Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924

Personal attacks and other poor behavior by Thisiashan

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

---

• Thisisashan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antifeminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has been making personal attacks and casting aspersions on their talk page ([1], [2], [3], [4]), in screeds on Doug Weller's talk page ([5], [6]). All of this revolves around a huge post on Talk:Antifeminism where the user opines about user motives, gender, Wikipedia, the gender gap, etc. (best seen in this revert here: [7]). I gave a final warning regarding the personal attacks after Acroterion gave them a 3RR template warning (see [8]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This report follows directly after EvergreenFir being reported for harassment, and is a retaliatory action. If you check the timestamps this report directly follows EvergreenFir finding out she has been reported for said harassment. If you actually read these posts, there is absolutely no attempt of defamation, or otherwise personal attacks. Which is precisely why EvergreenFir is making blanket posts of pages in the stead of pointing out the quotes where accused personal attacks take place. EvergreenFir is a Gender Studies major whose personal opinion is getting in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view, and my post on Talk:Antifeminism was topical to the subject, anti-feminism. Gender and gender gap are topical, and the statements were in direct response to unsourced statements which EvergreenFir has chosen are okay simply on the basis of personal appeal. After said 'final warning', no edits have been made, which shows that this is a deliberate attempt to use the Wikipedia system to bully me. Please do not be a tool of harassment for this young lady who is obviously attempting to remove antifeminists who are attempting to discuss the antifeminism page, prior to editing it. If I was feckless, I would be editing the page itself and not attempting to open dialog. This has all been recorded, and this is EvergreenFir's second formally announced warning. Please do not harass me, thanks.Thisisashan (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You did not "report" me anywhere. And your edit here and here were after my final warning (and after Ian.thomson's discretionary sanction notifications). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, my posting an ANI notification is not "harassment" as you proclaim here. It's required that I notify you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been now given several chances to desist your harassment of me. You have continually committed to Libel, stalking, and contacting me against my expressed issues with said interaction. For the fifth time now, I ask that you please desist in interacting with me, it is in fact harassment. All this harassment because the facts I stated go against your bias. I'm new, but at least I understand NPOV, and the fact when someone asks you to stop approaching them, it is harassment to do so. Again, stop harassing me.Thisisashan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You accuse me of libel. I insist you show me where. Accusations of a crime like that are unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

So is lying, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thisisashan&diff=721164108&oldid=721156967 is clearly timestamped 2:36. Which is my last edit. Your time-stamp for your final warning? 2:48. So no, my edits were not after your final warning. This is a blatant lie, and written out, it is libel.

FURTHERMORE according to WP:Legal threats, "[...]A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat.[...]".

Lastly, claiming that I have made personal attacks, when i have not is libel. You seem to be on a roll regards to libel, keep it up.Thisisashan (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My warning - [9] - 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your first post-warning comment - [10] - 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your second post-warning comment - [11] - 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Try again? Also go read WP:NPA? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You specifically stated, "[...]were after my final warning[...]". Not your first warning, which is irrelevant due to it being the first warning I have ever received on wikipedia. Not your second warning, which again is irrelevant as it is not the warning in question. Your final warning. You are attempting to shift goalposts, as if your statement was about your original two warnings, which it never was. This is a fallacious move, and dishonest. Furthermore, just because the information provided is disputed, does not mean you are automatically correct. I have halted my actions until dispute resolution works out.

Meanwhile you should try reading WP:NPA, as obviously, it is about attacks directed at someone personally. Thus the term, personal attacks. I have made no such attacks against anyone on the Antifeminism talk page, which is exactly why you cannot quote a personal attack from that excerpt.Thisisashan (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "final warning" in [12] was unclear. Notifications of ANI postings are not warnings... they're notifications? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what part of 1:06 you have difficulty understanding that it came before your last warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifeminism&diff=721144323&oldid=721120167 My last edit, 1:06. We can all see the time, written out clearly. 1:06. Your buddy Acroterions warning? 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Your warning? 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Please desist with the attempted defamation, we all make mistakes, but it is clear that you are attempting to snuff out anyone that opposes your viewpoints in the anti-feminism Entry. You are using this as a means to claim ownership. And you are being dishonest to do so.Thisisashan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion is my buddy? 先輩が大好き！ Joking aside, NPA and all policies of wikipedia apply to all pages, including your talk page. Which is why the two diffs I linked above are ones you made after my final warning... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• This user is rather glaringly WP:NOTHERE and probably needs to be shown the door I think. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Have to politely disagree with this, I am here specifically to work on mens rights issues. Feminists rallying against an antifeminist for posting information in the antifeminist discussion page is anti-intellectual at best. What is being shown here is in fact WP:NOTHERE, but not by my accord. Silencing opposition is never a valid approach to academic works.Thisisashan (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A soapbox is a raised platform, for which I have made no attempts at. However, the attempts of feminists to silence an antifeminist who is discussing antifeminism, is exactly that. You are attempting to give feminists a soapbox to stand upon, from where they can denounce all non-feminists, even when talking about their own issues. You should remove your own soapbox before looking down at me and denouncing my attempts to have a polite discussion.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• This much drama after 31 edits [13]??!! Yeah, just cut to the chase and indef for NOTHERE. Jbh^Talk 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note also: "If this harassment continues, I will take legal actions. Consider this your second warning Ian.thomson. EvergreenFir, this is your final formal legal warning." -- Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, which was something I was unaware about. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? Bullying people who are unfamiliar with rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws? All for what, to shut out the opinions of a professor who is attempting to have a polite discussions.Thisisashan (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Funny how that reply is also a legal threat: "rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws". Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out policies which go against laws (unsuccessfully, private businesses cannot subvert laws, that takes a legal waiver), is not a threat of legal action. It is simply pointing out that a policy attempts to undermine the standard actions in the justice system.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You went onto a public website and acted outside of its policies. When those policies were explained for you, you screamed "harassment! libel!" and tried to play the victim card. Your "polite" discussion consisted of accusing the website of being run by a cabal bent on hiding some supposed truth that you failed to provide adequate sources for (something a professor should know how to do and would understand the importance of). You are not the victim of harassment here, you are just refusing to own up to your own mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, my polite discussion consisted of several facts that feminists don't want to see on the antifeminist page, which are directly in line with antifeminist viewpoints. You are attempt to shift the scope of my polite discussion away from the discussion itself, and to this dispute. This dispute is not my contribution, my post on antifeminism was. The bullying here is obvious and blatant.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 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.

Questionable editing?

The editor Robsinden appears to be removing relevant content from navboxes and articles. From navboxes, text that is pertinent, but not in redlink form is being removed. For examples, please see:

• Template:Are You Being Served?
• Template:Chris Rea
• Dave Early

I've notified user that redlinks are permissible as stated in Wikipedia:EXISTING. That policy states, "Red links can be retained in navigation templates". Would like opinions of admins. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you show us the discussions you've had with the user in question regarding this issue? Can you also show us prior attempts at dispute resolution such as an RFC or other method of bringing in outside voices? --Jayron32 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I've left posts at two article talk pages. However, in reviewing other edits by the user I wasn't sure if they warrant attention by an administrator. The two talk pages are:

• Template talk:Sade in section Removing red links from template
• Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial in section Civil Rights Memorial

In regards to using RFC or other voices, I posted this for a cursory review of edits of user on several or more articles or templates. Not one or two particular articles or templates. Thanks for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Robsinden is a longtime inveterate navbox warrior, so I'm not surprised he is now doing this. He definitely needs to stop or be forcibly stopped, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Right, first of all, I wasn't notified about this discussion. I'm not sure how anyone could miss the instructions regarding this, but there you go. It seems the op is unaware of many of our policies and guidelines. Secondly, I'm not sure how tidying up wayward navboxes in line with navbox conventions, guidelines and prior consensus earns me the title of "Navbox Warrior". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Wish there was a way your edits did not cause so many problems and so much distress.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose, disruptive account related to Bill Cosby

User talk:66.235.36.153 seems to be a Single-purpose account that has been making disruptive edits and large, undiscussed deletions in the articles related to the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I think this editor should be blocked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? What do you mean?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Diff, basically you need to show the edits you are saying are disruptive. You can view page history and then get the diffs from there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=718953858&oldid=718530856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=720648062&oldid=720202654

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=703033453&oldid=703004913

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Those edits are not all from the same time, and IP is commenting in summary. I would like talk page discussions, from all, but this could be solved using proper dispute resolution processes, not AN/I. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister's AFD issues

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

---

SwisterTwister's track record on AfD is terrible. As shown by the counter (here), over 95% of his votes are delete. Therefore, I propose a ban from AfD for SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC) (external link formatted)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: however their accuracy (green) is 100% 94% - admittedly the majority of voted AfDs are yet to be closed -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Above percentage edited from 100% edited per RickinBaltimore's comment -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

see https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, while they have had a large percentage of delete votes, the more important thing to look at is how many of their votes were against consensus. Of their recent 500 AfD votes ([14]), it looks like they match consensus 94% of the time, which honestly is pretty good. That's not even close to being disruptive. Just voting delete isn't a bad thing, if that's the case I should be banned from AFD too. ([15]) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Samtar and RickinBaltimore: percentage of votes to delete is not a good measure of quality. ST's AfD behavior may be problematic, but sufficient evidence of that has not been presented here. —swpb^T 15:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Propose close this as irrelevant. An editor having a certain view as to whether to generally keep / delete articles does not, thanks to the requirement for consensus, do any major damage to WP (unlike the issues above, which undoubtedly could). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Expanding to 500 !votes [16] shows an accuracy still approaching 100%, with one Keep !vote on an article that was deleted and only a handful of Deletes on articles that were Keep. SwisterTwister is a deletionist, but that is a very very long way from having a "terrible" track record - most of these articles were Deletes by consensus, and !voting with the consensus can hardly be represented as a problem whether you like the consensus or not. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Can I be absolutely honest - I've noticed more than once ST !vote delete in something where for instance the discussion's going towards redirect .... I've had the impression he doesn't review the article nor the AFD !votes ..... He just blindly !votes whatever...., However if somehow he does have a good record then I guess it's not much of an issue... –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close speedily The issue at AfD is not the stats but the quality of the !votes. However, this is not a major problem because the closing admin will weigh them appropriately. I would suggest closing this speedily as it's a distraction from the report above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Obvious Oppose. The count of 95% of !votes cast as delete is utterly irrelevant if a) the editor tends to !vote on AFDs they think should result in delete and doesn't !vote much on AFDs they think should result in keep, and b) their record in agreeing with the eventual outcome is strong, which it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a question of nomenclatura, but when editors are !voting oppose are they also !voting to speedy-close this thread? Or not? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and close: SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are notoriously lackluster, and I assume any closer worth her salt disregards them completely. He has a high accuracy rate because he typically waits to vote until there's an obvious consensus and then repeats it in boilerplate language. (He explained in the previous ANI discussion that he "[has] to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus.") That said, I don't believe poorly-researched yet voting made in good faith is sanctionable, and, even if it were, a topic ban would be far too soon.

  I support speedy close of this section.  Rebbing  15:48, 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.

Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison

WP:SPA Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit-warring to insert odd, in some cases WP:BLP-dicey content at Jim Morrison. Diff:[17] . The user is claiming it's "sourced" as they are inserting bare urls of blogs, fanzines, google search results and interviews with human-interest reporters at small town newspapers in place of stable content sourced to books on major publishing houses, which they are deleting. I have attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:IRS and have now warned them three times, but they refuse to engage on either their talk page or the article talk page, insisting in edit summaries every time that they hit "undo" that they are "sourcing." This is the diff they are reverting to:[18]. I could revert again and take them to 3RR, but I'd prefer an uninvolved admin intervene. They seem obsessed with defaming living people mentioned in that article, while pushing the interests of a living person who seems nn to me. There may well be a COI issue here as well, as there often is with SPAs who behave this way. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Making this real easy for you @Poofdragon: and adding a ping. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating WP:3RR at that noticeboard now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this WP:SPA. The disruptive editing has veered into personal attacks on WP:BLP subjects in connected articles:[19], along with the 3RR violations and continuing to remove sourced content to dump in google books search results that don't source the content the disruptive SPA is adding. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

IP Hopper on Social work

Does this constitute a legal threat? Regardless, user is part of a range of IP that have been disruptive on the talk for quite a while. For example, I have warned them previously against editing others comments, which they have continued to do, after a long hiatus and pinky promising not to. They seem intent on wasting the time of all involved, in addition to general disruption and vandalism.

Previous posts here have accomplished nothing ([20], [21], [22]). So...if something could be done that would be super. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi? TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: @Dennis Brown: Kindly check:[23] this [24], [25] was an attempt to solve issues following Timothyjosephwood example:[26] base on this info:Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. To see the other side of this others have to look into:[27] and see:[28], [29]...etc. Above all I am not very wiki-savvy so only found this now. The previous ANI is also a conspire using similar deceptive tactics by other editors and most probable this is an off wiki tag team attack (judging by similarity in actions). Other requests of privileges are for misuse of similar nature. Deletion of disruptive content that intents to attack others or shows characteristics of manipulative and maladaptive practice could be deleted this was confirmed by administrators. So this actions were taken:[30], [31]. Instituting a range block is an attack to certain region specific editors, these sort of requests should be seen as hostility rather than in good faith plus there is no pinky promise with disruptive and mal-intent editors or the editor has to show this statement. This is a wasting of time of all involved when editor who contested for this block is not open for discussions and chooses other means. Calling any editor a vandal is strictly prohibited in the article talk page still Timothyjosephwood intends to claim WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: [32] about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).

But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay dear, let others please read the statement and reply they don't need your interpretations, do they now. They are also able to think and see for what it is. citing multiple diffs is a recent skill i found. But your claim that all ips are one is a bit obtuse. Dont attack users like Diannaa for your ends and yes the page social work was edited when irregularities where cited in a conference with the lead section and further viewing the talk page only confirmed those actions, I was there. Above all you are the one who has initiated this block using manipulated evidence any blind can see this fact.

• Attempt to resolve certain issues based on Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed:[33], this was done when redaction was not possible.
• Attempt to resolve rv game by following your example: [34]
• Two time rv attempt by you, one:[35]
• Talk initiated to solve the issue if your actions where based on policy: [36]
• Deceptive move by you to ascertain authority or your position: [37] and [38] and this done while we were talking and you didn't inform for giving a say when i was active:[39].
• Resultant block from misunderstanding and your abuse of good faith by trying to glory hog and seek favors of privileges: [40]

If checked every other blocks might also have certain history of deceptive tacts and this might be the MO used for the protections. Answer your actions and abuse of privileges, then we can talk about wonders of the world. I am certain if this sort of malpractice isn't stopped we will be seeing back here, if notified in the talk page. Either me(most probably) or others will be there to reduce disruptions.59.89.239.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.

Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to WP:ROPE. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and [41]

For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of WP:SHOPPING going on here, please see my talk page (not countining the repeated attempts to take Timothy Joseph to AN3. This is getting mildly surreal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it:[42] so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement:[43] I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.

Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?

Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared WP:NOTHERE and edits rolled back per WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now there's an idea 😉 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally wp:deny his case. Maybe for some its easy to look through this edit and identify which is which, i am not so-it becomes a bit confusing when answering; the comments are only given spaces to answer them clearly so where does refactoring comes in or is it an excuse to somehow pin down the ip editor. Reading Diannaa's comment states "I should have read your post more closely." from the editor itself and the conversation seems to end with civility and integrity.- so what is this soul trying to pin is unclear. There is an another ANI going on to topic ban this editor who seem to have unreal convictions about social work and engage in subsequent disruptive actions which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why racism is mentioned in this[44] Racism:Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. and the actions seems to show clearly when the editor asks to initiate a wiki-ban for Kerala is from a sense of superiority and considering others as inferior and the definition might extend to the rest of the part only jim1138 and the other editor knows what transpired there. But the definition seems to fit in some places very well and this is an antisocial behavior. I myself ask others insight when i am not sure - this is to learn, understand and collaborate if possible, and it is a positive learning behavior. This doesn't warrant for wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.

I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit:[45] would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what wikipedia stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors:[46] now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. Are we meant to believe that these two tag teaming IPs (User:117.248.62.212 and User:61.0.77.81) are actually different people?! Unbelievable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of Dissociative identity disorder Wikipedia editing. They are the same person, but they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well nobody said this two ip's are two, is there a claim as such, if so provide where the ______ are you(@ FIM and TJH2018) getting these ideas. Not from this section I am sure or is this continuation of your unchecked pranks. Plus Timothoy we might have a dispute on your actions but grow up before joining with those two disruptors...I am this kind of person (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22), but not upto 70, keep pushing the buttons to make your actions more clear. Above all a social worker should know how to behave, especially a disciplined(army brat you say) social worker otherwise you are showing lack of basic knowledge in the practice. If your lying-its o.k.-its your deal. If you really are a social worker go back to the books....so that it wouldn't hurt your clients. If the spoiler thing was projection do dial down otherwise which school taught you PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, ASSESSMENT and above all ETHICS. I should have picked it with the roping reference. 61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Let me give you an advice any social worker requires to be fair, stick to values and truthful this is just a piece of the bigger picture and I think if you can follow these you can be a good wikipedian too. Values in the wikipedian sense means good practice and policies. Good luck.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us stop this silly bickering too, if the raised issue is not looked or taken action by any admins there is a good chance that this will slip through so everyone negatively involved shouldn't worry about it. If any actions taken challenge it or ask the reasoning and move on. Plus, there seems nothing to explain about the issue everything is out here-who is who and what they did and do. I hope this ANI will be included in the social work talk page for the see of other Admins and editors.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun folks. Looks like this thread too is not going to result in any permanent solution. I suppose we'll see you all back here in two months when the semi expires. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This is the fourth ANI on this matter. This is a repost of previous ANI tickets listed above.

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016

Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Leary

I regret bringing this matter here, but it appears I have little alternative. The article Timothy Leary has been subjected to disruptive editing from editors using IP addresses for some time, leading to its being semi-protected on several occasions, most recently here, by Lectonar. The IP user who was disrupting the article now appears to be frustrated, and is disrupting the talk page instead, making a series of comments that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article and appear to be aimed mainly at abusing me. This comment, for instance, is simply griping about Wikipedia in general. I let it stand, and warned the IP about using the talk page as a forum. The IP responded with this piece of personal abuse, which I removed as an egregious violation of WP:TALK, considering that it was 100% pure trolling and again had no relation at all to the article the talk page is actually about. The IP restored the abuse. I propose that the IP be given a lengthy block; and if truly necessary, that the talk page be protected from IP editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to note in addition that the IP is very likely AcidRock67 editing while logged out. AcidRock67 modified a comment made by the IP here, which along with the similarity of general behavior strongly suggests it is the same person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty telling. Also, it's abuse of multiple accounts. Needs a block(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FKC has turned both Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley into WP:BATTLEGROUNDS over the question of whether these individuals where philosophers. In the last couple months, he's made more trips to drama boards than most of us make in a decade. Yes, AcidRock67 is a newbie, a fact FKC likes to take advantage of by edit-warring (e.g., just the latest, [47], [48]) with him until he makes a mistake that can be reported, by repeatedly requesting the articles be protected, locking AC67 out of the article, and by intransigently asserting arguments that amount to little more than personal opinion, e.g., his opinion that an individual can only be a philosopher by occupation if one is employed as a philosopher. (It seems to me it should enough to occupy your time as such.) Realistically, FKC is very difficult to get along with and his behavior, turning everything into a battle and then tattle-taling constantly at one drama board after another, is a huge part of the problem. FKC knows the rules and he's using them as a weapon to eliminate a new editor with an opposing view. What he should do is seek common ground, compromise or genuine consensus. Yes, AcidRock67 is making mistakes, lots of them. But he's a newbie and he's being provoked into making those mistakes. This is a case where it takes and has ALWAYS taken two for a fight. Personally, what I recommend is that FKC take a time out from both these articles for a few months and I bet every problem with AcidRock67 will simply end. Msnicki (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment from completely uninvolved editor: That may be so, but it seems like a separate issue. If AcidRock67 is still socking/block-evading with IPs, after he was recently blocked for doing so and now knows better, then he should be very strictly sanctioned. Socking is a very serious violation and must be sanctioned. If there are unrelated IPs disrupting the talk page, those need to be somehow dealt with too. Anyone who really wants to edit Wikipedia can register an account if need be. In terms of FKC's disruptions, if they are really problematical perhaps a completely separate thread is in order, and perhaps an at-least temporary topic ban could be proposed. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Msnicki, I have not. In the case of Timothy Leary, an Rfc is still in process (so far as I know), and I have not made any edits related to the issue of Leary being a philosopher or not in quite a long time now. The issue at Aldous Huxley is not over whether Huxley was a philosopher but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, as I've patiently pointed out several times. It ought to be a simple distinction. None of this actually has anything to do with AcidRock67's apparent use of IP addresses to disrupt Talk:Timothy Leary and make insulting comments about me that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article. It would be a good idea to not make excuses for disruptive users who do not care about Wikipedia's rules and have no intent of following them: and "FKC made me do it", is a pretty poor excuse for any form of bad behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Msnicki's complaints about me essentially boil down to "I don't like you." My response is that whether editors like each other or not is neither here nor there. Editors do not have to like each other per se; they do have to make an effort to follow the site's rules, however. Again, despite what Msnicki claimed, there is no edit warring over Leary being a philosopher or not going on at Timothy Leary; rather, there is an ongoing RfC. There is, again, a somewhat exasperated ongoing discussion at the Aldous Huxley talk page, rather than continued reverts at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• The account and the IP 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B have been blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if you should see a related-looking IP continuing the same disruption, because the range can be blocked if required. (Perhaps surprisingly, it's actually easier with IPv6.) Bishonen | talk 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
• I don't see any evidence of socking or block evasin on AcidRock67/IP2605's part. AcidRock67 was blocked for 24h on May 15 but that block had expired at the time of this incident, so there was no block evasion. The person then returned to editing without logging in, but with no attempt at deception or using multiple accounts afaict. I haven't looked more deeply than that but if AcidRock67 is an actual newbie then we should remember WP:BITE. Wikipedia's customs are quite different from other places on the internet and we're supposed to allow some room for acclimation when someone arrives here. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • AcidRock67 might not have been guilty of block evasion, but if he is the same user as the IP, then he appears to be guilty of logging out so that he could make disruptive edits without having them linked to his account. The IP might not have claimed to be a different person, but it did not admit to being AcidRock67 either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible AfC review scam?

An editor has recently posted at the Teahouse to say that the subject of an article they have been drafting was contacted with an offer to approve the draft in exchange for money. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Need assist for reviewing Draft:Karen Civil for full details. I just thought I'd flag this up, as I know there have been paid-editing scams like this in the past, but the AfC aspect is new to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At AfC we intermittently hear about scams targeting editors whose drafts have been declined. They have been less frequent since June 2015, when we added to several places the notice, "Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page." There was another incident a few weeks ago, however. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. I suspect this is the latest strategy used by the Orangemoody clan who have previously operated through AfC, although in a slightly different way (for more details on their past modus operandi see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody). I also wonder how many more times this is occurring and never mentioned. Many editors never get as far as the AFC Help Desk where the instance noted by Worldbruce occurred. There is a special OTRS address for editors who have been approached with these "offers" to get help or report the offer: info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org. There are notices warning editors about the scam at the top Wikipedia:Articles for creation and the Articles for Creation Help Desk, but the warning needs to be more widely disseminated. I personally think it should also appear as a prominent edit notice whenever anyone creates a draft and on the first page of the Article wizard and at the top of Wikipedia:Your first article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. I had read about that scam, including in the Guardian, but not in much detail so was unaware that there was an AfC connection. I have suggested that our Teahouse guest forward the e-mail to that address. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

People actually fall for this? HalfShadow 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If some people are already willing to pay for articles to be written, then that they'd pay for positive AfC review doesn't seem such a surprise to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive 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.

---

User "The Quixotic Potato" engaged in an inappropriate, off-topic discussion in a reference desk thread..I asked about how to collapse it in the reference desk talk page...He then filled that thread with disruptive editing. I then collapsed the discussion after learning how, whereby he reverted it in bad faith multiple times...I then asked for help in dealing with him in the reference desk talk page...he then filled that thread up with even more disruptive editing...the collapse isn't itself that big of a deal but his apparent belief that he can do whatever he wants is more important in regards to the Wikipedia project...thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on commenting here again but Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked 151.226.217.27 because it is LTA User:Vote (X) for Change, which confirms my suspicions. 68.48.241.158 will be blocked again soon, probably for being disruptive and exhausting everyone's patience. I don't know if they are the same person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the thread itself, an admin went in and removed one half of the inappropriate back and forth...so now just "quixotic potato's" inappropriate words remain, as though he's talking to himelf...but, again, this is about "quixotic potato's" continued disruptive editing when I originally tried to deal with the problem..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Wikipedia attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states ...these templates [collapsing discussion] should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. If this applies to the Science refdesk, then IMHO the IP and TQP are as guilty as each other. Having said this, such behaviour does not require admin action - but perhaps a case of "toss 'em a trout". DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE: the only remedy I really desire is that a good-faith admin caution "Quixotic Potato" on his talk page to try to stay on topic in reference desk discussions, to avoid ad hominem attacks/taunts etc in reference desk discussions, and to not disruptively revert edits in bad faith ways by other editors who are trying to mitigate the damage (ie collapsing the inappropriate discussion)..thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Wikipedia users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Wikipedia is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the person who keeps putting irrelevant content into this thread (and having it reverted) the same person "Quixotic Potato" engaged with inappropriately (and which I properly attempted to collapse but was disrupted in my attempt by the continued inappropriate behavior of "Quixotic Potato"??).68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Boomerang/Indef Ban IP editor clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, only waste time, of which they have already accomplished that goal. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

never once have I ever attacked anyone on Wikipedia...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48.241.158 did attack (at least) one person, and administrator Coffee addressed this (by blocking 68.48.241.158).

21:36, 1 March 2016 Coffee (talk | contribs) blocked 68.48.241.158 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)

68.48.241.158 will probably claim that Coffee is not a "good-faith admin". Tarage has been a Wikipedia user for over a decade and has a clean blocklog. It seems to be really difficult for 68.48.241.158 to find a "good-faith admin" (despite the fact that someone sent him this link which lists hundreds of them) so it is not clear how Tarage managed to avoid getting blocked all this time.</sarcasm>

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

the reasoning for that improper block was supposed "failure to get the point" in a talk page content discussion...ad admin then incorrectly listed it as "personal attack"...I immediately objected to the block and the incorrect stated reason (as can be seen) but it was not addressed...but, again, this hasabsolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about...this thread is about your specific conduct (which actually included personally attacking another user...which can all objectively be seen right in the record)..you haven't once addressed what this is about (which is understandable, as you have no defense) but disruptively changed the subject again and again (which is also inappropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone you have interacted with on Wikipedia is wrong and you are right. The fact that the vast majority of your interactions with other people are less than pleasant is our fault. All admins are acting in bad faith. We should all be blocked, except you of course, so that you can edit Wikipedia in peace. We are all crazy, and we are simply not smart enough to understand you. Are you aware that MediaWiki is totally free? You can install it on your own webserver, that way you won't have to deal with idiots like me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please Note: I was originally seeking some real-time help in dealing with inappropriate content in a reference desk thread (and a user's inappropriate interference with my dealing with it); so this has become moot as that thread is receding into the history in the reference desk...that same user has now filled this thread up with a wall of content that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (and not once addressed the matter), which is also totally inappropriate...the only thing to potentially do is have an admin admonish this user about his general inappropriate behavior, as described in the OP and seen in this thread...If an admin doesn't find the time for this particular matter then suppose it can be wrapped up sometime soon, as becoming moot..thank you for your time..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you become nervous now that you've finally realized that this ANI report has backfired in a rather spectacular way? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

there are not enough police officers to deal with every crime and there are not enough admins to deal with every infraction, simple as that (it's backfired only in how you've filled it inappropriately...be nice to see you admonished for that in itself, which would be appropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word appropriate means? You seem to be using your own definition of the word disruptive. Tarage wrote: "Go away before you are forced to go away". That is an appropriate response to someone who behaves like you do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

no, I'd say his input, including that kind of statement is also entirely inappropriate..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And your recent block for editing disruptively, was that block also inappropriate? Was that admin also not a "good-faith admin"? And is the fact that you are editing disruptively again, only 2 weeks after your most recent block for the same offense ended, appropriate or inappropriate? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

see my talk page for what I think about that block; it's all right there, clearly explained (I'm going to stop engaging with you along irrelevant lines..so I'll allow you to put in one more irrelevant post, but I won't respond, no matter what's contained in it)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note Allow me to advise collegiality and a willingness to actually listen with open ear from all parties. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

a problem is that 90% of this thread can literally be deleted as being totally irrelevant to the OP/original issue..what admin wants to read through all that? I think there are just not enough admins to have attention at everything...as ideally this would have been looked at immediately and solved thereby avoiding "The Quixotic Potato's" repetitive disruption of this thread...but at this point it's largely a lost cause..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a classic "takes two to tango" situation. If people had visited this and found 20 posts from TQP and nothing else besides the first comment from you starting it, then maybe people would be concerned enough to take action. But when people visit this and find 20 back and forths between you and TQP nothing is thay likely to happen as in most similar cases at ANI. In other words, don't complain about most of this thread being totally irrelevant or disruptive when you contributed half of it. Note also that at AN//I behaviour from all editor involved in a dispute will normally be looked at. Discussion is not limited to the behaviour an OP wants us to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48.241.158 has been blocked. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:13, 22 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.

Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. 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 recent request as follows to User:Hchc2009 made to his talk page on 21:27 13 May 2016 [49] ("Editing patterns") has not received an answer as I requested:

"Your recent edits on Kirkham House (15:23, 8 May 2016‎), The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016‎ ), Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016); John Wadham (died 1578) (06:28, 12 May 2016‎); Manor of Orleigh (11:17, 13 May 2016‎) display signs and edit patterns which might reasonably be interpreted as contravening certain of Wikipedia's policies. This message is not an accusation of any contravention, but merely a request for clarification of the position".

I should be grateful to have some admin oversight to this matter, which also concerns User:Smalljim. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric ^talk 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, it's so impertinent of me to raise a matter concerning two users who "seem to have been here a while", and one of whom is an admin. - who by the way has form in stealth canvassing. He has just brought to my attention an egregious stealth canvass he made on 9 November 2013 to a fellow admin who had closed a AN/I report not to his liking. [50] He immediately afterwards made a WP:STEALTH WP:CANVASS approach to him (here), unknown to me until now, in which he asked him (Kim Dent-Brown): "Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit?", as he has now revealed in Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (20:14, 10 May 2016), which he characterised as "a brief conversation". Is it OK for an Admin who has been ruled against in an AN/I to surreptitiously approach the AN/I closure admin and ask for a more favourable conclusion? This he did without informing me, which seems to be stealth canvassing. But, hey, I'm just a mere junior around here. I should have got the message when one of Hchc's mates posted on his talk page "You did like check out his background before slapping this message down, right? Hchc's got 54,000 edits - including bringing Henry I of England, Stephen I of England, and John of England to FA status. He's not a sockpuppet. He started editing in 2009 for the sake of the gods." I was under the impression that all are equal here and nobody is above WP policies. If I'm wrong on that, let's shut down this request and just put it down to the naivite of a greenhorn. I've cited 5 instances of prima facie evidence for a reasonable person to suspect that something is amiss, but that's just dismissed here as "throwing out a bunch of accusations". The two parties concerned (User:Hchc2009 and User:Smalljim) seem immune from coming here and giving their explanation, so it seems? They have been notified in the proper way.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

I have no idea what Lobsterthemidor is talking about; if you're going accuse someone of something a) say what it is, and b) post WP:DIFFs. In any event, I have no idea where this idea "all are equal here" got started, but it's patently ridiculous. It's the Encyclopedia anyone can edit not an everyone is equal utopian fantasy. While no one is above policies, policies are gray, and long term contributors get a little more slack. Oh, and yes, WP:Backdoor canvass is a common tactic, and per policy, administrators are encouraged to consult with one another; e.g. "if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action" NE Ent 22:18, 21 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.

2.25.129.11's disruptive editing

2.25.129.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing for quite some time now. They go back to late April. This IP has been constantly adding the episode order a cast appears in a show per season most notably on Criminal Minds and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's season pages, which disregards WP:TVCAST. They are most active on Criminal Minds (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They've been warned about their editing; and they have been reverted by other users besides me. They have not engaged in any conversation to build consensus. They only edit war by adding their edit on and on. If any diffs are required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:AN3 may be a better place to address these concerns. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP has continued with their disruptive editing, such as here. Can someone please block them? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

• Each IP has Most IPs have edits for one date, sometimes two some have more.
• EVERY SINGLE EDIT The vast majority of his edits have to do with citations to references by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
• Except for one account, There is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
• I have found ONE four edits that were not his that cited his work.
• Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
• Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
• The books are mostly(?) sometimes published by Mellen Press, which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
• He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
• He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
• The total count of these edits is 627 705.

updated by — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. This stuff will end up flowing back into Wikipedia indirectly. For example this book on Azerbaijan uses Mughal as a reference but that's because they've lifted it from our Azerbaijan article. Someone else will cite Mughal indirectly through this book and, before you know it, we're going to be indirectly citing him as well. He's using Wikipedia to get his citation count up. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Until the capable folk who write edit filters do something I can block the IPs as they show up (which itself seems to be difficult to track). Or maybe someone could train Cluebot to revert this stuff as it shows up. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: I doubt very much whether this guy would ever deliberately misspell, or even shorten, his name. If I understand edit filters correctly, it seems a good filter would be an effective solution. — Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A good filter, yes, probably. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still finding more, and updating the table here (the edit count is now 734 705). Feel free to edit it for any more IPs you find, or to mark a set of edits checked. At least one editor has been using it to track down articles to clean out. I'm really grateful to all of you who have been helping! — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

for now. All the cites we could find have been cleaned out, except for the four articles where other editors cited his work (well, one was cleared out, and the creating editor hasn't objected yet). I gathered some numbers as I went: A total of 711 edits done on 43 different dates over a period of 3 years and 2 months using 50 different IPs. I will be requesting an edit filter so we can at least track him when he gets in a "citing" mood again. I created a subpage in my user space to record what's been done: Mughal empire. — Gorthian (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gorthian and everyone else working on it! DMacks (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours [51] [52] [53]
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours [54] [55] [56] [57]

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [58] *[59] [60]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — 80.254.69.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [61], [62], [63], [64] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [65], [66].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

Examples:

• Tell Rifaat (The source didn't say anything about a displacement of its population, in conclusion what he wrote there is partially is a lie)
• Al-Manajir (Removing without reason)
• Al-Shaddadah (Removing sourced edit without reason)
• Tell Abyad (POV-pushing)
• Kurd Mountains (Removing without reason)
• Azaz District
• Upper Mesopotamia

This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.

What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.

Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp is annoying and act as if he is in a marketplace for sources.. he bargins and his idea about a consensus is him writing on the talk page and think its enough to do whatever he wants .. its specially funny when he decide that something isnt reliable!!! Yet no, he shouldnt be banned.. he has some points about the black washing of kurds, yet he do the opposite and white wash them... all involved users should balance their opinions ... on a side note, ban them for edit warrying for like a day or two so they think twice before doing that again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: How am I annoying? I have seen your edits. You usually see that some edits are clearly blackwashing the article but you skip them intentionally. Last time, I showed you some sources and neutralized sections and I explained my changes. You still wanted to keep the "Kurds" and "Turks" in the genocide section and removed all parts which mentioned Arabs and other ethnic groups. You couldn't explain your changes, as reliable sources clearly proved that Arabs and other ethnic groups have been also a part of the genocide, so there were no reasons to remove Arabs and other ethnic groups from the section. About white washing, just show me one single edit which could be classified as whitewashing. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. Sometimes, I make mistakes, but I admit and fix them. I also apologize. In this case, the user who reported me has involved in POV pushing and violated WP:FAKE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL dozens of times. I always try to reach consensus. Ferakp (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINS, PLEASE do something here about user Ferakp. Look at this revert that goes against the consensus on the Talk page including user Ermanrich. This has been going on for over a week now, and I have been restraining for edit-warruing with this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I have explained why I reverted it. You can read it here, [67]. A consensus was reached (me and Ermanrich). Ferakp (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL. Also, you should learn more what is a reliable source and not, WP:RELIABLE.Ferakp (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin @عمرو بن كلثوم:, I don't understand why you don't block Ferakp, when dozens of other users have been blocked for the same offence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Should not all be pov-warring warriors be treated equally?? --176.127.213.144 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note merged threads of same issue/u8ser (Feerakp) Will add examples of blackwashing later

Disruptive editor, massive vandalism suspicion, cherry pickings and sock puppetry

I had previously reported that the some users are black washing Kurdish articles. There is one user who has since last year vandalized and black washed all Kurdish articles. All his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish. Disruptive editings, massive copy pasting the whole section from the article to another and cherry pickings. This user and all his edits are related to the Kurds, FGM among the Kurds and Kurdish human rights. The user is using different IP addresses, so it can continue its sock puppetry and massive vandalism without problems.

Ip addresses of the user:
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
and god knows how many other IP addresses this user has used.

As you can see, I have lost majority of my time to edit, warn and neutralize his edits. All his edits have led me to add POV tags to many Kurdish articles. To be honest, his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish and as you can read talk pages of articles, he/she has edited, full of violations I have mentioned. This user is not only doing such edits, he is also continuously with other users trying to report me so I can stop neutralizing Kurdish articles. I tried to clean his articles, but I gave up after I realized he is copy pasting the whole sections to other articles. For example, he has copy pasted FGM texts from Kurdish women article to Women in Iran article. There are tons of cherry picking, WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORIGINAL, NPOV and WP:FAKE issues in his/her edits. Someone should do something about this.Ferakp (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the sock puppetry in the form of diffs, Ferakp? The fact that someone edits from different locations is unlikely to be considered evidence of sock puppetry without them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: They aren't from different locations. All those IPs belong to Bern(Switzerland) and Swisscom (Schweiz) AG. I will also diffs if you want, but I will add them tomorrow, since I don't have much time today.Ferakp (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Presumably they are at least from different computers (or they are dynamic). Using different IPs isn't in itself sock puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they are dynamic IPs. We can remove sock puppetry. Other issues remain.Ferakp (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

174.23.128.98

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 h. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:174.23.128.98, who appears to have a problem getting along with others ("Removing shit by stupid rob"[72], "Shithead"[73], "Stop your shit and I will stop"[74], "Die, stupid moron, and leave me alone"[75]) has now stated deleting WP:AIV reports.[76] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• 174.23.186.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 174.23.146.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously evading the block on 174.23.128.98, have several times removed the above report. I've blocked them, but unfortunately I think the range is a little too big to block. What do you say, Materialscientist? I've semiprotected ANI for three hours. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I went ahead and blocked 174.23.128.0/18 for a day. The range is busy, but 24 hours shouldn't cause much collateral damage. Any admin should feel free to unblock if it does come to be a problem, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, DoRD. I couldn't decide about the /18 range, it's right on the cusp of being too big — but I think you did the right thing. The angry vandal is very busy, not just on this page. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 21 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 Pprcgi

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pprcgi (talk · contribs) ( who may also be 39.32.222.179), has engaged in disruptive editing of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor over the past few days by making repeated and massive reverts. He/She has been requested to be more careful about reverting edits because his/her reversions result in large amounts of sourced and researched being deleted, as well as hyperlinks to newly created wikipedia pages linked from the China Pakistan Economic Corridor site.

Further, he/she repeatedly inserts a POV section entitled "Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage CPEC" in which the user has copied and pasted a sentence from the section "Indian objections to CPEC," followed by an unsourced and unverified POV claim that India is dedicating $300 million to sabotage CPEC. Again, no source was provided, and I have twice made clear on the talk page for the site that this is a major problem for being both POV and unsourced. The user instead continuously re-inserts the unsourced and POV claim, and has strangely pointed to an articled entitled "Pakistan's relations with militants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#Pakistan.27s_relation_with_militants) to somehow justify the insertion of his/her unsourced claims and the use of the POV terminology "Indian sponsored terrorism."

The Section he/she keeps reverting the page for states:

Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage the project

In March 2016, Pakistan announced that it had arrested a suspected spy from India's Research and Analysis Wing, Kulbhushan Yadav, who Pakistan accused of entering Pakistan from Iran specifically to destabilise regions in Pakistan's Baluchistan province to hinder implementation of CPEC projects.[275] Later on Kulbhushan Yadav confessed all allegations on media.

India has raised objections to the project and has set aside US$300 million to cause disruptive activities both physical and political. India has lodged permanent representatives of most of self-exiled separatist Baloch leaders and provides them forum for venting anti-Pakistan sentiment within India and other countries. Gravity of the matter can be gauged from the fact that during the construction of M-8, there were 207 attacks on the FWO workers by miscreants that caused 26 deaths of its staff, while 18 from the helping staff also lost their lives.[276]"''

It's also poorly written, but thats beside the point. I tried to compromise by writing a section entitled "Allegations of Indian activity against CPEC" in order to address his/her concern in a less biased fashion, and only wrote factual material backed by sources. He/she completely deleted this to re-insert his/her POV instead.

User Diannaa (talk · contribs) has rightfully pointed out that the last sentence uses a quote from a copyrighted source (see [276]), and so removed the quote. 39.32.222.179 (talk · contribs) quickly made yet another massive revert, and thus re-inserted the copyrighted source. I suspect that 39.32.222.179 is indeed Pprcgi as the sort of edit made is suspiciously similar to the sorts of reversions made by pprcgi, but of course, I cannot prove this.

We are also having a debate about his/her insertion of an article entitled "central alignment" too, but I'm trying to negotiate with him/her to expand the section before creating an entirely new section for his one sentence. Negotiations in that regard are ongoing as I've urged him/her to offer more in depth information in line with sections dedicated to "western alignment' and "eastern alignment" etc.

Here are the diffs of disruptive edits: [77] [78] [79] Willard84

1. Sign your posts. 2. Notify the person involved... --Tarage (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. My mistake. 2. User notified [80]Willard84 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, with a reminder that recidivism will produce longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 21 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.

