others or whether he has become too wrapped up in the world of wikipeadia that he needs to revert other users edits to get some kind of satisfaction, he clearly has demonstrated a personal vested interest in his dealings with me. This interest has obscured his ability to maintain a detached impartiality in his dealings with the Usana page or with me. Furthermore, his comments have become personal as they have addressed me directly.

I fear that Grayfell has spent too long in the wikipedia culture without a compass. I expect he has lost sight of the fact that wikipedia was established as a source of information for the benefit of humanity. This is an unrestricted resource that children use. If grayfell wants to play games, then perhaps a massively multiplayer online role-playing game would be a more appropriate pursuit. Having him and others of his ilk preying unidentified users is a recipe for disaster.

It is time for grayfell to be blocked and leave the wikipedia community. He needs to take a better look at the world outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can either of you provide specific diffs as to where the problem is? John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see a single problem or infraction in Grayfell's editing, and he has explained his actions to you when queried. It looks like you are very very new to Wikipedia and have a lot to learn about how it works. You might want to register an account and receive mentoring if you want to stick around. I suggest this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • See above here: [218]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 19 May 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 abuse of categorization by IP

76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been in a sustained effort to add certain categories to pages. While a number of their edits are moderately helpful, a great many of them constitute gross overcategorization and is highly disruptive. I had been trying to avoid requesting a block for this IP, instead trying to clean up after them and guide them to a better understanding of the principles of categorization (four notices over the last three weeks at User talk:76.88.107.122 § A couple of notes on categories), but they continue without a response to my four notices or even a change in the pattern of their edits. Several editors have been involved in reverting or otherwise cleaning up after this editor. I'm hoping a temporary block, of at least one week, will encourage this editor to check their talk page, take the time to review the guidelines, and hopefully discuss the issue with other editors.

This is likely the same user as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was previously blocked for similar reasons, and also 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This is a repost of an earlier report which was archived without comment, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922 § Persistent abuse of categorization by IP. Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I empathize with your plight. It's frustrating trying to reach a reasonably good faith editor but for some reason or other they do not respond. I agree that a short-term block may help in this case. For the record, do you think you can provide us some example diffs of them at their worst? -- œ^™ 12:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The IP's edits mostly fall into the following areas, with examples:

• Holiday categories, especially Category:Holiday foods and its children
  • Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, as reverted by Trivialist
  • You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, as reverted by me
  • Steak, as reverted by Andy M. Wang
  • Category:Irish cuisine, as reverted by DexDor
• Genre by franchise categories, added to pages and categories about genres or individual works (these categories are meant to be places only on pages about franchises)
  • Metropolis (1927 film), as undone by Betty Logan
  • Category:Steampunk, as reverted by me
  • Silent Running, as reverted for different reasons by MarnetteD
  • The Black Hole, as reverted by Scjessey and yet again by FilmandTVFan28
  • Category:Retrofuturism, as reverted by Fixuture
• Categories concerning the supernatural – I've mostly left these alone
  • Diff of Fiddler's Green, still on page
  • Diff of Category:Wind creatures, still on page
• Fantasy and science fiction genre categories – sometimes ok, sometimes not
  • Hellraiser as reverted by Apokryltaros
  • Category:Animated horror films, as reverted by me
• War categories, especially subcategories of Category:Military equipment by war, or else members of Category:Wars used in the same way – I haven't touched these, as it's not my area of expertise and no one else has reverted any of them
  • Diff of Pickelhaube, still on page
  • Diff of M1879 Reichsrevolver, still on page
  • Cuirassier, as reverted by Urselius and a week later by Buistr
  • Dragoon, as reverted by Gaarmyvet and by me today
• Pirate categories, particularly Category:Pirates (a category for people, which the user confuses with Category:Piracy
  • Category:Pirate ships, as reverted by DexDor
• Adding categories of articles to their eponymous categories, an issue I'll admit is confusing even for experienced editors
  • Diff of Category:A Tale of Two Cities, still on page
  • Diff of Category:The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, still on page
  • Category:Dracula, as reverted by DexDor and again by me
• Lastly, and this is not a categorization issue, the IP occasionally engages in gross overlinking
  • Diff of The Producers (1968 film), as reverted by Everyking

There are also a number of literature-, history- and fashion-related edits, that don't appear to be problematic. But given the effort it's taking to follow this IP, I'm not sure the good edits are worth it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: It looks like they're back to the war categories which isn't my area of expertise either, but the large number of different articles they're editing are sure to catch the attention of some at the Military history Wikiproject where we can get some more eyes on this. I've left them a (yet another, I know) warning message, we should assume they are reading them and just choosing to be non-communicative. If they appear to be heeding the advice and improving at categorization then I myself can't justify a block just yet, but have no problem if another admin chooses to. The minor issue of not using edit summaries remains but I don't consider that block-worthy. We have the above diffs on record so for now let's just wait and see what else happens. -- œ^™ 08:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Adding war categories to weapon articles. Ibadibam (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr

I would like to file a complaint about User:Zefr. I came across him (and I'm assuming the user is a male) when I created a protein stub (and that article, is irrelevant and off topic to the complaint I'm making, just pointing out how my interaction with him began). He immediately removed the sources I provided and called them nonsensical. So I reverted it back and encouraged him to use the talk page of the stub. Granted, the two sources he removed may not have been the best sources ever, but it's a bit difficult to find peer-reviewed sources on hemp protein, and I'm using what's around. The sources in question, was one from "Hemp Line Journal" from 1992 (you can read it here or here), which I'll admit I have yet to find it published in something like pubmed, but I'm looking around for it. So I added another one, and this was actually a peer-reviewed source from a journal, and he removed it too. His reason for removing it? "Please review WP:SCIRS for sourcing and WP:REFB for how to format your references." This is not constructive collaboration, it was a totally valid source, and I'm just beginning on a stub here, I don't have time to meticulously format every source I add, but I will do it later, and he's not being constructive by removing sources, and he's removing any attempt I'm making to improve a new article, doesn't matter if the source is or isn't reliable (personally I think they were all fine sources). So anyway, all that said and explained (and again, this is actually off topic to the complaint I'm making), I decided to look into this user's editing history and so on. What I found, was that his contribution history reveals that this account's sole purpose is basically removing sources and revert warring on various articles, a lot of them nutrition based. What's worse, when other Wikipedia editors complain on his talk page (like here), he just blanks the page (example). He constantly blanks his page. Another Wikipedia member complained about his revert warring and told him not to blank his page, here, but he did so anyway. The limited experience I've had so far with him on the stub I started, was not positive. When I reverted his removal of the sources, I told him to use the talk page to reach a consensus, but he didn't bother, and instead posted on my talk page and accused me based on my user name of being biased and not neutral, instead of discussing his removal of the sources I added in the Hemp protein article. This is not collaboration, he's basically dictating that sources he doesn't like, must be removed, and if you disagree, he throws links to Wikipedia policies and dubious accusations instead of discussing what's wrong with the sources on the article's talk page. I don't know why he's not using the article's talk page to discuss disagreements and reach a consensus, perhaps he doesn't have time to do that because he's totally focused on removing sources from all kinds of articles, but this is not good collaboration. Moreover, he has actually been blocked before from what I can see, back in 2011, perhaps that's why he's constantly blanking his talk page nowadays, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure many more Wikipedia editors have been complaining about his edit warring aside from the examples I provided. So, I personally suggest a block of this user, not sure how long it should be, but he needs to cool down with this behavior. HempFan (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You really should discuss this on the talk page before bringing it here; you are basing this on a plain content dispute. Why haven't you started the talk page discussion? I'm pretty sure Zefr would have engaged there. Directing him to start it and then escalating immediately when he doesn't, isn't really the way to go about this. Make your case and if he doesn't respond, you can look to further measures. - FWIW, I agree that apart from the essential amino acid statement (which apparently got swept up in the removal), the material you added was rather far-fetched and dodgily sourced, and Zefr was correct in removing it.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I told him to use the article's talk page, but he refused. I was at first going to post on his talk page, but then I noticed it was empty. After looking through his talk page's history, it appeared he's not interested in discussing much really, he just reverts and goes into edit war mode on various articles, hence this complaint, because I'm not the only one bothered by his behavior. Again, this complaint is not about the hemp protein article (I just provided background to my complaint). Valid concerns can be made about the sources I used, sure, and I'm also sure he has removed other crappy sources in other articles, but shouldn't he use one of those "not reliable source" tags instead of just removing it altogether? In any case, his edit warring is discouraging, and he's not being helpful with collaboration, at all. I'm not trying to escalate things, I'm just saying, this seems to be a problematic user and he's constantly blanking his talk page to remove the criticism he gets from time to time. HempFan (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not in your remit to decide whether to talk to him or not; and the fact that he blanks messages is taken here to indicate that an editor has received and understood them. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been responding to him when he's been posting on my talk page, but he shouldn't be edit warring like he does (not just on the article I started). How is blanking his talk page acceptable? Other Wikipedia editors who aren't paying attention and don't have time to go through every message that was left on his talk page, may easily get the impression that this not a problematic user, because his talk page is hiding the obviously problematic editing history of this user by blanking it. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking user talk pages is acceptable because user talk pages are mostly intended for user to user communication, and so we don't require editors to keep comments around. And discussions about article content should generally be held on article talk pages. There's normally no need to discuss content on user talk pages and plenty of people prefer not to so will give only minimal attention to content related comments on their talk pages. And you shouldn't really need to tell someone to take it to the talk page. There's no reason why you can't initiate discussion. If the person completely ignores the discussion and continues to revert, perhaps a complaint about them refusing to discuss may have merit. And as always, if the editor does respond but you two can't reach WP:Consensus, there are several avenues of WP:Dispute resolution. But as it stands, the talk page of Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link, so it's going to be quite difficult for you to claim you've tried to discuss this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we please forget about the hemp protein article? I didn't bring this complaint here to get assistance against his reverts on that article, I will take it on that article's talk page. The hemp protein article isn't the issue or topic here; I just used it as an example and now everyone is clearly focusing on that article instead of Zefr. I shouldn't have brought up that article. The point here isn't the hemp protein article, the point is that his behavior is persistent all across Wikiepdia, he does the same thing on every article, obsessively and very strictly removes sources. I understand that the reliability of the source in question is important, but not everything has to be super peer-reviewed (and even that wasn't good enough for him anyway on the hemp protein article). He also just reverted my edit here, on the banana article. Last I checked, USDA.gov was a perfectly reliable source (even though, some of its nutrition content is a bit flawed from time to time, but hey, no one is perfect, right?). Someone else reverted back my edit on the banana article, and told him to take it on the talk page, and what does he do? He reverted again and described my edit as "original research". His edit was subsequently reverted by that same member, who told Zefr once again to use the talk page. Clearly, this is not a constructive Wikipedia editor. I don't care how "experienced" he is or how well he has done his homework on Wikipedia's policy pages, because he doesn't actually add anything to the articles, all he does is remove sources. That's all I've seen from his edit history, and I've gone through several pages of his contribution log. It's all the same, continuous edit warring by removing and reverting sources and other content. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:HempFan per your username and the message on your Userpage and your contribs, your account is a WP:SPA (please read that essay) and you are here to advocate for cannabis. Please read WP:ADVOCACY. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. (that last one is policy). Now, when more experienced editors tell you how you are screwing up, stop what you are doing and listen to them, instead of having a cow and bringing garbage ANI cases. If you keep on the path you are on, you are going to leave Wikipedia angry or get thrown out of here. You need to try to check your advocacy at the login page and learn how to edit like a Wikipedian. OK? Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a single purpose account, and I'm not here to promote cannabis, but my focus is hemp/cannabis, and I will mostly edit hemp related articles (I will also edit other stuff, like nutrition articles not related to cannabis, but my main area of interest right now is cannabis and I'm not really interested in editing other topics save for nutrition). I have not glorified hemp in any of my edits, so you can't say I'm promoting it. I'm also not screwing up. And why such a hostile tone anyway? I'm bringing a perfectly valid case here of a problematic member (again, disregard the background story of how me and him came across, "content dispute" is not the point; the point is that he's engaging in disruptive behavior that's really not collaborative, at all, and he's doing this on many, many articles, and many Wikipedians have been complaining on his talk page, but he keeps blanking it all the time). I suspect a bias on your part, that you're taking his side when he's obviously the one who's in the wrong here with his behavior. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is it's difficult to see the behaviour you're referring to. As I said above, Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link. You can't complain about another editor not collaborating when you yourself have failed to do the basics. The most recently reverted comments on Zefr's talk page is this [219]. But there's no obvious problem with that since Zefr did join the discussion Talk:Banana#Storage and transport image. I see other comments from Zefr on that talk page which is a double whammy for the claim they aren't collaborating.