Return of Indian cinema sock (and now personal attacks)

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

---

The page India at the Cannes Film Festival has been (re)created by Chimpidshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initially at Cannes Film Festival and Cinema of India before being moved). This page has been created under a variety of previous names by confirmed socks and raised at ANI before. Here are the previous ANI reports from Last April and September. This new sock has been around for about a month and has created an indentical copy of the previously deleted material. I'd appreciate if this could be looked at too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not a sock. And what is your problem Mr.User:Lugnuts, when some one has created a exhausted work on Indian films which won awards, and which were screened at the cannes film festival ?. On the other hand, If you suspect some one as sockpuppet, why dont you edit the article? what is your problem and why ru attacking new editors recreating content from previous sock puppet. This article is very essential. So you tell me where we can provide me this information in wikipedia about Indian films at cannes. Why are you against Indian cinema at cannes film festival ? You dont want to know which Indian films won awards at cannes? If you suspect a sockpuppet is creating the article, why dont you create a new article. what non sense is this? Chimpidshi (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And now this sock is harrasing me. I asked them not to post on my talkpage at 13:22 and they've added the same nonsense three times since being told not to. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Make that four times by reverting my removal of their comments on my talkpage! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've lost count now of the times he continues to post on my talkpage (someone take a look...) and it's now gone to personal attacks... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:49, 21 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 breaching BLP

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

---

An IP has been posting inappropriate and BLP-violating information on the talk page Talk:Joseph J. Romm, accusing Romm of being a holocaust denier. The IP has been told in edit summary and on their talk page about the BLP policy, and told that Romm isn't a holocaust denier, but instead made the connection between climate change denialists and holocaust denialists. After the warning was posted to their talk page, the IP re-posted the accusation on the Romm talk page and deleted the warning on their own page. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP alleges there are many sources. The proper retort would be, "Name one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The immediate retort to the IP's edit was my edit summary, "remove WP:BLP violation without any reliable sources or proposals for article improvement" – if the IP wanted to support allegations, it's up to them to provide sources for discussion. They were advised to "actually read the results of the Google search you insist people do: although the terms both appear in the same article, at absolutely no point does he deny there was a holocaust". The IP's response does not show any willingness to name a source. . . dave souza, talk 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it's time to block that yoyo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel at this stage that a block might be a little harsh. The IP seems to have misinterpreted (AGF genuinely) what was said. Romm's analogy (as I understand it) was that denying climate change was a bad thing, as denying the Holocaust is. But, they (IP) have made a huge leap to taking that to mean denial of the Holocaust. Blocking may stabilise the article, but I believe it also important that the IP understands what they got wrong. Eagleash (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But that has already been explained to them. The explanation was subsequently removed and the statement "Please leave this page free of your racist bollocks" left: they obviously did not read what was explained to them that time, but given their behaviour so far, I'm not entirely sure they will read a second or third explanation! – SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a block should be made. (1) The IP has put in the BLP violation three times and has ignored the edit summaries referring to WP:BLP; (2) The IP *deleted* the first warning from his page; (3) no reasonable person could believe from a Google search what the IP wrote. But even if a block is not made yet, an admin should leave a clear last warning on the IP's page. BTW, just in case anyone wants to know, what Romm actually wrote was this, this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 22 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.

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance

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

---

This was brought to my attention. I have to agree with the comment on the article's talk page - The Faulkner family or friends of the victims created the article as a way of bring attention to their campaign for justice.

Whoever created the article has used it to brand a named person as a double murderer with no trial or conviction in a court of law. That is legally defamation.

Nuke the article?

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to go through the linked references and verify the article per WP:BLP, I agree with nuking it and encouraging the author(s) to start it over with properly cited statements. Without inline citations to verify statements (especially about the suspect), this is one big BLP violation (specifically, WP:BLPCRIME). clpo13_(talk) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was begun 8 1/2 years ago, and even then the case was 27 years cold. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with better wiki skills than me just nuke it or take it to AfD? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this 8+ year old article suddenly a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the case would easily pass notability...certainly at the time (notability doesn't deteriorate, true?) and even now...a lot of the sourcing are likely in newspaper articles from the time (I'm sure there was huge newspaper coverage)...but there's still enough stuff on the web...article may need to be altered, but not deleted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

the Faulkner family seem to have been happy to use Wikipedia to brand a person a double murderer without a trial or conviction. The fact that this went unnoticed does not change the fact that it could have got the wiki in hot defamation water. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bloody lot of good it did them, if the mystery is still unsolved. Is the case notable by itself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely notable, the more I look at it...just deal with any content problems the article might have...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/letter-points-finger/story-e6frf7kx-111111431770468.48.241.158 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've filleted it of all its cruft, promo, unsourced OR, trivia etc, leaving the sections that remain with an opening summary statement. Suggest the mentions of the George character are revdel'd, and the article is rebuilt from scratch. it's obviously got a lot of potential; but not with Melissa or whassname in charge. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I call a stubbing, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, very well done! Thanks also to Paul Benjamin Austin for reporting and to Doug Weller for quickly removing the egregious BLP vio. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

If this is still a problem, please take it to WP:AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Noel McNamara created by one of the main contributors. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if this, like all the other dubious material, was created years and years ago, then it can be sent to AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen advertising of products get treated nicer than this was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 21 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.

Harssment by SPA

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

---

Yscambridge is a single-purpose account to get Rosena Allin-Khan's place of residence changed to Battersea from Tooting. I've pointed them to WP:RS, but they insist on claiming that "being able to look up her postcode" is a far better source than multiple newspaper sources. This post has taken it too far- they are questioning the integrity of my editing, saying " Wikipedia should keep to Battersea and people who repeatedly alerted contributors of legal information." and have accused me and Edwardx of "defying legally binding information". This user is clearly not here for any other purpose than to change Tooting to Battersea against actual reliable sources, and should also be blocked for harassment of other users. Their conduct is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yscambridge should be indefinitely blocked pending a retraction of this. It's 450 words of legalese intimidation that, even if stopping short of saying ‘‘I will sue you’’, is clearly in violation of the spirit of NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

They've posted very similar legalistic intimidation against me and Edwardx at User:Yscambridge. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph2302. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable, and a waste of our time. Plus there is nothing to indicate a willingness to learn or improve. Edwardx (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is pending deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosena_Allin-Khan; perhaps a passing editor with the admin WP:UAL could close it out? NE Ent 11:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that she is likely to win the by-election, after which the article would be restored, and judging by the persistence of this SPA, this issue seems likely to resurface. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election won't more reliable sources surface to resolve the issue? If they don't, then clearly the subject still couldn't meet GNG. If the SPA is "right" in their assertions then once the subject is covered in enough detail in enough third-party reliable sources, they will start to back up the SPA's assertions; if not, and the SPA still persists, then just block them again. This assumes they are blocked for the NLT violations, apologize/retract, and are unblocked. At present, they are just waiting to be blocked per NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election it won't matter, as she'll automatically be notable as a member of the Houses of Parliament. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that's a thing!? If she meets that criterion but still doesn't meet GNG, doesn't the article still get deleted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:POLITICIAN, but in reality it's moot as even the simple news reporting on her election would gain her enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if we couldn't write a decent independent biographical article on her without mentioning a certain fact and the simple news reporting on her election either didn't mention it or didn't focus enough on it for us to quote them on it and meet the very stringent criteria for BLP. I still like to cite this AfD on this point. To be fair, politicians are not like actors, in that invariably the most notable thing about them is their political career and such is almost always covered in the majority of RSs that cover them in any detail. Anyway, none of it really matters to this case, which appears to have been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, my attitude to "borderline" NLT-violations is the same as it was here. Neither Joseph nor Edward explicitly said that they suffered a chilling effect from Yscambridge's legalistic attacks, so the two-way AGF issue does not come into play quite as much, but the principle is the same, as it looks very much like a chilling effect was the intent of Yscambridge's posts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now a personal attack] against me here, claiming I'm "abusing my power". So asides from the legal threats, they should also be blocked under Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone bid a fond farewell to Yscambridge, as they are clearly not here anymore. Katie^talk 12:33, 22 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.

Concerning behaviour and username Cartoon Network (CN) Master

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

---

Cartoon Network (CN) Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apart from having a username that could suggest a COI or corporate account, has a suspicious pattern of edits - numerous edits adding or removing unnecessary spaces or blank lines - perhaps gaming to get autoconfirmed? Has created a couple of articles. I will inform them of this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Smells of fresh, out of the package socks to me... but I don't have enough diffs to pinpoint who. The name is similar to a known sockpuppeter's naming pattern, but they've been inactive for about a year. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

They randomly put an indef banned template on User:Surappagari. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps they are related accounts? (Belonging to the same person?) --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 23:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The "removing unnecessary spaces or blank lines" reminds me of this. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: @Cartoon Network (CN) Master: has been blocked indefinitely by @Orangemike: for "Promotional username, soft block" --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 06:20, 21 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.

"originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of "

Might not be the place for this, but can't think where else to put it.

An anon, trying to help has added the phrase "originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of " in front the state of birth of various US public figures through many of the "XXXX in the United States" articles... quite some time ago. Unpicking this will take ages. Are there automated tools that can do it? Or some special wand someone can wave that I don't know about? Trey Maturin (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can use mass rollback, but we need the IP. ;-) Katie^talk 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is dynamic, what happens to the edits made under it before that particular individual operated it, and likewise, what about if he moved on to another address (which I'm guessing he probably did, as on one IP his edits stop in November 2015)? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So I happened to be bored enough to go back and check through and I found this problem all the way back in the early 1800's and leading up to the late 1990's at least. I didn't check each and every year but I checked a pretty strong sampling maybe thirty or so. (Yeah it's a slow day at work.) The IP does appear to be dynamic so I don't know if there's an easy fix for it. Jlahnum (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 21 instancs of this, and no new ones are showing up in a search, so perhaps they're all gone now? BMK (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 16 instances. Hopefully, that's all! --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I also removed several instances (manually; not sure how many, count went I started was 102). Pretty sure they're all gone now. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So, there are more. Do a search on "originally now residing" and they'll come up. BMK (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have manually gone through every "(year) in the United States" article from 1789 to 2016 and removed all instances of the phrase and its variants; I cleaned up some anomalies at the same time. BMK (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My grateful thanks to everyone who helped on this - you're all GREAT! :-) Trey Maturin (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I am apparently full of shit

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

---

Proof: [81]. I would appreciate if someone could teach this user manners.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

While I have no doubt in my mind that in this instance you are not full of shit and Cl (talk · contribs) should be sanctioned for the above, it probably would be more helpful to post this diff as well. Civility blocks should not be made without warning, and when someone warns a user and they literally respond by saying "I don't care" that's ... much worse than using the S-word in and of itself, in my opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cl said something nasty to Ymblanter. Qed237 warned C1. C1 said he doesn't care as he doesn't live here. So, if C1 says something nasty again, someone can block them if they wish. Or maybe C1 will stay where they live and not bother Ymblanter or anyone else anymore. Look at the bright side. C1's comment permitted Ymblanter to use a pithy section header at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bet someone thought he was confessing! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)</ref>

I do envy Ymblanter that opportunity. My ANI section titles always wind up so dreary. To be fair, though, the adverb in the middle rather than at the start does make it look more like a sincere confession, as it makes it look more like "apparently" means "obviously" than "according to what this guy said". I would have almost certainly gone with "Apparently I am full of shit". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 22 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.

Banned Fringe pusher back on 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.

---

Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was banned on Wikipedia for making legal threats, attacking editors and repeatedly adding fringe content into paranormal articles and promoting conspiracy theories that skeptics own Wikipedia articles has returned on IP addresses back to his old tricks.

• 208.194.97.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (if you check the IPs talk-page he was previously blocked by an admin)
• 74.108.121.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's now editing the Watseka Wonder article (see the talk-page), he has admitted to being Jamenta and here he admits to having been blocked [82], he states however "I had a temporary block years ago because I did not understand the reversion rules. I have never been disrespectful, and many of my edits are still in play." This information is false considering he was banned for legal threats and personal attacks (even his talk-page on his account he was swearing at people and telling them to go f**k themselves [83]). Is it possible to have an admin look at this, or block these IPS as this is an indefinite blocked Wikipedia user who only seems to turn up here to cause disruption on fringe-related articles. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

First IP blocked six months for legal threats and block evasion. That one is registered to Cahill Gordon & Reindel, a law firm in New York, so I'm taking that 'Wikimedia will face a host of lawsuits' stuff at face value. The second one is stale; if he starts to use it again, let us know. :-) Katie^talk 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you looking into this and the quick response, thanks a lot. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb and guess he isn't a lawyer, even though it came from a law office, based on the incompetence of the legal threat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

He isn't a lawyer (in one post he says he knows lawyers), the username 'Jamenta' is a unique name - it is possible to find info about this person, of course we should not write about it on Wikipedia but all I will say is he has a history of arguing with people on the web. He has meddled Wikipedia for years. Likely these are also him:

Jaypronx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Strikertype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jbricklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AlbaDeTamble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All those are stale accounts but three of them on behaviour and editing patterns are very similar to Jamenta. I consider this issue resolved for now, but I will keep an eye out. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:25, 22 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.

Self-requested 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.

---

I would love a 72 hour block from editing. (including talk page access) please. This is due to a total lack of self-control, and an impending deadline for a huge pile of reports at work.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: Do you mean "hours"? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

haha, yes. Thank you for pointing that out. A 72 day/week/etc block would be a little too much. I will edit the initial post. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: You could just use the Wikibreak Enforcer. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Or use the template "adminhelp" on your talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Pro tip: Wikibreak Enforcer is now useless. You can log in to the mobile site, which doesn't have custom Javascript, and remove it from your user .js. I have done this myself on one occasion. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, you might have better luck here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not adding myself to that list but I went ahead and did it since I sympathize with the reason for the request (doing this alongside grades). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 23 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.

Revisit of User:SwisterTwister's reviewing issues

The following discussion is closed. 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 ANI in the title was closed less than three weeks ago, and User:SwisterTwister has continued the behavior that led to that ANI without any apparent change. To wit:

• "Patrolled" ~500 pages in ~24 hours: [84], at times reviewing up to four pages per minute. It seems highly unlikely that this could be consistent with diligent reviewing.
• Many patrols were unreviewed for apparent shoddiness during this period; the standard response by ST was removal of the notices without reply:
  • May 3, May 3 (2), May 8, May 13, May 13 (2), May 15, May 16, May 18, May 18 (2), May 19, possibly more
• At least one deletion-tagging reverted for hastiness: [85] (probably others; I didn't do a thorough search for these)

All the arguments for why this behavior must not continue were made in the previous ANI, so I'll keep it short: we can do without editors who have a mostly positive impact, but can't be bothered to heed the community. I propose User:SwisterTwister be banned from NPP, with appeal to be considered only if ST can convincingly show intent to radically change pattern. —swpb^T 13:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Your response? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note ST hasn't edited since 0740 this AM... so is probably still boiling the kettle as we speak. Or having a lie-in perhaps  :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(Pinging To editors Vanjagenije, Compassionate727 and Rebbing:)

• Comment: Perhaps I'm misreading this, but care to explain the selective pinging here? There were quite a number of people involved in the previous discussion, including myself. I'm deeply concerned by this and feel that it is highly inappropriate. Will comment later on the other parts of this discussion. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisw80: I think it's to do with this recent NPP thread about pages being reviewed quickly and ANI being mentioned -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar:, hi there! Thanks for pointing that out. I see why swpb might have chosen those particular users, but I'm still not thrilled about it. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is where those users came from. It wasn't a malicious choice; hopefully you AGF on that. You can certainly ping any voices you think are missing. —swpb^T 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to ban SwisterTwister from New Pages Patrol

side note; just formatting with this sub-heading 1 — Etimena 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: The account above is checkuser-blocked as a sock of an account that has been in dispute with SwisterTwister for many months. Risker (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I don't normally get involved with AN/I issues, but (and certainly from the amount of time it took for my newly-created page to be marked as 'reviewed' whilst there were still obvious issues outstanding I was in the process of sorting) I think there's a real issue here - as per the previous discussion, speed is almost certainly not everything when involved with NPP. Mike1901 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support SwisterTwister reviews and tags hundreds of articles, but never replies to questions on his talk page in a timely fashion.JerryRussell (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. SwisterTwister's reviewing has barely gotten any better. He continues to receive a massive stream of "I have unreviewed a page you curated" messages. I've only received two of those in my entire life. Looking at his reviews, most of his articles are inadequately tagged: Adam Hassan Sakak, Living by Numbers (song), Digital Stimulation, Contribution (album), I'd Wait a Million Years, We Happy Few (Supernatural), Aureolaria patula, Buerhatong River, Beverley railway station, Western Australia, Zhang Kechun, Tarlac City local elections, 2016. Compare this with four articles I checked that were okay, two of them because there weren't any problems and one because he PRODed it. He isn't checking the articles very well. In my experience, doing only four a minute is plenty of time to adequately tag articles; he's clearly just not looking. And frankly, his refusal to communicate on his talk page is very obstructive. He was warned to fix his issues in the last ANI, and since he hasn't, I support a total ban from NPP. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ST by and large kills it at NPP. Maybe he should be more open to talking about stuff, maybe he could be asked to refrain from hitting "reviewed", but no way in hell should ST be kicked off NPP. The flood of crap that will ensue would be unacceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting we need one editor, and should therefore let them get away with clear violations? That's a horrifying precedent; luckily it's not one this community will ever take seriously. Since you are apparently unaware, ST has been "asked to refrain from hitting reviewed", many times; that request has gone totally unheeded. —swpb^T 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm suggesting nothing of the sort, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I didn't put words in your mouth (learn the syntactic difference between "are you" and "you are"), I asked you to clarify yourself, which you haven't done. So then you reject the idea that productivity should stand in the way of a behavior-based ban? It's a yes or a no. If no, then I stand by my question. If yes, then it's good to know you're abandoning your initial premise, because it was a pretty weak one. 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

Re: "the syntactic difference between "are you" and "you are"", you mean semantic, surely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Not that it's relevant, but no, "syntactic" is definitely the right word. Please take any more irrelevant comments elsewhere. —swpbT 15:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I'd thought you were referring to the different meanings of the two phrases (thus semantics)? I'm sorry if you found my query offensive, and I will discontinue the diversion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC) As in Syntactic category. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Yes you did. And I'm not going to bite at your bait. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) In that case, why re-open the blooming thing?!?! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Since no change since the previous discussion. Mendaliv - of course the backlog at NPP will be low when someone has opened the floodgates and doesnt watch what flows through. If ST's removal causes the backlog to grow to unmanagable proportions, well thats when the process will need to be looked at. But saying 'They do good work!' and using the evidence of the numbers they clear - when people are specifically complaining they are doing too many and not paying enough attention - is not a great rebuttal. I have just take a spot-check of some and they appear to be about 50-50 good/bad. Which is a terrible terrible ratio. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPPCHK is a must, and this editor obviously does not perform it. Even more, he refuses to do it after being told so many times. That kind of behavior has to stop now. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have encountered SwisterTwister many times, and his judgement is terrible. Also, his extreme-deletionst standpoint at AfD should be reviewed as well. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Opened and speedily closed below; thus a distraction from this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Speaking without knowledge of or position on the AfD issue, I would suggest that should be a separate AN/I, just to keep things clean. —swpbT 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Okay, making different AN/I for AfD. Is there any way to track the total number of AFD votes? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC) @ThePlatypusofDoom: Special:Contributions/SwisterTwister. Just look for the ones made to AfD. Which I'm sure you already knew, and I'm pretty sure there's not a better way.–Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) See the AfD stats tool, if it's working. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC) FYI, there is also the AFD Tools link here: [86] that can be used for any editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I said in the last ANI discussion and I quote "I'm sure he'll walk away from this and hopefully would rethink and change some of his actions" ..... 2/3 weeks later he's apparently changed nothing and has just carried on regardless, As noted above he seems to blindly review everything without actually looking and the amount of unreview tags he's getting is rather surprising, He was given the chance to change and has apparently not bothered so we either block them for disruptive editing or we ban them from patrolling NPP ..... (Latter is the best choice IMHO). –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Although I wish this was now a thing of the past. SwisterTwister pledged I am willing to change my pace and better examine these articles, but his haste at NPP continues, and when asked about it his standpoint is that I'm not interested with any [...] criticism. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: We would be far better served by a backlog at NPP that's processed correctly than the reverse situation. This has been going on far too long and SwisterTwister has demonstrated an inability to learn from feedback or to follow reasonable directions.  Rebbing  16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. This is concerning, but I would like the defendant to have an opportunity to be heard before we hang him.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have a comment on this reviewer's New Page Patrol, which is the subject here, but I am satisfied with this reviewer's work at Articles for Creation (AFC), which may be a more intensive process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, their AfC is quite good, and I'd be quite happy if they would stick with that. Frankly, I've sometimes wondered if they're going about NPP with an AfC mindset. Like, only tagging issues that might cause problems with AfC. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sorry SwisterTwister, you do a lot of good work, but I ran out of good faith as of this. Taken in consideration with the other examples, I'm led me to conclude that little has changed, and allowing this to continue may harm the encyclopedia. No objection to ST requesting a lifting of the ban after six months, provided that everything else if good.- MrX 17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I sampled about 30 articles that ST patrolled. In doing so, I found these: [87][88][89]. Somehow, he's even managing to mark talk pages as reviewed [90][91]. Dadzie has no sources and no evidence of passing WP:LISTN. Juliar doesn't have a single independent source and almost certainly fails WP:GNG. List of Battle Tendency chapters appears to be a listing of chapters, with no independent sourcing. Each of these pages should have been tagged and/or nominated for deletion. - MrX 11:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: and now he's supposedly retired. I think he's really just trying to be manipulative with that. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - First of all, thank you to Mojo Hand. Second, if at all I was going fast, it was honestly because, one, any large amounts are sometimes articles started by the same user, for example, Alexander Iskandar (who started several government articles) and also a few other users starting Olympic articles. Third, there had been a sock infestation at NPP recently and no one seemed to accurately be fixing it. See User:Ziyankhan1 and User:Sunekit, thus I went out of my comfort zone to ensure actual people were at NPP. Again, I have slowed down and people also have to consider the amount of what these articles are again, a user will start about 25 to 30 articles within hours, all about government, football, etc and they're easy and simple reviews. I would like for someone to have talked to me about this at my talk page or another path instead. As I've said before, if I don't respond at talk, it's either because I'm busy taking care of areas no one else visits, or I'm not always interested, either if it's negative and such. I have to also say, I'm rather concerned this is adjacent to an ANI about my AfD work....... SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: But what about the examples provided above in the discussion? Also, your history at AfD concerns me, because you vote delete 85% of the time, often with bad rationales. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @ThePlatypusofDoom: We've just covered this below - although ST primarily !votes delete they are nearly 100% accurate. I make no comment on their rationale, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I know, I was explaining why I put it up there to SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies - I have also moved your comment to help readability -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ST's AfD stas are totally irrelevant to this discussion as Platypus well knows. A more heavy-handed attempt at piling on with extraneity I haven't seen. For a while anyway. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I had been concerned with SwisterTwister's AfD votes for a long time, this seemed like a good time to bring it up, as he was already under discussion. I'm sorry if you feel like I was trying to harm SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Moved back into conversation flow -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and no disrespect- but as your account is only six weeks old, I was curious as to the breadth of your experience at NPP etc. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A sock infestation? If it they were spamming junk, it was going to be caught. You didn't have to neglect 1,000+ (and at the rate you are going, with 500 a day, 1,000 is not an exaggeration) articles and clean it all up yourself. You also could've just found the sock(s) and gone through their contributions. Certainly would've been a lot less damaging. And just because their small doesn't mean they don't have problems. They need to at least be tagged with a stub tag, and usually they'll have insufficient references. That also needs to be tagged. Linkrot should be tagged (especially since that's the one category which has a user who actively cleans that up), and so should not having categories (which is a very easy check I see you haven't been doing). Frankly, I'm just not convinced. And like MrX mentioned above, seriously? Your tag didn't save and you didn't notice? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: That's your best reason? It's not like you are the only editor at NPP. People will catch the socks, this doesn't give you an excuse to speed through NPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support because of the apparent lack of improvement, demonstrated by the significant number of unreviews, since last time, when I indeed proposed a ban on marking pages as reviewed. BethNaught (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've seen good work from SwisterTwister at AFC and CSD. The speed of NPP is concerning, so I would encourage him to take a break of six months from NPP.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me? I don't know if there is a case to be made for a topic ban here, but if there is then @Swpb: has done a very poor job of making it. In his proposal he states that ST has reviewed up to 500 pages in a 24 hour period and has had some unreviewed pages. That's to be expected; no one is perfect. For patrol activities I generally find coaching/feedback is warranted if the reviewer is performing at below a 95% accuracy rate - that would be about 25 failures per 500 patrols. Is ST performing below that level? I have no idea, because the OP hasn't made any effort to provide that information. Swbp has given about a dozen examples, spread over the last three weeks of pages that were unreviewed. So what? Out of thousands of patrols, that is perfectly reasonable - all editors are human, after all. The four per minute review tempo also isn't automatically concerning; no link was given to the reviews to see if more time was warranted: for example, it can only take seconds to identify an attack page - tag the article for speedy and you have 100% completed WP:NPPCHK. Swbp also makes a claim of "reverted deletion tagging for hastiness", but that claim isn't supported by the link provided (which traces back to a declined AfD submission). I find the number of editors jumping on this bandwagon without justification (or indeed, expression of any individual thought) deeply concerning. A ban should be a last resort, people. The lack of justification combined with the onerous selective pinging really strikes me as more reminiscent of bullying than anything else. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone knows what ST's accuracy rate is, but given his rate and his policy of marking pages "patrolled" when he hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later, there's no way his false-negatives are limited to the undone reviews that made it to his talk page. But more importantly, he has directly defied the will of the community, and lied about an intent to change his practices at this very forum less than three weeks ago. We cannot put up with that. —swpb^T 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Bull. If you want someone banned, you make a case for it. Present evidence of poor NPP performance, and I will review your claim and respond with my informed support or opposition. Please link proof that ST consistently "hasn't really looked at them but merely intends to later". To what "will of the community" are you referring? Fair warning: if you link to a discussion that was closed as "no consensus" you earn a trout. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister said that his NPP reviewing would improve, but he still is doing an abysmal job. He is hurting the encyclopedia because of this. Also, consensus seems to be overwhelmingly for the NPP ban. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus, but so far there has been twelve "supports", and the only "Oppose" vote is behind a weak argument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: he still is doing an abysmal job. Based on what information have you reached this conclusion? I know counting votes isn't the way to decide consensus... Great; don't. VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Look at any of the examples provided above. Also, he is getting a constant stream of "I have unreviewed an article that you reviewed" messages, look at his talk page! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I already addressed that in my post here. If, as you imply, your assessment is based on the ~0.3% of ST's May reviews that have been linked in this discussion, I can safely ignore your opinion as too uninformed to have value. VQuakr (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Weak argument my eye. Someone mischaracterized my argument, more like. ST hasn't straightened up sufficiently to meet some arbitrary standard, and as VQuakr rightly points out, the case hasn't been made that ST's miss rate at NPP is unacceptably high. Let's see some proof. Not cherry-picked examples, but evidence that there's a systematic failure that is not only significant, but is disproportionately worse than other NPPers. That's the case you need to make to justify a ban from hitting the reviewed button. Banning from NPP entirely is a completely separate matter from what any of the above evidence shows. Is there evidence of significant misuse of CSD for instance? If not, it's inappropriate to fully ban him from NPP since he'd be unable to tag new pages for CSD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I would need to make a tool that tracks his RPP NPP stats. Is anyone a decent enough coder to do that? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I think you mean NPP Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 23:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: yeah, I messed up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I don't think anyone in this case wants to see SwisterTwister's Requests for Page Protection. Whoops. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I expect anyone clearing new articles at a rate measured in pages/minute should be correctly reviewing/tagging/fixing 99% of the pages they mark reviewed - if less than 99% better to be slower than less accurate. NPP is not about how many articles you review but how well you review them. That said no one has shown ST is making 1% errors over time. Demonstrate 1% 5% bad rewiews and I will support the ban. (I say 1% in this case when 5% is the typical rate for problematic reviewing because ST's high absolute number of reviews means more bad articles get through and it is obvious there is room to slow down and still get a lot done when one is reviewing 500 articles/day.) Jbh^Talk 01:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Changed to 5% because it is better that a 95% good review be done by ST than a crap review by some editor who thinks NPP is just an easy version of vandal fighting or is simply inexperienced and clueless. Jbh^Talk 01:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me SwisterTwister was right in these 2 cases, although the others were definitely an error of judgement.

• May 19 - The un-reviewing was done by a sockpuppet account. (See log and history of Srikanth Gowda)
• May 18 (See log and history of Pakokku University)- The article in question seems to have been un-reviewed by a new user (who is learning their way around and prematurely nominated it for speedy). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a blanket ban from NPP (but support an alternate solution) I have seen SwisterTwister's work directly at AfD and indirectly at AfC. In both of these, I would say they have done a reasonably good job overall. (including AfDing Wikipedia's longest running hoax). For the errors in judgement at NPP, I am hesitant to support a blanket ban at this time. Firstly, because I haven't seen the statistics (per Jbhunley and VQuakr). Secondly, considering that ST is one of the few to volunteer at NPP, I would rather concentrate on finding a solution to improve ST's accuracy. Implementing a 6 month blanket ban wouldn't help it. I tried doing NPP about 2 months ago and found that I got quickly tired. After reviewing about 20 pages, a temporary fatigue set in and my internal standards for an article started decreasing. I have stopped doing it since. My suggestion here would be to limit the number of articles that can be reviewed per day for ST and then monitor the accuracy. What should be the limit can be discussed. But I don't think a blanket ban will be productive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose a topic ban. Are you serious? ST is easily our most dedicated and active reviewer at NPP. As someone who patrols new pages themselves, I know that we badly need more patrollers. I've also come across ST a large number of times and I must say that I've generally been thoroughly impressed by his work. Have you even considered what will happen if we ban him? Patrolling is one of the most difficult and tiring tasks that needs to be done here. It's also one of the most important, because the longer an attack page or advert stays as an article, the worse. We should be spending time gathering new reviews, not banning them!

I'd also like to point out that the OP really did make some very poor arguments when opening this topic. They gave a total of ten examples of incorrect new page patrolling over a 16 day period. The OP also said that he's patrolling around 500 pages every day. Let's do some maths here, that means that ST patrolled approximately 16*500=8000 pages in that 16 day span. Of course, there are probably more examples of that, but the OP failed to give them. 10 wrongly patrolled pages out of 8000 is an amazing success rate. We shouldn't be basing a topic ban on the number of inappropriate patrols, but rather a ratio of inappropriate patrols to total patrols. A TBan for ST would be like banning someone for being too active. That's ridiculous. So, I'm strongly against this proposal, or at least until someone gives me some half-decent evidence that SwisterTwister patrolling new pages is harmful to the encyclopedia. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose NPP ban for ST. ST NPPed 500 articles in 24 hours? Why were there 500 articles to be reviewed? I doubt that ST was out-clicking the other NPPs. If and when other NPPs start complaining that ST is taking work away from them and ST is still doing a poor job, then let's discuss it. Couldn't we solve the problem by doing more NPP ourselves? Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- those asking for a ban have not really made that strong a case that SwisterTwister's mistake rate is that terrible relative to the amount of work they do. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What "mistake rate"? You have to be doing something in order to be able to make mistakes. If he was reviewing articles, we would be able to comment on his mistakes, but he is not reviewing them at all, he just clicks "reviewed" button. There are no mistakes because he is not doing any job. He just marks articles as reviewed without actually reviewing them, and so prevents other editors from reviewing those articles. I believe it is better to have 10,000 unreviewed articles waiting for review than to have 10,000 articles marked as "reviewed" that are actually not reviewed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That's not what appears to be the OP argument: it's that ST's review quality is too low. We're asking for proof of that. A conclusory statement that he's just clicking review without checking is not a valid proof. Provide proof of your claim please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • In the same minute, this editor marked this, this, this, this and this as reviewed. It is not possible even to read those five article in less than a minute, let alone to check WP:NPPCHK. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It took me less than a minute to see that three of those are songs/albums which charted so pass the music SNG. The bio is sourced, not an attack piece and has a decent chance of passing GNG. The only one I am unsure about is Digital Stimulation, it seems to not have charted but I see enough press on it that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would have either passed on it or PRODed it but popular music is not my thing. Jbh^Talk 17:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Some articles can be reviewed very quickly, but others take time and effort. For example, if one encounters a really well-written academic level article or something that sounds like marketing copy, the first thing they should do is search for potential WP:COPYVIOs. These are much more common than one would imagine. If a patroller encounters a new article with inexplicable disambiguation, for example Climate change consequences, they should check Wikipedia for duplicate articles (Effects of global warming). Likewise, if encountering Rippy McFlyRapper (musician) a search might reveal a previous AfD for Rippy McFlyRapper. An stub article about a village in Pakistan, may only include the name of the village and the nearest road. In my opinion, at least a category, or the name of the country, should be added to the stub before reviewing it. - MrX 18:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, however what has not been demonstrated is that ST is giving short shrift to such things. I would be much more inclined to support sanctions if it was shown that he was letting through non-notable subjects, copyvio, blp violations etc but that has not been demonstrated. Personally I think cats, refs, links etc should be cleaned up too, or at least a reasonable try with the automated tools be made, but the big things are blp, notability, copyvio and promo ie keeping the articles that should not be here out before they get lost in the millions of other articles.

              There are of lots of NPP editors who do not manage even that. They just review many fewer aarticles. I fear the backlog created by banning ST would be cleared by those far substandard reviewers rather than the slack being picked up by experienced reviewers, most of whom have said they max out at 20-30 reviews in a day without burning out or making errors. Jbh^Talk 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with what other editors who are opposing are saying above. There is no evidence that SwisterTwister's ratio of incorrect to correct reviews is anything to be concerned about. I have looked through a sample of their last 30 or so patrolled pages and I'm not seeing any problems. Pages that should have been tagged were, ones that should have been speedyed or prodded were, and correctly. I also looked at the last 7 pages that were unreviewed. There was one on 12th, two on 13th, two on 16th, one on 18th and one on 19th. None of these were unreviewed because of a legitimate problem with SwisterTwister original review. I will list my assessment of each unreview below.

• 12th May - Connor Flegal - This was weirdness in the patrol log probably caused by an edit conflict. The patol log says MrX unreviewed and tagged as speedy deletion. SwisterTwister said in response on his talk page that he though he had tagged for speedy deletion. Both probably tagged at the same time, MrX's tagging went though and the patrol log got messed up. I've seen something like this happen before.
  • That's incorrect. He marked it as reviewed well before I nominated it for speedy deletion. The article was clearly vandalism.- MrX 11:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The page log [92] shows three entries
      • 02:31, 12 May 2016 MrX (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as unreviewed (I'm not sure why this was marked as reviewed. It's utter nonsense.)
      • 02:44, 12 May 2016 SwisterTwister (talk | contribs | block) marked Connor Flegal as reviewed
      • 03:40, 12 May 2016 Explicit (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Connor Flegal (G3: Vandalism)
    • Your entry of unreviewed is the first one. The only way that can happen is if you both tagged the page at the same time and the conflict caused the log to think that SwisterTwister reviewed it and then you unreviewed but only your edit went through so only your entry showed up in the log. 13 minutes later SwisterTwister then marked it as reviewed because it was still showing as unreviewed even though you had tagged it.Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • You missed this one from 3 hours and 28 minutes before I unreviewed the page. The chronology: ST reviewed the page; I unreviewed and CSDed the page; ST reviewed the page again.- MrX 17:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• 13th May - Caspar Lee by Sally - Loriendrew and SwisterTwister both tagged at same time creating edit conflict which autoreviewed/unreviewed.
• 13th May - Tejasvi - SwisterTwsiter and Swbp tagged at the same time; another edit conflict.
• 16th May - Team 1325 Inverse Paradox -SwisterTwister prodded, Randykitty deprodded and tagged which is perfectly acceptable and the way Proding is supposed to work. SwisterTwister responded the the message on his talk page and the took it to AfD where the page is most likely going to be deleted.
  • Small correction. After ST's prodding, the page creator removed the prod [93]. Randykitty tagged after that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• 16th May - Nam phrik ong - SwisterTwister added a refimprove tag about the same time another editor added a rough translation tag. This was probably another edit conflict.
• 18th May - Pakokku University - Page was auto-unreviewed by new user when they incorrectly added CSD tag. SwisterTwister's original review of the page was fine; he had added unreferenced and stub tags.
• 19th May - Srikanth Gowda - Page was unreviewed by a now blocked sock. SwisterTwister had added correctly added a BLP sources tag.

I have not seen anything to give me any concern about their ability to review pages. There is certainly not enough evidence to justify a topic ban. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence has been presented of a problematic error rate, and Sarahj2107's analysis convinces me that a few pages being unreviewed is not much of a problem. Overall, SwisterTwister's success rate at this thankless task looks pretty good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarahj2107's information --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 09:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Omniflames and Sarahj2017. I am not convinced that ST's error rate is unacceptable, and I do not want to lose the NPP services of someone who works so hard at what, as Boing says, is a fairly thankless task. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. Plenty of circumstantial, suggestive evidence has been offered against ST; but we cannot afford anything but the hardest facts and proof of malfeasance. This would be in the form of (high) numbers, copious diffs, and qualitative damage to WP. None of which has been presented. We have to have to hold the evidence to such a high standard in order to prevent our own actions creating a net loss for the project. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support: absolute ban from NPP. For same existing reasons as in first community discussion. In addition, the lack of improvement and the apparent lack of cooperation on SwisterTwister's part to improve or even seeming to care. I feel the need to fret when I encounter an abyssmal article (as yesterday - the last I uncurated a page and the notice landed on his page.) Why should I have to undertake the research to prove that the article is not worthy after having been patrolled? Said article Aima Baig is now up for PROD, nominated by another editor entirely: so three other editors have now taken efforts on an article that should not have been patrolled as approved in the first place. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 12:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't have to reverse a curate, but you should demonstrate that ST's miss rate at curation is disproportionately bad. It's just as easy to argue here that ST has many misses because he curates a lot of pages. High producers will always produce a larger number of mistakes than low producers when their mistake rate is the same. That there's a significantly different mistake rate has never been demonstrated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is all about the error rate, not whether more than zero errors were made. Not enough evidence to merit a ban. Carrite (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Some articles can be reviewed fast, with knowledge of the relevant policies. On the whole, ST seems to do a good job of reviewing. Reviewing quickly isn't an argument, unless you can provide evidence that they are doing a bad job. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support two-week ban from NPP: I think this is not ST's biggest problem area, but I do think he needs a short, sharp slap to slow down a bit, as clearly, asking nice with a carrot isn't changing his mind. Then a chance to see if he gets it. I've been troubled by his tendency to conflate quality with notability. To do NPP properly, one has to differentiate between the two. I've also been troubled his insistence on deletion when merging or userfying would work better. He's working too fast and with inadequate analysis at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - While not quite as poorly thought out as the proposed AFD ban, (truly terribly done) I still don't think it's enough to warrant a ban. I wish ST would slow down though, if for no other reason than to appease the proposers, so they'll cut it out with these lengthy discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: As pointed out frequently above, there is simply not enough evidence that ST's error rate is high enough to support a ban here. One of the examples above (a selection of five articles, mostly music-related) was presented by Vanjagenije. I took up the challenge and came up with precisely the same results at Jbhunley. I do agree that ST should slow down, but the problem is NOT severe enough to support a topic ban. SwisterTwister, in the interests of letting this situation cool for a bit, would you be willing to take a voluntary 3-6 month break from NPP? This might resolve everything in the long run, as well. Chrisw80 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • How do you intend to make him to slow down? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Asking nicely, possibly calling for a review-per-minute rate restriction, or maybe assembling actual evidence of an unacceptable error rate by which a NPP ban could be supported. As far as I can tell he might have been asked to slow it down, but with no clear evidence to support an unacceptable mistake rate, why should he? In any event, any of these should have preceded the first call for a NPP ban, and absolutely should have come in the mere three weeks following it. That actually brings me to a related point: Why are we hammering on this same point only three weeks later? Come on people. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
      • First, you say that you "do agree that ST should slow down", and than you wonder "why should he?". Now, which one of thopse is your opinion? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not see the evidence that there's an actual problem here. As noted with the AFD votes, simply voting delete a lot isn't wrong if those things should be deleted. There's no requirement that you must expressly vote keep/delete in some bizarro ratio for amusement. The examples don't even tell much. For Caspar Lee by Sally, it was patrolled because ST prodded it but unpatrolled to A10 to delete it because that South African youtuber actually had an article already. Hannah Watkins was patrolled and listed for CSD but instead was moved to draftspace (where Draft:Hannah Watkins was wrongly deleted under A7 which is inapplicable to drafts). The issue is there's so much odd stuff that happens with new pages, anyone can nick-pick a few examples but I'm not seeing a pattern that evidences actual problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This is an outrageous and utterly ridiculous idea. SwisterTwister by and large kills it at NPP, and banning him from NPP would ensure that it fills up, and probably overrun by trolls. His reviewing may be too fast and inaccurate at times, but he is human like everyone else, and a topic ban is not the answer. Please strongly consider the repercussions of doing such an act if you decide to ban him, because you will most likely lose a very good editor if you do. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would rather have ST clear the backlog than editors with 100 mainspace edits. Insufficient evidence to show that ST has a high proportional error rate. Esquivalience ^t 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I have only ever seen a guy doing shitloads of work in a positive manner. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. While I don't always agree with ST at AfD, his work there is an asset to the project, as his work at AfC. I don't do much work at NPP, but do try to contribute from time to time. Like ST, if I see a few articles by the same editor, and after looking at the first article, the next few become very quick reviews, since they usually follow a pattern. This just happened the other day when I went through several articles by a single editor who was creating them for legislative districts in the Philippines. Based upon the examples given in the above thread, there does not appear to be a major issue (when viewed as a %) with ST's NPP. I would like to see ST slow down a bit, but that's not a reason to block. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: No good deed goes unpunished. Suggest supporters/proposers of this proposal find something productive to do rather than harass those who are assets to the project. This is the kind of thing that scares away good people. Vrac (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not a huge fan of his rationales at AfD, but he's usually right. He is doing good work at NPP. I shudder to think of what would happen in case of a topic ban. Don't tell me people are lining up to do NPP drudge work on a volunteer basis. They aren't. He is a net asset to the project. I would like to see a demonstration that his error rate is higher than the average. MisterRandomized (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Similar to last time, pointing to a few mistakes is not sufficient evidence for a ban/sanction. To me it looks like the bigger issue, which exacerbates the frustration caused by any mistakes he makes, is the failure to communicate effectively when problems arise. That's something he needs to work on, or we'll likely be back here, regardless of whether he slows down. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Length of ban—6 months?

WP:RBI - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. At this rate, the ban is almost happening. This brings to the question. Will the ban be 6 months? — Etimena 02:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) I believe an indefinite ban is what's under discussion, and I think an indefinite ban is appropriate. The proposed ban is not for disruptive behavior but persistent incompetence and an unwillingness to heed appropriate criticism. I can see no reason why that would resolve itself with a mandatory break. Rebbing 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) @Rebbing:, @Mendaliv: given that the proposal will succeed, I have created 2 time proposals for the community to decide below. — Etimena 04:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Support 6 months or shorter if a ban is enacted. I generally oppose indefinite length sanctions because of the incapability of most editors to actually obtain relief from sanctions. I furthermore object to the presumption that the sanction under discussion is for an indefinite length. No statement of length was ever made, and it is mistaken, albeit common, to presume that there is consensus for indefinite length. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:07, 21 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.

Propose close

There is obviously no concensus for action here - even less than when this same issue was brought up a couple of weeks ago. While the proposers/supporters have demonstrated some NPP errors there has been no evidence that ST's error rate is excessive or problematic. Simply being fast at something is not a reason for sanction, it is necessary to show that the speed is causing disruption.

Would someone uninvolved please close this? Jbh^Talk 18:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded: Let's not drag this out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Even though there wasn't a clear consensus, I don't regret bringing this here. I think it is good to see where we agree, disagree and what is simply in the gray area. It was an editor, not an admin, that added the BLP and DS stuff, however, so I have no idea how the closer will handle that. Regardless, I will live with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Despite my earlier Support !vote, I agree too - there's clearly not consensus at the time, and, upon reflection, I can see that the incidents referred to are isolated in proportion to the number of pages patrolled. Mike1901 (talk) 19:19, 22 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.

---

Here: [94] Mike1901 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Its probably the same guy from THIS thread on ANI earlier this week. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 20:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Same range too. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagged with the {{uw-nlt}} template --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 20:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: you may want to know about this... --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's that same ref desk troll. Recently he accused me of something to do with Facebook. Pretty funny, since I don't use Facebook. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, he referred to my "fellow admins". I must have got a promotion and nobody told me about it. :) Or maybe a demotion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Favonian blocked them for LTA. Keep an eye out though. They have been doing this for some time. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:17, 22 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.

We need an adult

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

---

There is edit warring going on at an RfA over trivial nonsense that should've been ignored. But since this RfA has no other drama, folks have latched onto the only drama visible no matter how mundane it is. Someone who hasn't !voted in the RfA, please decide what to do here.--v/r - TP 05:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some people still don't understand that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Feel free to WP:RBI that recent IP, who is obviously a sockpuppet of someone (I don't know who). This BS bores me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not commented there. As an adult, I need some potato chips or a whiskey to motivate me. But I already commented elsewhere about what a great troll that was, so I guess I won't be getting to be your adult here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Potato chips? That is offensive to me! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May you fry in oil! Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to take advantage of the fact that no one can make a joke based on your name! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what TParis is talking about...

• Revert One
• Revert Two
• Revert Three
• Revert Four
• Revert Five

Most warnings are being removed - so it's assumed that they understand what they are doing here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please write or improve some articles SQL. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have ceased at this point, unless QuixoticPotato decides to just go off the deep end and revert again, which would break 3RR for good measure. This already deserves a place in the lamest edit wars list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am bored of that BS. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the full war:

• Original edit by Cyberpower
• 1st Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by Cyberpower
• 2nd Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by Drmies (2nd in chain)
• 3rd Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by The Ed (3rd in chain)
• 4th Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 2nd Revert by The Ed (4th in chain)
• 5th Revert by The Quixotic Potato
• 1st Revert by 223.231.10.171 (5th in chain)

--v/r - TP 05:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that 223.231.10.171 is obviously a sock of someone. Also note that some people refuse to use talkpages, despite repeated invitations, but communicate (almost) exclusively using editsummaries. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries or not - when you remove warnings from your talkpage, it is assumed that you have read and understand them. SQL^{Query me!} 05:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please write or improve some articles SQL. We aren't here to create and unnecessarily prolong drama, we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Congrats, the sockpuppet has succesfully defended WP:THETRUTH (unfortunately xe wasn't brave enough to log into xyrs account), now we gotta move on. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

...You were the only one edit warring. Do you not understand that concept? --Tarage (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know that feeling you get when you arrive fashionably late at a party, only to discover that all the cool people have moved on to an afterparty located elsewhere? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor warned. Tiderolls 05:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Already been warned - technically twice already I guess. SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of blocks is to stop disruption. If the editor stops I will not block them. Tiderolls 06:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, stop posting warnings please, I actually get an email every time you post on my talkpage. Time machines have not been invented yet, which probably means they never will be. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are dissatisfied with your user preferences then change them. Tiderolls 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not. I assume that that means I shouldn't change them, right? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The other alternative is to change your behavior. You seem likely not to do that either it seems... Whatever, this is pointless. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about, but I agree that it is pointless. Maybe you have confused me with someone else? Seems likely. No worries, I still love you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also stop the "I love you" posts. At best this is passive aggressive. At worst its totally creepy. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you assume that someone writing "I love you" must be passive aggressive or totally creepy (or somewhere in between) then I don't really know what to say to that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Quixotic Potato, you've edit warred with four different users here. Have you ever once considered, that if so many users are against you, that you might be in the wrong here? Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the username of that IP, I am not a checkuser. I knew in advance that xe's opinion was unpopular, and that not many people defend those who have differing opinions/are a minority. I am a straight male born in one of the richest countries in the world, I am an atheist, my family has been here for many generations, and people would describe me as "caucasian". With that in mind, please read my userpage. Does it looks like the userpage of someone who believes in the argumentum ad populum fallacy? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, leave the oppose vote and a comment for the 'crat to strike. Who gives a shi*t if it's struck now or after close when only the crat can do it? habbing the lame and closing with the ANI and comment to strike. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't know Quixotic Potatoes were somehow exempt from EW, or that they could impose their will on an RFA with impunity. DHeyward, you may call this a lame edit war, but I call it simple disruption, blockable disruption. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 23 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.

Removal of userpage polemics

I don't think it's any secret that there is bad blood between WilliamJE and Nyttend. Last November I removed this [95] and this [96] after being approached by Nyttend about it. Discussion here: [97] [98] and more on my talkpage [99] et seq. Nyttend asked that WilliamJE be blocked for this. I declined, and after receiving no response from WilliamJE to requests by myself and Sphilbrick I went ahead and removed the commentary in accordance with WP:POLEMIC. Today I was again approached by Nyttend [100], who pointed out content that was added in November [101] by WiilliamJE and asking that WilliamJE be blocked. This content was added about the time that Jehochman warned [102] WilliamJE about their behavior toward Nyttend . I have removed this commentary as well. WilliamJE's response to this [103] [104] is an over-the-top expression of a sustained grudge against Nyttend that is far outside the bounds of acceptable irritation or venting. WilliamJE alludes to some sort of recent interaction between them that I have not yet discovered: there is a history of back-and-forth and allegations of edit-stalking on geographical content between them, but it had been my impression that that had largely died down. I haven't found anything recent.

I have long been concerned about WilliamJE's grudge-cherishing. He's a productive editor and I wish he could let this go but it keeps coming up every few months. The level of antipathy on WilliamJE's part against Nyttend and others is a source of continuing concern. The vituperation he posted today on my talkpage is block-worthy, but I think community consensus is called for in this case given the intensely personalized attitude that's being exhibited. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found anything recent, either. Today, I thought I'd seen him go back to following me: I checked Special:Contributions/Nyttend for some reason, and I noticed that WilliamJE had edited one page I'd just edited, but a quick review of his other contributions demonstrated that he'd been editing a group of related pages, and it was a pure coincidence. This reminded me of the userpage polemic; I looked at his userpage and saw that the same type of content was once again present on his userpage. Note that everything discussed above is talking about his words regarding me; the diffs demonstrate WilliamJE's grudge toward Orlady, who's not been particularly active lately (just 22 edits in the last year, including just 2 in the last month), and even toward DangerousPanda, who hasn't edited since the era of his arbitration case in 2014! Now...When you post this kind of content on your userpage, sanctions are entirely reasonable, and it's merciful merely to remove the content with a firm warning. When you re-post it months later, and when sanctions are requested you continue saying the same kind of stuff, you've demonstrated that you don't care about the warning and that the mercy wasn't warranted. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just going by the evidence linked from here: Y'all should let sleeping dogs lie. Nyttend should not be seeking a block for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't be entertaining it. The last diff I see mentioning those other two users is from November and does NOT demonstrate a grudge against them. The recent diffs are a response to Nyttend and Acroterion poking him - refusing to let sleeping dogs lie. And WilliamJE didn't take kindly or respond calmly to the poking. Jehochman, what is seeking a block for a post made in November, if not the hounding you asked to be alerted of? Jehochman, warned, "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on." and I don't see diffs showing he's ignored that. I've no basis on which to believe or disbelieve the accusations against Nyttend; I haven't looked into them and will let sleeping dogs lie. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If I was going to block WilliamJE I would have done so by now,and I reject the notion that it's OK to maintain a shrine to a grudge if nobody notices it, nor is it acceptable to respond to its removal in such a manner once it is noticed. It was replaced as a scaled-back version of what I removed in October, after a direct warning not to keep such material in userspace from three separate administrators. I agree that there's no current interaction problem between Nyttend and WilliamJE, and I hope that continues. I am, however, concerned that WilliamJE's response to what Elvey calls my "poking" is far beyond tolerable indignation: diatribes of that kind are never acceptable. Enmity of that sort needs to be brought to the community's attention to ensure that it is not repeated. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. All I'm saying is that Nyttend should not have sought a block today for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't have entertained it. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JMO, as I've interacted with both editors at various times, I must point out that preserving diffs against future repeats of behavior has, in some cases, been upheld as appropriate. That said, I think that ibans and the like between editors do lead to WP:BAITing and poking, which is why I tend to disfavor them. I do think we need a statute of limitations on ANI; if something happened in November and no one noticed until now, it is not worth noticing until there is an active case, at which time it could be an appropriate diff. But not now. Frankly, though I seldom am a fan of "they're both at fault," I do think in this case it's time to just tell both of them to drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have little faith in interaction bans either, and both of them dropping it is something Sphilbrick and I have advocated to both editors, with some effect, I like to think. Part of my reason for bringing it up here was WilliamJE's allusion to a recent event, which I was unable to find, nor, apparently, is anyone else. Perhaps we can hope that this is the last gasp of outrage. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so we can ignore the stuff from November. Is there any excuse for the statements made on Acroterion's talk page in the last couple of days? Is there any reason to say that Acroterion is wrong in considering those comments block-worthy? It's time to stop tolerating users who accuse others of lying, and call my actions a reign of terror. Time to start enforcing NPA/CIVIL. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(nb): I'm out of town tomorrow at a project site and will be mostly off-line for 24-36 hours, so I'll have no further input. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend just above asks that we not tolerate an editor who accuses another editor of lying. He uses this[105] and this[[106]] as his evidence. In the first one I write- "threat to get me blocked by lying to another administrator" and in the second I write "He was perfectly willing to lie to get me blocked". Let's address the second statement first. It is referring to the first not anything else about Nyttend. As for first- I write to ge me blocked by lying. What is my basis for that statement. Here it is, and Nyttend knows it, because it was in the very section of my User page he wanted me to get blocked for.

He wrote[107]- "Your stalking of me, moreover, is not appreciated and will result in a request for sanctions, especially as you have been blocked in the past for harassing me. He is going to request I be blocked for harassing him since I had been blocked in the past for doing so. That is absolutely untrue and Nyttend knows it and he threatened to use it as the basis for me being blocked again. Orlady said here[108] that she never said I was harassing Nyttend and then Nyttend follows up here[109] saying- "Kindly read the first paragraph of Logical disjunction. "A or B" doesn't mean "A", and "Harassment or personal attacks" doesn't mean "Harassment",.

To sum things up Nyttend threatened to get me sanctioned for reasons he himself acknowledges to be untrue. Then he accuses me above that I said he was a liar when I didn't. I accused him of threatening me by lying. Should we be discussing Nyttend's behavior more thoroughly?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Elvey and lightly trout Nyttend for requesting a block over a 6 month old edit. Nyttend should know better. The purpose of blocks is to stop ongoing disruption and a situation that's been quiet for 6 months is not that.

  WilliamJE, it will be helpful if you can keep it more civil going forward. Could you do that please? If you've got a grievance with another editor, you either have to co-exist with them (staying out of their way to the extent possible is a good plan); or try to talk out the problems calmly (mediation can help); or if you must, pursue dispute resolution where you describe the problems factually and document them with diffs. I don't know what the underlying issue is between you, so can't comment on it. Others here might know more of the backstory than I do.

  And no we don't need a "statute of limitations"-- we have too many "statutes" already. We need common-sense editing that deals with disruption when it's happening but doesn't sweat over ancient history except as a means of documenting that a current problem isn't new. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• 50.0.121.79 and Elvey, please bear in mind that this wasn't merely some long-ago edit; this was content sitting on WilliamJE's userpage until twenty-seven hours ago. I only linked the six-months-ago edit as firm evidence that it had been added back intentionally by WilliamJE; it would be absurd to seek sanctions against someone for restoring problematic content if it had been restored by accident or restored by someone else. Moreover, when this thread was raised, the statement in question was still on his userpage. There's a significant difference between seeking a block for a one-time statement from months ago and seeking a block for maintaining problematic content for a period of months, especially when part of maintaining that content is ongoing disruption by means of accusations of "lying" and "reign of terror". If I'm wrong, please explain why any user might be permitted to retain this kind of content on a userpage for a period of six months. Nyttend (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nytend, yes, that post was there til recently but the offending edit was made in November. You're asking for two different responses: 1) revert the edit (apparently already done), and 2) block WilliamJE[110]. It's quite possible to consider them separately. #1 is fine and has been handled. #2 is blocking over some lame invective posted 6 months ago. That's a separate matter and isn't justified given how stale it is. I'm tired now but can try to look at the background a little more tomorrow if anyone thinks that might help. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the content (if it hasnt already) and enact an interaction ban. It shouldnt be a problem to Nyttend (as he is already using the correct method for dealing with someone like that, notifying an administrator) and it would prevent WilliamJE from using their page as a book of grudges. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed the material from WilliamJE's userpage, which is what precipitated the attack on Nyttend on my talkpage. I'm going to remove the attack there too. Consensus is plain that users can't keep stuff like that around in their userspace, and that WilliamJE is not exempt. If this happens again, community sanctions are appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Nyttend: Please don't interact with WilliamJE at all from now on. (Matches the extant "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on.") --Elvey^(t•c) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Struck in appropriate "Done" template: Elvey is not an admin and has no place giving orders. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have no place giving orders either, now that you mention it. EEng 23:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend: Really? Is there any excuse? You were already offered two explanations - firstly that the two of you poked him with a very untimely block threat - but you seem unwilling to hear it. And secondly that you did say "you have been blocked in the past for harassing me" to him, even though he offers a quote that (unless fabricated) make it clear to me that what you said wasn't true. (AFAIK, this goes unacknowledged by you.) It's good that you say you're willing to drop the stick and walk away (from the November stuff, at least.) Now, please actually do drop the stick and walk away! It would be good if you recognized that you should not have claimed that that diff mentioning those other two users from November demonstrated a grudge against them then, let alone now, rather than continuing to call for sanctions. It seems WilliamJE has wisely stayed away from this thread. You would do well to do as Acroterion, Sphilbrick and I have advocated and drop it.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you consider your reaction if, months from now, you find that I have been since May maintaining fiercely critical comments on my userpage that disparage you for defending WilliamJE. Since you appear convinced that it's untimely to seek sanctions for maintaining such comments in userspace until the present, and convinced that I need a self-imposed interaction ban, I won't waste further time on digging up the diffs to answer your charges about edits that were made years ago, especially because edits from last November (which is much more recently than the comments you're bringing up) are too old to warrant any action. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought maintaining meant periodically updating something etc. If I wrote an article last November and then it sat there untouched for 6 months, I wouldn't call that maintaining. Nyttend, I don't have any beef with you--I've seen you around here taking care of routine stuff competently as far as I could tell, but I never had strong or memorable impressions one way or the other (i.e. you'll have to work much harder if you really want to establish a reign of terror). This persistence isn't making you look good though.

FWIW: WilliamJE has engaged in a bit more discussion and posted some diffs on his user talk page. There is an unhealthy level of anger underlying them IMHO but they don't have the invective of those old posts from a while back. He's away til tomorrow and I'm away starting tomorrow, but it could be helpful if Elvey or someone else could continue talking with him. Maybe some of his issues can be worked out. FWIW, among his gripes is an old block log entry that he's still upset about. People do often resent those things pretty much forever. So Wikipedia bureaucracy screws up another one. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree; I think he should be left alone, and I take some blame for the result of (and already apologized for) poking him rather than leaving him alone. And I urge User:WilliamJE to remove the bulk of his reply to me. I'm glad that in his comment above he does not make an accusation of lying, but I'm not thrilled that it dredges up an old accusation of lying.

Nyttend I suggest you consider that the only reason you're not already blocked for still not dropping the stick and for this meritless "maintaining" claim .79 hs debunked may be that you're an admin; normal users are blocked for such behavior. I urge you to remove your meritless 'maintaining' attack. I suggest you consider whether your asking "Is there any excuse" was unwise. I think my response shows it was. You are digging yourself into more trouble. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Images and text

User has added this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antiochus_Hierax.jpg and text among others to wikipedia articles such as [111]

Images and text previously published here. They claim to own them but haven't sent OTRS permission yet. They claim the text is not copyrightable but I am not so sure. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

An OTRS ticket is required for any of the photos that were previously published elsewhere online. The thing to do is create a deletion discussion over at the Commons for these images. The best way to handle it is to list the photos at commons:Commons:Deletion requests, making a bulk request similar to this one. That way we can get them deleted in a timely fashion if he does not send a permission email to OTRS. If you need any help preparing this please let me know. For the prose, he says the same descriptions are used all over the Internet for these coins; that does not make the prose in the public domain and does not give us the right to reproduce it here. Someone is the original author, and they are the person who holds the copyright. I am going to post on his talk page and will remove any prose that he re-added. — Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Return of Bigshowandkane64

Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as MarioandLuigibrothers6412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 72.64.5.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the Simple English Wikipedia and as 168.244.11.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the English Wikipedia. He left a personal attack on my talk page over on the Simple English Wikipedia as well as continuing his brand of disruptive edits on Quinton Flynn ([112]) and on Spencer Fox ([113]). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the cross-wiki nature of the abuse, I've globally blocked the 72- IP and locked the account and a couple of sleepers. It's worth noting that not all of the edits are vandalism, so reverting on a case-by-case basis might be best unless they're banned. You could also start an SPI for them here and on simplewiki. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bigshowandkane64 is banned from the English Wikipedia, actually. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure. I've struck that part of my comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's returned as 23.25.251.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the IP geolocates to New Hampshire as with BSK64's other IPs). Not good. I've reverted his edits per WP:BAN, since bans apply to all edits good or bad. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic ip breaching blp

2602:306:CF91:4110:512A:A890:58B8:7FA9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Anonymous user has been making poorly sourced edits to articles (including Emma Bunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the past several days. This is a typical example. Attempts have been made to explain to them our BLP policy, but without success. This is Paul (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the IP had been notified. Now done so. Eagleash (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to do that. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat inevitably they blanked the page. Eagleash (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tell me about it. This is Paul (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Since some disruption is already happening in the article for several days, I semi-protected it for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Block review: User:Lop12345

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

---

Per WP:NOTHERE, this users' block should definitely be increased to indefinite. 172.58.40.86 (talk) 18:22, 22 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.

Yes, we should definitely make it indefinite. EEng 01:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SIGFORGE Violation

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

---

Dr. Blofeld is impersonating me on his own talkpage, in an attempt to ridicule me. This is a clear violation of WP:SIGFORGE.--Catlemur (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed it and warned him not to do it again. Given the current ongoing issues between you two, I suggest backing away and taking a break from Blofeld-related editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Catlemur, you started a ridiculous COI discussion about him, and you started this ANI discussion without any attempt to discuss this with Dr. Blofeld first. "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." is stated at the top of this page for a reason. While he shouldn't have made that edit, your actions are a lot more problematic than his at the moment. You could have considered apologizing for your misguided COI report and then asking him to remove the sigforge section instead of running to ANI. Fram (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Catlemur, in case my comments at COIN weren't clear enough, if you keep this up you're likely to be on the receiving end of an indefblock for harassment. Was Dr. Blofeld technically in breach of policy? Yes. Was it a reaction to extreme provocation of a particularly spiteful and unpleasant kind? Yes. Nobody is going to take any action against him in this context; it would take the patience of a saint not to snap at you. ‑ Iridescent 08:27, 24 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 edits by User:Biresh Yadav

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

---

सिरिसिया means Sirisiya and such page exists. hi:सिरिसिया also exists. Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also keeps not using English and Removal of speedy tags. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 10:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... It is customary/compulsory to

1. Mention the editor you are complaining about by name (do not assume others are proficient mindreaders),
2. Provide diffs to the transgressions of said editor (do not assume others will investigate for you), and
3. Notify that editor of a discussion taking place here (required).

Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have notified him.

Not for me, he doesn't attack me, he writes Hindi and removes speedy delete template, he doesn't explain his actions.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I only looked at the bottom of the talk-page. WP:CIR does seem to apply, although most of his edits are in english (sort of) ^{[114], [115], etc}, it's probably not his first language and he seems to lack proficiency. Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User continues to recreate inappropriate articles. I have blocked the editor indefinitely and left a note for the editor. Hopefully this is enough to get the message across. --Yamla (talk) 12:32, 24 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:Chipmunkdavis and User:Herman Jaka disruptive rollbacks/undo on Kuala Lumpur's Global and Regional Rankings

Section added as a new AN/I section by Escravoes, I have combined it with the above already existing section. CMD (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis had rollbacked several times my ranking of Kuala Lumpur while Herman Jaka had reverted them on several occassion and I had mentioned the incidents in their talkpages. I believed that the rankings (sourced credibily from Reuters, Tripadvisor, Huffington Post, Chapman University and several leading Malaysian news media not only helped improved the article but also provided unbiased NPOV views to the article. I would appreciate if the deletions and rollbacks by Chipmunkdavis and Herman Jaka can be looked into.Escravoes (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in qustions is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuala_Lumpur&diff=next&oldid=721461804

(Note to administrators) This user have been explained here for the issues he involved. Herman Jaka (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(Note to administrators) I had replied to Herman Jaka here on his issues with my comments. Escravoes (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): I've tidied up the links to the users, so they point to the userpages rather than non-existent article space articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Edited Escravoes' latest link so it points to the page he means. This is a content dispute at the moment, so probably doesn't belong here. For the record I have not used rollback here, but standard undo functions. CMD (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttals to CMDUser:Chipmunkdavis, which part of the content in Kuala Lumpur "Global and Regional Rankings" are you disputing? My opinion is that your "dispute" is due to your personal POV due to your personal dislike and your of lack of neutrality on the views. It would have been more constructive if you had specify those points that you disputed rather than engaged in persistent undos. I fully agreed that this AN/I is NOT for content dispute, but the matter was brought here to report persistent vandalism by you and User:Herman Jaka, which constituted vandalism and hence highly disruptive. User:Herman Jaka had already been reprimanded by _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} and 142.105.159.60 in which they had proposed that User:Herman Jaka be boomerang by the administrators. Whether you used rollbacks/undos, the effects are the similar - they are extremely disruptive to wiki content development.Escravoes (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User with low English level apparently misinterpreting others and failing to AGF

I don't want to see this result in a block as I'm still thinking this is at least in part a good-faith misunderstanding, but the following doesn't seem appropriate for a user who has apparently been here on and off for close to seven years:

• repeatedly insinuating that I and others have some sort of pro-DPRK agenda (or perhaps an anti-ROK or anti-reunification agenda) for recommending that Wikipedia romanize Korean words based on English-language reliable sources rather than ROK government guidelines that are out of line with English Wikipedia guidelines;[116][117][118][119]
  • misquoting WP:SNOW as being in his/her favour when Pldx1 is the only one arguing for one side and five other commenters are arguing for the other;[120]
  • in one instance also accusing other editors of arrogance/elitism;[121]
• sarcasm and assumption of bad faith on Talk:List of rulers of Ife;[122]
• engaging in "opposition research" by looking up my block log and using it to attack me in response to my warning him about the appropriateness of the above.[123]

It's obvious that this is at least partly to be blamed on Pldx1's insufficient level of English, and perhaps he/she would not be assuming bad faith on my part (and the part of the other contributors to the MOS:KOREA RFC) if he actually read and understood what we had written. I don't know how this is usually dealt with. I have come in conflict with users with poor English before, but in that case I could communicate with them in their native language and the problem was clearly not simply his/her poor English. In this case I'm inclined to think mentoring would be a better idea, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment even if Pldx1 were amenable to the idea, and I wonder whether a user who can't understand others' talk page comments but immediately assumes the worst is more of a liability than an asset.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

When I have seen User:Hijiri88 using Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Ife to describe how he dislikes any contradiction about Korean topics, I have been slightly surprised: Ife is a Nigerian town, not a Korean one. When I have seen User:Hijiri88 using my own talk page to lecture me about blocks and so on, I have looked at his own block history and, maybe, I have not been so surprised. The next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect (I am quite sure that this is the right English wording, but I am open to any constructive criticism). Pldx1 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The above is a perfect example of Pldx1's inscrutability and apparent assumption of bad faith. Not only have not used that page to "describe how I dislike any contradiction about Korean topics", the page has nothing whatsoever to do with Korea! He appears to have learned the word "lecture" from me within the last 24 hours, but "lecturing about blocks and so on" is a pretty bad description of this. And yet again he has made an obscure reference to WP:SNOW that doesn't appear to be the way that word is used on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That List of rulers of Ife is certainly an indecipherable mess. Looks like an exercise in original research and synthesis, with a lot of talk-like commentary mixed into the article. Pldx1 pretty much created it in its current form, and it's unlikely that he or anyone else will be able to fix it. I'd call it hopeless and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at your block log isn't opposition research. Throwing it in your face is rude, I'll grant that, but it's incorrect to describe it as opposition research in the same vein as googling someone's username and finding out things they've said in other fora, or even so far as trolling through someone's every contribution to find some cherrypicked diff to throw in their face. Also, the problem with List of rulers of Ife is related to the recent Wikicology arbitration case. Pldx1's research was important there, and his work on List of rulers of Ife appears to be an attempt—albeit imperfect—to merge Ooni of Ife into that page, as well as rectify the problems that Pldx1 discovered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: If you check the wikilink, I didn't describe it as "opposition research in the same vein as googling someone's username"; I described it as "opposition research in the same vein as checking the logs with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". :P

Throwing it in my face was rude and off-topic. The fact that I was blocked twice in 2013 because Drmies didn't know how to enforce a two-way IBAN (he apologized almost immediately thereafter and admitted the block was inappropriate) and David Fuchs considered a good-faith edit accidentally made while still logged into a main account with email privileges rather than a declared alternate account with no email address attached to it worthy of an indefinite block under that unique set of circumstances (he didn't protest when another non-CU admin unblocked me immediately thereafter), or that I was blocked a few weeks and quickly unblocked on appeal because a significant number of admins considered the block to be unnecessary, is entirely irrelevant to my capacity to tell Pldx1 that his/her behaviour is inappropriate and may lead to blocks if he/she doesn't reform. Throwing my (mostly very old) block log in my face is just an indication that he/she may be unwilling to reform. There is also the problem that due to various sanctions I am unable to defend myself against attacks like that without risking being blocked again. Attacking someone who can't defend themselves is the worst, although I'll admit that Pldx1 probably didn't go so far as to check whether the IBAN in question was still in place.

The fact that Wikicology messed up a bunch of articles does not mean we should turn to diligent (and probably good-faith) but equally incapable editors to fix the problem.

AGF is good, but when we have to assume poor proficiency in English, poor research skills and (after seven years!) just plain not understanding Wikipedia's PAG, that actually isn't much better than the conclusion that he/she is being disruptive on purpose. I kept direct commentary to a minimum during the Wikicology case because I was blown away by what had happened, but I did read through the entire ANI thread before the ArbCom case, and went through the entire final decision after it had been completed (I even cited it in a related discussion). Giving Pldx1 a free pass because he/she was critical of Wikicology earlier is like crediting the pot for calling the kettle black.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that you linked to WP:HOUND. My understanding has usually been that the phrase "opposition research" on Wikipedia refers to WP:OUTING (in fact, that's the only place that the phrase occurs in WP:HARASSMENT). I respectfully disagree that throwing your block log up in your face should be considered Wikihounding, let alone outing. It's rude, and that's all. The rest of what you point out above is, honestly, minor. I don't see any of the deceitful, troublesome, POV-pushing character in any of the diffs you've provided. At worst, Pldx1 is trying to use incisive wit in a dispute, which is coming out as sarcasm. That isn't necessarily a bad thing either. The English issue is obviously a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable. What I see here is a MOS dispute that involves an aspect of Korean history. MOS disputes and recent Korean history are individually very polarized and polarizing subject areas, and combined it's no different. It's possible that if Pldx1's argumentation is sufficiently disruptive, some sanction may lie under the WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions. But I'm not seeing it at this point to be honest. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Wit"? If what he has been doing is deliberate, then this is a serious breach of CIVIL if nothing else. More likely, though, he does seriously think the clean-up template I placed has something to do with Korea, and he does think that the rest of the commenters in the MOS RFC are part of some grand northern conspiracy. Literally every time I have replied to him I pointed out that my rationale is based on English-language reliable sources, but he keeps beating the "Wikipedia should not be siding with North Korea" drum. I hate to think what will happen when the result inevitably doesn't go his way -- if I try to implement my proposal it looks like I'll almost certainly get reverted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Although I do see your points. Both MOS and Korean history are firepits. I was frankly a little surprised that Pldx1 was the only one to show up and accuse me of being a North Korean spy. I guess it might be worth just waiting the MOS discussion out and seeing if the disruption continues afterward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The first thing to do when writing an article is to collect sources, compare them, and see if they are compatible or not. This has been done at List of rulers of Ife. If anyone wants to make a better use of these sources, then be bold, you are welcome. Side remark: Administrators noticeboard incidents is not about the articles themselves. And now, let us look at behaviors. Wikipedia is a wiki. The existence of an history mechanism is a key feature of the regulation process. When seeing the last reply of User:Hijiri88, at the top of this whole mess, it is only but natural to look again at blocks of Hijiri88. The keyword that appears is BATTLEGROUND. Everybody can see, just above, «he [Pldx1] keeps beating the "Wikipedia should not be siding with North Korea" drum» (obviously without any references). Everybody can read Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Ife (this is short) and have her own opinion. Everybody can read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Korea-related_articles#RfC:_Which_romanization_system_should_be_used_for_pre-division_Korean_topics.3F (this is longer) and have her own opinion. Let us give nevertheless two quotes from Hijiri88 in the later discussion:

• Sentence "we should use the official South Korean romanization for all Korea-related topics because South Korea is better than North Korea" is stated between quotation marks, as if this was a quotation from someone before in the discussion.
• WP:KOREA members (many of whom have fairly poor English skills and have written a large number of very messy articles)

This gives the impression that User:Hijiri88 has a poor proficiency of cooperative mind. Once again, the next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect. Pldx1 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I do not need to cite "references" to say that every single comment you have made on the MOS:KOREA RfC has beaten the North Korea drum -- I linked the thread itself, and anyone can read your comments for themselves, and they will see that what I say is true.
• I never said you were talking about North Korea on Talk:List of rulers of Ife. This is just you putting words in my mouth. Kindly stop doing that. In fact, I didn't even know we had been talking about Korea at all until after you posted in this ANI thread.
• When you take my statement of a general position apparently supported by you that I placed in quotes for grammatical reasons and did not imply it was a direct quotation, you are wikilawyering based on a technicality.
• It is an indisputable fact that articles in the WP:KOREA area are messy as a general rule and far below the English Wikipedia average. My stating this fact has nothing whatsoever to say about my "cooperative mind".
• In case it wasn't clear from what I wrote on your talk page, I want you to stop pinging me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Once again I come across Nationalism being pushed, in some form or another, by one or even all involved, on articles specifically relating to, or even just part of the larger body of work, that is in relation to Conflict zones by Non-Native English speakers on the English WIki. Where as I can see peoples of these regions of the world being of invaluable help to building an Encyclopaedia, if they do not have an extremely High Level of Proficiency in the written and spoken word of the English language, it once again has become a problem on an article. Translation programs are not sufficient enough yet in getting the points across. I think some mentoring for Pldx1 is the most useful course personally, and yes it was rude to throw a block log in someone's face, but this is not an offence really. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Promotion/Vandalism only account User:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय

The following discussion is closed. 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:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय is spamming Wikipedia with misleading data and sometimes replacing www.barb.co.uk with with www.barc.co.in, an Indian company website with a edit summary Fixed grammar such as [124], [125], [126], [127], [128] and many many more!--Aisonajulk ^chat 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that for you. Katie^talk 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them for 72h for vandalism. This is not vandalism-only account, they also seem to have good edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 25 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-hopping edit warrior

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

---

• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:80E8:CD5E:2598:EAB9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:D9C5:2EB:D3A9:3B17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the latest active IP's of an edit warrior who's active on Israel and Palestine related articles. Edits are stuff like switching mentions of Palestine with Israel, etc. User has a history of these kinds of edits on these articles, so it might be a good idea to semi-protect these articles as the user seems to hop between IP's. Eik Corell (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Which articles? There are hundreds (thousands?) of Israel and Palestine-related articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the contributions list of those two IP's, and of their earlier sock Anti-Śemites blown to smitherines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles edited by the IP's above seem to be their primary focus, though. There is another report here on this user, I'll look through the archives for it. Eik Corell (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Easier to place a /64 range block if this person is editing disruptively. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And that's just what I did. 2604:2000:F20E:2800::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. If it is block evasion and he returns, I'd be willing to block as long as three months. Katie^talk 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I found the last AN/I report here. What a mess. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 24 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.

Template edit needed post TfD closure

The following discussion is closed. 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 locked {{missing information}} needs the {{tfd}} removing from it now that the discussion has been closed - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 14:25, 25 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 on 3RR noticeboard?

The following discussion is closed. 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: [129] Mike1901 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Definite legal threat. And libellous as well. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I've blocked indef (simply because I wasn't sure what duration would be appropriate), and will amend the duration as needed. I haven't looked at the underlying issue, though it seems that the IP has some pretty strong feelings on the matter. The IP also appears to be edit warring at University of Buckingham. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The block is correct. We block indefinitely until they retract their threats and are satisfied that it won't continue. It is really the only duration for these cases. Some effort should be taken to consider the validity of their concerns. HighInBC 14:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't indefintely block IPs. The duration should be reduced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are of course correct, I was thinking it was a user at the time. I stand corrected. HighInBC 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection, as soon as someone tells me what to reduce it to. This isn't a drive by, I can adjust it as necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The precise duration is discretionary. If it were my block, I would reduce it to one month, which is approximately the amount of time this person has been using the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just tweaked it to 1 year: Long enough to eliminate the problem, but not so long as to catch an innocent when the IP inevitably gets reset. --Jayron32 15:55, 25 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.

Edit warring and uncited speculation 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.

---

Today, User:66.185.43.66 added material to Railway engines (Thomas & Friends) indicating a character "may" be returning [130]. I reverted the addition as uncited speculation [131]. I was reverted by the IP [132]. I then placed a {{uw-unsourced2}} warning on the IP's talk page [133], and reverted the re-addition of the uncited content [134]. The IP ignored the warning, and restored the uncited content again [135] using an insulting edit summary. I've placed edit warring notices and a {{uw-npa3}} warning on the IP's talk page. Other eyes, please. IP has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The user will probably soon be blocked for harassment, as seen in his edit summaries. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: 66.185.43.66 (talk · contribs) was blocked by @KrakatoaKatie: for 31 hours for Vandalism --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:52, 26 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 editor on Eric Fanning

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

---

An IP editor, apparently the same person working from 128.103.150.72 and 65.112.10.181 and 70.192.0.242, has several times named Fanning's domestic partner, though we have no citation for more than a boyfriend. Diffs here and here and here. There has been discussion on the Talk page and appropriate info has been added to the body of Fanning's WP entry as you can see in this diff. The entry is BLP. The editor's comments suggest that further discussion is fruitless, notably "Google it. I'll edit this each time you take it down. I am inclined to cite "I don't give a fuck"." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:40, 25 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:Caucasianium

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

---

Account which avoids discussion, violates WP:NPA instead, continues edit-warring and is possibly a sock puppet of User:SmartXT. I don't know where to report this best. Also the article Criminal case Lisa F. should be blocked for new/IP users. I wrote on his talk page, wanted to discuss with him, but was insulted only.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know whether they are a sock or not (likely they are), but they are clearly WP:NOTTHERE, therefore blocked for an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reaction.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:36, 25 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.

Another 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.

---

Here: [136] (seem to be attracting them today for some reason....) Mike1901 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I will message the blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 25 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.

Sockpuppet of Alec Smithson

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

---

Alec Smithson is a long-term disruptive editor indeffed here and, since 23 January 2016, globally locked on Meta. There's now a blatant sockpuppet, Prof.John Fox, active on several wiki projects, already blocked for that reason on fr.wp and pt.wp. I've asked the Meta steward who blocked Smithson, M7, to take action. Meanwhile, can the sock be indeffed here and his few edits nuked? In case anyone needs evidence, the overlap with the master is patently obvious in global edits: House of Natoli, Salvatore Garau, Carlo Bazzi, Fernando Carcupino, Francesco Filippini – all Smithson specials. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked a local CheckUser to look at the account? They'd probably be equipped to see if this is another sock. You could always open an WP:SPI --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The account is technically  Likely to Music10-user. I've blocked the account. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:21, 26 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.

Best course of action...

The following discussion is closed. 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 group of editors would like to add various accusations and disparagements to the Katie Couric BLP for a documentary film with which she was involved. It's a recent news story just a few hours old, and news sources say the outrage at Couric, a popular whipping-post for conservatives, is misdirected. What I thought was a bunch of editors now appears to be all the same person based on previous article edits in common: Mike2A-MD (talk · contribs) → Jbusch8899 (talk · contribs) → 70.161.253.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) → 70.106.236.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)...

Should I file a 3RR report (combined, they have already exceeded 3 reverts). Should I file an SPI report (they already fail the 'Duck Test' miserably)? Should I ask to have the page protected? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that this matter be put on hold temporarily, as the article has been protected for the short-term. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 26 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 threats by IP editor

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

---

I don't really know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C says Wikipedia should be sued in this revision: [137]. Notifying on their talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm guessing an administrator will probably hand out a block for WP:NLT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: I tagged them with the {{uw-nlt}} template--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 26 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.

Range block requested for LTA vandal

The following discussion is closed. 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 previously requested a range block on this vandal earlier this month. After a period of inactivity, the vandal has resumed activity on a new range, 107.77.196.0/24. It's fairly easy to recognize this vandal: on animated films, the composer is usually changed to James Horner and one of these actors is added to the cast list. These are obviously hoax credits.

Here are a few disruptive IP editors I've found on this range who fit the LTA profile:

• 107.77.196.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)

Existing range blocks are listed here, along with some more info. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've anon blocked 107.77.196.0/24 for a month. Mike V • Talk 17:09, 26 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.