Most of the comments I see on Zefr's talk page before that are not the sort of thing where a reply may be necessarily. The next one I find is [220]. Responses were left on the editor's talk page User talk:Isacab0613#Coconut oil so again no problem. There are also comments (prior to this issue) at Talk:Coconut oil. So again another sign that they are collaborating.

Note as mentioned above, anyone who says their message shouldn't be deleted is likely to be the one at fault, since editors are explicitly allowed to delete the majority of messages on their talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. Although the message you linked to didn't actually say the comment shouldn't be deleted, but simply that it would be evidence. Which is true but only to the extent that it's an indication the editor should be aware of our COI policy as they read the comment informing them. However even ignoring that, the message you linked to with a COI allegation sounds like threatening nonsense. Enforcing MEDRS compliance isn't indication of a COI.

So where you claim a problematic user who refuses to collaborate, I see a good editor who understand better than you how to collaborate and is working to keep junk out of our articles. The editors complaining seem to often have more fault.

BTW, seeing some of these comments reminds me of something I intended to mention earlier. You really need to take a read of WP:MEDRS and make sure you comply with it if you're going to add health related information. Actually you probably should read WP:RS in general since I'm not sure some of your sources will be acceptable even if there weren't medical claims being made.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Did you actually read WP:SPA? Because what you're describing sounds a lot like an SPA. Also your name and editing does strongly suggest you are promoting, whether intended or not. You did make very bold medical claims with very poor sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I only paraphrased what the study wrote, it wasn't about promotion, it's what the study said pretty much. Is there a way here to find out if certain sources are or aren't reliable enough? Because it seemed like a serious study to me, published in a journal that has been cited numerous times in various books on Google books. In any case, my complaint isn't about the Hemp protein article (I have to mention this every time now), it's about Zefr, and his behavior is in no way limited to the Hemp protein article and it's not only me who's bothered by his edit warring. And please don't accuse me of being an SPA, I'm just here to casually edit hemp articles and also some nutrition, I may expand to something else later, but right now my priority is hemp articles. My interest in hemp is its nutritional content primarily, hence the Hemp protein article. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead of listening to people who have been around a long time and trying to learn, you are not listening and arguing that everything you are doing is fine and the problems are with others. This too is what advocates often do in Wikipedia. You will choose your own path. It is not leading to a happy place for you and other people's time is going to get sucked up along the way, but that is how things go here. We are just asking you to be more self-aware and take some time to learn how to edit Wikipedia better. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges

• Obergefell v. Hodges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have an ongoing problem with WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWNERSHIP at Obergefell v. Hodges‎, a page on a vital US Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. User Antinoos69 is bullying those who would edit an article which he has admittedly put a fair amount of work into, insulting them via the talk page and via edit summaries.

Civility

• "May I be so presumptuous as to interrupt you legal geniuses and venerable scholars long enough to present a couple sources and some brief comments?"
• "Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, really."
• "your absurdity needs to stop."
• "Get over yourself." (This, I should note, was for restoring another editors MOS:LQ corrections.)

Ownership

• Calls for article to stick with his version
• Refers to attempts to edit the article to meet MOS:LQ as "trying to annoy me"
• His most recent five edits as of this posting 1 (2 3 4 5) are all undoing other users' attempts to get the article closer to guidelines MOS:LQ and WP:SEEALSO), variations from standards for which he has not only not achieved consensus, but received zero support for on the talk page.

Problems noted

• lack of civility and ownership noted by Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• ownership noted by Jonathunder (talk · contribs) (who noted them other times as well.)

I've deliberately kept the listing above to the past month, but looking at the talk page will show you that this is not a new situation; the user has called editors "ignoramus", saying "I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you", "You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped.", etc. The net effect is the creation of a toxic environment which discourages the involvement of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• More "bullying". When does rudeness or incivility or whatever become bullying? Sorry, side note I suppose, but doesn't one have to be in a position of power to be a bully? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We could split on terminology; in physical world situations, I'd say that the willingness to use physical aggression is often what creates that power. In an online situation like this, it's the willingness to be uncivil. But if you wish to find a different term, I likely have no complaint. In any case, your attention is appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• At the very least Antinoos is guilty of edit warring, having made this edit three times in the past week. And there's fighting over a word, here and on a few more occasions. Antinoos, I'm beginning to think there is something to this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos is clearly aware of this discussion, not just because it was on his user page, but because he responded to a mention of it on the article's talk page (with "Was I meant to be impressed?") During that time, he has engaged in substantive editing on a couple of talk pages. Seemingly, whatever is to be done here will need be done without his input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And, in the face of a lack of substantive response from this board, Antinoos continues to exert ownership, undoing yet another editor's attempt to make MOS:LQ corrections, in the wake of a Talk page discussion in which he's the only one advocating ignoring the LQ standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I shouldn't be surprised to see there's an open case about this. Antinoos refuses to respect our consensus-based guidelines and refuses even to acknowledge the local consensus to follow those guidelines. He's still at it. I don't know about bullying, but this is canonical disruptive behavior. As Antinoos appears to see nothing wrong with his approach, administrative intervention is appropriate to return him to reality.  Rebbing  16:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Ownership, incivility, and edit warring, stretching back months. The GA failure wasn't enough to persuade Antinoos to behave better; perhaps admin attention would. Lagrange613 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• I have unarchived this thread as Antinoos continues to sneak in changes to punctuation style (diff) that violate our clear consensus to follow the style guideline (which, by the way, isn't supposed to be a mere suggestion that requires a local decision on whether or not it's valid). Antinoos has characterized protests about this as "intimidation and harassment" and suggested that we "would do well to get over it."