Admin User:JzG refusing to comply with WP:NFCC#9

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

---

Admin JzG (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the page User talk:JzG to policy-violating status despite being warned not to do so, see Special:Diff/721213078 and Special:Diff/721039098. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A pic of himself, on his bike. Pedantic much? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 says that no non-free images may be used in the user talk namespace. This includes non-free images of the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue with the first one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The first diff was to show he was warned. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Templating a long-standing user as if he were a newbie is not the wisest approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JzG is unambiguously in the wrong and the image should be removed from his user talk page. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And the OP is unambiguously in the wrong for violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. If you treat an established editor like a jerk, you can expect to be treated the same way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay, not a policy with legal considerations. I'm not contesting that Stefan handles these matters in the most delicate way and I have criticised him for his methods in the past. But JzG is still wrong. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You're talking here about "legal considerations", and below you're saying it's not about legalities. Also, the OP was screwing around with the subject's talk page, which is likewise not collegial behavior. Maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while to think about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images: Non-free images found on [...] user talk pages) will be removed [...] without warning. Unfortunately, I seem to be more or less the only one fixing WP:NFCC#9 violations, and it would need more users in the area if we also want warnings to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do this work. If you don't like the work (which your attitude suggests), maybe you could switch your focus to something else that needs work. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seems overly pedantic since the photo is in use at Velo Vision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the OP here tagged an 11-year-old picture File:Triplet-empty.jpg which the subject of the complaint says he took himself. Is OP's hassling of JzG a recent phenomenon, or do they have some history? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Naa Stefan does lots of work enforcing NFCC regs (sometimes I think the only person). The first picture (just the bike) *was* marked incorrectly so I suspect it flagged up. That has now been fixed. The second picture technically violates NFCC 9, but given its in use as NF pic on an article, it seems unlikely any attempt to take legal action over its use (the primary reason for the NFCC regs) at JzG's talkpage would get anywhere, and overly strict enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not about whether we would get sued. It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia. We only use non-free content for limited uses when it has in particular an important educational purpose. Talk page chat is not that. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • What the OP needed to do, instead of being a jerk, is to ask the admin to put a colon after the two left square brackets. Templating an admin over a 10 year old magazine cover, and having ignored your advice in the past, suggests the OP ought to find something else to do. Such as reading about what happened to Betacommand, who behaved in a similar way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't Betacommand. The OP has had a registered account since 2006. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't rule out it being a sleeper account. No way to test for it technically, so behavior is all we have to go on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. You would more likely be a sleeper account for me. I could explain how patently ridiculous it is that one could think this was Betacommand based on the edit history (not taking into account the behavior, which has a similar intersection of abuse and image copyright compulsion). But no, there's simply no way. Betacommand, for all his foibles, never planned to be banned, and didn't create clean sleeper accounts he kept using continuously for six years in parallel to his main account on the off chance someone would eventually ban him. Just no. --Jayron32 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine. Then what is it about that (voluntary) job that seems to bring out the worst in those doing that work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If he's actually in the thing, wouldn't that be grounds for free use? Just out of curiosity. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, subjects of photographs almost never have any copyright or usage rights. (To do that they usually have to have some sort of contract with the photographer) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There was me looking for an excuse to bin the wedding photos! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Check your wedding photo contract. Wedding photos are one of the exceptions as they are generally work-for-hire. The current standard is for the photographer to retain copyright for a set period of time at which point it either reverts to the subject or they (subject) gain unlimited usage/repro rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The image shouldn't be on the talkpage, but Stefan2 do you see how you created/escalated the situation you're complaining about? Let's see:

1. Looking at File:Triplet-empty.jpg, you must have realized that: (i) JzG had probably uploaded his own photo; and (ii) that it was uploaded more than 10 years ago, when the requirements about image info were less strict.
2. You could just have dropped a friendly note at JzG's talkpage asking him if it was his own photo and offering to update the information for him if so.
3. Can you see why the use of the template probably rubbed him up the wrong way? I appreciate the work you do with images, but a lot of users cite this sort of thing as one of the reasons they find Wikipedia an unfriendly/uncollegial place these days.
4. Then, when the unfree cover photo was used, your response was this. Again, can you see why that got a negative response compared to leaving a polite notice flagging up the issue?
5. You then edit warred, left a templated warning and promptly started this threat within a 16 minute period.

Now, I'm not saying JzG is right and I don't countenance separate rules for long-standing users and/or admins (NFCC applies to everyone). This a storm in a teacup, but it's one that you started and one you should have de-escalated. Sometimes a softer more measured approach gets better results. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a picture of me, riding my bike, a bikethat people commented on on my talk page, with my son on the rear seat, taken by Peter Eland, then-editor of Velo Vision at a meet at Salt Aire, and supplied to me by Peter at my request. I put it on my talk page as part of the ephemeral discussion about the image. Frankly, I found Stefan's actions here to be little short of trolling. This is indeed a perfect example of the way Wikipedia policies can be actively hostile even to people who have been here a long time. And we keep changing the rules and demanding new shrubberies. File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg was released to me entirely properly, ten years later I am told I must now submit the email to OTRS, but I no longer have the email because I don't keep absolutely every email I ever received, so it's deleted. No wonder people leave. Commons is worse. Somebody tried to nuke commons:File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg because they didn't spot that my name (which I state openly) matches the name of the uploader on another site where I also shared it. Yes, I know the copyright rules are there for a reason, but FFS we really do go out of our way to make it as difficult as possible to keep anything uploaded, however unambiguous the permissions might be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you might mean Saltaire in West Yorkshire? My stomping ground as a teenager.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you delete your evidence that you have permission, then your ability to use the image depends entirely on the copyright holder as courts tend to rule in favour of the copyright holder if the licensee can't prove that he has permission to use the image. In the case of File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg, also see c:COM:GOF - this was uploaded before 8 January 2006 according to the logs. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Excessively legalistic interpretation of the rules based on a hypothetical challenge that will not happen because the release was provided. Ditto with the bike: just because you don't know the identity of the rights owner doesn't mean that I don't, as the uploader. Excessively legalistic interpretation of rules that constantly ratchet towards an achievable asymptote comes across as arbitrary demands for shrubberies. And your response here indicates that either you don't care or (worse) it's deliberate. I am done with you. I never want to interact with you again, ever. That puts you on a list of about three people in my entire ten year history on Wikipedia. Think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Do you think Peter Eland would agree to freely license the picture? Since he took the photo, I am assuming he is the original copyright holder. If he agreed to do that, then it would not be subject to the NFCC. Otherwise, I do not see any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for the usage on your talk page which is something required by WP:NFCC#10c. As pointed out the file is currently being used in the Velo Vision article, and it does have a rationale for that particular usage. That stub, however, has been tagged with ref improve since 2009. If by chance it is someday deleted, the justification for the non-free usage of the file will be gone, which means it will probably be deleted per WP:F5. As a freely licensed file, on the other hand, it could stay on your user talk page for as long as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to follow policy, in particular when the specific policy is mentioned in the edit summary, but I guess it could have been handled in a better way... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 in the real world, you pick your battles. Dealing with other editors in Wikipedia is the real world. Do you understand that doing stuff like this squanders your credibility in the community? Are you hearing what people are saying to you in this thread? Those are real questions... please do answer. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fwiw Guy seems to know the person who runs the magazine. His edit note here when he removed the first warning that Stefan placed says: "My talk page, my bike, me riding it. Ask Peter Eland if you want evidence of permission for this". (see Velo Vision for who Peter Eland is.) The legal risks to WP are nothing here. This is drama that wastes everyone's time and accomplishes precisely nothing. A little IAR in this particular situation would have been the clueful thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that the OP is a long-standing sleeper account of Betacommand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Files with {{non-free with permission}} may not be used on user pagesas they are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk)
    • What part of that rule permits you to treat the user like a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Just my two cents, but the policy seems pretty straightforward. Maybe it should be changed, and that's a fine discussion to have, but as it stands, it seems like a pretty clear violation. Stephan could probably use a little more tact, which is also a fine discussion to have, but is a bit of a separate issue. Overall, it seems like the "they're an admin" or "I know the guy" arguments as defenses are pretty wobbly precedents to set. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe that of all the brazillions of images in Wikipedia, that this ten year old magazine cover is the worst offender. The OP here needs to stop behaving like Betacommand, or he's liable to be likewise banished from Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure whether or not it is the worst offender is particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
            • So, is it a personal vendetta? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • No idea. But I do think a boomerang and whether the image should be on a talk page are separate issues. And on that note, I'm going to try to do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
                • The question is, is the image free to use. Simple as that. The answer is no, it's not so it should not be on the page, regardless if the user knows the person or is an admin. If the user knows the person, then get a waiver or something. But whether we agree with it or not, we, and admins especially, need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Actually, Bugs, when I used to do NFCC#9 cleanup many moons ago (and it is indeed a thankless task, and errors are certainly not limited to newbie editors either), I had a script which produced a report of all the non-free images outside articlespace. I presume Stefan is using the same sort of thing, so it is unlikely to be a personal vendetta. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                Would you have treated the editor the way the OP has done? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                • Correct. I use quarry:query/1203 to find these files, and this magazine cover showed up in that list. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, Stefan you are technically correct.
2. No, Stefan the way you went about dealing with this is not acceptable. A comment out, then a template to a 10 year veteran, then straight to AN/I is not the way to deal with things.
3. Yes Stefan no non-free images should be used on talk pages.
4. No Stefan, there is no conceivable real-world implication of this picture appearing there, so AN/I really isn't the place for this.
5. Yes Stefan it would be nicer to see more people involved in dealing with fair-use on WP
6. No Stefan, people are not going to be attracted to this thankless task when they see how bureaucratic other editors can be about these things.

Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan's extremism about images has been a problem for a long time. A low point was his nomination of File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg for deletion the day after I uploaded it to Commons. [138] He argued that Category:Auschwitz Album (see Auschwitz Album), of which this image is part, ought to be deleted because: "the United States copyright holder is the SS employee who took the image, or, should the employee be dead, the heirs of this SS employee." See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg. This is exactly how Betacommand behaved. It wastes a lot of volunteer time. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Betacommand often acted like a jerk, but the thing about him that really used to annoy the people that he came into conflict with was that, 95% of the time, he was right and they were wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Black Kite, "right" according only to the most extreme interpretation of the non-free policy. It wastes a lot of time and he does seem to hound people. Whether it really is targeted hounding, or whether he's doing the same to lots of people, I can't tell, but it's depressing to have to spend time addressing positions that lack all common sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, the error was that the uploader hadn't provided evidence that the copyright had expired in both the United States and a source country. Necessary (but not in themselves sufficient) conditions for this are that a) the photo has been published somewhere with consent from the photographer (as there is no situation under c:COM:HIRTLE where an unpublished German work from the 1940s can be in the public domain in the United States), and b) the photo hasn't bee published with consent from the photographer (as the photograph otherwise would hit the 70 years from publication rule in {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of the 70 years from creation rule, and the photo remained unknown to the public for several years). Since the uploader hadn't proven that a) and b) both were true, the file was nominated for deletion. But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of shooting the messenger going on here and it's a bit disturbing. Who's going to want to be a messenger if they get shot like this? Everyone seems to agree that the OP is correct with policy. If you're mad at the policy, do something about the policy, right? But don't shoot the person enforcing the policy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem that a lot of editors forget is that NFC is as critical to maintain as BLP, in the eyes of the WMF; it, BLP, and copyvios are the only content policies that have WMF mandates. There are lots of grey areas of where NFC can be used, yes, but there are also a lot of bright lines that must be met as well, and we're supposed to deal with NFC that fall over those bright lines rigorously per the WMF. We need to be 100% sure on copyright ownership before declaring what might be a non-free image as uncopyrightable or PD, and so in a situation like the above, Stefan has every right to question the nature of the copyright chain of custody. They might be wrong, sure, and appear to have been wrong in this case, but as long as they drop the stick w.r.t. that set of images, that's how we should be treating such material. This is not how BetaCommand acted, so the implications that Stefan is BetaCommand are completely unfounded. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Masem, these extremist positions about NFC are very damaging – to the policy and to the community. But I note that the extremism doesn't extend to preventing the objectification of women. You recently supported a featured-article candidate that contained a non-free image of a naked woman, one that I would say clearly violates the non-free content policy. But the Auschwitz Album must go, and an old image of a bike on a user page is an outrage. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Except as long as a credible enough reason is provided, non-free images can be used in articles. The Auschwitz album and the bike image are, as policy is written, not valid uses. The US is clear on how it applies copyright. I disagree with Stefan's *enforcement* of the policy in this (and I would have in the Auschwitz case too) but as per the written policy they are invalid. IAR can be waved for Auschwitz as the collection of photos clearly enhances the project and no one is *ever* going to raise a copyright claim on behalf of an unnamed SS concentration camp guard. Likewise JzG's close acquaintance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unambiguously clear from policy that files need a source. Special:PermanentLink/24983809 reveals that the copyright holder releases the file to the public domain, but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is, so there is no way to verify this claim. Such files need to be discovered as soon as possible: if you wait a few years, then the uploader may have left the project, and then it is no longer possible to ask the uploader for clarification. It's a bit unfortunate that it took ten and a half year to spot this, but luckily the uploader was still around, so he was able to clarify this. If the file had been around for another ten years without being fixed, then there's a risk that the file might never have been fixable, if the uploader no longer is around at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? I never commented anything about the nature of the image (or the article itself) outside of whether the image met NFCC or not, so to claim that my view doesn't extend to "preventing the objectification of women" is a personnel attack and absolutely unwarranted. NFC is NFC, there are a number of bright lines that have to be met to use such images, and assuring that an image that might be non-free is not presented as free is very much one of those bright lines. Yes, ultimately it was shown that the Auschwitz images are claimed by other authorities to be in the PD, so that matter is settled, but at the time Stefan nominated them, there was a fair question as to their nature. What Stefan did is what anyone should be expected to do if they see a free image that might actually be non-free. (At commons, the only way is via deletion; here en.wiki, we now use FFD to review such images). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL nudity is sexist. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Masem & User:Slimvirgin, which article and image are you talking about? I normally do not follow discussions about featured articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 though details on this are otherwise way off track for this matter. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• God damn it, this was not an ANI matter. If JzG was indeed intransigent on this cosmically minor matter, Stefan should have just taken it up quietly with some admin. What an incredible waste of time this has been -- time which could have been spent productively.

Stefan's officious attitude is indeed offensive and a problem. In my one interaction with him I was driven almost mad by the templating, answers-which-didn't-answer-the-question, and refusal to engage what I was saying WP:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg. Finally someone else came along and resolved the problem in an instant by pointing to the right policy, and answering the question asked. EEng 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:EEng, sorry if I didn't properly explain what the guidelines say at that time. When I get mad at something, I guess I sometimes escalate things a bit too much and don't think of what the best solution would be. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan demonstrating poor judgement in resolving issues and templating can be seen in these three posts to me. Each is about an orphaned non-free image. Each file names the academic journal to which it relates (as an image of the cover). Each had a proper non-free rationale. In each case, all that was needed was reversion of explained removal of the image, which should have been obvious. Instead of fixing the problem, Stefan simply dumps a template on my page for me to fix the problem. The value of an editor doing such work rather than a bot is that an editor has a brain and can exercise judgement. Sadly, whenever I see Stefan, I think of cases where information is clearly available but in the wrong form or simple problems which could have been quickly solved. Stefan, JzG is not following policy, but that doesn't put you in the right here. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A serious issue is attitude, which unfortunately is still something of fallout from BetaCommand from ~2009. There are presently over 0.5 million non-free images on en.wiki. There are about a dozen editors that actively maintain NFC, in light of the fact that after the falling out of the BetaCommand case, editors tend to give little fair treatment of those actually enforcing NFC. It's a vastly unappreciated job but one critical to the en.wiki and WMF mission, and the taint of the fallout of the BetaCommand situation has caused many editors to avoid admining that area to avoid getting being treated as if they were BetaCommand. As such, most of these admins in NFC do run their adminstration mechanically, using templates messages and the like, because that seems to be the only way to get through to most other users, while of course templating circularly leads to the resentment towards NFC and admins that handle that. While I do strongly agree that if all that is wrong with an image is a simple typo fix that is easily determined simply by looking at rationale that the admin should fix it instead of templating, many of the more common mistakes require understanding what the uploader or image user was thinking of when they added the non-free, and that's something that while an admin might guess at, it might be a wrong guess, and it is up to the uploader or reuser to make sure it is correct. (That is one thing that fell out from the Betacommand mess, that the onus on proper rationales, etc. is on the uploader, though admins should use common sense to fix the obvious typos).
  • We do need every editor on both sides, the NFC admin and those using NFC, to come back towards a more personable way to handle NFC, but with the understanding that it is a severely under-admined area that might have to resort to simple shortcuts (templates) to process the situation effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:EdChem, if a file has been removed from an article, then it is typically a lot easier for the uploader to tell if it is correct that the article is unused or if it should be restored to the article. Also, the sooner the uploader becomes aware that a file incorrectly has been removed from an article, the faster the uploader can restore it to the article, so to reduce the time during which the image is missing from the article, the file should in my opinion be tagged as soon as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatting: Either inappropriate sockpuppetry or block evasion (don't know which, but doesn't matter). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If JzG was in Stefan's shoes, he'd have banned the interloper "long-since", citing 3RR. "I'm just saying", that JzG knows who runs Wikipedia. *He* does, and if he wants to violate a rule, he *can*, he *does*, he doesn't care, and 40 people will line up and defend him, ignoring his hypocrisy and pathologizing the innocent fool (with due respect to Stefan) who had the unmitigated audacity to expect equal treatment. Ditto for when he bans someone-else, but in the other-direction. JzG is violating the 3RR, but 'he is who he is' and he gets to do what he wants. That's how Wikipedia operates and that's why Wikipedia is at-risk of delegitimatizing itself. Stefan had every right to complain, and handling with JzG with kid-gloves is not required. He doesn't own any himself, btw. Back on-point: If JzG knows the photo-owner, great, send him an email, get permission to release copyright, and no problem. There's no special "I know a guy" rule, as in "I know a guy, and he gave me X and he's probably give me copyright over X, since I'm part of X". You either have CR or you don't. That's JzG's logic, and he'd be here ranting if any other uses was behaving as he does. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment And you created an account ten minutes ago just to tell us that? Thanks. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I smell feet. Did someone take their socks off? TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Dude, if you criticize JzG, it's like having the whole cast of the Walking Dead after you. And I have a survival instinct. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have updated the article Velo Vision by adding refs, and in doing so discovered that Peter Eland (who apparently took this picture, according to Guy) has retired from publishing the magazine and sold it to a former reader, Howard Yeomans. The fair use image data for the magazine cover being used in the article says that it is Intellectual property owned by Velo Vision Ltd. So isn't Yeomans now the owner of the intellectual property (the magazine cover) in question here?
  • Generally, yes, the sale of a property and all its old content transfer the copyright to the new buyer as well, but its possible there's different terms that allowed Eland to retain copyright, so there's no immediate way to tell without asking. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it not possible for this discussion to take place at the file's talk page (where efforts to resolve such matters are perhaps best placed)? The filing party acknowledges he didn't handle this very well, and if no actual sanction is going to result, must the discussion here be kept open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "acknowledging" you mean this dif please look at the three remarks made all at once there. I see "I'm sticking to my guns here" not a frank acknowledgement by Stefan of all the feedback they have been given here. I think this is pretty ripe for a boomerang by now, exactly because there is no sign they have heard what almost every commenter here has said. I was hoping to see them write something like "OK I get it. I withdraw this and will take the criticism I've gotten here on board." Stefan hearing what has been said here, is the one useful thing that could come out of what has otherwise been a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 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.

Long term removal of maintenance templates

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

---

• 173.54.173.53 (talk · contribs)

Account appears to have a single m.o., the removal of maintenance templates from poorly referenced articles. The IP was blocked once, but has continued with dozens of such edits, each of which now require assessment to determine whether they're justified or just vandalism. Most appear to be the latter. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

reported at AIV here. Still needs to be cleaned up after Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through and rollback some of the incorrect removals, however, some seem just fine. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted what I can for now, but unfortunately, I'm out of time for tonight. I'd still suggest that each be checked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got everything that is current, but there are still some that might be left. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if there's any specific connection between the IP and the articles. Perhaps a long-term abuser with a particular interest in those articles? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The articles seem more random than anything. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just someone who clicked random article until finding tags that they would proceed to remove. I got most if it now, and it is hard to find anything else that I might have missed. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged for the attention. Though my IP has proved very transient, I've kept an eye on this, and appreciate the assistance. The 173 received a six month block. 2601:188:1:AEA0:F9F3:65F4:64EA:7EEC (talk) 21:22, 24 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.

Edit warring on AN3

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Would someone please hurry up and block this editor? [139] [140] [141] [142] Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Dennis Brown for edit warring on AN3. Edit warring on AN3 is probably the most ridiculous situation I've seen on Wikipedia. Thanks Dennis. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Insomnia to the rescue. I didn't look at the merits of the AN3 report and will leave to others, but yeah, edit warring to change the order of who reported who at AN3 is pretty weird. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's socking. There is a WP:CIR issue going on, I fear. Just adding the note to the record. If it keeps up, we might need a CU to look at a range block for a short while. Going back to sleep now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And here comes Want a Hertz Donut? (talk · contribs) Favonian (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Had to impose a short-term range block on 75.162.0.0/16. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 22 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 discussion above is closed. 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 unconstructive editing despite warnings (follow-up report)

The following discussion is closed. 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 their response to my earlier report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923#Persistent abuse of categorization by IP), OlEnglish suggested that we watch to see if 76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would improve their editing practices.

This IP has not only not heeded the messages from OlEnglish and myself, but has begun repeating edits that were previously reverted. Examples:

• Cutlass (re-added pirate category, after manual revert by me)
• Queen Anne pistol (re-added pirate category and non-bidirectional navbox, after revert by KgosarMyth)
• Walnut pie (re-added holiday category without source, after revert by me)

As I noted in my earlier report, I believe this is the same individual as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose similar edits were interpreted as vandalism and was given a short-term block at one point. The editing pattern also matches 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Either this individual has not read the warning on their talk pages or the edit summaries and is continuing to edit in what they believe to be good faith, or they have read them, but consider other editors to be wrong and will continue repeating their unconstructive edits ad infinitum. (It's also possible they're trolling, but I see no evidence to indicate this level of bad faith.) In any case, I believe a temporary block of at least one week will encourage them to engage in discussion and read the relevant guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. Open to review by other admins if anyone disagrees. -- œ^™ 01:06, 24 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 edits by User:165.225.32.70

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

---

Hello. User:165.225.32.70 has recently been engaged in a spat of POV-pushing at various articles related to medieval Bulgaria. This editor has been unresponsive when asked for sources or discussion at User talk:165.225.32.70, and has unilaterally and repeatedly reverted any edits to bring these articles in line with what the cited academic sources say, and with WP:COMMONNAME. I am therefore following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing to request an administrator’s aid. Example diffs: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], etc. Thank you, Vorziblix (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've given him the standard 3RR warning. If he persists, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, this still leaves the articles (Boris I of Bulgaria, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, and Zograf monastery) as they stand with the IP editor’s changes, which are inaccurate regarding the content of the actual cited sources (particularly John Fine’s The Early Medieval Balkans). I am reluctant to revert these myself, as I do not want to perpetuate an edit war. What are the appropriate steps to take to ensure that these articles reflect what the sources say without engaging in an edit war? —Vorziblix (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Further info at the talk page (section: Boris/Fine). The user continues to disrupt with edit warring, ignoring RS, and declining to discuss, despite warnings. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the further editwarring, I've blocked the IP address. Consider the following phrase:

Text, text, and more text<ref>Citation</ref>

The citation is a claim that the text ahead of it (here "Text, text, and more text") is derived from the cited source; if it's not derived from it, we have a hoax on our hands, and intentional hoaxes are vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 25 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.

Canvassing, BLP Revenge editing, and laughable accusations of sockpuppetry by WikiEditorial101

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

---

• 24 May User:Rjensen deletes content added by WikiEditorial101. [149] This is the only time any of their edits have ever overlapped. [150]
• Pretty much the first thing he does after having his edit reverted by Jensen is to tag Jensen's Wikipedia BLP for issues, and complain about how the whole thing is clearly being maintained by him and his friends.[151][152]
• He then canvasses 3 different people to the article, who he thinks will agree with him.[153][154][155]
• And also accuses me and User:Fyddlestix of being Jensen's socks.[156][157]

Can someone please do something about this? Brustopher (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just as a factual comment, RJensen has substantially edited their own biography, so while the motive behind tagging it may be up for review, it is a valid placement. That people edit warred to remove it deserves trouts all round however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• I would also point out that I would be innately suspicious of anyone who has spent time massaging the article to remove/downplay negative aspects of the subject. (Keep in mind at the moment the article still gives the impression cited to 2015 that RJensen still thinks No Irish is a myth despite a multitude of evidence.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reading the sources its not that he thinks they did not exist altogether, merely that they were very rare, so the statement added was indeed untrue. Also I've generally tend to take a conservative approach to BLPs and "massage" them regardless of subject. If we were to deduce my POV through that angle I'd be a radical Islamist, Islamophobe, Feminist, Misogynist, Racist, Murder, GMO scientist, anti-GMO advocate, creationist, Tory MP, Labour MP, Left wing student, right wing commentator (and probably some other things I've forgotten) apologist. Brustopher (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Academic biographies are one of my main interests on wikipedia, I edit them a lot. While Mr. Jensen probably shouldn't have edited his own bio (and I would advise him against doing so in the future), the article isn't that bad, and any abuse of COI editing appears to have been quite mild in this case. I suggest that the tag should stay until someone can do a thorough review of the article (I started on this last night but then ran out of time) and Mr. Jensen agrees to stop editing his own bio and make edit requests on talk instead (the usual COI procedure). The notability tag was silly from the start (he's obviously notable) and should be removed. The suggestion that I'm a sock or have a COI on the article is preposterous - I've never met Mr. Jensen and only know about him & his article through a BLPN posting. The user making such accusations should be given a stern warning. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• On one hand, Wikieditorial's actions were remarkably petty, but on the other, they were all valid actions. I'd say that WikiEditorial gets a warning, then Jensen's article get a good once-over and watched for a while.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry but I strongly disagree. The claim here is that WikiEditorial101 had a content dispute with Rjensen and then went and attacked the WP article about that editor. (yes I am using the word "attacked") and has since then has been making very personalized attacks on Rjensen and others (re the claims about socking). Rjensen has been editing their own article and this is not good is true; some of the content changes by Wikieditor are valid, yes. Rjensen has been editing since 2005 and does not seem to be aware as to how community consensus has moved on COI issues over the years - I will raise this with him on his talk page.

But in my view WikiEditorial101 is in violation of WP:BLPCOI here. He/she is carrying out a dispute with Rjensen that started elsewhere via the article about Rjensen. This can never happen in Wikipedia. So...

I propose a 24 hour block for WikiEditorial101 and I hope this gets done swiftly before these problems escalate further. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redact per below Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC))

After I posted that I went to Wikipeditorial's talk page and said that I think they violated BLPCOI and asked them to walk away from the article. They said they already had walked away, so a block seems unnecessary. They don't seem to understand the BLPCOI violation, but hopefully they won't stray into that again.

I also asked RJensen to step away from the article while this acute issue is getting worked out, and he agreed. I also offered to work through the longer term issues with him after this acute situation calms, and he agreed to that too. So I think this can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 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.

Sock account, creating contentious categories

The following discussion is closed. 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 Category:People who wrote their own Wikipedia entry and Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This experienced user created the account specifically to commit what they knew would be a contentious and controversial action specifically to avoid connection to their main account. This is clearly in contravention of WP:SOCK. Can someone please keep an eye on this and take any action they want. I'm inclined to block myself, but they're probably experienced enough to know how to try to Wikilawyer around it in someway. This account, however, does not appear to be up to any good. Comment? --Jayron32 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted three four times today already- who created the first one? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He did. His only action at this account has been to create the category, then assign it to a single BLP. --Jayron32 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have only recently begun working on Wikipedia so have no yet added other BLPs to the category, my apologies. I look forward to discussion on the category. --User:Guest11111

I think what's being considered problematic User:Guest11111 is that if, as you say, you are a new editor, creating arcane categories such as that is an odd thing to begin with. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, do you mean that this category has been created before? If so, please indicate where it has come under discussion. Thank you, User:Guest11111

here, Guest. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is from yesterday, when I created the category. This category is not arcane in any sense and fits all guidelines as far as I can tell. Please put forward an argument if you think otherwise; if not, please add to the category page. --User:Guest11111

Propose block of the category creator. (Leaving duration to be decided, probably depending on the socking Note: editor has come close to edit-warring over this. Suggest WP:NOTHERE applies.) But anyone who recreates the same item after it has been repteatedly deleted is clearly not listening to us. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the user that created this sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no sock. This is a perfectly legitimate category and I am shocked that a few users are so caught up in their edit attacks that they refuse to even acknowledge that fact, or at least disagree with it reasonably. I can't think of a more off-putting community I've joined in recent times. Anyone who disagrees with this category existing ought to go ahead and say why. I look forward to discussion. --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update: If no majority disagrees with this category existing here or on the help page here then I hope to see the category page return within a day or two.

Side note, Jayron32 and Bbb23 have deleted my addition to [158] but the page makes clear that this is a relevant phenomenon, and the category [159] should be referenced there as well, as I had it. Thanks to all --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I've blocked Guest11111 as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 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.

Is IMDB a reliable 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.

---

Dont know it if belongs here. Im don't want to get into an edit war with this IP editor on List of natural horror films. He's been adamant that IMDB is a reliable source. It is a user-generated film fan site. I had removed 10+ imdb sources and he just reverts me. Can someone look at it? Iridona (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I just responded to you on your talk page, but again from WP:USERGENERATED:

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites.

IMDB is not to be used as a reilable source. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

but doesn't the page need citations to prove that the movies are real and they feature those monsters? there are also many wikipedia pages that use imdb --24.184.132.160 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is the relevant link. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

24.184.132.160, all content on Wikipedia does indeed need a reliable source. The point here is that IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source. If other wikipedia pages are using imdb for their citations, they are doing so incorrectly. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, i understand --24.184.132.160 (talk) 21:03, 25 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-hopping edit warrior

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

---

• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:80E8:CD5E:2598:EAB9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2604:2000:F20E:2800:D9C5:2EB:D3A9:3B17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are the latest active IP's of an edit warrior who's active on Israel and Palestine related articles. Edits are stuff like switching mentions of Palestine with Israel, etc. User has a history of these kinds of edits on these articles, so it might be a good idea to semi-protect these articles as the user seems to hop between IP's. Eik Corell (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Which articles? There are hundreds (thousands?) of Israel and Palestine-related articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the contributions list of those two IP's, and of their earlier sock Anti-Śemites blown to smitherines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The articles edited by the IP's above seem to be their primary focus, though. There is another report here on this user, I'll look through the archives for it. Eik Corell (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Easier to place a /64 range block if this person is editing disruptively. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And that's just what I did. 2604:2000:F20E:2800::/64 blocked two weeks for disruption. If it is block evasion and he returns, I'd be willing to block as long as three months. Katie^talk 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I found the last AN/I report here. What a mess. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 24 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.

Dubious edits of Jürgen Klinsmann1990

Please see User talk:Jürgen Klinsmann1990. Relatively new user instead of addressing the warnings started revert wars. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• )))--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

In particular the user keeps restoring false references, which do not support the footnoted statements of the article. Some examples :

• Alexander Babakov: Babakov holds a PhD (1988) in Economics from Moscow State University.
• [160]

It appears the user does not understand how the references are supposed to work. Pleas someone talk to this guy. As I see, this user translates chunks of text from Russian wikipedia, which has a rather lax habit in terms of proper referencing. Someone has to explain to this user that English wikipedia has much stricter traditions about verifiability of information. Obviously he will not listen to me.- üser:Altenmann >t 04:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• And why did You decide that these sources are not worthy? You know Russian language? In my opinion, You are mistaken. Previously I had no such problems, I'm not the first day in Wikipedia.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • These sources are worthy but thy do not say what wikipedia article says. You had no problems because nobody looked in detail. My Russian no problem, but your reading comprehension and refusal to admit mistakes are problems. If nobody here gives a fuck about you behavior, I am abandoning the issue. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, all the rest of the idiots, of course.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

      I confirm that the above citation does not contain the statement it was inserted to reference.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just a thought... Seems like there might be a language barrier problem has someone tried to ping a user that knows Russian and English to maybe explain the issue? --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Please explain what is unclear to you. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• On an unrelated note, is the username Jürgen Klinsmann1990 compliant with WP:IMPERSONATE? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The user continues his disregard of our rules, as other notice as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dropping a ping @Ymblanter: who speaks Russian and English fluently. Ymblanter, perhaps you may be able to assist? Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I can talk to them, however it looks like they do speak English but are not interested to comply with our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I was wrong, they are using Google Translate for most of the text they add to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:165.225.32.70

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

---

Hello. User:165.225.32.70 has recently been engaged in a spat of POV-pushing at various articles related to medieval Bulgaria. This editor has been unresponsive when asked for sources or discussion at User talk:165.225.32.70, and has unilaterally and repeatedly reverted any edits to bring these articles in line with what the cited academic sources say, and with WP:COMMONNAME. I am therefore following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing to request an administrator’s aid. Example diffs: [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], etc. Thank you, Vorziblix (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've given him the standard 3RR warning. If he persists, WP:AN3 is thataway. Katie^talk 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. However, this still leaves the articles (Boris I of Bulgaria, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, and Zograf monastery) as they stand with the IP editor’s changes, which are inaccurate regarding the content of the actual cited sources (particularly John Fine’s The Early Medieval Balkans). I am reluctant to revert these myself, as I do not want to perpetuate an edit war. What are the appropriate steps to take to ensure that these articles reflect what the sources say without engaging in an edit war? —Vorziblix (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Further info at the talk page (section: Boris/Fine). The user continues to disrupt with edit warring, ignoring RS, and declining to discuss, despite warnings. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the further editwarring, I've blocked the IP address. Consider the following phrase:

Text, text, and more text<ref>Citation</ref>

The citation is a claim that the text ahead of it (here "Text, text, and more text") is derived from the cited source; if it's not derived from it, we have a hoax on our hands, and intentional hoaxes are vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 25 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.

Long term removal of maintenance templates

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

---

• 173.54.173.53 (talk · contribs)

Account appears to have a single m.o., the removal of maintenance templates from poorly referenced articles. The IP was blocked once, but has continued with dozens of such edits, each of which now require assessment to determine whether they're justified or just vandalism. Most appear to be the latter. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

reported at AIV here. Still needs to be cleaned up after Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through and rollback some of the incorrect removals, however, some seem just fine. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted what I can for now, but unfortunately, I'm out of time for tonight. I'd still suggest that each be checked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got everything that is current, but there are still some that might be left. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know if there's any specific connection between the IP and the articles. Perhaps a long-term abuser with a particular interest in those articles? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The articles seem more random than anything. I wouldn't be surprised if this was just someone who clicked random article until finding tags that they would proceed to remove. I got most if it now, and it is hard to find anything else that I might have missed. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged for the attention. Though my IP has proved very transient, I've kept an eye on this, and appreciate the assistance. The 173 received a six month block. 2601:188:1:AEA0:F9F3:65F4:64EA:7EEC (talk) 21:22, 24 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.

Edit warring on AN3

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Would someone please hurry up and block this editor? [167] [168] [169] [170] Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Dennis Brown for edit warring on AN3. Edit warring on AN3 is probably the most ridiculous situation I've seen on Wikipedia. Thanks Dennis. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Insomnia to the rescue. I didn't look at the merits of the AN3 report and will leave to others, but yeah, edit warring to change the order of who reported who at AN3 is pretty weird. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And now he's socking. There is a WP:CIR issue going on, I fear. Just adding the note to the record. If it keeps up, we might need a CU to look at a range block for a short while. Going back to sleep now.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And here comes Want a Hertz Donut? (talk · contribs) Favonian (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Had to impose a short-term range block on 75.162.0.0/16. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

More IP socking

This same user is blatantly obviously socking out of the rangeblock at 174.23.111.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). SPI investigation looking like it's being mired by wikirules. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 16:29, 23 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 another

Newname0002 (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk · contribs) blocked Newname0002 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts) Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Could Newname0004 (talk · contribs) be another? Just a headsup. Perhaps some of the articles they are hitting could be semi-protected for a few days? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 21:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Newname0005 (talk · contribs)? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a slew of additional socks that Favonian keeps whacking. Kudos, bro. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Danke! Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:04, 24 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 to remove two admins from 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.

---

Please consider: first, context: My recent block for “canvassing” does not appear to be in accordance with the blocking policy page. Please see my TALK page for the block notice and my unblock requests for explanation and context, if you're interested in looking into this (I'm not going to repeat it all here to keep this of a reasonable length)..

The policy page suggests A. I should have been warned/educated instead of immediately blocked for this. B. block should not be punitive C. there was no ongoing, disruptive behavior (this was a single good-faith mistake in past that was not ongoing) D. Blocks should be no longer than needed. E. at least two of the admins involved have a history with me that began many months ago when I was brand new to editing..

Regarding Coffee: please see my bottom TALK thread “Block Duration”...Coffee's behavior there seemed quite threatening and bullying to me (ie if you don't shut up I'm going to ban you forever!)Coffee also continuously misrepresented my statements in that thread and above (just below my final unblock request).

Regarding Laser Brain: this person also had a conflict with me months back when I first started editing..they have been following me since, it seems...and have continuously inserted themselves onto my talk page in quite negative ways. Laser Brain actually denied my previous unblock requests twice in a row, which is against policy according to the page..In fact, these two individuals are the people who instated 3 of my 4 blocks if you look at the log. And Laser Brain has denied 3 out of my last 4 unblock requests, which is against policy.

All things considered, is it possible to have these two admins not deal with me in the future and have that be enforced? That is, have them move on to other matters and have other admins in the admins universe deal with me if needed in the future? I feel I am being bullied away from editing Wikipedia by them...(I expect them to be along to state how horrible I am but please note my history which displays the hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions I've made all across Wikipedia). Thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You might want to duck the WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. You were told not just by these admins but MANY other editors that your edits were disruptive, and your canvassing was also disruptive. Your block log, especially recently, seems to back this up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid future problems.68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet attracting current ones, it appears. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking administrator comment - I think it's best if I just let this IP's editing history speak for itself. (I'll note again that my 72 hour block was extremely lenient for their 4th block in a two month time span.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note: as I referenced above 3 of my 4 blocks were instated by these two admins...and laser brain has single handedly denied 3/4 of my last unblock requests, which is against policy...so this person citing that I've been blocked 4 times needs to be carefully considered in context..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The easiest recipe: do not edit disruptively, do not make personal attacks, do not engage into canvassing, then you will not be blocked for the fifth time, and you will not have to file an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Well, in context, after reviewing your edits and the blocks that resulted... the blocks are good. Had I seen that pattern of behavior, despite warnings and previous blocks, I would have blocked as well. Further, I probably would have blocked for a lot longer than 3 days. The fact that the same admin performed more than one of those blocks shows not that they were gunning for you or whatever, but that they continued to monitor the situation after the first block. They know the facts - so I trust their analysis, especially since it matches my own. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

that block only required a warning and a link to "canvassing" page...the justification for blocking me was that I'd been blocked in the past (by them!)..this is disruptive to Wikipedia as I could no longer participate in things I'd helped to initiate for the benefit of the encyclopedia...I'd like them to step aside from me to avoid future problems that interfere with the encyclopedia..and have others deal with me in the future..even you..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that you've posted this on one of the most heavily watched noticeboard for administrators, I think the odds that other admins will monitor your conduct are pretty good. And I'll watchlist your talk page and the AFD as well. But I'm not going to tell these two admins to lay off - the blocks were justified and within policy. I will say that a really easy way to not get blocked for canvassing is to not canvass. We announce AFDs at the AFD log, on the article itself, and now at ANI. Anyone who is active and interested is now aware of the AFD. So there's no further need to notify anyone directly. So don't. Easy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

right, the canvassing only required a notice and link to canvassing page..which is why the block is concerning, considering the justification was previous blocks--all largely made by the same people...and Laser Brain's repetitive denial of unblock requests is against policy and especially concerning considering our history..I'd like these two to step aside, either voluntarily or at the request of other admins...other admins are perfectly capable of dealing with me in the future...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not likely, given the circumstances. They acted appropriately - the fact that they could have taken other steps does not mean that the steps they did take are inappropriate. But on the upside, if they do violate policy there'll be a bunch of admins to catch them at it. So that's a thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I will also add your talk page and the AfD to my watchlist to help alleviate your concerns. I don't see any incorrect actions by the admins already involved, but if you would like fresh eyes you have them. HighInBC 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. part of my concern is that I'm no one else is overseeing all of this..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

People are watching, they have been all along. HighInBC 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

well, I'd like them to step in if something odd seems to be going on..see my most recent response to Ultraexactzz above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFD has been on my watchlist since I created it for you. I added your talk page to my watchlist today after I saw a note on the AFD about your block. There are enough people watching that anything will be caught. -- GB fan 15:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied and appreciate that other admins have stated their willingness to keep an eye on things. I suppose nothing more is needed for now. Thank you very much for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:22, 26 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.

Sock account, creating contentious categories

The following discussion is closed. 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 Category:People who wrote their own Wikipedia entry and Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This experienced user created the account specifically to commit what they knew would be a contentious and controversial action specifically to avoid connection to their main account. This is clearly in contravention of WP:SOCK. Can someone please keep an eye on this and take any action they want. I'm inclined to block myself, but they're probably experienced enough to know how to try to Wikilawyer around it in someway. This account, however, does not appear to be up to any good. Comment? --Jayron32 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I see it's been deleted three four times today already- who created the first one? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He did. His only action at this account has been to create the category, then assign it to a single BLP. --Jayron32 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have only recently begun working on Wikipedia so have no yet added other BLPs to the category, my apologies. I look forward to discussion on the category. --User:Guest11111

I think what's being considered problematic User:Guest11111 is that if, as you say, you are a new editor, creating arcane categories such as that is an odd thing to begin with. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, do you mean that this category has been created before? If so, please indicate where it has come under discussion. Thank you, User:Guest11111

here, Guest. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is from yesterday, when I created the category. This category is not arcane in any sense and fits all guidelines as far as I can tell. Please put forward an argument if you think otherwise; if not, please add to the category page. --User:Guest11111

Propose block of the category creator. (Leaving duration to be decided, probably depending on the socking Note: editor has come close to edit-warring over this. Suggest WP:NOTHERE applies.) But anyone who recreates the same item after it has been repteatedly deleted is clearly not listening to us. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the user that created this sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no sock. This is a perfectly legitimate category and I am shocked that a few users are so caught up in their edit attacks that they refuse to even acknowledge that fact, or at least disagree with it reasonably. I can't think of a more off-putting community I've joined in recent times. Anyone who disagrees with this category existing ought to go ahead and say why. I look forward to discussion. --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update: If no majority disagrees with this category existing here or on the help page here then I hope to see the category page return within a day or two.

Side note, Jayron32 and Bbb23 have deleted my addition to [171] but the page makes clear that this is a relevant phenomenon, and the category [172] should be referenced there as well, as I had it. Thanks to all --Guest11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I've blocked Guest11111 as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 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.

Template edit needed post TfD closure

The following discussion is closed. 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 locked {{missing information}} needs the {{tfd}} removing from it now that the discussion has been closed - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 20. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Katie^talk 14:25, 25 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.

Promotion/Vandalism only account User:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय

The following discussion is closed. 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:प्रशान्त पाण्डेय is spamming Wikipedia with misleading data and sometimes replacing www.barb.co.uk with with www.barc.co.in, an Indian company website with a edit summary Fixed grammar such as [173], [174], [175], [176], [177] and many many more!--Aisonajulk ^chat 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor of this discussion. I've done that for you. Katie^talk 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them for 72h for vandalism. This is not vandalism-only account, they also seem to have good edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 25 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.

Canvassing, BLP Revenge editing, and laughable accusations of sockpuppetry by WikiEditorial101

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

---

• 24 May User:Rjensen deletes content added by WikiEditorial101. [178] This is the only time any of their edits have ever overlapped. [179]
• Pretty much the first thing he does after having his edit reverted by Jensen is to tag Jensen's Wikipedia BLP for issues, and complain about how the whole thing is clearly being maintained by him and his friends.[180][181]
• He then canvasses 3 different people to the article, who he thinks will agree with him.[182][183][184]
• And also accuses me and User:Fyddlestix of being Jensen's socks.[185][186]

Can someone please do something about this? Brustopher (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just as a factual comment, RJensen has substantially edited their own biography, so while the motive behind tagging it may be up for review, it is a valid placement. That people edit warred to remove it deserves trouts all round however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• I would also point out that I would be innately suspicious of anyone who has spent time massaging the article to remove/downplay negative aspects of the subject. (Keep in mind at the moment the article still gives the impression cited to 2015 that RJensen still thinks No Irish is a myth despite a multitude of evidence.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reading the sources its not that he thinks they did not exist altogether, merely that they were very rare, so the statement added was indeed untrue. Also I've generally tend to take a conservative approach to BLPs and "massage" them regardless of subject. If we were to deduce my POV through that angle I'd be a radical Islamist, Islamophobe, Feminist, Misogynist, Racist, Murder, GMO scientist, anti-GMO advocate, creationist, Tory MP, Labour MP, Left wing student, right wing commentator (and probably some other things I've forgotten) apologist. Brustopher (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Academic biographies are one of my main interests on wikipedia, I edit them a lot. While Mr. Jensen probably shouldn't have edited his own bio (and I would advise him against doing so in the future), the article isn't that bad, and any abuse of COI editing appears to have been quite mild in this case. I suggest that the tag should stay until someone can do a thorough review of the article (I started on this last night but then ran out of time) and Mr. Jensen agrees to stop editing his own bio and make edit requests on talk instead (the usual COI procedure). The notability tag was silly from the start (he's obviously notable) and should be removed. The suggestion that I'm a sock or have a COI on the article is preposterous - I've never met Mr. Jensen and only know about him & his article through a BLPN posting. The user making such accusations should be given a stern warning. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• On one hand, Wikieditorial's actions were remarkably petty, but on the other, they were all valid actions. I'd say that WikiEditorial gets a warning, then Jensen's article get a good once-over and watched for a while.142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry but I strongly disagree. The claim here is that WikiEditorial101 had a content dispute with Rjensen and then went and attacked the WP article about that editor. (yes I am using the word "attacked") and has since then has been making very personalized attacks on Rjensen and others (re the claims about socking). Rjensen has been editing their own article and this is not good is true; some of the content changes by Wikieditor are valid, yes. Rjensen has been editing since 2005 and does not seem to be aware as to how community consensus has moved on COI issues over the years - I will raise this with him on his talk page.

But in my view WikiEditorial101 is in violation of WP:BLPCOI here. He/she is carrying out a dispute with Rjensen that started elsewhere via the article about Rjensen. This can never happen in Wikipedia. So...

I propose a 24 hour block for WikiEditorial101 and I hope this gets done swiftly before these problems escalate further. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redact per below Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC))

After I posted that I went to Wikipeditorial's talk page and said that I think they violated BLPCOI and asked them to walk away from the article. They said they already had walked away, so a block seems unnecessary. They don't seem to understand the BLPCOI violation, but hopefully they won't stray into that again.

I also asked RJensen to step away from the article while this acute issue is getting worked out, and he agreed. I also offered to work through the longer term issues with him after this acute situation calms, and he agreed to that too. So I think this can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 25 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 on 3RR noticeboard?

The following discussion is closed. 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: [187] Mike1901 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Definite legal threat. And libellous as well. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I've blocked indef (simply because I wasn't sure what duration would be appropriate), and will amend the duration as needed. I haven't looked at the underlying issue, though it seems that the IP has some pretty strong feelings on the matter. The IP also appears to be edit warring at University of Buckingham. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The block is correct. We block indefinitely until they retract their threats and are satisfied that it won't continue. It is really the only duration for these cases. Some effort should be taken to consider the validity of their concerns. HighInBC 14:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't indefintely block IPs. The duration should be reduced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are of course correct, I was thinking it was a user at the time. I stand corrected. HighInBC 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection, as soon as someone tells me what to reduce it to. This isn't a drive by, I can adjust it as necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The precise duration is discretionary. If it were my block, I would reduce it to one month, which is approximately the amount of time this person has been using the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I just tweaked it to 1 year: Long enough to eliminate the problem, but not so long as to catch an innocent when the IP inevitably gets reset. --Jayron32 15:55, 25 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 editor on Eric Fanning

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

---

An IP editor, apparently the same person working from 128.103.150.72 and 65.112.10.181 and 70.192.0.242, has several times named Fanning's domestic partner, though we have no citation for more than a boyfriend. Diffs here and here and here. There has been discussion on the Talk page and appropriate info has been added to the body of Fanning's WP entry as you can see in this diff. The entry is BLP. The editor's comments suggest that further discussion is fruitless, notably "Google it. I'll edit this each time you take it down. I am inclined to cite "I don't give a fuck"." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:40, 25 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:Caucasianium

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

---

Account which avoids discussion, violates WP:NPA instead, continues edit-warring and is possibly a sock puppet of User:SmartXT. I don't know where to report this best. Also the article Criminal case Lisa F. should be blocked for new/IP users. I wrote on his talk page, wanted to discuss with him, but was insulted only.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know whether they are a sock or not (likely they are), but they are clearly WP:NOTTHERE, therefore blocked for an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick reaction.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:36, 25 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:Optakeover

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

---

Supposedly this is unconstructive: [188]. They added this harassing message: [189]. They edit so fast that it is obvious that they use a robot. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Swoosh smack. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: Yes, he uses HAL 9000 nowadays I believe. What are you doing, Captain? We ask all the time, but, meh, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that the discussion was reopened (for now), I just wanted to say that I would like to think I work like HAL 9000 :P Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If what I did was unconstructive, please move Shotgun surgery to Shotgun Surgery. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit introduced a typo and looked to an outsider like a test edit. You were left a very polite message. You are not being harassed. I am closing this now as it is the best thing for you. HighInBC 14:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unclosed this as the primary reason for the close was to avoid a boomerang. This is now moot. Unclosing to discuss unfolding events. HighInBC 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a typo. I read the message as "replacing superfluous uppercase by lowercase is unconstructive". This is not polite. Saying "you inserted a Greek letter" would have been polite. Also the Swoosh smack is unpolite.

Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. It is not an open proxy. HaŋaRoa (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The block was by Widr[190] and seems to be based on the IP being reported as an open proxy. Perhaps you can talk to User:Widr if you have concerns about this block. HighInBC 15:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The discussion has resumed at User talk:Floquenbeam#Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets get this straight:

1. IP makes a (constructive) change to the capitalisation in the header and inadvertantly introduces a character that stops the heading.

2. Optakeover then templates the IP stating they have been reverted as their edit was not constructive - rather than just removing the extra character.

3. IP leaves a snarky and not particularly civil message on Optakeover's talkpage incorrectly capitalised pointing out why their template was unwelcome.

4. Optakeover reverts on their talkpage and templates IP *again* with an entirely incorrect 'vandalism' warning. Hint: Uncivil but direct posts on your talkpage attempting to address the template you left them are not 'vandalism'.

5. IP understandably miffed at this point replies again attempts to explain.

So far I would suspect any editer reverting like that and leaving automated templates that are incorrect is operating a bot or other automated program without due care and attention. Given that Optakeover is using both twinkle and huggle, accusing them of being a robot is not actually that much a reach.

6. IP has now been blocked as an open proxy despite editing from a static corporate IP assigned to Experian - a large UK credit checking company (I dont know its US presence) so its just editing from a corporate network. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It even says on the top of the page that the IP belongs to Experian and can be shared by many users on the enterprise domain. There is certainly no need to block since it's not an open proxy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked as per discussion on Floquenbeam's talk page: User talk:Floquenbeam#Please unblock User talk:167.107.191.217. Mike1901 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: The problem with my second warning is that I pressed Q. I should have selected a more appropriate warning but since the first warning was appropriate, and I assumed that the second edit was in bad faith as it was a repeat of the first, I didn't think I really needed to do otherwise. Lesson learnt is I should select the appropriate notice and to check the edit properly. However I believe that what really made the IP angry was that he messaged me on my talk page first, but I failed to reply him (owing to busyness). Therefore I guess he decided to seek recourse here. I guess I will apologise again that my response to his post could have been nicer, but the point still stands that the IP should have checked that his report was actually truly the case. Anyway, we have killed the horse too much already.. I have made my apologies and clarifications to all the involved parties. Out, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You bringing this here is inappropriate, as Optakeover merely saw that you had added a typo and subsequently reverted it. There's just as much cause to revert your edit as there is to simply remove the typo, so I'm not going to hold either side at fault on that matter. However, yes, please don't bring this to AN/I for such a small event- I'm honestly surprised there has been this much discussion thus far. I think everything that needs to be said and done has been said and done, so let's close this discussion and walk away. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:25, 26 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.

Is IMDB a reliable 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.

---

Dont know it if belongs here. Im don't want to get into an edit war with this IP editor on List of natural horror films. He's been adamant that IMDB is a reliable source. It is a user-generated film fan site. I had removed 10+ imdb sources and he just reverts me. Can someone look at it? Iridona (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I just responded to you on your talk page, but again from WP:USERGENERATED:

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites.

IMDB is not to be used as a reilable source. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

but doesn't the page need citations to prove that the movies are real and they feature those monsters? there are also many wikipedia pages that use imdb --24.184.132.160 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is the relevant link. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

24.184.132.160, all content on Wikipedia does indeed need a reliable source. The point here is that IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source. If other wikipedia pages are using imdb for their citations, they are doing so incorrectly. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, i understand --24.184.132.160 (talk) 21:03, 25 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.

Another 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.

---

Here: [191] (seem to be attracting them today for some reason....) Mike1901 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. I will message the blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 25 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.

Sockpuppet of Alec Smithson

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

---

Alec Smithson is a long-term disruptive editor indeffed here and, since 23 January 2016, globally locked on Meta. There's now a blatant sockpuppet, Prof.John Fox, active on several wiki projects, already blocked for that reason on fr.wp and pt.wp. I've asked the Meta steward who blocked Smithson, M7, to take action. Meanwhile, can the sock be indeffed here and his few edits nuked? In case anyone needs evidence, the overlap with the master is patently obvious in global edits: House of Natoli, Salvatore Garau, Carlo Bazzi, Fernando Carcupino, Francesco Filippini – all Smithson specials. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked a local CheckUser to look at the account? They'd probably be equipped to see if this is another sock. You could always open an WP:SPI --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The account is technically  Likely to Music10-user. I've blocked the account. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:21, 26 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.

Best course of action...

The following discussion is closed. 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 group of editors would like to add various accusations and disparagements to the Katie Couric BLP for a documentary film with which she was involved. It's a recent news story just a few hours old, and news sources say the outrage at Couric, a popular whipping-post for conservatives, is misdirected. What I thought was a bunch of editors now appears to be all the same person based on previous article edits in common: Mike2A-MD (talk · contribs) → Jbusch8899 (talk · contribs) → 70.161.253.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) → 70.106.236.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)...

Should I file a 3RR report (combined, they have already exceeded 3 reverts). Should I file an SPI report (they already fail the 'Duck Test' miserably)? Should I ask to have the page protected? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that this matter be put on hold temporarily, as the article has been protected for the short-term. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 26 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:Potguru

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

---

We seem to have a bit of a problem with an editor that seems to not be here. The editor in question User:Potguru has been making controversial edits and moves. The editor has been asked a few times to slow down and to see what other think about the edits and moves but to no avail. Potguru has a very strict POV on the meaning of the word "Marijuana" and has been changing the word Cannabis to "marijuana" all over despite concerns raised. They have also moved articles with titles containing Cannabis to marijuana again despite concerns raised by many. They have also proposed invalid mergers and draft proposal for the purpose of content forking all based on one POV. Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. I have discovered a number of articles that were incorrectly titled based in some cases on incorrect text and in other cases I cannot determine the reason but in every single edit I was careful to represent the cited reference which, in all cases where I made these edits, read "marijuana" instead of "cannabis". I have not made any war edits and in any case where there was some concern with my edit I made my case on the talk page and walked away while we await concensus on the matter. I also object to being thrown into this page without the OP following hte clear directions above which clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Your comments were not on my talk page, but somewhere I could never find them [here] instead. If you have a grievance with me, please follow the prescription on this page and discuss it with me directly. You left my talk page with many unanswered questions. --Potguru (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So let me give some examples of this behavior....

• Moves despite concerns raised on talk page.

On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed merger because they think Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) should be the articles title.

No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misleading edit summaries despite no discussion actually talking place...just a notice of intent.

You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editing an article to one POV despite the talk they were involved in about just this fact Talk:Marijuana (word)#Continuing conversation.

My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edits of this nature shows a clear preferences for a term despite being told otherwise User talk:Potguru#The official name on Wikipedia is Cannabis

Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on wikipedia is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this lead me to believe they are not actually reading up on the topic....as the term is Cannabis is clearly used as seen here and in the ACT.

As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Wikipedia is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here....looking for input. -- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh vey, pot guru for sure. Suggest final warning for the editor to stop the nonsense or else a topic ban from all naming suggestions. That's been really nice and assuming there's a sensible person behind the ego there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest topic ban now, enough with the warnings (which are being ignored anyway). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect wikipedia policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban as-well ....I see no end to this other wise ....no inclination at all they will change the behavior. -- Moxy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of wikipedia before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about [marijuana] from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely [edit]. --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Article_titles policy? You just moved [| this page] from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your [hasty moves]. --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a topic ban for Potguru, it is not cool to disallow a Wikipedia editor to edit certain articles. Please be impartial and look through his edits and his rationale before you decide to jump on the bandwagon of whoever complains first. HempFan (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Wikipedia, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note There is a significant editing interaction overlap between Potguru and HempFan. Making no judgment on that overlap. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given their names, I wouldn't read too much into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Pin _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Wikipedia project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Wikipedia seriously and do their best to keep other Wikipedia editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Wikipedia's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Wait a sec. Why are the articles about Marijuana use/ laws in XYZ State being titled, incorrectly, as Cannabis use in XYZ state? This make no sense! If the sources say "marijuana" then so should article title. Readers are looking for the commonly used terminology, and this odd "cannabis" article title looks like some sort of censorship imposed by WP. Look at Cannabis policy of Colorado- marijuana is used throughout the article, and marijuana is used in the sources. Same with Maine State and Kansas Sate. "Cannabis in Maine State" sounds like it is referring a flora growing season, or some such. Is consensus required in order to reflect the sources and thus make articles accessible to the public?? Cannabis is the genus name of a plant, certain species of which are used to make drugs, (i.e. marijuana). Other species produce "hemp", the seeds of which I can purchase at Costco and natural food stores, here in the USA. The article titles should reflect the sources, please! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) ( my mistake, see note below)Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments 1) As far as I could find yesterday, all legal contexts in UK and Europe refer to 'cannabis' in its various forms, resin, herbal (ie 'grass') etc. I presume they do so as 'marijuana' is a less defined term (often used here to refer to the resin only, and more of a 'street term'). So there are consistency arguments for the more formal term, plus cannabis is the main term I believe used in medical contexts. 2) A lot of argument is going on about the definition used by 1 US state, that definition exists for the purposes of that specific legislation only. So long as the article is clear that this is the term used in the legislation, and how defined by them, it doesn't have that much bearing on how WE use either. 3) This ANI is about behaviour not when/how to use either word. There are mechanisms for resolving such matters, where ALL arguments can be put, and 'I/he is right', isn't a very convincing argument. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - For the editing habits of this user, be them right or wrong, continued disruptive editing and WP:OWN are the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or Final warning. Comments here and elsewhere strongly suggest this editor is more interested in pushing an agenda than working collaboratively. Some of his science seems muddled, but that is hardly the point. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban too passionate an advocate to work collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User has been advocating this change since their start here. That in itself isn't a problem, but once you stop being collaborative then it's time for a ban till you can demonstrate that you will start listening to other's opinions. Valeince (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jytdog. BMK (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban For all the reasons stated above. Editor persistently creates confusion by POV's rather than contributing anything worth while to these articles.--Aspro (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This has gone on far too long --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• After some reading, also Support topic ban Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This is waaaay out of hand, just a temporary topic ban while the editor gets some time to think things over should do them well Anipad68 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Pincrete and Jytdog with whom I concur. Keri (talk) 11:57, 27 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.

Talk:Electronic harassment

Very aggressive 87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs), WP:CIVIL/ WP:3RR; basically WP:NOTHERE. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is a rotating IP, aggressively trolling, asking to be blocked. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Staszek Lem - When you report a user here, you should notify them. I agree that the "discussion" is out of control. An effort was made to discuss at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but it failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP rotates, so Talk page messages have no effect. Diff of their latest: Undid revision 721756007 by MjolnirPants (talk) - me neither you fucking scumbag... I'm waiting for the IP block I've been threatened with - you'll see it will come soon). - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I was the moderator at DRN. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

He really is repeating the same flimsy, WP:FRINGE argument. WP:THETRUTH applies here. If he actually was reasonable to logically debate, and admit consensus is against him, we could help the article. But that's not happening. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not just a fringe argument. It is a self-defeating argument. If everything that he says is true, then he has no reason to try to say it here, because he says that Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy. He is therefore wasting pixels. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: 87.3.91.177 (talk · contribs) Was blocked by @Orangemike: for 1 week for Disruptive Editing (account creation blocked) --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words if he is still editing under another IP its WP:Block Evasion --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 00:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I also suggest someone checkuser this guy against Jed? Might as well kill two birds with one stone if possible.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time we've had problems at this article, although my memory is failing me as to the details of the previous problems. I won't yet, but if needed, we might have to semiprotect the article AND talk page. I know this cuts out legitimate IPs, but a day or two may be needed on the talk page if he keeps coming back. The admin tools are rather limited. and that one IP is 87.0.0.0 - 87.15.255.255, which is a huge range, way beyond blocking. I didn't check the other IPs and their ranges, but the point being that a range block isn't going to work here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

previous problems: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Beautifulpeoplelikeyou Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart says that he is in Australia. The IPs are in Italy. The good-faith assumption is that Jed really is in Australia, and that the IP is someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart? Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jed Stuart has been involved in the discussion as well as the IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just semi-protect the page, it will get rid of the IP's. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semiprotected both the article and talk page, after a complaint at WP:AN3. The IPs listed above don't appear to be the same person as User:Jed Stuart. As noted, trying to stop the inappropriate talk page edits with a range block would not be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is accusing me of being a harasser

So yesterday, with the announcement of the recent resignation of an Arbitrator, I noticed in the comments section that @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: was talking about GamerGate in the section, calling them "freaktards". I commented that calling them freaktards "doesn't exactly give you the high ground in any way." Eventually two other comments were made and then Guerillero hatted the section which is fine. The hatted section was eventually removed by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and they then commented on Guerillero's talk page, accusing me and the other two of being gamergaters and accusing me of harassing people. Now, I don't know about the other two users and I don't care but being called names and calling me a harasser is uncalled for, imo. Originally I commented on Guerillero's page in that section but I eventually went on their talk page and wrote this. Fourteen minutes later my comment gets reverted, and he calls me a Sea Lion.

I hate that this just happened to me and I cannot stand that being called a harasser by someone who is themselves is assuming WP:BADFAITH on this site. I've been on here for nearly eight years and have never been falsely accused of something like I have just now. GamerPro64 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh good heavens. Please just leave me alone. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Have you read WP:Harass, this doesn't even come close to qualifying. And he never even once mentioned you in the posts until you went to his talk page. I think you are seeing things that aren't there. See WP:HA#NOT which states " genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings. Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations" the key word there being repeated. Also see WP:AOHA. His original comments didn't appear to be aimed at any one person in particular. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He didn't mention me but he grouped me with the other two people and called the grouping "gamergaters". He follows that up by saying "their goal is to harass people wherever they can." By grouping me and calling me a gamergater he accused me of harassment. GamerPro64 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Move to have this idiocy factionalism closed before it turns into another pointless screaming match.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Some sort of warning/advice/something needs to be given at the least to Jeltz. It's becoming all too common for this kind of smearing to occur. Arkon (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tag him with a {{uw-civil}} and be done with it then. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I find the comments cited above inappropriate. I've left a note about it. Civility templates are not really the ideal way of resolving this, I think. GAB^gab 16:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

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

---

Can any administrators take some action on this user. This user is known for his habit who like to put nonsense criticism section on every articles he interested. For example like (which have been reverted) this on Kuala Lumpur, this on Samutprakarn Crocodile Farm, this on Malaysian ringgit, Claude Shannon and this on Lawal Kaita articles. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose boomerang on the OP at the Kuala Lumpur article: for making offensive edit-summaries, not assuming good faith, lack of civility, etc; but mainly for his tendentious editing, effectively vandalising the article by removing sourced material (on grounds of WP:DONTLIKEIT), then making tiny edits to prevent rollback, and finally for then bringing this spurious report. Those other refs might need a touch of copy-editing, but again, they are all sourced, and in any case constitute a content dispute which is not the purpose of AN/I. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} and 142.105.159.60 for your boomerang comments against User:Herman Jaka. As _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} had graciously suggested, I had made some copy-editing to the paragraphs. Thanks again and cheers, Escravoes (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Rebuttals against Herman Jaka by User:Escravoes - Don't Call The Kettle Black!

User: Herman Jaka, which part of the content that I posted are, in your personal point of view, controversial or (vandalism as you had threatened me here in your "final warning", especially regarding Kuala Lumpur? Note that the points that I did posted were sourced from major websites; CNN, Huffington Post (Canada) and from several Malaysian newspapers, all of which are cited online and provided as inline references. Your accusations are not only baseless, but they are unfounded and reflected POV color on your part, and there were no intent of vandalisms on my part. Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the content added by you has no relevance at all as an enyclopedic content. Most of your criticism addition have been reverted not just by me but other users too who see your addition as not neutral at all. I have given example of some your edits that was reverted for the same reason above. You can ask @Chipmunkdavis: on why your content was removed. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I asked, (as I did with @Chipmunkdavis:) - which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial or vandalism, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur? Your accusation of vandalism are unfounded and baseless and reflected your biased POV-pushing. The ranking of the city are well-documented and sourced from CNN, Reuters, Financial Times London, several major national newspapers and is directly relevant to the encylopedic content of the article, which itself listed several similar rankings prior to my edits!Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are really so obsessed to insert this kind of spammy city rankings [192]. Why don't you give a try to add those too in popular cities articles such as Portland, London, Jakarta, Manila and see whether you get reverted for the same reason or not. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User: Herman Jaka, it is not that I am "so obsessed to insert this kind of spammy city rankings" , but rather your biased point of views. If time permits, I (and many Wikipedians) would be happy to provide similar highly credible and verifiable rankings in popular cities articles such as Portland, London, Jakarta, Manila, with no fear of being reverted by those with balanced and neutral point of views. Escravoes (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(non user comment) What? Is that you called WP:NPOV by removing a large chunk of history content and replacing it with rankings? Your contribution are clearly disruptive and you could be blocked for that. 128.90.59.154 (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The violation of NPOV of those section headings in the articles is astounding. The material could be discussed and rewritten but I have no idea what you were thinking when you came up with those headings. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 25 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 unconstructive editing despite warnings (follow-up report)

The following discussion is closed. 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 their response to my earlier report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923#Persistent abuse of categorization by IP), OlEnglish suggested that we watch to see if 76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would improve their editing practices.

This IP has not only not heeded the messages from OlEnglish and myself, but has begun repeating edits that were previously reverted. Examples:

• Cutlass (re-added pirate category, after manual revert by me)
• Queen Anne pistol (re-added pirate category and non-bidirectional navbox, after revert by KgosarMyth)
• Walnut pie (re-added holiday category without source, after revert by me)

As I noted in my earlier report, I believe this is the same individual as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose similar edits were interpreted as vandalism and was given a short-term block at one point. The editing pattern also matches 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Either this individual has not read the warning on their talk pages or the edit summaries and is continuing to edit in what they believe to be good faith, or they have read them, but consider other editors to be wrong and will continue repeating their unconstructive edits ad infinitum. (It's also possible they're trolling, but I see no evidence to indicate this level of bad faith.) In any case, I believe a temporary block of at least one week will encourage them to engage in discussion and read the relevant guidelines. Ibadibam (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. Open to review by other admins if anyone disagrees. -- œ^™ 01:06, 24 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.

Edit warring and uncited speculation 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.

---

Today, User:66.185.43.66 added material to Railway engines (Thomas & Friends) indicating a character "may" be returning [193]. I reverted the addition as uncited speculation [194]. I was reverted by the IP [195]. I then placed a {{uw-unsourced2}} warning on the IP's talk page [196], and reverted the re-addition of the uncited content [197]. The IP ignored the warning, and restored the uncited content again [198] using an insulting edit summary. I've placed edit warring notices and a {{uw-npa3}} warning on the IP's talk page. Other eyes, please. IP has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The user will probably soon be blocked for harassment, as seen in his edit summaries. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: 66.185.43.66 (talk · contribs) was blocked by @KrakatoaKatie: for 31 hours for Vandalism --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 01:52, 26 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.

Emperorofthedaleks and Steve Boone editor - surname 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 have concerns about edits by Emperorofthedaleks (talk · contribs) to surname articles. This came to my attention from his repeated inclusion of Scorsese (surname) in a category of Cornish surnames which I have on my watchlist, and his repeated insertion of uncited claims about "Scorsese" being a surname of English origin. On his talk page he has claimed houseofnames.com as a source, but I rather think this is not reliable. I am also rather put out by his repeatedly linking to my userpage through piped links, as can be seen on his user talkpage. I've had a quick look at some of his other edits to surname pages, and it seems like there is a pattern of uncited nonsense being added by him. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Confirmation that he received notification of this thread is in this diff where he blanks the conversation from his talkpage. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

See also Steve Boone editor (talk · contribs) who seems to be making related edits. Tag team? Socks? DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana seems to be a particular playground of theirs. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

May well be socks - SPI is an option. GAB^gab 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emperorofthedaleks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted Steve Boone editor's edits on Faiers (due to its use of the same source of dubious reliability) and have temporarily protected Maiorana. The SPI filed above is indeed reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a long time since I filed an SPI! DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocking done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:45, 26 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.

Range block requested for LTA vandal

The following discussion is closed. 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 previously requested a range block on this vandal earlier this month. After a period of inactivity, the vandal has resumed activity on a new range, 107.77.196.0/24. It's fairly easy to recognize this vandal: on animated films, the composer is usually changed to James Horner and one of these actors is added to the cast list. These are obviously hoax credits.

Here are a few disruptive IP editors I've found on this range who fit the LTA profile:

• 107.77.196.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)
• 107.77.196.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (example)

Existing range blocks are listed here, along with some more info. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've anon blocked 107.77.196.0/24 for a month. Mike V • Talk 17:09, 26 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.

GentleCollapse16

This user has been ornery in the past to me, but in response to my recent addition to the article Maxinquaye, he posted comments at the article's talk page, in the section of an archived RfC, deriding my contributions and attacking me ([199], [200], [201]). The RfC that was meant to address a past complaint of his has expired and been considered "obsolete" in its closing, yet the editor has not moved on. Dan56 (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A past ANI complaint was made regarding the editor, claiming personal attacks and aggressive editing ([202]). Dan56 (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And those claims were rejected, with KoshVorlon opining that "GentleCollapse16 is being reasonable", Diannaa saying she "can find no vandalism or personal attacks", and Begoon suggesting the reporter "should withdraw or apologise, or support this with diffs". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add on this user's attacks @Boing! said Zebedee:? Dan56 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, @Boing! said Zebedee:, I asked you, do you have anything to say about the attacks the user directed towards me?? Dan56 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not examined your current claim, no. My point was simply that you should not try to dig up extra dirt on somebody where it doesn't exist, as it won't inspire people to try to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi's religion

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

---

• Hello Administrators, I was going through this page and came across few unverified claims (removed them) and few genuine claims that have been omitted citing some vague reasons. The strange thing is that his religion was claimed to be Hinduism with a "citation needed" tag, and in the past editors had reverted his religion from Roman Catholic (which was sourced from The New York Times) to Hinduism (with "citation needed" tag). What was happening?? Following is the flow of events that happened recently;

1. I was cleaning up the page and noticed that a valid religion claim was reverted.
2. So I put the claim (backed by The New York Times article) back (replacing "Hinduism" as religion with citation needed tag).
3. User:Kautilya3 reverts the edit here citing "religions need to be self-declared..."????? I am wondering, how and when did Osama bin Laden self-declare his religion? What did I miss?
4. I reverted it here with proper edit summary and asking not to engage in 3RR.
5. Then User:RegentsPark steps here in (within 2 minutes) and reverts my edit citing " blp violations". Messages exchanged on his and my talkpage.
6. Lastly, User:Kautilya3 reverts all the edits and blanks the religion field totally citing "No unsourced claims in WP:BLP articles". Well, I did provide a source, didn't I?

Are we going against the pillars of Wikipedia???? Whats happening admins; update with credible source is being reverted to make unsubstantiated claims?? I am confused. Please help. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what administrator intervention this user is asking. As far as I am concerned, I have reverted his addition of "raised as a Roman Catholic" then I noticed that the old content had "Hinduism" and deleted it as well. There is no problem here. The subject's religion seems to be private, and we should let it be private. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not "private" if its been reported in the Times. BMK (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything in the NYT's archives which says that Rahul Gandhi is a Roman Catholic. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, definitely is, but that does not necessarily imply anything about her son. Unless there's a clear citation from an impeccable reliable source, the religion should be left blank. And, BTW, this is a content dispute and therefore does not belong here. Please go to dispute resolution. BMK (talk) 21:52, 26 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 threats by IP at Ron Bard

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

---

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

IP edit warring, deleting reliably sourced material, threatening legal action.

• Diff: Deleted critisism this is a bullshit fucking lie about my father and if my changes arent saved ill have my attorneys contact you

- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Be sure everything the IP is griping about is properly sourced. Like, what is the source for the "Bardnot" version of his name? Also, the "controversy" seems like undue weight. Once those issues are cleared up, if he strikes again, a lengthy block is in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just checked. The Bardnot name is mentioned once in the Forbes article, and the "controversy" section seems to be solely sourced from the book by Joe Nickell. I'll leave it to more experienced wikipedians to judge the properness of the sources. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The book by Nickell is published by University Press of Kentucky. Per WP:FRINGE, it's necessary to explain the difference between the fringe view of psychic powers, and the mainstream view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The thing that I find concerning, is that he claims to have solved a bunch of murder cases. The example in the "controversy" debunks one of them, but doesn't automatically debunk the others, whatever they were. Hence, possibly undue weight. The larger question might be whether this guy was even notable by Wikipedia standards, or whether the article is (or was) essentially a promo piece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight on the scientific skeptical view? Really? I think we don't need to show that the criticism is founded, only that it has been made by a reliable source. Anyway, it's clear the IP wants the article to be a WP:MEMORIAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Block the IP per NLT and AFD the article for lack of notability. That'll solve both issues.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a very clear legal threat. As to content, yes, verify the claims and edit accordingly, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 26 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.

Repeated WP:TPO violations by CFCF on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4

• CFCF
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is committing repeated WP:TPO violations by

1. Policing the Support statement (and enforcing their view by repeated relocation away from context
2. Removing the context of Replies to the Support section that are challanging supporter votes
3. Repeating these actions over the objections of other users (See CFCF's talk page for other users objecting)

For these reasons I would like either: A ban for CFCF from touching any other editor's commentary without securing their approval first or a Topic Ban from the page (since they cannot respect Basic rules of the Wiki for the page). Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hasteur has now changed the instructions in the RfC to now include instructions as present previously — but as seen in an older version of the page [203] under the Instructions header: it told editors to not post comments in the voting section.

I did not write theses instructions, but with the fact that discussion was already going on in at least 3 places on the page I chose to move a massive comment-barrage aimed at at least 10 users to a separate section, as per the clause in WP:TPO: Off-topic. I did not in any way change the comments, but only moved them to a separate section.

Hasteur did not like this — and when I informed him of the instructions that had been placed there by another editor he chose to remove them diff with the edit comment: Organic discussions are better and this rule prevents them. OBLITERATE

Carl Fredik 💌 📧 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Only because the Oppose section which doesn't has a great discussion back and forth. In fact the whole seperated Support/Oppose is wrong as it curtails the back and forth discussion that is the hallmark of well discussed RFCs. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you do not get to close a report with an insult. And to the IP editor that undid this edit, how about you give a rationale as opposed to calling it vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Malfunction with automated rollback

The following discussion is closed. 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 also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) § Rollback_function_has_been_changed

Were there any recent changes to how automated rollback functions? I am seeing frequent errors reporting "Rollback failed" when in fact it was successful, and it also appears that the [rollback] button displayed by Lupin's recent2.js consistently fails now as well, whereas it was working fine yesterday. While on the topic, does anyone know how to correct the issue with IPv6 addresses not rolling back properly via recent2.js? It has always errored for me regardless of which browser I use. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about using the twinkle rollback function or the rollback user right function? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cameron11598— This is regarding the rollback user privilege, not the Twinkle or otherwise scripted rollback. The behavior of this function appears to have changed for me as of today, am I the only one experiencing this issue? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Haven't had any issues with rollback today, or at all. Peter Sam Fan 00:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: I used it this morning (01:00 pst) and didn't encounter any problems. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Although I did just get it trying to rollback 2 edits instead of just one... --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like changes of some sort have happened. You will find a larger discussion about this here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Rollback function has been changed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Rollback_function_has_been_changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 27 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.

Neutral point of view

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

---

To whom it may concern --

To what extent should we apply a "neutral point of view?" I believe I saw it on this page and reverted it, but a user insists on changing it back by using the word "interesting facts" rather than the original "facts," which I think is the correct way to write this. "Interesting facts" breaks the neutral point of view because other users not knowledgeable cannot agree that the facts are "interesting." I've explained this to the user on my talk page by linking WP:Neutral point of view, but the user has reverted my edit for the fourth time anyways, which breaks 3RR, and I don't want to start an edit war. The user is already harassing me on my talk page. I'm turning here for advice. What should I do?

Here is one diff.

3primetime3 (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither are correct. An unsourced list of WP:TRIVIA is not in line with the WP:MOS. Either way, the appropriate way to do this is to go to the talk page, discuss it and otherwise try one of the methods at WP:DRR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRN its primarily a content issue. The 3RR could be reported at WP:AN/3RR --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reported to 3RR. We can continue this at the talk page, assuming the IP editor actually engages in discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:16, 27 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.

Arsenal FC

The following discussion is closed. 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 Arsenal announced via their official Twitter that Aaron Ramsey would be changing his number to 8. I made this change on the Arsenal page and yet User:Qed237 continues to revert it, suggesting that a club's official Twitter account (a verified and official communication outlet of the organization) is unreliable. Please assist. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This might be a better/more clear tweet, idk. There are several. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't need an admin, it needs a discussion at Talk:Arsenal F.C. to gain a WP:CONSENSUS. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to add my two cents. The section for first team players uses a source which is the official source for that team (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). If we were supposed to change his jersey number it would go against that source. Also the number belongs to Arteta until his contract expires (30 June 2016), and Ramsey will get his new number after Arteta is gone if they dont remove it soon like they did for Rosicky. Going for ANI over this, without attempting a proper discussion first makes this thread seem a bit uneccessary and bad faith. The editor just left a single message and did not even give me time to respond before reporting here. Qed237 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal have updated their official store as well. I have seen the way Qed237 has behaved in other edit conflicts and I am not willing to pursue this without admin assistance. This edit is unquestionably and objectively correct; to revert it is simply baffling. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is starting to be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG as the reporting editor reverts himself without consensus being formed.Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Or what do you think? Qed237 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

What about this requires consensus AT ALL? The official news outlets and official store of the organization in question have confirmed this change. It is objectively true and it is done. Would you require wiki consensus to prove the dang sun exists? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, dude, and this is precisely why an admin needs to be involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor now even admitted on my talkpage that they wont discuss this (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

NO DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED, IT IS AN OBJECTIVELY TRUE AND PROVEN FACT. What is your problem? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Dont WP:SHOUT and discuss like a normal human being instead. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I will stop shouting when you start listening. This is not a discussion, it is not a conversation, there is no debate here. I am suggesting nothing more than that we write the truth. Are you opposed to the truth? Yes or no? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this: why don't we delete the entire Arsenal page? Wipe it all away and rewrite it word by word, getting consensus on each letter. Would that satisfy you? Wicka wicka (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: @Qed237: please stop shouting at each other, and take this to the article talk page. It is a content dispute, not a user conduct issue, and a consensus should be formed there, between the two of you and other editors.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. The content cannot be questioned. I am curious as to why Qed237 reverted a proven, true, and referenced edit. That is why I asked the admins for help. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I am not shouting and Wicka wicka made it very clear in this edit and others that he wont discuss this. He is right, and everyone should obey him. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 26 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.

• I think it's shocking that this thread was closed before we decided whether this footballer did or did not change his number. EEng 09:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin User:JzG refusing to comply with WP:NFCC#9

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

---

Admin JzG (talk · contribs) keeps restoring the page User talk:JzG to policy-violating status despite being warned not to do so, see Special:Diff/721213078 and Special:Diff/721039098. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A pic of himself, on his bike. Pedantic much? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 says that no non-free images may be used in the user talk namespace. This includes non-free images of the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the issue with the first one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The first diff was to show he was warned. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Templating a long-standing user as if he were a newbie is not the wisest approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

JzG is unambiguously in the wrong and the image should be removed from his user talk page. BethNaught (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And the OP is unambiguously in the wrong for violating Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. If you treat an established editor like a jerk, you can expect to be treated the same way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DTTR is an essay, not a policy with legal considerations. I'm not contesting that Stefan handles these matters in the most delicate way and I have criticised him for his methods in the past. But JzG is still wrong. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You're talking here about "legal considerations", and below you're saying it's not about legalities. Also, the OP was screwing around with the subject's talk page, which is likewise not collegial behavior. Maybe the OP should be put on ice for a while to think about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:USER#Non-free images: Non-free images found on [...] user talk pages) will be removed [...] without warning. Unfortunately, I seem to be more or less the only one fixing WP:NFCC#9 violations, and it would need more users in the area if we also want warnings to users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do this work. If you don't like the work (which your attitude suggests), maybe you could switch your focus to something else that needs work. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seems overly pedantic since the photo is in use at Velo Vision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, the OP here tagged an 11-year-old picture File:Triplet-empty.jpg which the subject of the complaint says he took himself. Is OP's hassling of JzG a recent phenomenon, or do they have some history? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Naa Stefan does lots of work enforcing NFCC regs (sometimes I think the only person). The first picture (just the bike) *was* marked incorrectly so I suspect it flagged up. That has now been fixed. The second picture technically violates NFCC 9, but given its in use as NF pic on an article, it seems unlikely any attempt to take legal action over its use (the primary reason for the NFCC regs) at JzG's talkpage would get anywhere, and overly strict enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not about whether we would get sued. It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia. We only use non-free content for limited uses when it has in particular an important educational purpose. Talk page chat is not that. BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • What the OP needed to do, instead of being a jerk, is to ask the admin to put a colon after the two left square brackets. Templating an admin over a 10 year old magazine cover, and having ignored your advice in the past, suggests the OP ought to find something else to do. Such as reading about what happened to Betacommand, who behaved in a similar way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't Betacommand. The OP has had a registered account since 2006. --Jayron32 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't rule out it being a sleeper account. No way to test for it technically, so behavior is all we have to go on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. You would more likely be a sleeper account for me. I could explain how patently ridiculous it is that one could think this was Betacommand based on the edit history (not taking into account the behavior, which has a similar intersection of abuse and image copyright compulsion). But no, there's simply no way. Betacommand, for all his foibles, never planned to be banned, and didn't create clean sleeper accounts he kept using continuously for six years in parallel to his main account on the off chance someone would eventually ban him. Just no. --Jayron32 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, fine. Then what is it about that (voluntary) job that seems to bring out the worst in those doing that work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If he's actually in the thing, wouldn't that be grounds for free use? Just out of curiosity. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, subjects of photographs almost never have any copyright or usage rights. (To do that they usually have to have some sort of contract with the photographer) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There was me looking for an excuse to bin the wedding photos! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Check your wedding photo contract. Wedding photos are one of the exceptions as they are generally work-for-hire. The current standard is for the photographer to retain copyright for a set period of time at which point it either reverts to the subject or they (subject) gain unlimited usage/repro rights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The image shouldn't be on the talkpage, but Stefan2 do you see how you created/escalated the situation you're complaining about? Let's see:

1. Looking at File:Triplet-empty.jpg, you must have realized that: (i) JzG had probably uploaded his own photo; and (ii) that it was uploaded more than 10 years ago, when the requirements about image info were less strict.
2. You could just have dropped a friendly note at JzG's talkpage asking him if it was his own photo and offering to update the information for him if so.
3. Can you see why the use of the template probably rubbed him up the wrong way? I appreciate the work you do with images, but a lot of users cite this sort of thing as one of the reasons they find Wikipedia an unfriendly/uncollegial place these days.
4. Then, when the unfree cover photo was used, your response was this. Again, can you see why that got a negative response compared to leaving a polite notice flagging up the issue?
5. You then edit warred, left a templated warning and promptly started this threat within a 16-minute period.