  I'm not asking for a specific remedy here. Antinoos' behavior on the article's talk page and his explicit refusal to follow consensus make me doubt a warning would be meaningful, but I also recognize that he is here to build an encyclopedia. The problem is balancing his talent against a his refusal to cooperate with others.  Rebbing  17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Rebbing--having looked into this again--that Antinoos's behavior is disruptive. I do not know what to do about it. Someone could block for further LQ violations, if it is clear--as it is in this case--that the article in question is no exception to the regular MOS. But it sucks to have to block a good but hardheaded editorDrmies (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Assuming anyone wants reading material: See discussions on the talk page here, here, here, here, here and the failed Good Article review - which from my reading is almost entirely down to the ownership issues of Antinoos Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm particularly concerned by Antinoos' insistence that anyone who opposes him is making the article worse. A few hours ago, he had this to say about other editors removing redundant links—topics already discussed in the prose—from our long "See also" section: "I simply cannot understand the dogged and legalistic insistence with which some editors are hellbent on making readers' lives more difficult and less enlightened." There's nothing sanctionable in that comment alone, but he's needlessly making it difficult for others to improve this article.  Rebbing  16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• I find the picture issues regarding the 1950's courthouse particularly ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Only in death, you mean as in "why would someone edit war to keep those irrelevant pictures in"? Cause if yes, I'm with you. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I *like* pictures, but there is no situation where a picture of a courthouse from the 1950's helps a reader to understand the article on a ruling about gay marriage that happened to be made in the courthouse 60+ years later. Its completely nonsensical. The portrait gallery of the judges is bad enough - its not a biography of them. Knowing what Judge X looks like in no way helps understanding of the ruling. There would be a decent argument if for example it was a black judge writing a dissenting opinion on something race related, but that just isnt the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editings by user:Tnguyen4321

I'm here to report following issues in the article Battle of Ia Drang:

• He's conducting disruptive editing/vandalism on the article without consensus with me and some other editors. When I raise the issue on the talk page,[221] he just keep ignoring it and continue his editing.
• I also want to explain about my use of various IPs, as it seems that some other Wikipedians have been misunderstood about this: At the beginning of the incident, I forgot to sign in, so my intentity is under IP form. Because I've already use IP for my comments on the talk page, I decide not to use my account to avoid misleading about my identification. However, what I unexpected is that each time I sign in with a device, my IP turned out to be a different one; I haven't realized this until several days ago. So my use of various IPs was totally unintentional, and in fact I've never done anything to conceal the fact that it belongs to the same person. I also regularly leave comments and explanations on the talk page about my view and editing. However, it seems that user:Tnguyen4321 is making use of this accident to slander that I'm conducting vandalism (violating WP:BULLY and WP:NPA). Theoretically, my editing with those IPs was always followed by explanations, so it hadn't even reached the threshold of the definition of WP:VANDAL.[222][223] In fact, I think user:Tnguyen4321 himself is the one who's conducting either disruptive editing or vandalism, because many of his editing came without explanation or consensus with other editors; and had the habit of regularly removing OR tags before reaching consensus[224] (example here [225]).

p/s: To avoid the further misunderstanding of my conduct as sock puppetry, I ensure that from now on this account will be my only identity that I use on the article. Please consider and sorry for the inconvenience. Dino nam (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the circumstances surrounding your socking... By means of a confession to socking. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: even without a "improper purpose"? I think that if I had used my real account by then, it would have been misleading and thus constituting socking? Dino nam (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes improper. The misleading creation of an appearance of consensus. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: OK well. By the way no one have to worry about that anymore because I don't use those IPs at least for this article; you've got my word. I think we should rather concentrate on user:Tnguyen4321's conducts then. Thanks for provide me more info about sock puppetry. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dino nam is lying through his teeth! A wolf in sheep's clothing. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK then prove its a lie. Prove the link that I've shared above about your tag-removing habit is a lie! Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Do I have to? It's so obvious! You underestimate other people's, especially admin's intelligence.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Richard allokendek

• The editor replaced Ghoul with a phrase in a foreign language [226].
• He moved Kema to Kema Districts, but there are no such districts, it's a district. Compare Kauditan, corrected by other editors, but not understood by the author. His texts should probably be verified before publishing.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Batu (village), Kokoleh I - disasters rather than pages. Kokoleh I used to be removed and recreated.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• over-wrote a redirect to redirect to a page he was creating. Appears not to have adequate English language skills to be a useful editor here: doesn't seem to know difference between singular and plural nouns. PamD 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, agree with Xx236 that they're disasters rather than pages. I just tagged the near incomprehensible Batu (village) for cleanup. Sample sentence: "Batus original name is Wadli Itang named by dotu ruruwares came from tikala ares 1378 years old, wife ruruwares a name pingkan, she a first tread wadli itang." Google translate, I presume. It's far worse now than when it was just a stub (and was tagged for speedy). If we ever block editors for not knowing English, now is the time. But I'll hold off blocking until I see if PamD's warning has any effect. (Though I'm not sure they know they have a talkpage. I seem to be saying this all over ANI, but it's a fact that new users don't necessarily know. If you think it's intuitive, no, it only becomes so with habit.) Bishonen | talk 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

The phrase he replaced "Ghoul" with appears to be an Indonesean language. It translated to "ghoul is a monster or evil spirit in Arabian mythology". His English appears to be sub-par, I'm pinging Aldnonymous on Meta as he shows up in the Embassy list as an Indonesean speaker, he's also an admin on the Indonesean Wikipedia and might recognize this user , based on interest and writing from his Wikipedia . KoshVorlon 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and outing attempts by an IP editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#Who_is_Jfeise This is most likely the same person as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#comments_on_Victoria_Switzerland jfeise (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In relation to WP:NLT threats in several sections of User talk:Jfeise, I indef'ed User:Msselnamaki and gave User:156.196.81.11 a 1-week block. Msselnamaki has a self-declared[227] COI for the article in question (Victoria University, Switzerland), adding extra credibility/directness to his threats, rathar than any chance of being read as a "be careful, someone might get upset" third-party warning. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely the same person vandalizing my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.182.184.234 jfeise (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have switched from his broadband to his mobile. Blocked for one week a la that for User:156.196.81.11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

An OS worked some magic on one of the edits as well (feel free to ask if others need deeper burial). Undoing NAC, as I need to update after that time and not sure the problem is actually solved yet. DMacks (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I also semi'ed Victoria University, Switzerland 1 week. This is not the first flare-up of IP disruption there. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Another related IP edit on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jfeise&diff=prev&oldid=720370029 jfeise (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked IP 156.196.138.6 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked User:105.39.65.226 per NLT on my userpage,[228] presumably part of the same sockfest. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Page moves by Athishjenith

• Athishjenith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Athishjenith recently moved his user and user talk page, which should not have been done. An administrator should move Wikipedia:Athish Jenith to User:Athishjenith and Wikipedia talk:Athish Jenith to User talk:Athishjenith, suppressing redirects by unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" box. Also, the same administrator should delete Wikipedia:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Wikipedia talk:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Athish Jenith, Talk:Athish Jenith, and User:Athish Jenith. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Seen; multi-redirects. Suggest block of substantial if not indefinite duration, as this seems to be part of a campaign to have his autobiography in article space, which had previously resulted in a block. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 02:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the user talk page back to its correct location and deleted the redirects and advised the user not to attempt any more page moves. — Diannaa (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a replay of the user's 2012 actions, presumably in the hope that it'll escape notice now. (Good job catching it, GeoffreyT2000.) Athish jenith was creation protected already in 2012, and he also repeatedly moved his userpage there in 2012, see the contribs. Admins can also see his deleted contribs, a rather longer list. I've creation protected a couple more of the versions he has created of his bio, AthishJenith and Athish Jenith. I really don't think he's here for any other purpose, or will be impressed by advice now, Diannaa, since he was blocked for 72 hours for these moves etc in 2012 and wasn't impressed by that. Time for indef, surely. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

Support indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Asadmoeen

Continues to add a site they appear to be associated with. Was also editing under 202.163.125.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I had created a report at WT:WPSPAM#trypophobia.co prior to seeing the report here. The accounts are adding two different URLs (to two different articles), and both URLs are tracing back to the same IP address. Appears a clear case of spam/site-promotion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User OptimusView