Now, I'm not saying JzG is right and I don't countenance separate rules for long-standing users and/or admins (NFCC applies to everyone). This a storm in a teacup, but it's one that you started and one you should have de-escalated. Sometimes a softer more measured approach gets better results. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a picture of me, riding my bike, a bikethat people commented on on my talk page, with my son on the rear seat, taken by Peter Eland, then-editor of Velo Vision at a meet at Salt Aire, and supplied to me by Peter at my request. I put it on my talk page as part of the ephemeral discussion about the image. Frankly, I found Stefan's actions here to be little short of trolling. This is indeed a perfect example of the way Wikipedia policies can be actively hostile even to people who have been here a long time. And we keep changing the rules and demanding new shrubberies. File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg was released to me entirely properly, ten years later I am told I must now submit the email to OTRS, but I no longer have the email because I don't keep absolutely every email I ever received, so it's deleted. No wonder people leave. Commons is worse. Somebody tried to nuke commons:File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg because they didn't spot that my name (which I state openly) matches the name of the uploader on another site where I also shared it. Yes, I know the copyright rules are there for a reason, but FFS we really do go out of our way to make it as difficult as possible to keep anything uploaded, however unambiguous the permissions might be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you might mean Saltaire in West Yorkshire? My stomping ground as a teenager.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If you delete your evidence that you have permission, then your ability to use the image depends entirely on the copyright holder as courts tend to rule in favour of the copyright holder if the licensee can't prove that he has permission to use the image. In the case of File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg, also see c:COM:GOF - this was uploaded before 8 January 2006 according to the logs. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Excessively legalistic interpretation of the rules based on a hypothetical challenge that will not happen because the release was provided. Ditto with the bike: just because you don't know the identity of the rights owner doesn't mean that I don't, as the uploader. Excessively legalistic interpretation of rules that constantly ratchet towards an achievable asymptote comes across as arbitrary demands for shrubberies. And your response here indicates that either you don't care or (worse) it's deliberate. I am done with you. I never want to interact with you again, ever. That puts you on a list of about three people in my entire ten year history on Wikipedia. Think about that for a moment. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Do you think Peter Eland would agree to freely license the picture? Since he took the photo, I am assuming he is the original copyright holder. If he agreed to do that, then it would not be subject to the NFCC. Otherwise, I do not see any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for the usage on your talk page which is something required by WP:NFCC#10c. As pointed out the file is currently being used in the Velo Vision article, and it does have a rationale for that particular usage. That stub, however, has been tagged with ref improve since 2009. If by chance it is someday deleted, the justification for the non-free usage of the file will be gone, which means it will probably be deleted per WP:F5. As a freely licensed file, on the other hand, it could stay on your user talk page for as long as you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to follow policy, in particular when the specific policy is mentioned in the edit summary, but I guess it could have been handled in a better way... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Stefan2 in the real world, you pick your battles. Dealing with other editors in Wikipedia is the real world. Do you understand that doing stuff like this squanders your credibility in the community? Are you hearing what people are saying to you in this thread? Those are real questions... please do answer. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fwiw Guy seems to know the person who runs the magazine. His edit note here when he removed the first warning that Stefan placed says: "My talk page, my bike, me riding it. Ask Peter Eland if you want evidence of permission for this". (see Velo Vision for who Peter Eland is.) The legal risks to WP are nothing here. This is drama that wastes everyone's time and accomplishes precisely nothing. A little IAR in this particular situation would have been the clueful thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that the OP is a long-standing sleeper account of Betacommand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Files with {{non-free with permission}} may not be used on user pagesas they are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk)
    • What part of that rule permits you to treat the user like a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Just my two cents, but the policy seems pretty straightforward. Maybe it should be changed, and that's a fine discussion to have, but as it stands, it seems like a pretty clear violation. Stephan could probably use a little more tact, which is also a fine discussion to have, but is a bit of a separate issue. Overall, it seems like the "they're an admin" or "I know the guy" arguments as defenses are pretty wobbly precedents to set. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It's hard to believe that of all the brazillions of images in Wikipedia, that this ten year old magazine cover is the worst offender. The OP here needs to stop behaving like Betacommand, or he's liable to be likewise banished from Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure whether or not it is the worst offender is particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
            • So, is it a personal vendetta? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • No idea. But I do think a boomerang and whether the image should be on a talk page are separate issues. And on that note, I'm going to try to do something productive. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
                • The question is, is the image free to use. Simple as that. The answer is no, it's not so it should not be on the page, regardless if the user knows the person or is an admin. If the user knows the person, then get a waiver or something. But whether we agree with it or not, we, and admins especially, need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Actually, Bugs, when I used to do NFCC#9 cleanup many moons ago (and it is indeed a thankless task, and errors are certainly not limited to newbie editors either), I had a script which produced a report of all the non-free images outside articlespace. I presume Stefan is using the same sort of thing, so it is unlikely to be a personal vendetta. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                Would you have treated the editor the way the OP has done? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

                • Correct. I use quarry:query/1203 to find these files, and this magazine cover showed up in that list. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Yes, Stefan you are technically correct.
2. No, Stefan the way you went about dealing with this is not acceptable. A comment out, then a template to a 10-year veteran, then straight to AN/I is not the way to deal with things.
3. Yes Stefan no non-free images should be used on talk pages.
4. No Stefan, there is no conceivable real-world implication of this picture appearing there, so AN/I really isn't the place for this.
5. Yes Stefan it would be nicer to see more people involved in dealing with fair-use on WP
6. No Stefan, people are not going to be attracted to this thankless task when they see how bureaucratic other editors can be about these things.

Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan's extremism about images has been a problem for a long time. A low point was his nomination of File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg for deletion the day after I uploaded it to Commons. [204] He argued that Category:Auschwitz Album (see Auschwitz Album), of which this image is part, ought to be deleted because: "the United States copyright holder is the SS employee who took the image, or, should the employee be dead, the heirs of this SS employee." See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg. This is exactly how Betacommand behaved. It wastes a lot of volunteer time. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Betacommand often acted like a jerk, but the thing about him that really used to annoy the people that he came into conflict with was that, 95% of the time, he was right and they were wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Black Kite, "right" according only to the most extreme interpretation of the non-free policy. It wastes a lot of time and he does seem to hound people. Whether it really is targeted hounding, or whether he's doing the same to lots of people, I can't tell, but it's depressing to have to spend time addressing positions that lack all common sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, the error was that the uploader hadn't provided evidence that the copyright had expired in both the United States and a source country. Necessary (but not in themselves sufficient) conditions for this are that a) the photo has been published somewhere with consent from the photographer (as there is no situation under c:COM:HIRTLE where an unpublished German work from the 1940s can be in the public domain in the United States), and b) the photo hasn't bee published with consent from the photographer (as the photograph otherwise would hit the 70 years from publication rule in {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of the 70 years from creation rule, and the photo remained unknown to the public for several years). Since the uploader hadn't proven that a) and b) both were true, the file was nominated for deletion. But I'm not sure why you are bringing this up here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of shooting the messenger going on here and it's a bit disturbing. Who's going to want to be a messenger if they get shot like this? Everyone seems to agree that the OP is correct with policy. If you're mad at the policy, do something about the policy, right? But don't shoot the person enforcing the policy..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem that a lot of editors forget is that NFC is as critical to maintain as BLP, in the eyes of the WMF; it, BLP, and copyvios are the only content policies that have WMF mandates. There are lots of grey areas of where NFC can be used, yes, but there are also a lot of bright lines that must be met as well, and we're supposed to deal with NFC that fall over those bright lines rigorously per the WMF. We need to be 100% sure on copyright ownership before declaring what might be a non-free image as uncopyrightable or PD, and so in a situation like the above, Stefan has every right to question the nature of the copyright chain of custody. They might be wrong, sure, and appear to have been wrong in this case, but as long as they drop the stick w.r.t. that set of images, that's how we should be treating such material. This is not how BetaCommand acted, so the implications that Stefan is BetaCommand are completely unfounded. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Masem, these extremist positions about NFC are very damaging – to the policy and to the community. But I note that the extremism doesn't extend to preventing the objectification of women. You recently supported a featured-article candidate that contained a non-free image of a naked woman, one that I would say clearly violates the non-free content policy. But the Auschwitz Album must go, and an old image of a bike on a user page is an outrage. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Except as long as a credible enough reason is provided, non-free images can be used in articles. The Auschwitz album and the bike image are, as policy is written, not valid uses. The US is clear on how it applies copyright. I disagree with Stefan's *enforcement* of the policy in this (and I would have in the Auschwitz case too) but as per the written policy they are invalid. IAR can be waved for Auschwitz as the collection of photos clearly enhances the project and no one is *ever* going to raise a copyright claim on behalf of an unnamed SS concentration camp guard. Likewise JzG's close acquaintance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is unambiguously clear from policy that files need a source. Special:PermanentLink/24983809 reveals that the copyright holder releases the file to the public domain, but it doesn't say who the copyright holder is, so there is no way to verify this claim. Such files need to be discovered as soon as possible: if you wait a few years, then the uploader may have left the project, and then it is no longer possible to ask the uploader for clarification. It's a bit unfortunate that it took ten and a half year to spot this, but luckily the uploader was still around, so he was able to clarify this. If the file had been around for another ten years without being fixed, then there's a risk that the file might never have been fixable, if the uploader no longer is around at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what? I never commented anything about the nature of the image (or the article itself) outside of whether the image met NFCC or not, so to claim that my view doesn't extend to "preventing the objectification of women" is a personnel attack and absolutely unwarranted. NFC is NFC, there are a number of bright lines that have to be met to use such images, and assuring that an image that might be non-free is not presented as free is very much one of those bright lines. Yes, ultimately it was shown that the Auschwitz images are claimed by other authorities to be in the PD, so that matter is settled, but at the time Stefan nominated them, there was a fair question as to their nature. What Stefan did is what anyone should be expected to do if they see a free image that might actually be non-free. (At commons, the only way is via deletion; here en.wiki, we now use FFD to review such images). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL nudity is sexist. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Masem & User:Slimvirgin, which article and image are you talking about? I normally do not follow discussions about featured articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 though details on this are otherwise way off track for this matter. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• God damn it, this was not an ANI matter. If JzG was indeed intransigent on this cosmically minor matter, Stefan should have just taken it up quietly with some admin. What an incredible waste of time this has been -- time which could have been spent productively.

Stefan's officious attitude is indeed offensive and a problem. In my one interaction with him I was driven almost mad by the templating, answers-which-didn't-answer-the-question, and refusal to engage what I was saying WP:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg. Finally someone else came along and resolved the problem in an instant by pointing to the right policy, and answering the question asked. EEng 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:EEng, sorry if I didn't properly explain what the guidelines say at that time. When I get mad at something, I guess I sometimes escalate things a bit too much and don't think of what the best solution would be. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stefan demonstrating poor judgement in resolving issues and templating can be seen in these three posts to me. Each is about an orphaned non-free image. Each file names the academic journal to which it relates (as an image of the cover). Each had a proper non-free rationale. In each case, all that was needed was reversion of explained removal of the image, which should have been obvious. Instead of fixing the problem, Stefan simply dumps a template on my page for me to fix the problem. The value of an editor doing such work rather than a bot is that an editor has a brain and can exercise judgement. Sadly, whenever I see Stefan, I think of cases where information is clearly available but in the wrong form or simple problems which could have been quickly solved. Stefan, JzG is not following policy, but that doesn't put you in the right here. EdChem (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A serious issue is attitude, which unfortunately is still something of fallout from BetaCommand from ~2009. There are presently over 0.5 million non-free images on en.wiki. There are about a dozen editors that actively maintain NFC, in light of the fact that after the falling out of the BetaCommand case, editors tend to give little fair treatment of those actually enforcing NFC. It's a vastly unappreciated job but one critical to the en.wiki and WMF mission, and the taint of the fallout of the BetaCommand situation has caused many editors to avoid admining that area to avoid getting being treated as if they were BetaCommand. As such, most of these admins in NFC do run their administration mechanically, using templates messages and the like, because that seems to be the only way to get through to most other users, while of course templating circularly leads to the resentment towards NFC and admins that handle that. While I do strongly agree that if all that is wrong with an image is a simple typo fix that is easily determined simply by looking at rationale that the admin should fix it instead of templating, many of the more common mistakes require understanding what the uploader or image user was thinking of when they added the non-free, and that's something that while an admin might guess at, it might be a wrong guess, and it is up to the uploader or reuser to make sure it is correct. (That is one thing that fell out from the Betacommand mess, that the onus on proper rationales, etc. is on the uploader, though admins should use common sense to fix the obvious typos).
  • We do need every editor on both sides, the NFC admin and those using NFC, to come back towards a more personable way to handle NFC, but with the understanding that it is a severely under-admined area that might have to resort to simple shortcuts (templates) to process the situation effectively. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:EdChem, if a file has been removed from an article, then it is typically a lot easier for the uploader to tell if it is correct that the article is unused or if it should be restored to the article. Also, the sooner the uploader becomes aware that a file incorrectly has been removed from an article, the faster the uploader can restore it to the article, so to reduce the time during which the image is missing from the article, the file should in my opinion be tagged as soon as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatting: Either inappropriate sockpuppetry or block evasion (don't know which, but doesn't matter). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If JzG was in Stefan's shoes, he'd have banned the interloper "long-since", citing 3RR. "I'm just saying", that JzG knows who runs Wikipedia. *He* does, and if he wants to violate a rule, he *can*, he *does*, he doesn't care, and 40 people will line up and defend him, ignoring his hypocrisy and pathologizing the innocent fool (with due respect to Stefan) who had the unmitigated audacity to expect equal treatment. Ditto for when he bans someone-else, but in the other-direction. JzG is violating the 3RR, but 'he is who he is' and he gets to do what he wants. That's how Wikipedia operates and that's why Wikipedia is at-risk of delegitimatizing itself. Stefan had every right to complain, and handling with JzG with kid-gloves is not required. He doesn't own any himself, btw. Back on-point: If JzG knows the photo-owner, great, send him an email, get permission to release copyright, and no problem. There's no special "I know a guy" rule, as in "I know a guy, and he gave me X and he's probably give me copyright over X, since I'm part of X". You either have CR or you don't. That's JzG's logic, and he'd be here ranting if any other uses was behaving as he does. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment And you created an account ten minutes ago just to tell us that? Thanks. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I smell feet. Did someone take their socks off? TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Dude, if you criticize JzG, it's like having the whole cast of the Walking Dead after you. And I have a survival instinct. ChickenBoneInMyPonyTail (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have updated the article Velo Vision by adding refs, and in doing so discovered that Peter Eland (who apparently took this picture, according to Guy) has retired from publishing the magazine and sold it to a former reader, Howard Yeomans. The fair use image data for the magazine cover being used in the article says that it is Intellectual property owned by Velo Vision Ltd. So isn't Yeomans now the owner of the intellectual property (the magazine cover) in question here?
  • Generally, yes, the sale of a property and all its old content transfer the copyright to the new buyer as well, but its possible there's different terms that allowed Eland to retain copyright, so there's no immediate way to tell without asking. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it not possible for this discussion to take place at the file's talk page (where efforts to resolve such matters are perhaps best placed)? The filing party acknowledges he didn't handle this very well, and if no actual sanction is going to result, must the discussion here be kept open? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "acknowledging" you mean this dif please look at the three remarks made all at once there. I see "I'm sticking to my guns here" not a frank acknowledgement by Stefan of all the feedback they have been given here. I think this is pretty ripe for a boomerang by now, exactly because there is no sign they have heard what almost every commenter here has said. I was hoping to see them write something like "OK I get it. I withdraw this and will take the criticism I've gotten here on board." Stefan hearing what has been said here, is the one useful thing that could come out of what has otherwise been a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

More out of control legalism from Stefan2

• JzG can look after himself. However what happens when Stefan2 tries the same sort of tricks on a new editor?

These:

• WP:Files for discussion/2016 May 19#File:Oscar Building at Delaware State University - Rear.jpg
• User talk:Oscar6522
• User:Oscar6522/sandbox Optical Science Center for Applied Research at Delaware State University
• Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOscar6522 (indef block)

With aid from RHaworth, this represents one of the worst bits of WP:BITE I've seen. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Really, this amounts to WP:BULLYING by him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you didn't see the comment further down, where copyright holder's information is in the metadata. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• May I motion to close the topic? This is just getting kind of pathetic now. HalfShadow 19:04, 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.

Postlude

The following discussion is closed. 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 feel this was closed prematurely, but whatever. Eight years ago, at WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Role_of_editors_who_specialize_in_image_review, Arbcom stated

8) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that fail to satisfy the NFCC or are missing the necessary documentation play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers who are the foundation of the project's future growth, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged or ensure that those questions are answered by others.

(Bolding added.) Man, we could sure use a dose of that now. EEng 00:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The way to stop the templating of the regulars is for regulars to stop doing stuff that one gets templated for; there's no particular reason the essay Don't template the regulars should be considered to have precedence over the essay template the regulars. Stefan2's major mistake here was picking the wrong forum, they would have been much better off filing at WP:CP. NE Ent 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason to value DTTR over TTR: DTTR is in Wikipedia space, while TTR is in one user's space. DTTR has been edited by 107 editors and has 92 watchers, while TTR has only 37 editors and 37 watchers. Clearly, DTTR is a more widely accepted essay that TTR is, and represents the views of a larger slice of the community. BMK (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The quality of a painting isn't measured by brush strokes. NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Good thing we're talking about consensus and not art. BMK (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What got Betacommand banished was his perpetual insistence on treating other editors like criminals. And the OP here is headed in the same direction. A compromise solution could be to change the text of the templates to read more like friendly cautions than like subpoenas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: In the example I posted above, I was template because someone removed the image from the article to which it related, so Stefan templated me to warn of deletion of the now-orphaned image. Stefan's response was basically that it was easier for me to fix because sometimes the uploader is in the best position to decide - an argument with some validity. In my case, however, Stefan had three files all titled along the lines of "Cover of [JOURNAL NAME]" with a non-free use rationale describing use of a low-res file as the image of the cover of the journal for use on the [JOURNAL NAME] page. Was Stefan really not able to figure out the solution (re-add the image, removed with no good explanation? Of course not. However, templating me was easier for him than actually solving the issue. My issue is if an essentially mindless response is going to be taken, cut out the editor and just use a bot. I was templated in the past (repeatedly) by a bot because the standard format for information on a file page changed. I fixed it because, although the information was all there, a bot couldn't have sorted it out easily but a person could (recent posts to Giano are eerily similar, but coming from another editor). I object to being templated as a way of telling me that someone else has stuffed something up and the template-posting editor won't fix it even when the solution is obvious because templating me is easier for her or him than actually looking at what needs doing. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My comment was directed more towards the "don't template the editors," or, even worse WP:Don't template the admins canard than the specific incident here; the issue of Stefan's approach transcends the template, as indicated by the concerns over the Files for deletion EEng previously linked. Your point regarding the use of an impersonal bot to flag these is a good one -- would you like to take the lead on asking the bot people to produce such a thing? NE Ent 22:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought one of the big issues here was that JzG was an experienced editor. Why are we now talking about not biting the newcomers Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• BethNaught mentioned the issue above: "It's about principles: we are a free encyclopaedia". In other words, this report is part of a political campaign to force freedom on all contributors. That's great in principle but the problem is that mindlessly acting as an enforcer of the rules requires certain, shall we say, qualities, and those characteristics often make a user unsuitable for the task. What if the benefits of forcing freedom are outweighed by the problems of driving off good contributors with do what I say and do it now posts on user talk pages? If no one is able to do the job with tact and thought, it might be better if Stefan2 were to find some other hobby. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a useful area of discussion. You will say that forcing freedom is too harmful to be worth it and those people shouldn't he here. Others will say that as freedom is and has always been a fundamental part of the project, the failure of people to follow it would indicate they are the ones who shouldn't be here. As I mentioned above, what started this thread was ultimately a very experienced editor. Both can he called political campaigns or whatever you want. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what started this thread, Stefan's hamhanded, bossy, and I-don't-have-time-to-pay-attention-to-what-you're-saying approach has been a problem for years, and that's what we're discussing now. EEng 02:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Huh. And we wonder why the number of new editors we get is pitiful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Draw near, new editor, that you may learn from these WP policies conveniently arrayed about me!

We get lots of new editors. They just don't stay. EEng 03:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thats because over the years Wikipedia has attracted a huge number of policies and rules which inhibit 'enjoyment'. It takes a special type of person to find enjoyment following an overly bureucratic process, and most newbies once they encounter Wikipedia's rules (usually as a result of doing something obviously wrong) just go 'no thanks'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's because over the years Wikipedia has attracted too many editors who seem compelled to follow every policy, guideline and essay strictly and with complete and utter rigidity, never using their judgment and intelligence to determine when it's good to be strict, or better for the encyclopedia to break free and do something wild, like actually improving an article instead of worrying about rules, rules, rules, rules, rules. To not become that kind of place is precisely why we have WP:IAR, but IAR has become so watered down over the years that one can almost never invoke it without prompting a hue-and-cry: "No, you can only use IAR to do X", "No, IAR doesn't apply if there's a previous consensus," "No, MOS overrides IAR," "What the hell is IAR?"

Editor retention isn't about babying newbies, or about the new gadgets and gee-gahs that the Foundation loves to throw into the software, it's about being serious about making the best damn online encyclopedia possible, one that is accurate, readable, visually interesting, and informative, and showing new editors that that is what we're about. All this other stuff: the drama boards, tagging, user warnings, dispute resolution, ArbCom, and all the talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, is the huge tail which is now in real danger of wagging the dog.

If we show new editors that we are dedicated to building an encyclopedia, the good ones will see the value and fall in line, and the bad and useless ones will be culled or just fade away. Remember, not every editor who joins is one that we need, or want, to retain. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

People who forget that guidelines are to be applied with common sense

Amen. As you yourself wrote [205]:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all ... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article.

EEng 04:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet even more out-of-control legalism from self-appointed image patrollers

Now the image at left has been nominated for deletion "discussion" -- WP:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_25#File:No_Heels.jpg. This is getting beyond ridiculous, and the entire image-patrolling machinery needs a good housecleaning. EEng 13:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not nominated for deletion. It's up for discussion on whether free or not. I was against the merge for reasons like this, but all the image discussion venues (NFCR, PUF, etc.) have been merged to (formally) Files for Deletion, now named Files for Discussion. Being listed there does not mean that deletion is the result, but to determine if the image should be handled as non-free or not. Since this is the only venue now for such discussions, its completely appropriate to validate the situation there. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion, discussion, whatever. The original work (the sign itself) is obviously a trivial pictogram, and the photo from which this file was derived (by cropping) was appropriately released. This should never have been listed for deletion, discussion, whatever, period. It should have been left alone so editor time could be productively used elsewhere. (And even if there's a concern, it should have been attached to the original uncropped image. As things are now, presumably after this nomination's handled, at some point someone will stumble on the uncropped version, then more time can be wasted scrutinizing that...) More common sense is needed in patrolling, and that's what we should be doing something about here. EEng 14:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a stupid question". It is 100% fair if one is unsure (and no prior conversation to point to for review) to ask if a free image is really free (and in fact, we should be making sure of this for images that are tagged free - en.wiki should not be mistagging a non-free image as free). Asking on the file's talk page is a very narrow space with almost no watchers, so a venue that has the eyes of people aware of image copyrights and the like make the most sense. It's just unfortunate that the space that it is in was formerly known to be where images were sent for deletion discussions, because it creates a stigma that the discussion is about deleteion. And image copyright and all the issues around it are not simple; it's not a straight-forward checklist that has objective determination. So complaining about this situation is extremely bitey. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So it isn't nominated for deletion, but may or may not be free. If it isn't free, a free version should be found, because it is a caution used on playgrounds with synthetic surfaces in the United States and may be needed to illustrate an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the point others are making regarding patrolling, but in this instance, if the sign is widely used in the US, wouldn't the easiest way to solve the problem be for a wikipedian to take a photo of the sign and then upload it to commons as their own work? DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you get a camera and find a playground then. Although given the average age and gender of wikipedia editors you might want to wait til the kids have gone home to avoid problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As I've noted at the FFD discussion, as a US pictograph, the image would easily fall under the Threshold of Originality, meaning it can't be copyrighted; at minimum, a SVG version of the sign could be made as a free image, but I have no reason to believe the current image in question is a problem. I do want to stress that it is completely fair for editors to question if we are properly assigning possible unfree images as free, just to make sure we have proper licensing - its just unfortunate that consensus decided to merge all those types of discussions to FFD as to give the impression that any discussion there is about image deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what's unfortunate is that some image patrollers (not all) don't seem to put their brains in gear before they act, nor do they actually fix entirely simple and self-explanatory problems (you know, what an editor should do), preferring instead to tag the image or the image-uploader. Much of the brouhaha in the connected thread above would not have occurred if even a scintilla of thought had gone into the actions described there, instead of the patroller acting robotically without consideration of all the relevant factors. Although, as Masem says, its reasonable to ask questions of images to determine whether they are free or not, such questions should not be being asked by long-time image patrollers in obvious cases where they should know whether it is or not just by looking at it, thus saving everybody time and energy. BMK (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

And yes, Masem, there are indeed stupid questions. BMK (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to copyright, I strongly disagree that there are stupid questions, unless the question has clearly been asked before and the answer documented. The infinite variations that involve date of creation, date of publication, date of creator death, appropriate markings, foreign copyright terms, the effect of the URAA, the different treatment of TOO and FOP across nations, etc., make the determination of whether an image is PD, copyrighted, or something else far from a trivial question. The above image, for example, I know now is clearly TOO in the US but say 7-8 years ago before getting into image copyrights, I would have doubted that could fall under the TOO. There are obvious cases, yes, but they are far fewer than you imply. Media copyright is one of those critical areas we need to be right on as best we can and can't afford to be wrong. --MASEM (t) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please save the hyperbole. Of course we can afford to be wrong, that's exactly what "fair use" is all about, and why our NFCC is more restrictive then fair use is, so that if we slip up, we're still legally covered. That kind of dire attitude is, I'm afraid, part of the problem. We should certainly take it seriously, just as with any copyright violation, but it's not the death knell of Wikipedia if someone makes an honest mistake. I think the feeling of image patrollers that they're carrying the fate of Wikipedia on their shoulders may be part of the problem here, since it generates a "do or die" attitude that's unpleasant and lacking in AGF. I'm all for deletion of copyright violations (of all kinds, and image patrollers could learn a lesson or two from User:Diannaa, who deals with many text violations in an efficient, firm, but pleasant manner), but I wish some image patrollers had more common sense then they seem to, because they make working with images more difficult and noxious for the uploader than it needs (or is required) to be. BMK (talk) 01:48, 27 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.

• Just dropping a note that ArbCom statements/findings are not resolutions (to be quoted). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Russian users in order to hide the facts about Russian crimes.

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

---

Americans! Please to you to pay attention to this conspiracy Russian users (User:Gerry1214, User:Ymblanter), which aims to hide the facts of provocations and crimes of the Russian special services. Some of the Russian participants of Wikipedia's work on Russian secret services. They removes and distort the facts. They do everything that the society did not know that the Russia - a gangster terrorist country. In the article Criminal case Lisa F. they remove information from authoritative sources about provocations arranged by Russia in Germany (and Russia do the same provocations throughout Europe and this is a fact). Please help me to kick these enemies of humanity from the Free Wikipedia or at least, do not give them to distort the facts. Sorry for my English. ---SmartXT (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, we probably need to finally return to the question whether Caucasianium (talk · contribs), whom I blocked indefinitely, is indeed a sock of SmartXT.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Either way, this editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia... --Tarage (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Russian (not that it would matter either way), but the OP's characterization of Russia as a "gangster terrorist country" is hardly civil discourse.JordanGero (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

2 JordanGero. You maybe not Russian, but why do you behave like them? Where, in the article I wrote that Russia is a gangster terrorist country ??? Discussion of the article and the article itself - it is not the same. ---SmartXT (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

JordanGero, are you behaving like a Russian? Not again! Doc talk 09:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is clear revenge action of a user, possibly sock puppet of blocked user:Caucasianium. The editor tried to push its politically motivated POV into the article, was reverted and warned by several users. Then user:Caucasianium appeared, doing the same. I discussed every move, tried to clarify it on the talk page, which the user also didn't want to do. I was insulted instead (by Caucasianium). User:Caucasianium was quite rightly blocked by admin User:Ymblanter (and warned by another American (!) user). I recommend to closely check politically motivated actions of User:SmartXT, without distinction of nationality.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Now I see that SmartXT adds exactly the same POV text (1790 bytes) which was previously added by Caucasianium and reverted by several users. Before Caucasianium, if was added by SmartXT. Probably SmartXT should be blocked as well, but I obviously are going to leave it to a different administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes well any country that shoots down civilian airplanes with SAM's cannot possibly be a terrorist state..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Or use Agent Orange :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well to be fair, Agent Orange was entirely directed at foliage, it was not intended to directly harm humans (only indirectly cause them to starve etc). Besides, we British had used the same tactics a decade earlier. No one really thinks blowing up civilian Jumbos is a good idea. Except terrorists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Or annexation the territory of another country, the genocide of neighboring nations and nations, whose lands captured by Russia(Caucasian War, Red Terror, Operation Lentil (Caucasus), First Chechen War, Second Chechen War, Holodomor, Soviet famine of 1932–33, Ethnic cleansing of Circassians, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars) ---SmartXT (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Or the British Empire, particularly the massacre of the peaceful pygmies at Umboto Gorge, where we stole all their weapons and made a giant fruit salad. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

WE? Who you are? Are you Russian? ---SmartXT (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Niet. London-Irish. Straight outta Kilburn. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If ask ordinary Russian(who supports the Russian government) - Why are you committed a crime?, They will answer: the Americans (the British) also commit crimes. ---SmartXT (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we've got an article on that somewhere; can't remember what the phenomena was called though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And you are lynching Negroes--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Spot on, well caught Ymblanter. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Even if this user had a long and good contribution history, these are obviously unsubstantiated claims of personal behavior, which WP:WIAPA calls personal attacks, so I'd have blocked for that. Nyttend (talk) 11:07, 27 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 see User:Therealshannon/sandbox

The following discussion is closed. 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:Therealshannon is apparently upset about something related to his/her identity/name rights. I'm not sure what to do about it so I'm passing the buck here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is she claiming to be Shannon Greene? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. In this edit requesting the removal of that template she kept removing until she got the page locked, she says, "I'm the Real Shannon, Grammy Nominated, Int'l Recording Artist, Queen of Dance, Electronica and Freestyle." RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's a special level of arrogance. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I thought was how one character on The Office introduces himself to everybody he meets as "Bob Vance, Vance Refrigeration." Like, after a while, we get it. Either way, this user is ripe for either a block or a much heavier warning than she's gotten so far because she seems ready to go on a rampage. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It might actually be possible (albeit unlikely) that she has a fairly comprehensive Trademark for 'Shannon' in music worldwide, however trademark law would not apply in this case. If someone explained to her in short sentences exactly why (even should she have the trademark rights to it) it doesnt matter, she might get the hint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not possible to have a trademark on a widespread personal name. I very much doubt that this really is Shannon Greene, it's far more likely to be some silly troll, but either way, she or he is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, and I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:15, 27 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:Howard PF Cox

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

---

He has been attacking the admin JamesBWatson, and sent me this: [206] . ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked by User:Deb. Did you see the poem? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I expect he would call it modernist.Deb (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, rather nasty poem. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are to compose an insulting poem, at least make the poem decent. I blanked the page due to WP:NPA. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Way to impersonate Favonian _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is a persistent troll who has used numerous accounts for the same kind of nonsense over a period of months. Presumably he or she will eventually grow up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry that you had to deal with that. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Revoke his talk page access. @Oshwah: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wots Oshwah got to do with it? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He mentioned him in the poem. It was something that I will not repeat. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha, joy. He always seems to have it out for me :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:02, 27 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 promotional intent

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

---

• Aliciadewi (talk · contribs)
• Tony Nicholson (personal trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Strongboard Balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Porsha Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leroy Clampitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rogue Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Terry Poison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fredrik Halland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christian Massa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Longterm promotional account, with persistent removal of templates. User has not responded to questions re: COI or paid editing, but has continued on their way. I've included some articles to which they've contributed, usually in the form of unsourced or poorly sourced public relations rot. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in a COI case about her in the past. She is clearly WP:NOTHERE, admins, please block her. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I've issued warnings and reverted her edits before, under different IP addresses. Thanks, and thanks to Drmies for taking a good look at a number of these articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:55AC:8A2A:E366:81E1 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is such a random collection of vanity-ish articles that yeah, I think we're dealing with a paid editor here, and not a very good one. I've deleted and PRODded a bunch of them, but I'm not in a blocking mood. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having extensively examined Aliciadewi's editing history, including deleted editing, I am totally certain that she is here for the sole purpose of promotion, and since she has edited on different and unrelated subjects, it isn't a case of promoting one topic she is interested in, it's a question of being a professional paid editor. She has been informed of all the relevant points, such as the policy on promotion, the requirement to disclose paid editing, and the conflict of interest guideline, and has been warned that continuing in the same way might lead to being blocked, and has ignored all that and continued in the same way. I have therefore blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. At Christian Massa, the edit history suggests other promotional, if now dormant accounts, with one even claiming to represent the William Morris Agency. I haven't gone through all the articles, but wouldn't be too surprised if more such accounts turn up. 2601:188:1:AEA0:55AC:8A2A:E366:81E1 (talk) 20:49, 27 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.

Editors Rocknrollmancer and doncram

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor Rocknrollmancer

As the Wikipedia editor User:agljones, the editor User:Rocknrollmancer has made repeated personal comments including a racist remark and continues to make personal remarks after being asked to not to do so. I have been asked by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer to retire my current user name and give an undertaking not to edit any Wikipedia article. I have also been asked to not to edit any article in the general Isle of Man network of articles.

The User:Rocknrollmancer has made allegations of a bullying campaign and has made this comment about my editing as “....he has historically been allowed to unilaterally control through attrition and bullying….. fighting against an obsessive, controlling individual on this particular edit-sequence, and eventually all Isle of Man articles...” [207]] and “....this type of bullying owner of articles detracts from the pleasure that editing Wikipedia should be....” Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Racism

Also, the User:Rocknrollmancer has made allegations of editing on Wikipedia as “…. a controlling, complete reprobate, a partisan, pro-Manx editor who does not intend to allow neutrality which could show the IoM (Isle of Man) in a bad light.....” [208] The term used by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer of “ Manx” or “Pro-Manx” is the incorrect use of the Demonym for a person from the Isle of Man. The term “Manx” should only be used for the Manx language or a person with the distinctive Celtic/Scandanvian heritage or Manx people rather as a demonym. The term “Manx” is used as a pejorative, derogatory or racial term... and the term “Manx” is listed on the Wikipedia page [[209]] as a “....Inbred….Sheep-shagger….Webfeet.... (from the supposed frequency of inbreeding mutations among the Manx)." The Urban dictionary also describes the term “Manx” as “....A slanderous term that should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances due to its very high level of insult.....” [210] However, administrators may see that this may be an incorrect use of a demonym. Although to be described as an editor as “complete reprobate, a partisan, pro-Manx ” would suggest that the term was not used as demonym particular when used with the term “partisan” and “reprobate.” Furthermore, the term is used again by the User:Rocknrollmancer and I am again described as “....a partisan /pro-IoM (Isle of Man) singularly-motivated , one-topic individual who thinks he can do it better than anyone else….” [211] There has also been a tacit admission from the User:Rocknrollmancer about the ‘racist’ complaint when he has stated on his talk page that;- “…..agljones 'racist' complaint...really is puerile, despicable and clutching at straws. If agljones succeeds in having me sanctioned or blocked, as stated earlier, it matters not as I've already stated my intention at least twice elsewhere that I am drifting-away in any case….” Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [212]

BRD Isle of Man TT Races article

The User:Rocknrollmancer has raised a [of Interest (COI)] WP:COI in respect to the Isle of Man and Isle of Man TT motor-cycle network of articles on Wikipedia on the 15 July 2015. This has been used as a tactic of Gaming the System by User:Rocknrollmancer after an unsuccessful attempt to block a successful Sock- puppet appeal after excessive campaigning by the user User:Rocknrollmancer and the User:Doncram. This COI is regard to the edits to the main Isle of Man TT article and which the User:Rocknrollmancer has described as that the “…..editor agljones has waged a concerted war against me from May/June 2014….” Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This is incorrect as the User:Rocknrollmancer repeatedly ignores rules about verifiability and providing citations for amendments or corrections. Also, the User:Rocknrollmancer has used the edit summary box to by-pass the Isle of Man TT talk:page or any potential BRD discussion. Despite the personal comments, accusations of bias, Conflict of interests, neutral point of view...etc., has not made any attempt to entry this BRD for the Isle of Man TT [[213]] discussion which relates to the editor User:Rocknrollmancer ingnoring the rules of independent notability WP:N and the use of unreliable citations.

Further Personal Comments and allegations

In this deletion log [[214]] the editor R has made this personal comments including the use of a made-up comment term of "....one-strip editor...";-

"...Agljones did what he saw fit. He has been allowed to assume complete control of any IoM article, contrary to WP:OWN witnessed, self-confessed, at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course where he displays resentment of other editors' contributions and differing styles. This is contrary to Wikipedia fundamentals. My work is seldom reverted or deleted, but I guess I could list 20 such total deletions by @Agljones: ....Passively allowing a one-stripe editor like agljones to exercise dominance over such articles as Snaefell Mountain Course has already resulted in text-walling; incorporating more articles will just worsen readability. There is no restriction on server space - all the past versions are kept, albeit some are hidden - so why the obsession with what was intended to be deletion, of many articles, per se?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Life on Mars Comment by Rocknrollmancer

The editor has made this comment in respect to "Life on Mars." [[[215]]

"....I just chanced upon this (as I wanted a wikilink and new that it could be easily found at agljones contributions) AGAIN I'm reading "After I had completed the rewrite.." WP:OWN and "differences in editorial styles" WP:OWN AGAIN. We can see agljones' text-walling style in any of the articles and here above - overwhelming verbosity - time for a radical precis, which he calls "sub edit". Who wants and decrees many page-downs? WP:MOS?? I have largely abandoned these IoM topics due to controlling participants, but "and the addition of poor (personal) racing photographs which Wikipedia has certain rules about graphic design elements of Wikipedia articles and the position of photographs..." Commons policies of free-for-all has produced very little choice and we have to be grateful - that applies to any subject. Same controlling tendencies, same tub thumping rhetoric...Life on Mars (time travel TV show for the US readers), Time Warp, Deja Vu??? Time to move on, and ALLOW other contributors to participate without unilateral control???!!!!"--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I found this comment distressing, upsetting and replied in the context of the term used by Kate McCann:- "....same tub thumping rhetoric...Life on Mars (time travel TV show for the US readers), Time Warp, Deja Vu??? " I am not sure how to respond(what does that actually mean ??).... If there is an issue then you can take it the matter to arbitration and do not resort to personal comments. In respect to the TV series Life on Mars the issues were more than just about time-travel..........(Wikipedia states....the " plot centres on the ambiguity....it being unclear to both the audience and the character whether he has died, gone mad or into a coma, or has actually travelled back in time." The term "Life on Mars" in the context of the TV series was also used by Kate McCann after being arrested as an Arguida (Portuguese defendant - USA Person of Interest / hostile witness) by the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária after the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine McCann. In response to rhetoric, the approach to articles has been conservative and respectful.... "

Spurious Conflict of Interest declaration

The User:Rocknrollmancer on the 24th May 2014 with the comment in the edit history [216] of “rvt with clarification, deletion of prose + 3 sources by IOM resident appears partisan non-neutral COI (speed power walls trees kerbs are incomparable). “ Wikipedia rules does not allow COI to be used as a “trump card” in reverting or making any edit and makes no distinction that a particular editor lives in certain area and residences in a particular country does not requires a COI deceleration. Wikipedia rules are clear on this point WP:ACTUALCOI and for example;- “A company owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that company. This is strongly discouraged.” As I am not the owner of the business rights of the Isle of Man TT or own any associated business franchise there is no COI. The Wikipedia editors User:Rocknrollmancer &User:Doncram are aware that I am not the “company owner” of the Isle of Man TT and both have posted a request at the “who owns, runs, and officially reports on IoM TT racing” found on the Isle of Man TT talk page dated 19th & 21 June 2015 respectively. [217] (This actual information can be found on Wikipedia but the two editors User:Rocknrollmancer &User:Doncram are more interested in perusing the COI claim)

The editor User:Rocknrollmancer has made this spurious edit [218] asking for a conflict of interest declaration and not making it clear that any CoI deceleration is voluntary which is required by Wikipedia.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION REQUESTED

Will Agljones please confirm:

If he is currently remunerated by the IoM Government, either directly or indirectly?

If he was previously remunerated by the IoM Government, either directly or indirectly?

Any other potential Conflict of Interest or promotional activity involving the Isle of Man not included in 1. and 2. above, including unremunerated?

Tthere is no COI declaration required and Wikipedia considers spurious COI declarations requests as harassment and suggests editors to “politely ignore requests.” Furthermore, Wikipedia states that that the overriding consideration in respect to COI decelerations is that “When investigating COI editing, be careful not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.” WP:CONFLICT. This has been followed by the comment [219] by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer;- "...agljones should do us all a favour, permanently retire the account and agree never to edit Wikipedia again. This would avoid a lot more inconvenience for all concerned..."

The editor User:Rocknrollmancer is required by to be banned from making edits on my personal talk-page due to lack of civility and a racist comment and banned from editing the main Isle of Man TT article and the other articles in the Isle of Man TT network of articles.

The editor doncram

The editor User:doncram up to the 11th May 2016 was placed by Wikipedia on indefinite general probation for misusing Wikipedia, for lack of civility to other editors, misuse of list articles, edit warring and forcing opinions on other editors. From the 11th May 2016 the terms of that probation have been rescinded, but the editor User:doncram has an indefinite ban on editing the historic list of US places article. Prior to the 11th May 2016, the editor User:doncram has misused Wikipedia in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network of articles. The editor User:doncram has made repeated personal comments on my talk-page, made ‘veiled threats’ and indulged in a general lack of civility after not being asked not to do so. Also, my edits as editor User:agljones on the List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course talk page have been repeatedly broken-up, repeatedly hatted, subjected to unexplained collapses, one unexplained edit conflict and again subject to personal comments and ‘veiled threats.’ The comments on the article List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course were then unnecessary archived by the editor User:doncram.

List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course

The editor User:doncram on the talk-page for the article List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course has repeatedly been asked to address the issue of article independent notability WP:N and also for the article list as required by Wikipedia rules but has failed to do so. In respect to the article List of named corners of the Snaefell mountain Course and I have written as a conclusion by the work of the editor User:doncram:[220]

"...Conclusion. Overall, a very poor performance and not acceptable for Wikipedia and a number of areas have to be addressed...However, overall a badly conceived idea very badly executed. The use of US informal speech overlapping British-English styles is a particular bad problem to the extent that it may suggest an internet translator has been used. The poor use of written English in the formal context of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is just not acceptable. Many of the Wikipedia technical issues have not been addressed such as the paragraphs in the executive summary, issues of notability, issues of bias, issues of original research and issues in regard to neutral point of view. It is not acceptable to rely on other editors to have to work on such a badly written, badly executed article which duplicates information in a form of stacked articles which will eventually cause further AFD nominations. The issues with photographs is a particular bad problem and not understanding the new style marker boards and milestones posts. The issue of copyright of photographs has been misunderstood as perceived copyright expiry does not diminish ownership of photographs or commercial copyright issues including fee payment. Overall a waste of time and the list has not reached some of the more technically difficult areas..."

Reply from editor doncam

This is reply from User:doncram and please note the profanity and redacted comment;-[221]

"...About me summarizing your perspective as you are disrespecting the list-article in its current condition, it is absurd for you to suggest that ::is wrong. You object to me stating anything about what you "'like' or dislike" or saying you "disrespect" anything. But you do disrespect it! You ::find nothing positive to say about it and you dismiss practically everything about it ... you yourself summarize it as a "very poor performance and ::not acceptable for Wikipedia". What the f*** do you mean', am I supposed to understand that as an expression of approval or respect??? " ::doncram 06:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is my reply to the redacted comment (actually now hiding serious profanities behind ******)[222]

"....Do not make repeated personal comments. Do not use comments such as “disrespect” for as in British-English this is only seen as the literal meaning of the word which would suggest lack of a courteous manners which is not been the case. I have followed the Wikipedia "three-strike rule" and other suggestions about replying to all questions.... The word “disrespect” in the manner you suggest is only used in European or Latin-American Spanish, Brazilian-Portuguese or in US informal speech patterns or slang. Do not make personal comments and hide expletives behind asterisks (*****)...."agljones(talk)23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Crying Wolf accusation

A further personnel comment from doncarm and note the term "crying wolf " .....So it seems like crying wolf. If actionable suggestions are included, they're lost within all the verbiage." --doncram 04:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) [223] I have replied ".... Rather than just verbiage there is a long list outstanding corrections. If they acted not on promptly then I will challenge with sources and remove them. Again do not make any further personal comments and "crying wolf" in British-English is an accusation of sexual deviance." agljones(talk)13:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[224]

Veiled Threats

The editor User:doncram has repeatedly made veiled threats and in this edit [225] has said "...I've made a lot of effort to try to communicate with you, but it's gotta be a two-way street. Depending on how you respond, maybe this is heading towards requiring use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes'.... --doncarm 22:55, 27 March 2015 " This Veiled threat has been been repeated again with this comment "....To be clear, this is not a "threat", i am just informing you that I will open an administrative action and explicitly request your being banned. I won't back down if you choose to "cooperate" a little bit now, say by deigning to reply one or two times at a Talk page; anything now would be too-little too-late. This is a courtesy notice just to inform you, from me as an adult person to you as another, so you won't feel blind-sided....I do appreciate your many cumulative contributions of photos and writing related to Isle of Man TT topics, and I believe you are highly intelligent, informed, and no doubt a nice person. It's just that the non-collaborative behaviors have gone on too long and are unacceptable IMO. Sincerely, --doncram 19:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [226]

The editor User:doncram has repeatedly redirected other articles to this article list, despite a requirement by Wikipedia for an independent article to exist. In the Isle of Man TT network of articles again forcing his opinions on other editors over article content/independent notability to support his own policy in the development of the list including the inclusion of nonsensical comments or sections that conflict with the original articles, the use of USA technical terms not found in British-English and an emphasis on misleading, whimsical and flippant quotations along with a strong bias to US-internet citations that are questionable sources.

Meat-puppetry

The Editor User:doncram has engaged the Editor User:Rocknrollmancer in initially what Wikipedia administrators may see as a borderline low-level meat-puppet activities more common with new and inexperienced editors. However, there has been off-Wikipedia communication initiated by editor User:doncram with editor User:Rocknrollmancer . The position in respect to the racist comment made editor User:Rocknrollmancer the editor User:doncram made this comment ".....Please don't be bothered by ridiculous assertions of a blocked editor about you (and me) at his Talk page. Contriving to twist the term "pro-Manx" into a racist expression is nonsense. Let me say for you, so you don't feel you have to reply: it is nonsense! It is nonsense for anyone to assert Rocknrollmancer has ''any iota of racism.... " [227]] This comment shows meat-puppetry between the two editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram and a tacit admission of this relationship has been recently be given by the editor User:doncram at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course article. Both editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram at this deletion article have resorted to campaigning and team-tagging. In particular the editor User:Rocknrollmancer has again raised the same issue of sock-puppetry which the editor User:doncram has also previously commented on.

As with editor User:Rocknrollmancer, the editor User:doncram is required to be banned from my talk-page and also the main Isle of Man TT article and the other articles in the Isle of Man TT network of articles.

agljones(talk)14:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

agljones, thanks for the polemic. The only thing I can be arsed to say is that, in no accepted or understood form of BritEng is to Cry Wolf "an accusation of sexual deviance." Except amongst wolves, perhaps. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, now I need a nap, because this put me right back to sleep. I think the gist is that you want these two to stay away from your talk page? Fine. No need to bring that to ANI. But banning two editors from an article because you don't like them isn't going to happen, at least not with the screed you've posted here. And 'crying wolf' isn't an 'accusation of sexual deviance' in American English either. If there's anything else, put it in one sentence, but beware of the boomerang. Katie^talk 15:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I glanced through your ANI thread report and I believe I got the general idea of what your frustrations and concerns are. First, I'm going to echo KrakatoaKatie's response in agreement: You're allowed to kindly ask editors to leave you alone and stay off your talk page, and (minus some exceptions) they are expected to generally comply and obey your wishes. Banning editors from articles simply because of the interaction that you two have had, and the fact that you're probably frustrated and perhaps upset at them is not a sufficient reason for anyone to create a thread here and ask for one. I think you need to let go of the past "he did this" and "she did that" with these users, and make a reasonable attempt to come to peace with everyone and collaborate positively. There is nothing that anyone here is going to do, other than point you to Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines and tell you to shake hands and work things out. Wikipedia is not about winning, and you need to consider what is relevant for the content issues that you have, and come to a consensus. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to hold grudges and try to lock others out of articles because they have quarrels or disagreements with you, or to "have the last word" when you find that you're in a dispute. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "and the term “Manx” is listed on the Wikipedia page as a “....Inbred….Sheep-shagger….Webfeet.... (from the supposed frequency of inbreeding mutations among the Manx)." Err, no, it doesn't say that at all - On that old talk page that you linked to, the section is titled "Manx (Isle of Man, British Isles)" and it lists derogatory terms aimed at Manx people - it is saying that "Inbred", "Sheep-shagger", and "Webfeet" are derogatory terms for the Manx, not that "Manx" is a derogatory term! (Just read the rest of the page - Is "Mexican" a derogatory term? "French"? "Irish"? They would be according to that idiotic interpretation.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions and they have been understood. I would like to point out that the term 'crying wolf' in British-English in UK newspapers was used to describe the German pilot Andreas ­Lubitz of Germanwings Flight 9525 due to his homosexuality and sexual deviancy. The ethnic slurs has been moved from the main page to the talk:page in the past year. This ethnic slurs for the term 'Manx' is used as a derogatory and racial slur and is aimed at the distinctive Gaelic/Scandinavian ethnic group of the Isle of Man and also 'Manx' the 'Manx-Gaelic' language which suddenly collapsed in the middle of the nineteenth century and persecuted in the same manner as other minority European languages in the mid-twentieth century. Conversely, the term can be aimed at a person in the Isle of Man not in this ethnic group as a racial slur. Also in British-English, the term "Irish" is also used in a similar context. The term has also the same connotation and use as the "N-word" which can only be used by the Afro-Americans and perhaps you can relate more to this explanation. The point is also understood about disagreements. However, the two editors have used team-tagging and campaigning to lock of articles and certain rules have to be complied with in Wikipedia. The bottom line it is that it is about building an encyclopaedia and not about inaccurate and contradictory information in which Wikipedia is often criticised about. Also, it is necessary to avoid the issues of circular references which has been a problem in this small network of articles. agljones(talk)19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is a great example of how not to file an ANI report. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh for fuck sake, agljones, I'm British and I know (as you know perfectly well too, I'm sure) that "crying wolf" is a common idiom that does not mean what you're trying to make it mean. You have also gone out of your way to manufacture racism claims that are simply not there in the use of the term "pro-Manx" when referring to people supporting issues relating to the Isle of Man (and your attempts now to claim that "Irish" is a derogatory term simply beggar belief - I'm part Irish myself, for the record). Your obviously deliberate attempts to smear people with nasty accusations are horrible, and I'm quite disgusted by your behaviour here. Let me warn you now, if I see any more of these inexcusable personal attacks, I'll be blocking you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

agljones has been making precisely these same nonsensical allegations for the last year (e.g. [228], while indef blocked for sockpuppetry). If a year, a mountain of ignored advice, and an indef block won't teach him, will yet another warning? 87.115.16.61 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, but now that I have issued a warning I don't want to escalate yet - but if I see one more unfounded accusation of racism I will be issuing a block (if nobody else does first). In the meantime, when I'm feeling a little more charitable, I might try to offer some more detailed advice on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless ANIs I've seen in a long time. Someone should close it before agljones ends up blocked. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

agljones - See my response to you above. In the end, you guys need to work this out. I don't believe that anyone here is willing to settle turf wars or dive head first into the middle of your particular content dispute. Most of the details and explanations that you've given here in this thread is exactly what you should be discussing with the other users, not us. So far, I'm seeing no blatant violations of Wikipedia policy; there is anger and frustration, and I understand that you feel upset. But this is a situation where no administrator action is required. You need to collaborate positively, keep your communication open, and perhaps maybe take a break and chill for a bit. If you need any coaching or mentoring on positive communication and dispute resolution, you're more than welcome to message me in my talk page and I will help you. Other than that, there is nothing anyone is going to do here administratively. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a wider look at all the personal comments made by the two editors before making a decision and what context they have been made. I have previously lived for a long time in Ireland and have heard the comment used and I am also part of Irish descent. Racism is about ignorance and it is about a comment about made about a person in the Isle of Man and not about being Brtish. I live in the Isle of Man and the term is used directly. The company that I work for in the Isle of Man would not except a comment made using the term and would lead to summary dismissal as would the first line of your reply. One of the UK newspapers did use the term "crying wolf" in respect to Andreas ­Lubitz on the front page and I have been trying to track it down, perhaps the Sun or Daily Star. Perhaps your not familiar with the term in respect to the issue of homosexuality and this was discussed more in German media in respect to this individual.agljones(talk)21:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a wider look - try, for example, searching for "Manx" on Google and see how many occurrences are racist (hint: Manx people themselves appear to use the term extensively). Anyway, I'm not in the mood to argue with your stubbornness right now, so I will talk to you on your talk page tomorrow - and I will try to explain how badly wrong you are in assuming that, just because a term might have been used in a derogatory fashion, then everyone who uses it must be using it in similar fashion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC) (Probably won't now, as I suspect I'd be wasting the time of both of us and we've seen enough walls of text as it is - I think all that needs to be said here has been said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC))

• Please just close this now as completely incomprehensible. This appears to be an example of crying wolf, but not in the way the OP intends. EEng 23:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Seconded (bemused bystander) Eagleash (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Bemusedly amused? EEng 23:48, 28 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.

• Inspired by a reference in Oshwah's discussion-close comments, I've created Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining. Just a stub at this point, please contribute. EEng 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

HAHA!!! That almost made me spit beer out of my mouth! That's funny as hell :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

But, I like whining! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

...Nope, less is more. I think it's perfect the way it is. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wasn't expecting such enthusiasm. But just you wait... soon some killjoy will come by to tell us that there's no place for humor in serious discussions.

EEng 08:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep - BMK (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just as a passing comment on this deservedly-closed thread, previous versions of this user's userpage contained the declaration that "This user is Manx" with no apparent issue. Just saying. ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Numerous problems with an editor of Economic stagnation

User EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in POV pushing and edit warring on Economic stagnation

• POV pushing- Boldly and aggressively asserts her POV with complete disregard of the facts by promoting the issue of economic inequality. (She actually admitted to bias on Talk:Economic stagnation)
• Disruptive edits- posting phony tags, reverts
• Failure to adequately discuss in Talk- she has never satisfactorily replied to a single request to explain her edits
• Makes false claims about what sources actually say and feels justified in doing so.

Her latest disruptive edit replaced this version [[229]] with the current version. This copmletely disrupts the article for the purpose of trying to post something about income inequality following the lede and putting the explanation of the term and the current debate about stagnation at the end of the article.

There is enough information on Talk:Economic stagnation to prove without any doubt that she is biased and POV pushing, misrepresenting facts and is not engaged in good faith talk discussions.

EllenCT has consistently tried to take over economic articles to push her POV on income inequality. Past encounters with her involved Economic growth and United States where she was defeated by several opposing editors. She engages in long, drawn out edit wars and phony Talk discussions that waste everyone's time. Phmoreno (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Phmoreno's history of trying to gain advantages in content disputes by ANI complaints, the linked instance having resulted in a boomerang. This instance is quite similar. Phmoreno is trying to use the economic stagnation article to push the fringe "secular stagnation" theory, which the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources show has never been borne out by facts and has always been disproven. Phmoreno favors secular stagnation theory because of his politically motivated support for associated and similarly discredited supply-side economics used to support trickle-down and austerity policies. I urge administrators to review the talk page discussion and article history carefully. Please note that Phmoreno takes apparent pride in rejecting our reliable source criteria when trying to advance WP:PRIMARY research reports for which he can find no support in the peer reviewed academic literature review secondary sources. I ask that he be restricted from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. I deny the allegations of bias other than towards the conclusions of the consensus of peer reviewed secondary sources, and I deny all the other allegations made above as obvious lies as examination of the article's talk page and the sources cited clearly show. EllenCT (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having examined the talkpage I can see a number of arguments (assuming good faith) over content primarily between the both of you. Have you considered third party mediation? I prodded Volunteer Marek to comment as he has also edited there. But EllenCT, after reading that talk page, when it comes down to content, I generally agree with most of Phmoreno points. He has provided plenty of source-backed arguments which you have (despite being asked to) on a number of occasions been unable/unwilling to actually explain why and where you think they are correct. You clearly *do* have a specific POV (as anyone can see who has followed your economic-based discussions in a number of areas, including Jimbo's talk page) regarding certain economic issues which I think may be clouding your objectivity here. You don't agree with Phmoreno's position on certain subjects, but that is not reason to exclude their editing. This is certainly not 'superior' to this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree with Volunteer Marek's repeated requests on the article's talk page that Phmoreno's favored "secular stagnation" theory be moved out into its own separate article? Do you agree with Marek's complaint that Phmoreno has been conflating and synthesizing multiple distinct secular stagnation theories?

Why do you suggest that the version presenting "secular stagnation" as fact in the first sections of the article is superior to the version which considers the international perspective first?

I most certainly am biased: towards the consensus conclusions of actual peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the subject, and against those who would try to use primary research papers without support in the secondary sources, or even less reliable sources, to push politically motivated fringe theories. Just because those consensus conclusions are congruent with certain political positions should not be construed to imply that I am trying to push them for political gain; only that I am clearly trying to improve the encyclopedia against the wishes of those who are trying to push fringe theories without any such WP:SECONDARY support. I have repeatedly complained about this continuing situation here, at Arbcom, and on Jimbo's talk page because Jimbo's pre-Wikipedia association with Objectivist anarcho-capitalists has resulted in widespread systemic bias across dozens if not hundreds of economics articles. EllenCT (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless the 'Stagnation' article is overly large, I dont favour splitting it out. But 'secular stagnation' does have enough commentry and sourcing to stand alone if that was the consensus to split it. But thats the point, thats an editing discussion for an RFC, not a behavioural one. RE 'anarcho-capitalists' the problem is you see them everywhere. You give too much credence to Jimbo's opinions and past economical leanings - you certainly give them far more credit for influencing wikipedia than actually is the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly on the article's talk page, [230] documents the evidence that secular stagnation has never held true, e.g. in the third and fourth sentences of it's abstract. Why do you believe it should be included? Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia, or is it just a personal opinion about me because I am one of the few who have not given up on countering the systemic bias? Have you reviewed the several years long history of what happens to professional academic economists who try to edit in accordance with actual peer reviewed literature reviews, against the wishes of far more numerous amateur supply side enthusiasts? Unless you have actual evidence in support of your opinion, I feel that your characterization of my assessment of the situation from years editing on the topics is ill-informed at best and verges on a baseless personal attack. EllenCT (talk)

"Do you have objective evidence that I have overestimated the influence of supply siders, trickle down proponents, and austerity advocates in Wikipedia," No. Nor do I need to provide any. As the person asserting that multiple wikipedia editors over a period of years have deliberately skewed economic articles due to being 'supply siders' 'trickle down proponents' and 'austerity advocates' the onus of proof is on you. I should point out that charactising editing opponents as 'supply siders' 'austerity advocates' etc amply demonstrates your lack of objectivity in the area. Either learn to settle content disputes amicably amongst yourselves or seek mediation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there could be any more compelling proof than that you agree with Phmoreno's inclusion of a discredited supply-side theory at the top of the article against the conclusions of the reliable source documenting its sub-fringe historical status, against the wishes of the person you suggested mediate the dispute, and without reference to any sources suggesting it is anything more than an attempt to provide cover for those who have benefitted financially from giving terrible advice in the corridors of power. I strongly suspect you consider yourself completely neutral and moderately well informed on the topic, but the reality is that astroturfed propaganda has generally resulted in a majority of people who disagree with the vast consensus conclusions of the peer reviewed secondary economic literature. Does saying so demonstrate a lack of objectivity? Does it demonstrate a lack of objectivity to point out that far more people than professional scientists disbelieve anthropogenic climate change because of astroturfed propaganda? Or to point out that far more medical doctors than laypeople in the US think universal healthcare coverage such as the next 19 most wealthy countries enjoy saves money and extends lifespans, because of astroturfed insurance company propaganda? Or to point out that a half century ago many if not most people thought cigarettes had health benefits because of corporate propaganda? If someone is clearly editing as if austerity is just, decent, and good, why does calling them an austerity advocate demonstrate a lack of objectivity?

I would love to have the issue mediated, but have tried before, and my opponents have never agreed, because they know I am editing correctly according to our reliable source criteria, and so they would likely not prevail. EllenCT (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT has gone rogue and acted against consensus with her latest edit. It also appears she created a separate article for secular stagnation even though no consensus was reached. Her talk comments are a combination of misrepresented sources, outright lies and nonsense and her behavior is getting more irrational. She has a history of this type behavior and unless she is cut short she will once again waste everyone else's time and we will have seriously disrupted article.Phmoreno (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is referring to [231] and [232] which were repeatedly requested by Marek on Talk:Economic stagnation. EllenCT (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus for splitting the article. EllenCT's motive was to put the Economic stagnation#Internationally following the lede. The Internationally section is disputed content and is not correctly portrayed in relation to economic stagnation. EllenCT was told before (above and by me on Talk) that her proposed article arrangement wasn't acceptable. EllenCT is desperately trying to push her POV and is posting fake reasons for her edits along with making false claims about sources, both on Economic stagnation and Economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the article was repeatedly requested on the talk page, and no substantive reasons to refrain from doing so have been stated. In the interest of compromise, the contents have been duplicated at the end of the article and a citation has been requested for the unsupportable claim that secular stagnation theory has "usually" instead of "always" been proven wrong. @Phmoreno: do you object to the per-capita instead of per-country representation of growth in the Economic stagnation#Internationally section? If so, why? Please strike your false claims of misrepresenting sources because you are unable to substantiate them. EllenCT (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim about warnings of "secular stagnation have always been proven wrong" is not true. Japan has been in secular stagnation for almost 25 years. Also, I am going discuss a journal article related to stagnation discussing the "break after 1910", which the authors called "the onset of persistent secular stagnation". As for the section Economic stagnation#Internationally, neither of the sources discusses economic stagnation and inclusion of this section is synthesis. Phmoreno (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You have a history of making false statements and misrepresenting sources. Several times I compared your edits with the citations and not only did I find them to be inaccurate but in case of the one of the papers you cited in Economic growth, the conclusion was the opposite of your cherry-picked statement. Most recently see Volunteer Marek's comment at the end of Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation theory "disputed neutrality". There numerous other examples. Phmoreno (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

One of EllenCT's reviews:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. I could not have said it better.VictorD7's comment

Phmoreno (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is still making changes against Talk and under false pretenses. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?Phmoreno (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that VictorD7 was the recipient of Phmoreno's earlier boomerang linked in my first reply above. EllenCT (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That is no excuse for your unacceptable behavior, of which there is a long history. I'm very disappointed that Wikipedia tolerates Internet trolls like you.Phmoreno (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How do you think editors feel about your repeated attempts to prevail in content disputes using baseless allegations to administrators, instead of learning our reliable source criteria and neutrally summarizing the consensus of the peer reviewed academic literature reviews on the subjects you edit? It's beyond disappointing; it's an affront to the quality of the encyclopedia and tends to bring the project into disrepute when third parties in the media see such bias. It shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE at best and is clearly disruptive. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to EllenCT:

• "...leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them..."
• "...sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk."
• "She's also thoroughly incompetent..." Phmoreno (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to dignify these allegations with any further response. I urge administrators to examine the links provided by both sides if there is any question about what is going on again here. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is an admittedly biased editor who sees the world through the lens of income inequality. As VictorD7 and others have commented, she has poor knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter and is incapable of putting together a well reasoned and truthful narrative to support her POV. Therefore, she resorts to disruptive edits to keep content which she thinks opposes her POV off of Wikipedia.Phmoreno (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreal7 activity

Users Involved: Unreal7 (mainly) and In ictu oculi (briefly)
Dear administrators and other fellow Wikipedians. Before I begin, I just want to let you know that I an not trying to be a cry baby or wimp. However, I have gotten impatient with Unreal7, and would like administrator assistance. I first got involved with the user, here, when I was leaving a comment to them about an inappropriate comment about In ictu oculi in the requested move reasoning, and posted a comment on their talk page about it as well. I tried to be nice and civil with them, avoiding drama. I again, bump into Unreal7 when I see them make another inappropriate comment about IIO here. I made a comment to Unreal7 (again) here and made a comment on their talk page here. I was very patient and did not want them getting in trouble. I told them if I saw them make any inappropriate comments again, I would report them. Now, they crossed out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000), with them saying Absolutely not. We never, ever use "British footballer". I am very patient, but this time they blew it. I don't know If I am just in an angry mood tonight, or if they really are making a fuss, but their inappropriate behavior at requested moves has me concerned. I have warned them, and they have not listened to me. Can an administrator deal with them and warn them? I would really appreciate it. Cheers, CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreal7 has been here long enough by now to know that modifying or editing another editor's comments, apart from specific violations or policy, is a no go zone. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreal7 did not follow Wikipedia:No personal attacks guideline, which states Comment on content, not on the contributor. Unreal7 did not do that, and made inappropriate comments about In ictu oculi. According to WP:TPO, Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Again, Unreal7 did not follow guidelines. They stroked out my comment on Talk:Jack Aitchison (footballer, born 2000) on the requested move, currently going on. They have not listened to my warnings. They need to be warned by an administrator, that's all I am saying. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 03:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have also encountered this user striking other people's comments on talk pages as well, for example [233], and then reinstating the change at [234] after I had reverted. I left a message about it at User talk:Unreal7#Striking another user's comment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

. I've unstriken the comments and left a note for Unreal7. Unfortunately, this seems to be the result of an ongoing dispute at RMs between the users mentioned. This probably will require some form of dispute resolution as it appears to be escalating.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with a mama's boy like me and doing a warning. That's all I requested. However, If I see any more WP:PA about In ictu oculi, you will see me here again. Thanks! CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 15:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

editor complaint

• Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor BilCat has repeatedly reverted properly formatted and referenced changes to several aircraft articles claiming that they are not in proper format yet they are consistent with other articles. In one case he claimed that the changes "took up too much space" and "were too much trouble to manage". Request that he be removed from any further editing of these articles.Bob80q (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of what you're referring to and links demonstrating there is consensus for these changes otherwise this sounds like an ordinary WP:Content dispute which needs to be resolved via some ordinary method of WP:Dispute resolution and that doesn't include ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW failing to notify an editor [235] that you've brought them to ANI as both the big orange box when you're editing and the big red text before you edit tell you to is never a good sign when you bring a complaint to ANI. But still I've done it for you. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Operators section of aircraft articles already uses a style. When Bob began editing WP several years ago, he decided implement his own style, which clashes with the style that's already there. Originally, I attempted to change to the existing format, but he would just change it back. After a few failed discussions, he and his IP socks kept at it, so I just revert him now. If he just uses the style that already exists on those pages, there won't be a problem. In fact, he did do that a week or so ago, and I thanked him for it. He responded by changing it to his preferred style. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That'll teach ya to heed the old saying: "Never wake the sleeping dogs!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the beginnings of an edit war at Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Bob80q and Bilcat have each reverted the article either once or twice. If there is any talk page consensus on how this data ought to be shown, that would make a difference. Otherwise the steps of WP:Dispute resolution should be followed. Bob80q opened this complaint saying that BilCat 'reverted properly formatted changes' but that needs to be shown. Proper according to what? EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

While this hasn't been discussed on the C-17 page, it has been discussed elsewhere, but they were not conclusive. The main issue is the style of the operators list, and whether the USAF section should follow the same layout as the other operators in the list at Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Operators, or follow Bob's own style, which is confusing and difficult to follow. Granted, it's a minor issue overall, but I prefer consistency. No one else seems to care. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that I've had to use null edits to add edit summaries to rollback edits on the C-17 page twice since yesterday evening. There seems to have been a change to the Wiki software which is clashing with Twinkle, as has been discussed at Village Pump. The issue won't let me add an edit summary some of the time. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really concerned by Bob's comments here, as they amount to personal attacks against me. His comments that "his talk page states that he is "having health issues" so perhaps he is not in proper frame of mind at present" are quite disturbing and uncalled for. - BilCat (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from dynamic 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.

---

One user from IPs starting with 2a02:a446:83c2:0 (the end rest is different each time) has been editing the page Netherlands national football team whenever a new squad is released or after the team plays a match. The problem is that his edits always include a wrong birthday for one of the players (Jeroen Zoet). Examples: [236], [237], [238]. These are just some of the most recent examples, it goes back much further. I can't talk to him or warn him on his talk page because his IP keeps changing. The article has been semi-protected before, but during that time he continued editing from User:Jurre27:[239]. I tried talking to him on his talk page then, but he didn't respond then either. Is there anything you can do about this? Kinetic37 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The IPv6 addresses appear to all be under the range 2a02:a446:83c2::/64 - I'm looking up WHOIS information now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, they all seem to be under the same ISP and location. To make things easier on everyone, here a list of the IPs and changes made to Netherlands national football team:

• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:3d12:e192:ef6e:8c74
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:4011:aaac:53ef:737b
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:65f9:460a:b5b6:2f69
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:7001:a401:fc1a:360e
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:a914:a5b5:c34:f144
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:d9ad:7d71:e704:6182
• 2a02:a446:83c2:0:24d7:b862:e9dc:22c4

Range: 2a02:a446:83c2::/64

Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Obviously, I didn't include the edits made by Jurre27. Still trying to find definitive proof that the IPs and the user are the same person. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kinetic37, this is an issue that needs to be handled at WP:SPI if you haven't already don that yet. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs have been rangeblocked by Vanjagenije for one month for disruptive editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 29 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

The following discussion is closed. 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:Spacecowboy420 has a habit of using profanities in their edit summaries and has a history of content removal. This is uncivil.

1. 10:35, 30 March 2016‎ (UTC)
2. 10:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
3. 10:59, 23 March 2016‎ (UTC)
4. 09:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
5. 12:03, 20 May 2016‎ (UTC)
6. 10:59, 23 March 2016‎ (UTC)
7. 09:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
8. 14:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
9. 09:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
10. 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
11. 14:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
12. 10:40, 29 February 2016‎ (UTC)
13. 10:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
14. 10:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
15. 06:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note This user recently attempted to take the notified editor to AN3 for edit-warring; Imeldific was informed by Ian.Thomson that in fact Imeldific had "been reverted by a second use[r] (which puts [Imedldific] closer to edit warring). You do indeed appear to be a single purpose account. Although I wouldn't go so far as to call your edits vandalism, they certainly do go against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV." Suggest that this is a retaliatory effort where a previous noticeboard failed. Note that many of the edit-summaries are perhaps robust, but not directed at editors, merely the content. Whereas, indeed, Imeldific's accusations of incivility and accusations of 'content removal' (generally unsourced fancruft, promotionalism, and trivia, I note) may be unfounded enough to amount to a severe lack of WP:AGF on his part. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Imelda's recent electoral victory is relevant to the historical value of the article. The inclusion of which is being hijacked by this content dispute. Imeldific (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You're forum shopping because your edit warring report was declined on the grounds that Spacecowboy420 wasn't edit warring and that you are indeed a singular purpose account editing against policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously unrelated behavior. And that user has a history of disruptive editing. There is also an active discussion about the (un)controversial content which the said user has yet to respond. Imeldific (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting that the filing editor has struck through their original complaint (and the only remaining item is under duscussion on the talk page as a content dispute), can I suggest that this is immediately closed as withdrawn by nom. Also suggest warning for the nominator for wasting other editors' time and energies with a groundless post. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No... It's pretty obvious that this is just another revenge report. Also, Spacecowboy420 clearly hasn't been on since well before you posted that a few hours ago. It's not that he's ignored you, it's that you've been impatient. As for the accusation of disruptive editing, please provide WP:DIFFs to prove it. Profanity from three months ago that you had nothing to do with doesn't really establish that. Also, striking out your posts is generally interpreted to mean that you no longer affirm their content. In other words, if you really meant to strike out your entire first post, that means there's no issue here and we can close the thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:38, 28 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.

Unban/Unblock of Doughnuthead

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

---

Hello. To whoever reads this, I am the former operator of the Doughnuthead account. I feel that, now at the age of 19 and no longer a pre-pubescent teen, I am more than capable of functioning like an everyday bloke on this site. Given the time lapse, I wasn't sure where to post this, and this was one area of the site I could recall so I'm just putting my request out here in the hope someone in the community would like to help me join Wikipedia. Thank you. --2A02:C7F:280A:1800:E979:5984:850E:6EEB (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page on the user account here, you were indefinitely banned by the community on August 6, 2012. To appeal your ban, you need to follow the directions given on your user talk page. Visit this page for instructions, or refer to the message on your talk page in order to properly file an appeal (basically, you'll use your account to send an email to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee). Good luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

But were you still socking up until October last year? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this as well. Regardless, you need to follow the directions I've given. It'll be up to the subcommittee to determine the acceptance or denial of your appeal. Please know that evading your block or ban intentionally will not help your appeal... I understand that you probably had (and maybe still have) questions; I don't see your post here as something that would be used against you, but your sock puppetry record surely will be. I will assume that you're trying to legitimately do the right thing (and we appreciate it!), but don't make any more edits until you've been officially OK'd to do so! Log into your account and go straight to the proper place and follow the directions! I wish you the best of luck and a fair appeal process. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. -- GB fan 14:20, 28 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.

Grossly insulting 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.

---

• 2602:30A:C7D7:E590:AD8A:A459:80A4:DFF1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Grossly insulting personal attacks by IP user in edit summaries. (See this and this). Pinging User:Kautilya3, User:ChunnuBhai --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for reporting this to the administrators User:Lemongirl942 . I would also request the admins to semi protect both these articles for some time. Anonymous IPs are making arbitrary edits on both with a biased POV. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

+1 for semi-protection. The summer is getting hot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP blocked, articles protected. Widr (talk) 17:59, 31 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.

Vandal bugging me on Wikimedia

The following discussion is closed. 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 Disney-related long-term vandal that I and others have been reverting for some time is now accosting me on Wikimedia. See here. They previously also did something similar on my TARDIS Wikia talk page, of all places. They refuse to respond here because s\he says I will "tattle" on them. Well, I'm doing so now here anyway. I am trying to report their vandalism on Wikimedia, but s\he keeps reverting my report. Any help would be appreciated. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 20:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Commons admin; let's chat about this at my talk page here, so as to avoid (1) clogging up this page for a matter not related to en:wp, and (2) you getting noticed over there. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll be cool. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:06, 31 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

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

---

This is a clear legal threat- someone claiming to be representing a Provincial Court demanding Wikipedia change their content. The username is also a violation, but they should be blocked for no legal threats. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I've blocked for the username violation, I'll leave it to be decided here whether the legal threat issue requires further action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 22:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A Google Translation of their unblock request seems to be a legal threat as well, trying to force us to comply with them, or there will be litigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded the block to include the legal threat, and informed them that both block reasons will need to be addressed in order to obtain an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I left a google translation message directing them to WMF legal on their page. It's not perfect, but it's something.--v/r - TP 23:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the basis for the threat, the statement they wished to be changed does not appear to be sourced. I cannot identify whether it is factual or not, nor what improvements can be make to it. It seems somewhat connected to an old 2010 rewrite here. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:24, 31 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.

Google analytics

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

---

Thinking about installing this for use with Wikipedia. Can anyone advise if this is sensible? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Try the help desk. This doesn't need administrative action. --Tarage (talk) 23:51, 31 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 editor needs WP:NOTHERE 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.

---

Not sure if this is the right venue for this - I'm aware of WP:AIV obviously but that's generally for more clear cut instances of vandalism and this is a bit more subtle. I was skimming through rugby league articles today and came across Starmaker1234 (talk · contribs), whose 50+ edit history since January 2016 seems to consist mostly of vandalism, hoaxing, and other nonsense.

Some edits are bald-faced, blatant vandalism: 1 2 3

Others are less so. Examples of hoaxing include this (details of a match that has yet to be played), this (again, details of a match that has yet to be played), this (false information) and this (again, false statistics).

At the very least someone should keep an eye on this guy as the disruption has been happening since January and he clearly knows Wikimarkup, but I'd say its WP:NOTHERE behaviour deserving of a block. Their other edits need to be vetted as well as they are most likely false. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he hasn't responded to any of the warnings either, possibly a vandalism-only account. I would take this to WP:AIV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother. He's blocked. I have no tolerance for edits like this, where there's no room for "misunderstanding" or making an honest mistake. He's just goofing around. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats (and more) by Commonsenseyes

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

---

• Commonsenseyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to the COI edit-warring at Piotr Nowak and potential sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Commonsenseyes), this user has now begun making legal threats. See diff for an example. I haven't reviewed the material in-depth to see if there's a legitimate cause for removal, although it does appear to be sourced. Either way, legal threats and edit-warring with a clear connection to the subject (see here) isn't the way to make changes. ~ Rob^Talk 18:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for the threat, for warring and socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:56, 30 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.

Inventor(s) of the World Wide Web?

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

---

This has gone on for weeks now. One editor is edit-warring a fellow Belgian Robert Cailliau in as the co-inventor of the World Wide Web. He was involved early, but not initially. See Talk:World Wide Web.

An account Bongo76 (talk · contribs) was warned for this and the same edits are now coming from a narrow range of IP addresses. It's a content issue where persistent edit-warring from a disposable IP triumphs (as always) over long-term registered accounts. It's beyond ANEW, SPI or RFC to resolve this, so I bring it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected for ten days. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 31 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: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.

---

He has been in a dispute with Doug Weller for a period of time. He has started making personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahab El Yahiz)) showing that he is WP:NOTHERE. As the final straw, he sent me an email (I can forward it to whoever wants to see it, but I'll need your email address), insulting Doug Weller and claiming that he was an extremist Muslim. Please respond. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Karab El Watar. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would he email you that?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

And Ecoboy90 also created this article, also probably incorrect naming: Karab El Bayin. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Why's that? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Because he has incorrect ideas on how to spell Arabic names? Doug Weller has tried to convince him of this, showing search results for the two names, (the one we have now is just Wikipedia mirrors, the one that is correct has over 10 times the amount of hits on google books), but he's not convinced. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, User:ThePlatypusofDoom, you are supposed to notify the party you file against. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Ecoboy90 is a bad-faith contributor. All signs point to deliberate troublemaking. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say that "weller" is an extremist Muslim .. I said "It seems the extremism of "Allah" followers are not just in real life with weapons and explosive belts, but also in a freely editing encyclopedia !!", so you don't have to lie and go ahead and show everybody the message. Second, ThePlatypusofDoom is saying "he has incorrect ideas on how to spell Arabic names" ?! do you or "weller" speak Arabic?! Ecoboy90 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles are titled as they are commonly found in the available reliable sources. This usually means that on the ENGLISH wikipedia that names that have multiple spellings depending on where in the world you are, tend to be given the spelling that is available in commonly found English-language reliable sources. Even if those sources are mis-translating from the orginal Arabic (Which does not appear to be the case). Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ecoboy90: That can be interpreted as attacking Doug Weller. No, I don't speak Arabic, but MezzoMezzo does, and he agreed that your naming was a mistake (see the talk page). ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I know, I was going to notify him, but you got to it first. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom; I saw the remarks of that one who is called MezzoMezzo, who is following a certain religion so you have to be sure that he will be biased, he said there are "blatant mistakes" in spelling; giving a silly explanation coming from his interpretation of the text from current Arabic !! I have included Sabaic musnad writings in Wahab El Yahiz, and I have included the Sabaic dictionary in the page of List of rulers of Saba and Himyar, so no need to get assistant from somebody who has shallow knowledge. If anyone wants to change the articles that I have created, he should notify first to discuss then maybe we can find a satisfying solution, I don't accept that my articles being moved or edited without even notifying ! Ecoboy90 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"If anyone wants to change the articles that I have created, he should notify first to discuss.." - but you don't own the article, so why should you need to be notified? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@samtar; Why didn't the ones who are playing smart and being wise (..) create the pages in the first place?! I said they should discuss with me then do an edit which could satisfy all parties. Ecoboy90 (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works however. Once you create a page, anyone can edit it. If, however there is something that is contentious, then a discussion on the talk page of the article could be warranted. Notifying you first before making any edits however is not how we work. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor do we restrict people who are "following a certain religion", as you wrote above, from editing articles about other religions, or any other article for that matter. Such an idea is entirely opposite from the principles behind Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've taken Wahab El Yahiz to AfD because I can't find any sources. I suspect this is because once again he's using his own idiosyncractic spelling. Even when I could show him a very large number of reliable sources for the spelling Karib'il Watar and none for his preferred spelling "Karab-El Watar" he said their translations were wrong. And although the article is again at the correct spelling, a few minutes ago he edited the text to change the text to his spelling. At Talk:Wahab El Yahiz he's written "STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLES User:Doug Weller, I AM WARNING YOU .. YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ENGLISH SOURCES ARE SCARCE ... WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY CREATE THE PAGES IN THE FIRST PLACE ?! STOP ACTING LIKE A () .. LAST WARNING, BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING PERSONAL !!! Ecoboy90 (talk) 11:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" and "WHY DO YOU KEEP FOLLOWING MY ARTICLES !!! THEY ARE NOT OFFENDING ANYONE !!! THEY ARE TRANSLATED FROM ANCIENT LANGUAGE AND I AM SURE ABOUT EACH PART OF THE NAME !! SO WHY DO YOU KEEP NAGGING ABOUT ENGLISH SOURCES, DID I INCLUDE ANY OF THEM ?! GET A LIFE User:Doug Weller .. I REALLY FEEL SORRY FOR YOU !!" Doug Weller talk 13:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ecoboy90's reaction to the AfD:

The user called Dog Weller is trying to make this issue controversial because of personal subjective reasons !! maybe he follows certain extreme religion, and he considered that I am cursing and insulting his lovely God !![240]

Comments such as this are unacceptable, and a violation of No personal attacks. BMK (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: User:Ecoboy90 has had an account for a little over a year, and in that time has accumulated 17 warnings and complaints on their talk page. In that entire time, Ecoboy90 has never made a single edit to their talk page. The failure to discuss issues raised by other editors is an indication of not taking the cooperative and collegial nature of Wikipedia seriously. The user's comments here and those quoted by Doug Weller indicate also that the don't understand that they articles they create are not theirs. BMK (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think they actually have a contribution to make. The area they have chosen is lacking in content, if they can be educated in the wikipedia way they would be an asset. I have a passing interest from a long time ago on the Saba kingdoms but I lack the native language skills to really help. It might be worth looking for a mentor for them to help them adjust. Or restrict them to creating articles in draftspace/AFC for the time being. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Having no knowledge of the subject area, I can make no judgment about the quality of their contributions. However, regardless of the value of their edits to the encyclopedia, Ecoboy90 must take in the essential point of this discussion: they do not own the articles they create, they can not prevent other editors from working on them, and they will not be allowed to continue editing if they continue to insult and attack other editors. BMK (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
      • ...And communication: without that, any improvement in those other areas, however impressive, would be a gloss. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, did anyone notice that he said that User:MezzoMezzo was biased because it says on his page that he is a Sunni Muslim? Seriously? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I also agree Ecoboy90 seems to have expertise that could be of benefit. His knowledge of the language could be an asset, used apprpriately. I happen to think its rather insulting to have the view that only English sources should be used, it is also short sighted. I personally use references in 6 languages, as well as 3 versions of English. However, Ecoboy90 you must learn the way WP works, you do not own articles, anyone can edit them, they do not need your permission. You cannot insult people. Also keep religion out of it, I do not care what religion you or anyone else is, you make it a point of your editing and your no longer a benefit to WP. You need to openly discuss any issues, and respond to requests on your talk page. Basically you need to co-operate, neither you, me or anyone else has the final word on anything. WP is built by consensus. I am actually defending you here, but you need to see it is a two way deal to be an editor on WP. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 14:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::User:Only in death, one problem is that he is relying for his new stuff on just one source, and frankly I don't think he's a judge of sources since he referred me to [241]. When I pointed out that this site pointed out that his source believes in Jews worshipping a Trinity, that evolution is hoax, etc. he responded with "you can read the sources he included; because he came up with a true convincing conclusion about the etymology of the moon god called "Allah". I am quoting what you said "It's bad enough that he's anti-Muslim and believes Allah is a moon god", You are not even an Arabic speaker to defend your Moon God, or do you want us to cite crooked translations written by your Muslim brothers !! now we know why you are so stubborn and stone-minded !! It seems the extremism of "Allah" followers are not just in real life with weapons and explosive belts, but also in a freely editing encyclopedia !! " - which really does suggest he's calling me an extremist. Another example of a problem spelling is El Sharih Yahdhib - it seems unlikely that not only can I not find English sources for the subject of the article, but I can't find them for his father "Far'am Yanhab", his brother ""Ya'z El Bayin" or the tribal allies of the Axumites called the "Sahra". Now he's blocked, cleanup is needed Doug Weller talk 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Ecoboy90 as a sock master. His  Confirmed puppet, also blocked, is Syro90 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we can close this discussion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, Bbb23! BMK (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That changes things and fair enough. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 14:12, 1 June 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 Kamran the Great and Persian Gulf vs Arabian Gulf