In the article Kyaram Sloyan user OptimusView removes POV tag[229][230] despite there is no any consensus that the neutrality of article is OK. Discussion still ongoing on a talk. I think such edits are against WP:Disrupt. Please return the tag back and take administrative measures in relation to this user who was already warned by me, but preferred to continue removing the tag without any consensus. --Interfase (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The article represents all the points of view, including Azerbaijani accusations. Today another user even added the Azerbaijani position to the lead section and removed the POV tag as baseless. But Interfase (who was blocked twice for editwarrings [231]) adds it back claiming the article is still not neutral, he calls sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum, etc. yellow journalism and refuses to ask for another third-opinion comment. OptimusView (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This just might be a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. Interfase has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ([232][233][234][235]) and there's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to constant edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete POV OR and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ([236][237]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain about this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. This needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang. Rabid nationalists have no place on Wikipedia.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually there are several proArmenian users who POVpush the article with non-neutral information. Despite there is no any serious reliable sources about beheading (accusitions of Azerbaijan' army (UN member by the way) are very serious accusitions to present it as a fact replying just on media). Also I don't think that reporters of The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum saw the beheading scenes themselves to reply these media. They just shared that info that was taken from social networks and shared by Armenian sources. Of course it makes them "yellow journalism". This issue was not covered by serious media (like BBC or CNN e.g.) and there is no any condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisation (UN e.g.). I think untill neutrality of the article is not corrected (frase such "beheaded" should be replaced with "reportedly beheaded") the "POV" tag should be in place and should not be removed by force. I will not repeat my mistake and will not make a reverts, but the neutrality of the article should be corrected. P.S. Claims that Ramil Safarov is "National hero of Azerbaijan" in entirely untrue. Web-site safarov.org is not reliable source but just some fan site. Show the text of order in official source or president's website (like this one about ordering Mubariz Ibrahimov). --Interfase (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do you explain your violations of your topic bans and restrictions? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I already said that it was my mistake. I will not make a reverts again but initiate a discussion on a talk (both discussions on talk were initiated by me btw). But the tag should not be removed untill consensus on neutrality is reached. --Interfase (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you not under restrictions preventing you from editing in those topics? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not under such restrictions. I am able to edit those topics and duscuss them on a talk. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The full topic ban has been rescinded, but under continuing editing restrictions Interfase is required to make a talk page explanation for any revert he makes, and do it before making the actual revert. I think that just making a general post on the talk page, or initiating a discussion, or continuing an active discussion, is not really a revert edit explanation; surely the post made has to cite the actual edit that is about to be made and explain why that specific revert is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for a mass use of the word "reportedly" to characterize the events covered in this article. Where opinions or statements have been expressed in only one source, such as the identification of one of the soldiers posing with the severed head, those have been described in the article using wording like "according to". However, almost all the sources are in agreement: Sloyan was killed during the conflict, his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later, photos showing various Azerbaijani soldiers posing with the severed head of an Armenian soldier were posted online, video material of a crowd of Azeri-speaking civilians gathered around an individual who them produces a severed head from a bag was also posted online, and this severed head was that of Sloyan. The few sources that disagree are Azerbaijan-based sources (they include one official statement, supporting the lede wording that Azerbaijan has denied the incident happened). Actually there seem to be very few such Azerbaijani sources, the article has just two and Interfase has failed to provide any more. I think that the content in all of the sources cited have been expressed neutrally and accurately and in proportion. Interfase's objections really have no substance behind them, and his solution, to place the word "reportedly" in front of every item of content, cannot seriously be followed. There is not a case to be made for the article to remain pov tagged because there is not a problem that needs correcting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The information about "his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later" seems very dubious. The body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. If it was without head, there should be some reaction or strongly condemnations of Azerbaijan, UN member. The photos and videos taken from social networks with dubious background may also be falsicicated (off-line Azeri speech as well). Neither reliable experts nor serious media paid an attention on them. All these make us not to present such kind of information as a fact but just reports and accusitions on alleged actions. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And in Azerbaijan people regularly carry around severed heads in plastic bags, just in case one is required for a photo shoot or a public presentation. There is no content in the article that says his body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. The speed of the burial suggests his headless body was recovered from the battlefield by Armenian forces as they regained territory lost during the initial assault. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there is no any evidence that the video was taken in Azerbaijan. Secondly, Armenian side said that Sloyan's head, as they claimed, was handed over with the presence of observers from Red Cross[238]. As I said if it was really so, there would be serious sensation and condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisations. But we see nothing that makes us not to use that info as a fact. --Interfase (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The only organization that participated in the process of transmission, was Red Cross, which, according to the source you provided "has no right to comment publicly on the circumstances of the incidents in the course of military operations". It was a serious sensation as The Open Society Institute, The Sunday Times and others write about it. And the interim public report of the Human Right's defender (ombudsman) of NKR confirms that at the European Ombudsman Institute Official Site. OptimusView (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ombudsman of NKR is not reliable and neutral source. The article of Marianna Grigoryan in eurasianet.org also by the way. The Sunday Times' report was based on the info from social networks (dubious and not reliable as its reporters were no there). Still no any evidence of "beheading", no any serious sensation. Just claims and accusitions without real facts and consequences for Azerbaijan. So, if there is no any evidence, why should we turn our project to yellow journalism? --Interfase (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

CEOBryantR

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

---

User talk:CEOBryantR also needs to be blocked as it is apparently just a PR firm used to handle Dre Rich Kidd. It contravenes Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:Advertising, Wikipedia:Ownership of content--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dre Rich Kidd is clearly heading for deletion, which will give CEOBryantR nothing to edit. BMK (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the editor's statement that he works for a major record label and that his job is to get their artists (including Dre Rich Kidd) onto Wikipedia: [239] Here is his request to protect the page showing ownership and his connection to the performer [240] Has removed the AFD notice [241], the entire AFD [242], and maintenance templates [243] Meters (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Article snow deleted by Iridescent. BMK (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Salted as well. BMK (talk) 22:01, 19 May 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.

• How about salting? This is the 4th recreation in 3 years. EEng 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been create-protected. ansh666 06:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically Hoax Article?

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

---

not sure if right place for this..there's a RfC going on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_supremacy wherein people are literally arguing that white supremacy is racist whereas black supremacy is not racist...I took a look at the topic itself though...I think it is basically made-up and perhaps largely contributed to by some of the people making the ridiculous arguments in the RfC...if search google news for "black supremacy" absolutely nothing comes up...if search google web get a few superficial uses of the term....is this just a matter for RfD? If so, I'll have to look into how to do that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Its a content dispute... Looking at the RfC it seems to have meaningful discussion in progress. What exactly is it you want done? It doesn't seem to be a hoax to me... --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, but it appears the article shouldn't exist at all (see the final few posts in the RfC related to this)..someone appears to have gathered a few groups together in one article, decided on their own to label these groups "black supremacism" and created a Wikipedia article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Then AfD it. AN/I is for behavioral disputes, not content disputes. BMK (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is good discussion going on on the talk page there, which is the way that issues like this should be handled. It's definitely not a hoax article, and the discussion on the page should be used to better flush out how the language on the page should read. I don't think there is any need for admin activity on this at this time, the community is doing exactly what SHOULD be done, talking it out civilly on the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) (replacing comment that was accidently deleted)

no, no I agree as far as the content dispute...but in engaging in that I came to realize that perhaps the article shouldn't even exist at all (and was created totally against policy)!! I thought if an Admin saw this they might be able to handle that more quickly, competently as I've never done a RfD..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not going to happen. Nobody seriously disputes the the concept of black supremacy exists—even if it arguably only exists as a meme among paranoid white people rather than an actual movement—and we don't delete articles on grounds of being badly written. We certainly don't delete one of Wikipedia's earliest articles, dating back to Larry Sanger's time, out-of-process without a deletion discussion following a request at ANI. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

but the article creates its own concept of "black supremacy" by just putting a bunch of groups together and arbitrarily deciding to label these particular groups "black supremacy"...there's no sourcing for this whatsoever...It's pure original research/original opinion ideas!! See what I mean?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Then discuss this on the talk page, NOT here. ANI isn't for content disputes, as stated earlier. This is an issue that the page needs to be better cited or cleaned up, not an issue for ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

see, I'm not seeing this as a content dispute but as an article that itself exists clearly against policy..so thought might be worth admin attention, even speedy deletion type thing...I only referenced the content dispute to explain how I became aware of this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well two of the best things about wikipedia are WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY SO if it makes the community/project better we can ignore a specific policy in favor of bettering the project. As far as I can tell the article has a valid topic worth being noted. We don't get rid of something because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to get rid of the article you are going to need to do an AfD and develop consensus that it needs to go. No editor or admin (At least I don't think they would) delete it against consensus or while there is ongoing meaningful discussion as to the article's existence, except under a few extreme circumstances. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I say just rename the article black racism. While Black supremacy or structural racism might not be a thing (except in Zimbabwe), there are clearly groups that thing Blacks are superior and hate other. Read, for instance, Elijah Muhammads Message to the Black man in America and its chapter on whites.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Getting way out of ANI's remit now, but "supremacy" and "racism" aren't synonyms. There are plenty of attitudes that don't imply inferiority but are clearly racist ("Asians are harder workers" and so forth). ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is supremacy can be an observed structure, such as, for instance, white supremacy in the US South in the 1920s. Racism can be an attitude or ideology. Elijah Muhammad and others created a belief system that believed blacks were superior. You could call that black supremacy, but that wouldn't be supremacy as in blacks can observationally be proven to be dominant in society or are systematically violating other ethnic groups rights. The only place were that could be said to happen is in Zimbabwe. (Of course, different black groups has fought and discriminated against each other in places like Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, and you might include the killing of Arab during the Zanzibar "revolution", but that is not what we are talking about here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We have ourselves a situation where someone has decided on their own that several different groups should be known as "black supremcism," and created a Wikipedia article (that is disasterously put together) based on their arbitrary belief...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest at this point it's time to put down the stick and walk away. This is NOT the venue for the discussion of deletiing the page. If you feel this page should be deleted, have a look at WP:AFD and the instructions on how to do so there. If there is information in the article that shouldn't be there you feel, discuss it on the talk page. NOTHING is going to be done on ANI however, please understand that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the IP editor has already brought several topics here, and has been told multiple times to drop the stick. We are reaching sanction level. I ask that an admin look into this IP editor's battleground behavior. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I'll see if it's worth doing a AfD...the reason I asked is the article itself seems to be against policy..that is, it's about a topic that doesn't seem to exist in the real world (and that can be cited to sources as to even existing) but seemed to be invented for the sake of creating a Wikipedia article...the content question that is being discussed in the page is entirely separate issue...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:10, 20 May 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 revoke talkpage access

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

---

Please can you revoke the talkpage access of User:LeonRaper? He was blocked for only being here to self-promote, and no evidence of competency, and all he's done since being blocked is spout his same promotional arguments. He doesn't understand that he fails WP:GNG, and shows no evidence of ever stopping his complaints unless his talkpage access is revoked. Frankly, editors have wasted too much time on him already. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OPPOSE: this elderly individual is firm in his belief that he is notable (it is an erroneous belief in regards to Wikipedia notability) but he only keeps restating this belief because others keep responding and telling him that he's not....if people stop, he'll stop...I just very recently tried to change the topic to see if he'd be interested in editing other articles, like "swing dancing"...see how that goes...no need to revoke his talk page...he may grow to understand, and make an unblock request to work on other articles...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

He is not being disruptive, he is talking. If you don't want it popping up on your watchlist, take his page off your watchlist. Please allow editors to determine when they have spent to much time and then they can walk away. -- GB fan 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving his talkpage, and him, alone is a much better solution to the problem, if there even is a problem. Thomas.W ^talk 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be a last resort to remove talk page access from a blocked user. As was said earlier, if you don't like the ramblings don't stay around and listen. He's not bothering anyone other than those reading his page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand where Joseph2302 is coming from. I, too, was becoming annoyed that LeonRaper doesn't seem to be able or want to get what's being told him. I caught myself in the middle of a response to him and deleted it without posting, simply removing his talk page from my watchlist. I think that's the best course for everyone. If LeonRaper wants to continue to participate in a constructive way, all the information he needs is there on his talk page, he just has to choose to follow it. In the meantime, just let him alone. He's indef blocked, and I doubt very much that any admin is going to unblock him once they look at the circumstances surrounding the block, and at LeonRaper's comments. Unless he starts being disruptive in some way, removing his talk page access doesn't seem like a necessary step. BMK (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but only if Raper does not simply start posting personal attacks against other editors or pointless rants against Wikipedia. I am frustrated like all of the others who have tried to help Raper. I am not only frustrated with him because he seems unwilling to or is incapable of understanding what other editors are posting, but also in myself because I can't figure out a way to explain things to him any better. I've tried rephrasing things in so many different ways that I have lost count. I also have tried changing the topic quite few times by pointing out there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia as suggested above, but I have not been very successful. Perhaps 68.48.241.158 will have better luck. The simple fact is that Raper is a SPA (not necessarily a bad thing as I tried to explain to him 13 days ago) whose only goal seems to be to have "my webpage" (his choice of wording) added to Wikipedia. We can all speculate on why that is the case and I have some ideas, but I don't see him shifting gears and simply go on editing other articles. He feels he's "mega notable" in the dance world which he equates to Wikipedia notability. He also seems to think that Wikipedia is some sort of publishing house with in-house editors and reviewers and all he needs is for his sources to be given to the right people. I don't think that any of that is going to change regardless of how many times he's told otherwise, so maybe it's time to honor his request and avoid further antagonizing things any more by bringing it up. Maybe an accelerated version of WP:SO can be used here instead of waiting six-months. Raper seems to feel the need to "talk" with someone in a position of authority so perhaps we should let the admin who blocked him (pinging @Drmies:) have a go at trying one last time to explain things. Maybe "Hi I am the administrator who blocked you. Here is why I blocked you. Here are the conditions you need to agree to be unblocked. Do you agree to these conditions on the understanding that you will be blocked again if you violate them in any way?" or something like that. The conditions could be something like "Complete the Wikipedia Adventure", "Make ten constructive edits in existing Wikipedia articles", "Agree to not personally create a new article about yourself per WP:COI", Agree to not add any content about yourself to any existing without first discussing it on the article's talk page per WP:COI", etc. If Raper is given clear conditions on what he needs to agree to in order to be unblocked and then he still continues on his present course, then he will clearly not be here for anything other than himself and can be left alone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I am not sure he would be likely to make 10 good edits. Based on some comments like this "can't remember what Wikipedia page it was, but I sent in a correction to how to do St. Louis Shag. My definition is absolutely correct. I learned it from Kenny Wetzel in 1974 after I saw Mike Faile from St. Louis doing it in the 1974 World Swing Dance Championships which I was in."[244] he thinks what he knows and because he knows it is sufficient rather than citing a reliable source. I do not think he has any better grasp of the need for reliable sources than he does of notability and we would soon be here for that. Jbh^Talk 01:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that is a possibility, but this could be his WP:LASTCHANCE. 10 good edits would not be a something which is impossible to achieve. A good edit could be something as simple as a spelling correction and then leaving an appropriate edit sum, so it should be something fairly easy to accomplish if he has the desire to do so. If he makes an inappropriate edit, it can be reverted. If he continues to make bad edits and refuse to listen, then he can be blocked again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the attempt particularly if he were willing to accept some informal mentoring from an editor he respects. I just have not seen any indication he is willing to be educated in how Wikipedia works. I think he still believes we are some publishing service and he is a customer owed service. Maybe it is stubornness, maybe he is only in it for self-promotion, maybe there are CIR issues. Oh well... whatever it is it is moot unless he files an unblock request.

It might be worthwhile to talk him through how to request an unblock since the need to request one may have been lost in all of the post-block discussions. Not something I am willing to do in this case but I thought it worth mentioning if you or someone else wants to step into the breach. Jbh^Talk 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Meh Blocked users are only suposed to use their talk page to apeal their block. and he is not doing that. There is something to be said for letting him wind down on his own but I do not think he is suddenly going to come to understand the points people have been trying to make for days or weeks. That said he is doing no harm where he is and there is no need to remove access just for the sake of process. Jbh^Talk 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose How editors choose to use their time, whether wastefully or productively, is up to them. Like MarchJuly, I've also struggled to phrase things in a way that will help him understand. However, they are not doing it from any malice or disruption. Although, as Jbhunley says, talk pages are only for appealing blocks, after the blocking, it's not much good appealing a block without understanding the rationale behind the block. Blackmane (talk) 02:28, 20 May 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.

Extra eyes on Yuri Kochiyama

Today's Google Doodle has brought lots of attention to the Yuri Kochiyama article. It's already been semi-protected due to blatant vandalism, but there is currently a dispute (which I'm about to disengage myself from) regarding the language used to described Kochiyama's activism (e.g., describing her as non-black supporter of Black separatism vs Black nationalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Single-purpose account circumventing 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.

---

The user Mikequfv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Today, with the block still active, he is doing the same style of disruptive editing and vandalizing climate charts with erroneous numbers,[245] from an IP address. 2001:569:BDD4:2700:F1D2:5191:2484:1E06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Every edit is a good example of past behaviour linking him to this IP.) Vandalism report from yesterday: [246]. (The reason given for the block was different than the reason reported.) Air.light (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the IP temporarily, extended Mikequfv's block to indef. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:03, 20 May 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.

Baseball bugs and FPAS harassing me

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

---

Today, I received a malicious message on Facebook signed by two people, one of them saying that he's baseball bugs, and the other saying that he's FPAS. I don't know how they found out my real identity, but anyways the message contained a legal threat because of my on-wiki activity. Can something be done about this, cuz I'm really scared of returning to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.213.174 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that this is true (BB and FPAS live on opposite sides of the world) Facebook is not a part of Wikipedia. If you've received an abusive message on Facebook, report it to their abuse department. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: This is an obvious proxy IP Ref. Desk troll that I've reported to WP:AIV. They'll be blocked shortly. 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the third time in recent memory that a ref-desk troll has posted lies about being harassed off-wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow... it's sad that they have nothing else to do with their life... 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No big deal, just another gnat to swat. In this case, it's only the one entry, so the admins might not bother blocking it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The troll made a similar complaint about FPAS on about April 15, and as 74.73.255.60 (talk · contribs)on May 8 about Jayron32 allegedly telephoning him.[247] Those are admins. He's probably dragging me into it because of a revert war that he was involved with on the ref desk talk page a day or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, everyone needs a hobby. ... I never said it was a good one. HalfShadow 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The April 15 incident was from 108.29.169.88 (talk · contribs), since rev-del'd as I think it included a false claim of a threat of violence from an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 19 May 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.

Harassment by Hijiri88

I have gone quite disgusted with the conduct of the above named editor, User:Hijiri88, including most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. Records will show that his first recent edits to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity also included disparaging remarks to the set up of those pages. Also, in recent history, he has made similar grossly irrelevant and counterproductive aspersions regarding my motivations elsewhere. Given his recently demonstrated "refusal to let go" (as one of the closing admins described it) regarding his recent Arbitration clarification and amendment request, now to be found here, and his other recent activity, including as well as his frankly repulsive, repeated requests and comments regarding others impugning their activities, including me at the thread first linked to, at AlbinoFerret in the AE request, etc., and his own violation of the ban there, I think that the time has come to perhaps again review whether this editor is capable of working in this system. I had mentioned in the Arb case that I was definitely of the impression that we were proceeding to the point of a site ban of him, and, although I am not in a position to judge whether these recent events are sufficient (and I myself doubt they are) I think it worth the time and effort of others to try to get through to this individual that, whatever his own tendencies to place absolute credibility in whatever his own opinion at the time indicates to him at any given time, the policies and guidelines of the project, including those guidelines regarding conduct, apply to him, and he violates them at his own risk. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I am unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type, and do not want to risk being blocked, and, on that basis, am not leaving one there, although I have added a link to his page here, which should ping him at least. I would however request that any individual seeing this leave the message, which, under the circumstances, I am not sure I am in a position to do. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering you do have a talk page ban and the discussion which lead to that had a fair amount of support for an i-ban, I'm not sure the wisdom of this ANI, but I guess it's your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I believe a review of User:Hijiri88's comments on the page first linked to would provide even more support for an i-ban. I think his comments on that page show that he has used it to, basically, do little if anything other than, disparage, cast aspersions, or rush to prejudicial judgment regarding my actions in that matter. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A two way i-ban is basically means that the community has been forced to intervene because two editors have been unable to learn to engage each other in an acceptable manner. It IMO should never be anything someone desires especially at it means your behaviour is going to be under a microscope and you create problems for yourself in the future when your paths happen to cross. If you feel an editor is behaving an unresonable manner to you, the best solution is often to ignore it, particularly when it can be ignored such as a case of a random talk page comment (as opposed to a reversion). If it can't be ignored, the best solution is still to respond as positively or at least neutrally as possible. Don't get me wrong, I know from experience how difficult it can be dealing with some who gets your back up, all I'm saying is you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and you never want to get in to a situation where an iban is called for because it means your behaviour is problematic. (Whether or not the other editor's behaviour is worse.) In any case, your initial request said nothing about an i0ban. It requested an evaluation of whether Hijiri88 should be here. The problem is given the history between you two, it's likely upon reading the beginning of this thread the immediate reaction of a number of people is going to be similar to mine: 'oh no, not these two again, I thought we already ibannned them from one another'. In other words, even if there is merit to restrictions on Hijiri88, there's a very good chance it isn't going to happen here because this request is tainted by the fact it's coming from you and given the long animosity between you too. If Hijiri88's problems are really as bad as you suggest and considering they seem to edit in some resonably high profile areas, it seems resonable to assume someone else will notice and bring the issue to the communities attention. BTW, looking at the thread you refer to, after a quick read of both your comment and Hijiri88's reply (and the other editors), I actually felt they had a resonable point. Later when I re-read your reply more carefully I noticed you did raise issues which seemed to apply to religions in general but these we IMO not so clear. This may be because your experience is mostly from a Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but a simpler response Hijiri88's comment would have been something like. 'I'm sorry but perhaps my response wasn't as clear as I expected. I'm targetting this site at all religions, hence my mention of "religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day". I'm sure there are other aspects of these religions, including saints for those that have them (even if they don't have dial-a-saint concepts) which could be covered. I'm coming at this from a Christian viewpoint so many of my examples were Christian, but this site isn't supposed to be Christian oriented and should cover other religious texts, practices, traditions and concepts in the same manner. That's why I'm here, to get people who can help me especially fill in the areas where my knowledge is lacking.' Actually the response you did leave isn't too bad, if you just cut out the early part. Getting back to what I said earlier, in this case I don't see why you couldn't have just ignored it anyway. If your initial comment was really as clear cut as you felt, people would have read it then read Hijiri's comment and gone what on earth is Hijiri88 on about?

Ultimately, while I have no desire to look in more detail, all I've seen so far looks to be the same as before: two editors who can't seem to resist sniping at each other to the detriment of wikipedia. While Hijiri88 has IMO made clear cut mistakes before in their dealings with you as I highlighted in the previous thread, in both cases neither of you were that far from each other. So really my question to you is, do you really want to force us to force you two to separate (i.e. an i-ban), or worse (frankly blocking both is always tempting when an i-ban comes up)? Or can't you just ignore wherever possible. And where you can't (mostly in edits to articles), responding as neutrally as possible, seeking help or waiting for others rather than allowing a 2 way fight between the 2 of you two develop?

Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Christian orientation is because there are abput 2 dozen articles in a reference work on Christmas relating to Christmas in various locations, and an old, at this point 90 year old, "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" which runs to about 20,000 entries relating to Christianity. Also, having reviewed some of the reference works which relate to religious holidays, most of those listed are, not surprisingly, Christian, given the number of formal saints and liturgical calendars, presumably. There seem to be few such formal calendars outside of Christianity, from what I've seen, and few reference works which clearly relate to the broad topic of "saints" in non-Christian contexts. Also, there is a problem in at least some of the guru based religions, like ISKCON, with which I have some familiarity, where there might be a brief acknowledgment of a "day" of the guru of the guru of the guru of..., that seems to be the extent of the acknowledgment of such "historical" figures. Basically, it struck me, and still does strike me, that the easiest way to get the guidelines for content set would be by trying to start with the most easily available content, which, given the size of Christianity, also relates to the largest interested body, see what guidelines could be developed regarding national celebrations, etc., and then, maybe, bring in the others to see what if any variations come to mind. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• @John Carter: Well, I'm not sure how you'll take this right after my criticism of you on a user talk page we've both recently commented on, but I reviewed the Wikipedia space talk page you linked and I don't see your complaint. You had a suggestion about something unrelated to Wikipedia (which, I'm interested in, by the way) and then Hijiri88 suggested you take it to the Christian wikiproject. I know that the history between you two may come into play, but you followed up on that with "I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me." I'll be honest, you look like the instigator. Except, of course, that with the history of dispute, the sensible and wise thing for Hijiri88 to do would've been to ignore the thread and move on.--v/r - TP 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• One of the problems is, of course, that he seemed to insist on me doing what he said I should do, rather than doing the obvious thing and abiding by WP:DOIT. Also, I should point out, that the complaint was not about my taking it to the Christianity noticeboard, which I had in fact done, but about my not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects. My reasons for choosing to start with the Christianity project relate to the material I present in my last comment above here. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne has said several times in this and the previous thread that I am making "assumptions" about John Carter's motivations for engaging in the kind behaviour he does. I admit that I have allowed such assumptions to colour my wording at times, but I generally try to give the facts as they are. John Carter's behaviour is indisputably disruptive, regardless of his motivations (User:MjolnirPants will back me up that John's comment on Bart Ehrman's supposed involvement in translation of gnostic gospels was bizarre, off-topic, and, if untrue, possibly defamatory; MjolnirPants can also vouch for my having been editing in the Christianity/Bible topic area for years before my dispute with John started). But at least when I make assumptions, they are in some way supported by the facts; John Carter's assumptions about me, like the one above, make no sense whatsoever and appear to have no relation whatsoever to the facts. I never said anything about John "not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects". I very specifically said the opposite: that he should keep discussion of specifically Christian topics to specifically Christian noticeboards, rather than annoying the rest of us with off-topic discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: I know that would have been "the sensible and wise thing" for me to do, and you can ask Drmies for the emails where I told him about how frustrating it was having to do this sensible and wise thing when John Carter follows me to discussions I started and I have to just ignore it. It is extremely difficult to be "polite" (read: pretend there is no problem) when replying to John Carter after he follows me to discussions he wasn't involved in, or (like here) didn't technically join in a discussion I started but created a new thread immediately below my one that already wasn't getting the attention it needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem again is that you seem to be reading more into an action then is resonable. It may very well be that John Carter is following you and always joining in to discussions you started. If so this needs to be dealt with. However to assume that your comment there was part of the reason JC decided to post, well that fairly extreme. Baring an admission, it's going to be very very difficult to show even a careful look at the edit history that he's doing that. So raising the possibility is likely to be helpful as it suggests your extremely paranoid/sensitive. Even if you have reason to be so, people are less likely to consider your complaints have merit. Considering all that, if JC is following you and always joining discussions you started, perhaps it's somewhat understandable for you to followup to his comments there. But this case is one where you joined in to a discussion he had started based on an extreme assumption. As I said above, I don't find your comment that bad since it's true that the wording of his initially comment strongly suggested a Christian focused project (and one thing I was thinking but didn't mention but has now been mention by TP is that the comment didn't really seem to have much to do with wikipedia anyway). But concerns of JC following you, doesn't seem particularly helpful in the context of a case where you replied to a discussions they had initiated. Particularly since I find it hard to believe they never have a resonable comment in all those times they take part in a discussion initiated by you. (Although I do appreciate JC is asking for a restriction based on wider behaviour and in such a case, considering the wider behaviour from both of you is expected.)

Note that even if your extreme assumption was true, it's not like your comment was going to make people notice the thread you initiated since realisticly whatever the merits of your comment, John Carter wasn't going to delete his new thread. Actually it probably means people are less likely to notice. Ultimately as I said above, whoever is more at fault it would be better for both of you if you could learn to deal resonably with each other (doesn't mean you have to like or agree) rather than requiring community enforced action. This would likely include ignoring each other as much as possible, the one who is better at ignoring the other is likely to come across better (obviously other factors will affect the overall impression).

Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Actually, if you read his comment very closely, he actually agreed with me on the substance, but seemed to be really stretching to find something to disagree with me on. This implies that he was not actually there to respond in good faith. Also, I never said that I think John Carter opened his somewhat spammy thread on WT:RELIGION in order to distract from my thread immediately above. I said that the reason I noticed his somewhat spammy thread was because it was posted immediately below my thread that wasn't receiving any attention, rather than (as John Carter keeps claiming) because I am "stalking" his edits. Yes, I do keep track of his edits, but this is because he keeps posting on random admins' user talk pages and noticeboards like this one and requesting that I be blocked, without notifying me. In this case I was pinged, but in all of the other cases I would not be able to defend myself against his accusations without keeping track of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

One wonders just how many of these threads I am alleged to follow him on relate to the topics I deal with, which are largely religious, and whether Hijiri88's self-involved viewpoint ignores the possibility that I take part in most of those discussions. I believe the full evidence indicates the latter, rather than the former. A distorted view of things from someone with a clear bias is not, in and of itself, ircontrovertible evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Pot kettle black. John Carter is the one making accusations that I am "following" him with no evidence. I am (thanks in no small part to John Carter's efforts) technically not allowed post all the evidence of John Carter following me over the past year on-wiki. Again, if anyone wants the information, I would be happy to email it to you, and to authorize you to post it on-wiki as something I wrote. Unlike John Carter, I have nothing to hide. His claiming that I am "biased" and "involved" in claiming that he has been following me but that he is somehow not biased or involved in claiming that I am following him is clearly disruptive, especially when I have already posted incontrovertible evidence that his repeated claims that I am only editing Biblical/Christian topics to harass him are false and made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• You forgot the allegations of stalking, which imho from a brief perusal of their editing history, appear to be the reverse of the situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And also see the completely out of the blue comment by Hijiri88 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement), which to my eyes is rather clear evidence of Hijiri88's own stalking. And, certainly, considering that there was no obvious reason for him to comment there other than it being a thread in which I was involved, I think it a possibly clearer case of stalking than any of those he has alleged but provided no evidence for. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

John Carter has almost no history of editing in Korean topics, while I do. ANI is one of the most, if not the most, active page in the Wikipedia namespace, and I have posted in dozens of threads in which I was not directly involved. At the time I posted, the thread was also immediately below a thread I started. Calling my comment "out of the blue" is ridiculous, and implying I followed John Carter there cannot be defended as a good-faith mistake, as I clearly explained that the reason I was posting was to inform the OP that their pinging User:Shii would not do much good as Shii appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. John Carter should be blocked for these continued outrageous insinuations that I am following him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to call the above, unsubstantiated, assertion ridiculous and very possibly indicative of a pathologicial mindset. If he is referring to my making comments at the now archived ArbCom Request for Amendment page, it seems to me that, as I was one of the parties to the case which was being discussed, I should have been notified of the discussion, which I was not. When one can, reasonably, see that another individual is, perhaps, acting contrary to basic conduct guidelines in trying to prevent input from others involved, it is not unreasonable to wonder just how widespread such behavior might be. And it is worth noting once again that Hijiri seems to be engaging in his repeated request that he be allowed to present his evidence by e-mail, which, of course, does not allow for an option of response. Hijiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

John Carter, stop hiding your posts behind random collapse templates, and start signing and dating your own posts. I can't find the diff of you making the above edit, but I can tell it's you because in my eleven years of editing Wikipedia no one has called me "pathological" (or "insane" or "paranoid") except you, and you do so at least once every few weeks. I am not requesting that I be allowed present any evidence via email; I am requesting that you be sanctioned for refusing to provide any evidence of me being an "insane", "paranoid", "pathological" "stalker" despite not being under any restriction that prevents you from doing so, and saying up front that I will provide as much evidence on-wiki as I am allowed, and any contextual explanation that is requested but that I don't think I would be allowed provide per the terms of any ArbCom decisions I would be happy to send by email. I have already posted ample evidence on-wiki of your following me, lying about me, trying to wikilawyer me into a block, vote-stacking, trying to get around the requirement that you inform me of any requests you are making to (members of) the admin corps that I be blocked... Anything sent by email would merely be a supplement. And, as I have already stated in this thread, I would readily grant permission for the recipients of these emails to post their entire, unaltered text on-wiki, as (seemingly unlike you) I am not trying to hide anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I can be wordy. Sorry. John Carter is the one following my edits. Email me if you want the full story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

John Carter has been closely following my edits for over a year, and engaging in off-wiki contact with other users he considers to be my "enemies" for about as long. I don't want to go into the whole history (I was recently told in an email exchange with User:Callanecc that giving all the details on-wiki would potentially violate one or both of my TBANs), but I would be happy to provide them on request, by email if necessary. John Carter recently followed very closely on my tail to four different separate forums, and in two of them ironically accused me of following him. He has also repeatedly accused me of "following" him to the general area of Christian/Biblical topics, even though those are subjects I have a serious interest in off-wiki and have demonstrated such on-wiki countless times. I am really sick of dealing with John Carter's harassment, and I frankly don't want to go back and search for all the diffs at this time, but if anyone doubts anything I have written I would be happy to retrieve the evidence. I would be very happy with a two-way IBAN -- I requested it several times, most recently a month ago, but if John Carter honestly believes that my "behaviour" (read: continuing to edit an area I have been active in for at least three years) constitutes hounding, then I worry he might continue to accuse me of hounding him even after an IBAN is imposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Also: Mjroots explicitly told John Carter that he was not only permitted but "required" to inform me of ANI discussions like this one. His above claiming after this explicit clarification was posted on his talk page that he is "unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type" is difficult to believe. This, combined with his distinct history of reporting possible violations on my part on admin user talk pages (implicit block requests) rather than AN or ANI and not informing me, is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, only e-mail him if you want a clearly biased version of the "story," which seems to be primarily based on the assumption that checking a watchlist and responding to changes made that appear in them is "stalking." John Carter (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to above Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that John Carter not following the clearcut wording of the talk page ban which allowed such notifications doesn't reflect well on them. But again, I would suggest reading more in to it than simply not properly reading the wording of the ban properly, or not remembering what was read and checking it again before coming here, is simply not helpful. It's obviously possible that JC intentionally did it to annoy you, but since it'll be again impossible to prove and should be a once-off it's not something that can go further. Even if you may find it infuriating, it's irrelevant to the outcome and it's accepted that some people don't notify when there is genuine question over whether they're allowed and JC did make it clear they hadn't notified. Note that although it looks like no one informed you (I didn't notice that part very well) I guess either the ping worked or you became aware of this discussion somehow else. There's almost zero chance anything would have happened without you becoming aware of this discussion. The comment you made about JC going directly to admins is more concerning however the examples cited seem to be about violations of topic bans rather than behavioural concerns which require wider ANI input and AFAIK for better or worse there's no explicit requirement for notification in such cases where ANI/AN isn't involved. I would hope any decent admin would ask for input or take it elsewhere where they feel it's needed, but topic ban violation block are something that intented to be something low fuss. Personally I think the bigger concern is whether they show some degree of stalking, a big issue here would be how many of these reports lead to a block. I don't think it's the best idea for an editor with a history of antagonism with the reported to be frequently reporting topic ban violation, but if these reports all have merit it's difficult to say they were wrong. But if they are making these reports and a lot of them are wrong, it may very well be time to tell them to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Nil Einne:It is worth noting that in the Request for Clarification and Amendment Hijiri started there were, if I remember correctly, indications that others thought the request was not acceptable conduct from his side, which, honestly, I had never seen the like of before. That being the case, I thought it reasonable to act on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Nil Einne: Despite John Carter's repeated attempts at wikilawyering me into a TBAN block, I have not been blocked for any TBAN violations I may or may not have made. One of them (the recent ARCA) was a clear-cut misunderstanding as Callanecc can attest to per our email exchange, which is why I wasn't blocked and immediately withdrew it when told I probably should. A few more of them (my replies to Curly Turkey on my talk page) were the opposite of a TBAN violation, as they consisted of me saying "I'm sorry -- I don't think doing what you're asking of me would be acceptable under the terms of my TBAN". Another of them (the AE report) was initially a clear-cut case of BANEX as I was asking for clarification of my own TBAN, and an admin short-sightedly encouraged me to post an AE report; several others said I should be blocked for the AE report, but then when this background was clarified they withdrew these statements. John Carter also once (quite some time ago) interpreted the wording of another user's TBAN to make it sound like it applied to me, and recently misquoted the wording of my current TBAN with the effect of making it sound like it covered something ("Chinese topics") that I have edited numerous times since December (as Sturmgewehr88 pointed out, given the history it's difficult to take this as a good faith mistake). None of these attempts by John Carter have led to blocks, despite numerous admins (several of them Arbitrators) weighing in. This recurring pattern is very frustrating for me, as I would much rather improve Wikipedia's coverage of the various topics from which I am not banned than spend all this time defending myself against bad-faith accusations that I violated some sort of ArbCom ban. It's also worth noting that John Carter's above saying "if I remember correctly" and talking about "others" agreeing with him for something that happened only a few days ago, without even providing a link, is very misleading (whether it was meant to be misleading is another matter). The claims that User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Kingsindian (the two users whom John Carter says are "from [Hijiri88's] side") thought my request was "not acceptable conduct" is a complete misrepresentation of what they wrote. The actual posts are here, here and here. The fact that John Carter misquoted these people and weaselish-ly defended this misrepresentation as being "if he remembers correctly", while I have given the exact diffs, should be proof enough that I am not the one trying to hide evidence. The only reason I am only posting most of the recent evidence, as opposed to all of the evidence, in this thread is because providing the necessary context for mny of those earlier diffs (and some of the recent ones) would violate my IBAN and one or both of my TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged since I had commented on the ARCA request. I only read the first post relatively carefully by John Carter and I see no evidence presented for any stalking. That said, Hijiri seems to not mind a mutual I-ban, so if both agree, that is fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged by Hijiri88, who said I could back him or her up on certain things. In fact, I cannot back them up on their editing history, as I am not familiar enough with it to state with any certainty whether they were editing years before some disagreement I am also not familiar with started. However, their editing history should make that apparent, if it is true. With respect to the claim John Carter made about Ehrman being involved in the translation of the Gospel of Judas: Yes, I can back Hijiri88 up on that. Carter commented that "If I remember correctly, there is and has been reasonable somewhat widespread criticism of his work on the early version of the Gospel of Judas translation..." Not only is this factually inaccurate on the surface, it makes factually inaccurate assumptions about Ehrman's participation in the project. In that context, it is an extremely bizarre thing for someone who should be at least passingly familiar with the subject of New Testament history to say.

Also, I read the first link John Carter provided, and while I think Hijiri88 might have shown poor judgement in responding in the first place, what came out was a legitimate concern, to which Carter responded by failing to assume good faith and casting serious aspersions on Hijiri88. The implication of stalking there, in fact, more closely resembles Carter's behavior at the FTN thread Hijiri88, John Carter and I participated in.

There may be more there that I am unaware of, but what I've seen so far causes me to lean towards taking a closer look at why this notice was filed. I'm not advocating for any outcome, mind, just airing my 2 cents. Also, please don't ping me any more unless there are specific questions to ask me. My general thoughts on this have all be aired above, and I really don't want to do the editing history and block log research necessary to come to a more considered, informed opinion on this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction Hijiri88 reminded me (for the second time) that we had interacted about two years ago in respect to some rather academic issues regarding biblical history. Therefore, I can vouch for this editor having been participating in such work for that period of time. It's also worth noting that I would tentatively vouch for Hijiri88's competence to work in this area: most of us make mistakes and have some false beliefs, including myself, but I've yet to see this editor say anything which I could find to be factually wrong. I cannot speak for any civility issues beyond what I've said above, though I believe I made myself clear, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Responding since I was pinged and John Carter really needs to drop the stick already. As in every interaction between them, John Carter stalks, character-bashes, casts aspersions, wikilawyers a way to get someone blocked, and/or lies about the reality of the situation. Oh and that "I'm gonna complain about something not happening and then scold you for not making it happen" thing he's pulled before. He's always talking about these reference projects he's cooking up, so maybe he should go work on those instead of getting into fights with Hijiri. Or an IBAN could be placed, since both would agree to it; that works too. I'd still be amicable to an IBAN between myself and John Carter. Anyway, that's my 2¢. If John Carter tries to deny anything I said, I'll be happy to bury him in diffs (or maybe Hijiri will beat me to it). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not seeing a single diff in the OP or even in the sea of words that is this thread. Therefore I'd be happy if the OP received a boomerang for time-wasting and for stirring a pot he knows shouldn't be stirred. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: You are right that the OP hasn't provided diffs; as I have stated a few times in this thread, he appears to be trying to convince the admin corps and/or community of my wrongdoing without showing evidence that would backfire on him. But I don't know how it happened that you didn't notice the diffs I provided. I gave at least 15 diffs (and six archive links -- evidence does not have to be given in the form of diffs) in the collapsed sections above. I even made an edit that consisted almost exclusively of adding diffs and archive links to my own earlier post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I'm talking about the OP, not you, and sections are collapsed for a reason. But if you want to start/continue whining as well, I'm happy to suggest that all two or three of you receive feuding blocks from Floquenbeam, who is well-disposed to handing them out, and would be perfectly within his rights to do so here I think after all the ANI time this silly feuding has taken up over the months and years. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to where you said "in the sea of words that is this thread", but I appreciate that you were mainly criticizing the OP. Your noticing the OP's lack of diffs is recognized, and appreciated. I frankly don't want any more to do with this thread (I've been sick of ANI for quite some time) and would be content if it closed right now with the OP getting a slap on the wrist and being told to stay out of my hair going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233

This is the last [248] edit of a series of unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233 (talk · contribs). IP had enough warnings regarding the introduction of unsourced material, yet they keep making unreferenced changes along a number of airline crash articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe the IP isn't aware they have a talkpage, and so hasn't seen the warnings. I've blocked for 31 hours to get their attention and help them find their talkpage. If they reply there in a constructive way, please unblock, any admin who sees it. Thanks for reporting, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. I'll let you know if the IP replies at their talk.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Every IP editor sees an orange bar across the screen the first time they access the site after the message has been posted. It includes a link for accessing the message (i.e. clicking on it takes them to the talk page whether or not they know of its existence). The system is very efficient - I sometimes receive notification of messages posted nine years ago when nobody has edited in the interim. 78.145.24.30 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Jonathan Mann page escalated to personal attacks

IP 129.67.16.1 (talk) added a notability tag to the Jonathan Mann page, and when I added additional information and removed the tag, they reverted me twice without any edit summary or discussion. They also removed my message on their talk page asking for discussion, and twice removed Jonathan Mann from a disambiguation page, again without any explanation or discussion. Now they have left a hateful message on my talk page, and reverted me again, without an edit summary or discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

He's been issued a one-month block. They can't indef IP's, but that one's pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Funcrunch's userpage could benefit from the eyes of a few helpful admins. This IP is now block-evading to target them with hateful comments. Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Funcrunch should request semi-protection of his user page and talk page, either here or at WP:RFPP. If attacks occur on the article talk page, that could be temporarily semi'd also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Watchlisted both the article and Funcrunch's user page. Agree that this is a case worthy of temporary protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A lengthy block of the latest IP should also be considered. The IP went dormant once the newer IP came along, and now the previous one has been resurrected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this while I was out, folks. (BTW I'm a "they," not a "he.") I figured the IP that added the notability tag this morning (PDT) might be a sock, but I had to go out and someone had already reverted, so I didn't report them. (And now I see that was actually a different IP from the one who later vandalized my page.) In any case, yes, if I can request semi-protection of my user and talk page here, I would like to do so. Funcrunch (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Another IP just re-added the notability tag and trolled my talk page, in rapid succession. Funcrunch (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Since my user page was just vandalized again and I haven't seen any formal response from an admin on this incident report, I've submitted a request for page protection. Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My user page has been semi-protected, but the harassment has continued on my talk page, and has escalated to deadnaming. (That user has been temporarily blocked.) I'm not sure what other options I have to thwart these attacks at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about copyright and referencing

The contributions of User:Rberchie is troubling and concerning. The user is not only a serial copyright violator but have also added numerous fake references to Wikipedia articles. Like user:Wikicology, they created hundreds of articles that are either unsourced or fortified with fake references. see my comment on their talk page. I followed Wikicology case from the now archived messy ANI thread to the Arbitration request. (Redacted) I discovered that User:Rberchie is part of Wiki Loves Women as a Wikipedian in residence. Having editors like Rberchie to serve as Wikipedian in residence will be counter-productive. Peter Damian and User:Mendaliv may be interested in this discussion. Idiot Guruman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was your ninth post??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, it seems to be a fair question. Most of the images (except that one of him in Wikicology's his office, and that other) seem OK; but he is totally gilding his sources. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be a fair question, but it also seems fair that Rberchie gets a chance of actually answering the questions posed. He has last been active on the 16th and the questions were all posted today (the 17th), some four to five hours ago. There's more than a small chance that Rberchie simply isn't aware of any of these questions, let alone this ANI-thread. At least one of the alleged copyright infringements on commons wasn't even uploaded by that user. All in all, way too soon and way too sloppy for WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not bad for a ninth post though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a thread title change. "Second Wikicology" is just going to get you blocked for harassing Wikicology, and probably get this thread prematurely closed as started for divisive reasons. My suggestion is that if there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to the hundreds of bad articles, it might be worth taking a look. Still I agree with Kleuske that giving Rberchie a chance to respond before coming to ANI would have been a good idea. But now that we're here, well... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the thread title to the actual issues at hand. Also, Idiot Guruman, I'm offended by your smear of "hundreds of editors like Wikicology from Global South" which maligns many editors without any evidence and also verges on colonial racism. I suggest you strike that accusation. It is especially galling to see such sweeping insults from an editor with 12 edits! Did you create this account just to make this complaint? Liz 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Christ, I didn't even process that. I've redacted that sentence as flat out inappropriate and distracting from the point of this thread. OP may merit sanctioning here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this via UAA. I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but this editor who appears out of nowhere to harass a user, that's not OK and I blocked them indefinitely. DoRD, you know about this already; Mike V, you looked into one of the IPs before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have re-opened the case, since the underlying matter has not been resolved. I have no comment on the details. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The now-blocked OP asked a series of questions on Rberchie's talk page. the answers were ....not promising. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• For sure, Rberchie's media uploads on Commons are concerning. Some images are his own, that is not in reasonable doubt. However, here he claims that an image of the Ghanaian declaration of independence (which happened in 1957) was his own work: note the file information template says it was done in 2015. This suggests at minimum a lack of understanding of the rules on derivative works. Still, that's no worse than the incompetence demonstrated by several WMF staff who do not seem to realise that CC BY-SA requires you to attribute the authors of things you screenshot. BethNaught (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Donner60 keeps on removing source.

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

---

Hi, Donner60 keeps on remove source in Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. Wikipedia policy requires citing of sources, especially when the fact is not known (because it was not shown on the TV programme). 108.162.157.141 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Unverified Twitter accounts are not consider reliable sources. This really belongs over on AN3 given the number of times you reverted... And Donner60 was not notified of this ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @EvergreenFir:. That is the point of my reverts. Content change based on a twitter post, not what was apparently on the show or stated in a reliable, verifiable source about the show. If this had been brought to my talk page, I would have given a more explicit reply than the template delivered. In the alternative, I would have acknowledged a mistake if I had made one. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 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.