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

---

Context (1) the name of the Persian Gulf is disputed, see Persian Gulf naming dispute which explains why a widely accepted name is disputable. Specifically, Arab countries (on the west of the water), don't use "Persian Gulf", they use "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf". Iran (on the east) uses "Persian Gulf" and doesn't recognise any other name. It might be policy-compliant (WP:WIAN) but I don't think it makes Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia to search out every occurrence of "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" and replace it with "Persian Gulf", especially in articles about Arab countries or activities, where such persistence might be construed as POV-pushing. Context (2) User Kamran the Great was blocked indefinitely on 2 Jul 2011 for "Disruptive editing: Apparent Wikipedia:Single purpose account in promoting "Persian" in every instance" [242]; the block was lifted in 21 Sep 2011. My problem: Kamran the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to do little else on Wikipedia except changing "Arabian Gulf" to "Persian Gulf". On 20 May 16 he edited Kuwait [243] (an Arab country) to replace Gulf with Persian Gulf. He did the same on 30 May 2016 [244] including deleting an explanatory footnote referring to the Persian Gulf naming dispute article. On the same day he corrected Arabian Gulf to Persian Gulf here [245] and here [246] (an article about a Bahraini). On 22 May 2016 here [247] the Arabian peninsula, and here [248] about Qatar, an Arab country. On 20 May here [249] about an Arab company; here [250] about an island off the UAE; here [251] about a building in Saudi Arabia. I could go on - a glance at his contributions is enough to show hundreds of similar edits. Some users have asked him to desist, e.g. here, here; Kamran is unfailingly polite and cites policy. Summary. The name of the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf/Gulf is contentious. The issue has come up before in 2012 at DRN, with User Kamran the Great accusing another editor of being tendentious by changing "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf", but I don't think in that discussion it was understood that Kamran does almost nothing else on Wikipedia except make edits to do the reverse. To search for every instance of "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" and replace it with "Persian Gulf" is tendentious itself. Is it POV-pushing? In my opinion this user is a WP:SPA; the user is continuing an activity he was previously blocked for; and the user makes edits that are disruptive. Questions Is Kamran's behaviour acceptable or sanctionable? How might I ask Wikipedia to introduce a policy that the use of the term "Arabian Gulf" or "Gulf" is an acceptable geographic name in articles about Arab countries where the term "Persian Gulf" is not used locally? (Disclosure: I have edited Persian Gulf naming dispute myself recently). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a RFC involving the appropriate wiki projects. Advertise it at WP:CENT to draw as much outside opinion as possible. Perhaps it might even something to be discussed at WP:VPP. Those would be my first suggestions. Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Not only is his behavior not even closely sanctionable, it's laudable. According to the article you contributed to, it's the name the UN and US have officially sanctioned and AFAIK, the commonly used name in the English-speaking world. Wikipedia is not for righting Great Wrongs. Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, one might say righting a Great Wrong is almost exclusively what Kamran is doing. My point was: in the arabic-speaking world, which is where I'm talking about, "Persian Gulf" is not used at all. Changing good-faith use of "Arabian Gulf" back to "Persian Gulf" in articles on Arab things isn't making the encyclopedia better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In the Arabic-speaking world they might use a different name, but in the English-speaking world the body of water is known as the Persian Gulf. Since this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, the English-language term is used. This may be different on the Arabic-language Wikipedia (I don't know) but this is the English-language version. Faulting someone for correcting erroneous terminology and bringing it to WP:ANI is not quite what we mean by assuming good faith. Moreover, this is not an ANI-matter. So please Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 07:56, 1 June 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:Antamajnoon

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

---

Recently Antagmajnoon, a new user to Wikipedia, accused me to Wikihounding on my talk page after I reverted two of their edits, but has so far refused to provide any evidence. Both my reverts were in line with the consensus on the pages, and I was 'thanked' by other edits for my reverts. Antagmajnoon has now begun to trace my edits and has admitted as much here. My edits to the Libertarian Presidential Primary 2016 was reverted here and to the 2020 election here. I have a long standing interest in politics and elections on Wikipedia and Antagmajnoon has never shown any interest in these pages before. Antagmajnoon has accused my summaries of being misleading which is not the case. They have also begun to make similar comments on @Rebbing:'s talk page. Antagmajnoon clearly intends to violate WP:HOUND and to disrupt the edits of other users, and generally undertake disruptive editing. I'd like to nip this in the bud before it develops into something much more serious and disruptive. Ebonelm (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this stems from derivatives of the page wedlease where User:Rebbing has without proof argued that wedleases are hypothetical (I know of at least one jurisdiction that practises wedleases). Since Rebbing has repeated the notion that wedleases are hypothetical on at least 8 namespaces, the onus is on him to give references, citations or some substantion, otherwise it seems he's inventing and making stuff up. I invited them to discuss on Talk:Marriage without reply. Antamajnoon (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Antamajnoon as a  Confirmed sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hawaan12/Archive for background. After being permitted to keep the account of their choice, the user has gone out and created yet another sock account. I've also blocked Ninefive6, the account they were allowed to keep, and tagged all the accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 May 2016‎
  • @Bbb23: Thanks for the investigative work and explanation. I'm not sure it's of any use, but 92.13.140.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to have been used by Antamajnoon earlier this month. Rebbing 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you, Ebonelm, for reporting this. If anyone should need it, I detailed my history with the user at my talk page (permalink). To respond to two specific points: a wedlease, according to that article, is a "proposed" form of marriage contract; and Antamajnoon did not invite me to discuss this at Talk:Marriage, where the onus was on him to justify his edit. Rebbing 18:00, 31 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:Violetnese

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

---

This editor is WP:NOTHERE. She created her account on July 3, 2015. She has about 1,000 edits, over half of which are to her own userpage. Her userpage is emblematic of her style. It reads like a social media page, and much of it is incomprehensible, at least to me. She talks about other people (friends of hers I think) as well as celebrities, often talking to them.

A good portion of what she says in response to other editors is loony. For example, I reverted some of her most recent changes to her userpage. She restored them. I reverted again, and she restored them again. I stopped. Her response to my warning about being WP:NOTHERE and risking a block was "Sure, go ahead. I"m going on Neopets and HitRecord." I have no idea what that means, although HitRecord, a company owned by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, goes back to my first introduction to this person, when she edit-warred over adding "falsetto" to Gordon-Levitt's Talk page and creating a Falsetto category later. She was blocked for this misconduct, but during the discussion at WP:AN3, she made two crazy comments: ""Look what Ryan just saw on Wikipedia! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA" and "You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one!" (see [252] at bottom of page).

Then there's this comment on an article Talk page: "I also love Dear by Amanda Bynes on eBay.com! Can't wait for new episodes at 9pm! I will never ever be left out/missed out of Amanda Christine "Christie" Gouldie Brindle protecting me in older childrens' club thing, Amanda! That's why we're not for Aquarius! Unicorns will never be compromised! Lizzie's unicorn sweatshirt! I trust you!" And the next edit with this edit summary: " that was Frindle. Asians sweat."

I'm not going to look for any more evidence in her history. Perhaps she's done something constructive somewhere that a complete review would uncover, but it's hard to believe that she's a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't Facebook. This looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE with a dash of WP:CIR thrown in. I saw the user page and talk page. It's obviously someone who doesn't understand what Wikipedia is at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Their behavior is really bizarre, they might be a troll, or just a misguided user. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I sampled some edits and expected a 14-year-old. She claims to be 28. If so, she really should know better. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The user page doesn't look all that different from a lot of other user pages I've seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Check her edit history, she's been making unconstructive edits to pages. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is really bizarre, a very odd type of editor. Either a very odd troll or a person that logs on to this, thinking it is facebook. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Siteban. This is an extreme example of WP:NOTHERE: I see no sign at all that User:Violetnese has any understanding of what Wikipedia is, let alone any sign of desire and ability to learn how contribute to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban I agree and if you look at her talk page, she is OK with a ban, she's moving on to the next site. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban (Non-administrator comment) Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban Forced to concur with all the above; madness that she remains. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban My comment above sums it up. This is someone who doesn't really understand, nor do they care to understand, what Wikipedia is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban Clearly WP:NOTHERE, absolutely no reason why she should stay, extreme example of WP:CIR failure. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban Absolutely dead weight, BMK (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban At first I thought this might be a case of Singlish or some other pidgin... but the user's page say they're from Raleigh. Frankly this appears to be a terrible AI bot that's failing at the Turing test. "that was Frindle. Asians sweat." ([253]) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Clear WP:CIR case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 1 June 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:Davestapp

Davestapp (talk · contribs) is clearly a single-purpose editor. I suspect that he's an employee of Diana Meltzer's who is charged with promoting Beat the System (band). While I usually don't mind insiders pushing bands, because they can offer good sources that might normally be missed by our editors, this editor has shown little understanding or regard for copyright because he claims that "the picture belongs to the band". Apparently the editor is compelled to add photo credits when adding those copyrighted images to the band's article: here and here. This looks like the photographer has reserved some rights and the band does not own the images outright. The editor either needs a mentor, or to have edits watched by someone who can vet them, or to have someone with more patience than me explain the issues. Again, those issues are WP:SPA/WP:COI and copyright violations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm always happy to offer mentoring, if it's determined that this user should have it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:70.68.199.80, at article The Heart Wants What it Wants

This is about this user changing a particular sentence in the lead portion of the article, and has done so several times now: [254] [255] and [256]. It's merely about changing the meaning of the sentence to imply something that is not true, and I've repeatedly mentioned this in my edit summaries which reverted the change, plus I've brought it to the article's talk page. I've even invited the user to participate in the discussion over at their talk page, but the user has not made any effort to communicate on any of the talk pages (including mine) regarding their edit, and just keeps restoring their version in the article. I'm not thinking they even get that they change the meaning of the sentence. As I point out on the article's talk page, their change could also be seen as a BLP violation (as Selena Gomez is not part of the production team called Rock Mafia, which may be implied with their version of the sentence), and is the reason for my reverts in the article.

I'd rather not keep dealing with this user for this one issue in the article, but I also want to make sure that statements made about people, per the BLP policy, are not taken in such a way that will question its accuracy. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

MPFitz1968 - This edit here is a simple grammatical change, and makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence (the user just didn't put a comma after "Antonina Armato"). This edit simply changes the fact that Gomez either provided additional song writings, or if he wrote more than that. The last edit you provided changes the statement that Antonina Armato and Tim James produced the song as well as wrote it. This appears to be a content dispute, and a very small one. The IP made only three changes over two weeks to this article, so no edit warring is occurring. I think that you should assume good faith and understand that people may interpret words differently. A block on this IP isn't going to do anything, as the user is making a change at the rate of about 1-2 times per week. What's wrong with just fixing the article to be accurate towards the source and just leaving it at that? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrator comment - I agree with Oshwah's assessment. You need to take this through WP:DR if you want to resolve this matter. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-administrator comment: I have to disagree, I'm afraid; the IP's changes do indeed change the meaning of the sentence with respect to Rock Mafia (whatever that is) by making "who collectively ..." apply as well to Gomez. I'm assuming MPFitz1968 is correct in saying she's not in that, which is also suggested by the fact the clause calls it a "duo". MPFitz1968 has tried different formulations and has opened a talk page section; the IP isn't seeing the implication. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have looked again at the IP's most recent edit [257], and I failed to notice the phrase "along with", which had been in previous versions of the article (which the IP had removed in other edits). There is a different meaning to the sentence with that phrase in it than without. It separates Gomez from Armato and James in terms of the sentence structure, thus not "collectively" putting Gomez in with the other two as part of the production team Rock Mafia. I restored that IP edit to the article, and will retract the warning I gave the IP. I will say that it's not the best way to express the song's writing credits in the article, and can leave others (even myself) to improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Mussoorie call girls

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

---

While patrolling new pages, I ran across an Indian spammer who has been creating inappropriate pages such as 98151 rishikesh 32422 call girl service in mussoorie escort services in mussoorie call girls. The pages, which seem to be advertising escorts in Mussoorie, are filled with incoherent repeated text, and have long titles with phone numbers in them. Recently, Syuvi463531 (talk · contribs) and Singhyuvi696222 (talk · contribs) have created seven of these pages between them, which I tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense, although judging by the deletion log, this spammer is prolific, and I can vaguely remember similar pages being created as far back as 2012. My question is: does any administrator or other user know anything more about this spammer? Is it a human sockpuppeteer, or an automated spambot?

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a spambot, I usually just tagged the page for deleteipn, then tag the author at AIV as a spambot. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are spambots. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 29 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 Harmful editing by user Koala15

Please Note: I reported this on the page for Vandalism as well, I felt reports at both of these pages were necessary. I could be wrong since I don't report much as I try to work out problems I face by talking them out and only feel reporting necessary if a user ultimately refuses to cooperate with others.

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is continuously making harmful edits to the page Khalifa (mixtape) and Wiz Khalifa discography. The user was asked multiple times to stop making edits without providing references, specifically changing the title of Khalifa (mixtape) to Khalifa (album) and removing the project from the Mixtape section and adding it to the album section of the Wiz Khalifa discography page. He's been asked multiple times to provide sources of physical distribution of the project in question, to prove that it is indeed an album rather than a mixtape, but the user continues to ignore. But I didn't stop there, I even added a new section to the talk page of Khalifa (mixtape) to discuss the issue, which the user also ignored. The user continuously makes edits at their own discretion with no explanation and no attempt to work productively with other users on the site, acting as if Wikipedia were their own personal sandbox. Weweremarshall (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

That page move was two weeks ago...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

One of them was, but it dates back a little further than that. I've been trying to get this user to cooperate for over a month, I got back from vacation today only to find out he was still making whatever edits he pleases at his own discretion. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:GunturIrawanSub

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

---

Hello, the user seems to be renaming pages without consensus and has a pattern of disruptive editing if not occasionally vandalism. -- H^akan·IST 10:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• He seems to be a clairvoyant, too. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23, a checkuser block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 29 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 Rambling Man's behavior

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

---

At Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg, TRM starts calling people lazy for not searching for free images of dead people or not making negotiations with copyright holders of certain images. Worse, he keeps rebutting "keep" arguments until he replaced a non-free image of Sally Brampton with a newer one. Was that intent sarcastic, or was it just unacceptable behavior? I could not tell by looking at those messages. Perhaps TRM can explain. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "lazy" is used several times but I did not see any that were directed at a particular editor—saying "User Example is lazy" would be a minor violation of WP:CIVIL, but saying "We should not default to choosing any old image of a dead person one day after they die simply because people are too lazy to do any work to get a free version." is not. The page is called "Files for discussion" and people should be able to say what they think. Indeed, at another point TRM says 'I have no "influence", I'm arguing a position.' which seems very reasonable. Have you tried engaging with the points raised? At any rate, a report at ANI needs diffs rather than a link to a long discussion. By the way, the current section heading is not a model of civility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've too have read the discussion and it seems to me that there was laziness on your part and with others. TRM tried to make the situation work, even taking the time to approach Surrey Council who adjusted the copyright so as to allow the image on Commons. That is not the work of someone who is behaving "pompous" or "uppity", but someone who is willing to go the extra mile in order to make a good situation out of a bad one. No case to answer here, and I've changed the uncivil header to a more neutral one. Cassianto^Talk 08:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved administrator comment - I see no wrongdoing or violating of policy by The Rambling Man in his comments on that discussion. I propose a swift trout to George Ho for being so quick to bring this to the "drama board" when TRM is simply pointing out our policies, and appropriate usage, of our fair-use images. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:19, 30 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.

Vote X sock report

Taken care of by someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could an admin take a look at 86.151.48.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which I suspect is Vote X's latest address, and complete WP:RBI? Thanks. Tevildo (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User just back from 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.

---

Egorg13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Egorg13 has just come back from a 1-week block for repeated recreation of articles about non-notable Georgian footballers- in the edit summaries of the now deleted articles, they said they were working on behalf of the footballers. Block ended yesterday, and today they've recreated at least 3 of the articles (Giorgi Tevzadze, Lasha Parunashvili, Otar Kiteisvhili). They are clearly not listening, and should be blocked for longer, preferably indefinite as not here. Pinging Doc James as he performed last week's block. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

One of them appears to be copied and pasted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 29 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 falsely reverting perfectly good edits as "test-edits"!

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

---

Page: Ray Combs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebyabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Bogus note left on my talk page: [259]

This user seems to believe, falsely, of course, that just because I'm a dynamic-IP-based editor, my perfectly valid edits are "not valuable" and are only "test-edits." Doesn't this fall under some kind of WP:UNCIVIL or "do not bite" clause?

My perfectly valid edits on Ray Combs include the removal of stray hyphens, the forming of proper s-ending possessives, the removal of an obvious redundancy, improving some kludgy wording, and acknowledging that people have more than one spinal disc. Why should they be rudely thought of as "tests" even though they're obvious improvements?

So will you please instruct this editor not to revert these completely valid edits as if they were "tests," since they're actually valid, sound edits, and then block her or him for a while?

174.23.160.130 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [He/she hasn't posted anything to the talk page, so see our edit summaries.]

@Favonian and Sro23: who also reverted this editor. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sro did, but Favonian didn't. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It didn't seem like a test edit, but was it worth edit-warring over? Assuming that all the very similar IP addresses are the same person (WHOIS seems to think they are), you broke 3RR over a fucking hyphen? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, #1, unobservant space cowboy, I didn't break 3RR.

2: Sro already edit-warred, and I reported him at the warring board, and then someone toddy came in and claimed that the previous wording--not just a hyphen--was "better," but the proceeded to reedit unrelated material from that wording, including the hyphens, so I reverted that because he had edited the other stuff besides just what his issue was in his summary.

So #3, where's your warning to sro?

And #4, this is obviously not just about hyphens, and you would know that if you had actually paid real attention. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:: Note that this is also at ANEW here. MisterRandomized (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a different report. That was about sro's edit-warring. This is about ebyabe's bad behavoir, which couldn't be put with edit-warring because it's a different kind of bad behavior. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As a block-evading sock IP, shouldn't this whole report (and every other piece of content from the IP) just be removed? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I just noticed. You're full of it. Four reverts, all changing hyphens. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:. Given that he/she IP-hops, please could you protect the page that he/she edit wars over. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ray Combs‎.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 30 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.

Ye eunuch

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

---

Blocked user that is vandalizing their talk page with disparaging materials. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Access revoked. Widr (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

and deleted revisions. -- GB fan 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue with User:Supreme Genghis Khan and the sockpuppets is getting worse. Would writing an LTA report help people to identify it and stop the vandalism faster? TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Banned user now blocked and locked for good. :) KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 13:04, 30 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 POV-pushing and active socking

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

---

• List of European cities by population within city limits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

Denghu is actively edit warring to claim his home town as the largest city in Europe, both with his own account and the sock account 194.28.238.3 [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265]. This is a beharioval issue, but as Denghu repeatedly claims in edit summaries that his is the WP:TRUTH, I point out that an RfC was held on exactly this topic, with the decision being to count all of Istanbul. As Denghu is actively edit-warring against the outcome of the RfC, and employs an IP-sock alongside his regular account, I think it's a behavioral issue for ANI. As for Denghu being the sock-master of the IP, it's an obvious case with both accounts doing exactly the same edits, sometimes the IP even starts and Denghu finishes it. Most notably, the IP even modified Denghus user page [266], removing any doubt about the socking. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say I do not think your report has merit. They indeed added sources and they engaged in the talk page discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

All true, but Denghu also (1) actively socked, (2) ignored the RfC on the topic, (3) edit warred with several users. I'm unfamiliar with any policy that allows using socks and edit warring against the outcome of an RfC if one uses sources and the talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

So many accusations against me, some sound stretched, some are simply untrue. Good to see that complaints of this kind are dismissed. Denghu (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Denghu, so you're claiming the IP 194.28.238.3 is not you? Just to be clear? Jeppiz (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, my claim is that you assume something about my behaviour which is not true. There was no intent on my part to pretend to be someone else or deceive someone -- something that the term socking suggests. I also find your use of terms such as 'nationalist' inflammatory when commenting on the incident. Could you please explain yourself. Denghu (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Explain myself? I think I did, but ok, once more. In a recent edit war, both you and your IP sock took turns to revert. That is certainly against policy; at least that's what I thought. Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I'm still waiting for an explanation concerning your claim my edits were 'nationalist'. You haven't provided any yet, and if you can't explain that I will consider your allegations ungrounded and inflammatory ad hominem attacks. Denghu (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you have claimed that "Most notably, the IP even modified Denghus user page [267], removing any doubt about the socking." Given that Wikipedia defines sockpuppetry as "an online identity used for purposes of deception" will you please provide evidence that I had the intention to deceive you or any other Wikipedia user. Denghu (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not very clear that 194.28.238.3 is a sock of Denghu, though Denghu will receive no compliments for giving such a vague answer regarding his possible use of an IP. I've semiprotected the article for two months due to the participation of IPs who revert without using the talk page. In my opinion, neither Denghu nor Jeppiz should revert again before getting a clear talk page consensus. The result of the RfC is vague, so it's not clear who is reverting against it. A better RfC might be considered. If reverts continue, the next logical step may be blocks or full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Those IPs are mine, I made edits without logging in, then decided to log in. I had no intent of hiding my identity. I access Wikipedia from two locations, and sometimes I do not remember to log in. Denghu (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The result of the RfC is by no means vague; "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" is quite certain in its terms. However if people would like it then a second RfC can always be opened to challenge the previous one. Until a new consensus is achieved, the old RfC should remain in effect. Shouldn't it? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps User:MelanieN who opened the RfC is willing to comment on whether she finds the RfC result to be decisive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I opened that discussion without having an opinion one way or the other; my aim was just to settle the issue. It seems to me that the closure - "a general consensus seems to have emerged. Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" - was clear and decisive. But I have no objection if someone wants to open a new discussion on the issue. Consensus can change. And I have no comment about the current controversy; I haven't been following it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, we read the RfC closure as not deciding how footnotes should be placed, but as concluding that the full undivided population of Istanbul be reported in the list. So per that reasoning Jeppiz's edit accords with the RfC? The closer stated "Display the full population and note the split in footnotes where relevant" EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

===Evidence of socking=== I had thought not to comment further, but Denghu has been pinging me repeatedly. I've very rarely known EdJohnston to make mistakes, so when he said it wasn't clear 194.28.238.3 is a sock of Denghu, I accept the blame for not making it clear. So to answer both Denghu's repeated pinging of me and EdJohnston's comment, I'll address two topics. 1. Is 194.28.238.3 a sock of Denghu?, and 2. has Denghu used the sock contrary to policy? I'll show the answer to be yes on both accounts.

• Is 194.28.238.3 a sock of Denghu? These two accounts share a remarkable overlap of interests. Some large, but some very specific. Shared interests include

1. Russia-24, edited by Denghu [268] and by 194.28.238.3 [269].
2. 2014 Ukrainian revolution, edited by Denghu [270] and by 194.28.238.3 [271]‎.
3. Right Sector, edited by Denghu [272] and by 194.28.238.3 [273]‎
4. Non-native pronunciations of English, edited by Denghu [274] and by 194.28.238.3 [275]‎
5. Königsberg Cathedral, edited by Denghu [276] and by 194.28.238.3 [277]‎
6. Washington Obkom, created by Denghu [278] and edited by 194.28.238.3 [279]‎
7. Ofer Samra, created by Denghu [280] and edited by 194.28.238.3 [281]‎

The list could be made much longer, but I'd kindly ask EdJohnston (or any other admin) to consider the likelihood of the above list, including several very obscure articles, being a coincidence. I dare say it's the biggest WP:DUCK in Duckburg that one user is behind both Denghu and 194.28.238.3.

• Has Denghu used the sock contrary to policy?

Having more than one account is discouraged but not against policy. However, editors with more than one account should not use them on the same pages, and the above list shows this to be very common. And when Denghu and the IP both participate in reverting in the same edit war [282], [283], then it is obvious that it's a case of using multiple accounts in violation of our policies. To me, there's not a shadow of a doubt that Denghu and 194.28.238.3 are the same account, and that Denghu has used the IP 194.28.238.3 contrary to policy. Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Denghu already said the IP was his...there were no edits made in the seven minutes between his IP and his account's edits to the article so I'm not sure how even a purposeful use of an IP could be considered abusive/gaming the system. Time to move on. Sepsis II (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen Denghu acknowledge the IP to be his, just avoiding the question. The admins who have commented said they were unsure the IP was his sock, which is why I try to show it above. No admin has said that it is a sock used in accordance with policySepsis II, what about you stop stalking me? Yes, I gave you a warning for your constant edit warring. That's not a reason to stalk me. As you say, time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Denghu's clarification that two of the IPs are his. It does raise eyebrows to see Denghu and his IP both performing reverts in the same edit war at List of European cities by population within city limits. Now that the RfC has been clarified, I hope that the dispute on this article is over. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I had not seen the edit. Thanks EdJohnston. It of course make this section redundant. Preferably, Denghu will abstain from using more than one account to edit the same article in the future. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 28 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 threats by IP editor

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

---

I don't really know what (if anything) should be done about this, so just raising it here. User:2001:558:600A:83:6038:EDC9:C7AA:DB8C says Wikipedia should be sued in this revision: [284]. Notifying on their talk page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm guessing an administrator will probably hand out a block for WP:NLT --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Note: I tagged them with the {{uw-nlt}} template--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• No, the post wondered whether WP could be sued. Honestly, this running around like the sky is falling anytime anyone uses any one of twenty words connected to the law is now way past ridiculous. EEng 09:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• If the alleged legal threat was the only issue, I think an unblock would be in order. As EEng notes, there was no legal threat, just speculation. Silly and unhelpful speculation, but not a legal threat. WP:TROUTing please for Amakuru, whose complaint misrepresented the IP's statement -- and for Dennis Brown, who should have checked more thoroughly before blocking.
  However, I just took a peek at the IP's recent contributions, and see that thy have been engaged in a prolonged content dispute, in which the IP's actions included blanking as 45KB article[285] with the edit summary Deleted Everything by HistoryofEthiopia and EthiopianHabesha since they have decided to Attack this Article. I'm not particularly inclined to unblock an editor who behaves like that ... but the block is for the wrong reason. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously I was aware of the disruption, but I disagree with your analysis of WP:NLT, BrownHairedGirl|BHG, which covers more than the direct "I will sue you" phrases, but also covers speech that is designed to have a chilling effect. This wasn't the worst case of a legal threat, but it was obviously trying to manipulate opinions using the potential threat of legal action to others, even if by a 3rd party. The totality of the circumstances, including previous behavior and the threat justified a block, in my yes. Anyone is free to take it to WP:AN for review if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This was an obvious attempt at intimidation. "The End of this Story is that ERITREAN TIGRINYAS will Not Be called Nor Accept and Will VIOLENTLY DESTROY anyone Who forces Ethiopian Tigrayan Identity upon them!" is clearly an attempt to sway the content of the article with threats of violence. The block was correct, very correct. I find it hard to believe that EEng would suggest this is not block worthy. We don't let people intimidate others here. HighInBC 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ach, I agree that the IP was being a disruptive, aggressive, POV-pushing nuisance, and deserved to be blocked. I just think that this situation was at best marginal wrt NLT, and that the block should have been explicitly for being a disruptive, aggressive, POV-pushing nuisance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what kind of intimidation they were using, intimidation is intimidation. However I disagree with your interpretation. The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect and it did so with warnings of legal action and physical violence. This is not marginal at all, this block would stand without their prior behaviour, just for that comment. HighInBC 14:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It matters, because under your hair trigger interpretation of NLT, even good-faith expressions of concern about legality (e.g. at a copyvio discussion) could be called "intimidation". All this I'm-the-bulwark chestbeating is laughable. Just ignore shit like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 May 2016‎

Did you read the comment? Do you really not see the intimidation there? Check my recent contribution history[286] and you will see that I don't interpret good-faith expressions as intimidation. HighInBC 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just another way of saying that if you see something as good-faith then you see it as good faith. Regardless of intent, no one's actually intimidated, so why feed the troll and increase the paperwork load? You're one of a small group who sees LT where no one else does, and attach it's-a-big-deal import to what are just expressions of frustration. -- EEng 16:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's my block, I feel it was appropriate. Arguing here is pointless. If you want it reviewed, take it to WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made my point, I'm far alone in feeling this way, and someday common sense may prevail so time can be spent productively elsewhere. No review, obviously, since there are other good block grounds. EEng 17:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say I support Dennis Brown in this. The blocked editor clearly engaged in threat-of-violence intimidation that goes far beyond WP:CIVIL, and the perceived legal threat has to be evaluated within that context, which the admin, rightfully, did. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 30 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:Stefanomione revisited

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

---

• Stefanomione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up discussion to this one, which in 2012 resulted in, among other things, a ban on User:Stefanomione editing categories using HotCat or other automated tools. The reason for the restrictions was a long history of edits and creations in category space that many editors felt were inappropriate, confusing, and counterproductive.

It's over four years later now, and it's difficult to argue that much has changed. The quality of the categories created has not made a marked improvement, as far as I can tell. The majority of the user's talk page still consists of notifications that categories he has created have been nominated for deletion or other discussion. I close a fair number of discussions at WP:CFD, and I seem to be constantly closing discussions in which a variety of users say things like, "Oh no! Another Stefanomione category! When is someone going to do something about this?" His category creations eat up a tremendous amount of effort and time at CFD. He tends to defend his category creations and names at CFD, but in most cases the consensus decision goes against his arguments. This is certainly not "disruptive" when isolated cases alone are considered, but when it has been going on consistently for years in very high numbers, I feel there has to be some sort of end.

If this is not bad enough, the user has recently received a one-week block for using a sockpuppet to "vote-stack" at CFD in an apparent attempt to save some of the categories he has created: see here.

I think perhaps the time has come to reopen this issue and to see what editors with knowledge of the situation think should be done. Pinging those who participated in the previous discussion @Shawn in Montreal: @Oculi: @Axem Titanium: @Polisher of Cobwebs: @BrownHairedGirl: @Mike Selinker: @Pichpich: @Jc37: @Kbdank71: @Risker: @Begoon: @Abhijay: @MBisanz: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for raising this. What can I say that? I strongly agree a net negative at Cfd and an enormous time-suck there. It never ends. Much the low-hanging fruit have been categorized and he's given to increasingly pointless, idiosyncratic, "works in the phillosphy of foo", "foo works", "works in foo, works of foo by disciplines, most of which need to get fixed at Cfd after exhaustive and exhausting arguments with him. I'll just choose my most recentl Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_26#Category:Works_in_the_philosophy_of_history, where we get explanations like "I think we omit words here. We think -the works present a study in- and we say -the works in-. Maybe, we should wait the opinion of some philosophers of language," which of course, he had originally written as "philosophers in language. Anyway, these are the sort of stilted, logically muddled arguments that seem to go on with him lately, ad nauseum. It's as if he alone is this higher genius that the rest of us muggles can't grasp (and indeed his banned sock presented himself as a mathematical expert, etc.). I invite editors to look at his track record at CFD. He is a cancer on Wikipedia categorization. I know that sounds like a shockingly strong characterization but if me and other editors didn't expend enormous amounts of time and energy constantly killing off these outgrowths, our categorization structure would be in an even bigger mess. He is prolific, tireless, and when it matters most, clueless. He never learns. He'll never stop, unless we stop him, from forever finding new ways to split hairs over some new mangled construction of foo-works-of-this-in that that no one besides him probably gives a fuck about. As I said in a recent Cfd: this isn't categorization, this is masturbation. This is long past a way of helping readers find things. This is using our shared categorization system as his sandbox, ad infinitum. We need to permanently ban him from category creation, either with or without automated tools. We need to be rid of him, once and for all. I daresay we'd need to spend a lot of time cleaning up his messes for months to come -- and there may be socks to come -- but we'll be vastly better off. I know this comes across as sort of a howl of agony -- I feel that strongly about it. I will have more reasoned things to say later, I'm sure. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

oh, also, I wasn't sure whether to say this now or say there's later but I may as well get it out of the way: if he is allowed to continue to create categories I want to publicly state that will never again participate in any CFD related to him -- ever again. It's not a threat. It's just that if community cannot look at the totality of his work and see it for what it is, for what it has become, then I am just going to look away, and work elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I am shocked that this was not a permanent ban.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• He just doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia (and in particular Wikipedia categorization) should be a collaborative process in which if one gets negative feedback one should modify one's behaviour - at the very least making sure that you explain what you are doing to other editors (in edit summaries and discussions). That he used a sock puppet at CFD shows that he doesn't have the right attitude. Whilst it's difficult to find examples of single edits that are clearly a problem he causes a massive amount of churn in categorization without (afaics) significantly improving categorization. E.g. adding a category that he later deletes.

Thus, I support taking action against Stef - one or more of: a ban from participating in CFD (for reasons explained above), a ban from creating categories, a ban from using hotcat, a ban from anything to do with categories, a ban from making edits without a proper edit summary .... Possibly the most useful remedy would be a ban on making more than than a certain number of edits per day (perhaps 20 initially) on En Wp - that would force him to consider his edits more carefully, make it easier for other editors to keep up with the amount of cleanup work he causes and possibly make him consider editing in his native language wp instead (perhaps he does already or perhaps, as was the case with a previous problematical categorizer, he's already been blocked from his native language wp). DexDor ^(talk) 07:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some answers given by Stefanomione

• • • I work mainly in the field of Category:Main topic classifications, one or two levels below. Naming things on these levels is problematic for many editors. That doesn't make them problematic editors.
    • I start and re-organize on daily basis my own Category:Current events-creations. Take my (95 %) Category:Arab Spring-tree : events evolve, so does the naming of the Arab Spring-events. As creator and rewriter of almost all categories inside Category:Syrian Civil War (or should we say Category:Syrian civil war ?) and inside Category:terrorist incidents by perpetrator, I feel a lot of sabotage, not visible on my talk page. Organizing categories with contentious labels and content is indeed a risky business but doesn't make me a problematic or idiosyncratic editor.
    • I work also in Wikipedia.fr and Wikipedia.it : never discussed or blocked there.
    • For 2005 - 2015 : 6800 categories standing - 350 renamed, redirected or deleted.
    • The charts for 2016 : 830 category creations, 20 discussed on CFD, 2 kept, 12 pending, 2 renamed, 4 deleted = 0,41 % (trees included) of my 830 creations in 2016 dismantled.
    • The clean-up work after CFD : I eagerly take part in that.
    • Crowd intelligence : discussions about controversial (naming) issues bring progress.
    • What about this discussion [287] ? : first attacking me personnally, and then, reluctantly, defending my creation ...

Stefanomione (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • Support action myself I would be happy with a-300-a-week-edit-limit. This will force me to "sandbox before creating" and consider the excessively subtle linguistic distinctions (BrownHairedGirl) I make. Now, I have days with 400 edits. Stefanomione (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi, BrownHairedGirl. What about this discussion [288] ? One of my categories contested. The closing administrator advised to 'split the tree'. Subsequently, I contributed a lot to this new tree. After four years, both trees still standing. Stefanomione (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • • Yeah that was one where I had to retract comments. I had made them because I was outraged that you had just had your one week block for sockpuppetry lifted and you immediately resumed creating categories that were at best clumsily named. Look at the that Cfd: "History events" is never going to work as a category name because it's so patently confused with events in history. So that's another stilted, clueless name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, Shawn, let's wait the outcome of the discussion [289]. Again, a naming issue inside Category:Main topic classifications. The category itself will be kept. Category:Philosophy events, Category:Astronomy events, ... : clumsily named, but not my creations. Again, why not attacking the tree instead of me ??? Stefanomione (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I also am shocked that this idiosyncratic editor has not been banned indefinitely from category creation, before we get 'Works by work by paradigm'. Oculi (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I created Category:Works about ideologies and Category:Works by ideology. Idiosyncratic ? Maybe. Problematic ? I don't think so. Other editors then me completed the tree. Stefanomione (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't you even realize after all this time that your by your own admission "idiosyncratic" category work is a huge clean up problem for the rest of us. Many of us are sick of it. Categorization in the world's largest wiki isn't the place for you to be "idiosyncratic" at all? This isn't your crazy laboratory to try shit out. That doesn't get through. It'll never get through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree. Wikipedia categories need to be maintained a wide variety of editors, and used by a huge variety of editors, so they only work if they are clear and consistent, and supported by a broad consensus. An idiosyncratic approach just creates a headache for everyone else ... and Stefanomione is unable or unwilling to grasp that central fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• "I start and re-organize on daily basis my own..." is an insightful indication of part of the problem. That he does ceaselessly, daily continue with his stuff; that he considers certain categories his WP:OWN; and last but not least that he lacks the most basic language competence so as to omit the article "a" before daily basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 8:27 am, Today (UTC−4)

• And why the heck must we endure endless pointless debates with him about what prepositions mean in his of/in categories when he thinks "Working in this fields..." is correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 8:31 am, Today (UTC−4)

• Support strong action. I suggest a complete perma-ban on any edits relating to categories, broadly construed: no editing in the category or categtalk namespaces, no edits which would alter the categorisation of articles, no editing of templates which would affect either of those two, and no participation at CFD.

Congrats to Good Ol’factory for bringing this to ANI. After 4 years, it's quite clear that this problem isn't going to get any better, and is actually getting worse. The sockpuppetry is a new escalation, but the tendentious, disruptive IDONTHERARTHAT editing is an ongoing pattern. After watching this for many years, I think that there are several WP:COMPETENCE issues involved, of which the two most critical are:

1. A persistent failure to communicate effectively in discussions. This may be an indication that English is not Stefanomione's first language, or an indication of something else; but whatever the cause, there are repeated examples that show Stefanomione does not use English effectively enough to allow them to communicate effectively in relation to the subtle complexity of the topic areas where they try categorisation. Many editors with poor English make valuable contributions by working within their limitations, but Stefanomione shows no sign of any willingness to learn those limitations.
2. A persistent failure to learn from previous discussions. The sort of categories which Stefanomione creates are characterised by excessively subtle linguistic distinctions which create ambiguity, such as the two astronomy-related categories ("Astronomical works" and "Works about astronomy") which Stefanomione created on 8 May 2016, and were discussed at CFD 2016 May 9. This is essentially the same linguistic issue discussed 4 years ago at CfD 2012 April 12. 4 years on, it's still groundhog day.

Sure, Stefanomione is cheery and polite, but the ongoing disruption is grinding down the ability of other editors to undo the damage. The 2012 ANI discussuion ended with a compromise proposal for temporary restraint, to give Stefanomione time to learn ... but no learning has taken place.

As other editors have noted, tidying up these messes place a huge strain on CfD, which has a declining number of participants, and too few editors willing to commit the time to building expertise in the field. I have long since given up trying to engage in CfD debates with Stefanomione, and now Shawn in Montreal posts above that they are also going to withdraw. If this continues, there will be a further exodus of editors willing to waste their time cleaning up after Stefanomione.

4 years is quite long enough for an editor to listen and learn. Time for a perma-ban on category-related edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Indeed, you bring up this naming issue inside the trees Category:Works about ideologies and Category:Works by ideology - The tree itself still standing and completed by other editors. In my opinion, we need some perspective here : why focusing on 0,4 % of my creations on CFD ? Of this 0,4 %, the content is still there, under a renamed category. Moreover, with my massive production, I appear proportionally very low on CFD : 2016: 20 times for 830 categories. Stefanomione (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione, that comment is a good example of why you exasperate other editors. Let me enumerate some of the problems in that reply:

1. Categories are not content; they are metadata which organises content. Discussion about content belongs elsewhere.
2. The fact that 20 categories created by you have been at CFD this year is a big problem; that represents a lot of time wasted by other editors, cleaning up after you. You need to stop dumping so many problems on CFD, and remember that the higher your edit rate, the higher the accuracy needed.
3. 20 out of 830 is 2.49% ... not the 0.4% you claimed. Your sockpuppet claimed to be a mathematician, but a basic mathematical error like this makes that look like a fabrication.
4. The 20 categories at CFD this year are merely those which other editors have taken the trouble to challenge. As noted elsewhere, your "massive production" is itself a large part of the problem -- editors simply don't have time to take all yoir problematic categories to CFD.
5. If the categories have been renamed or merged, that means that you got it wrong and someone else had to tidy up after you.
6. Your reply is written in very poor English. Your why focusing on 0,4% is abysmal grammar. If you can't write good English, why are you naming categories on the English-language wikipedia?
7. This discussion includes lots of very experienced editors noting that your editing remains very problematic. Why do you persist in believing that everyone else is all wrong?

Those 7 points relate to just 80 words written by you. It's an illustration of why engaging with you is so time-wasting and energy-sapping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Thank You for calling me cheery and polite. 2 out of 830 = 0.24096385542 %. I put my "error-rate" for 2016 higher, at 0.4 % because of the trees: a dismantled parent-category involves sub-categories as well. Stefanomione (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my typo (I omitted the zero out of "20"; now corrected). The error rate which you claimed was 20 out 830, which is 2.4%.
As noted elsewhere, the problem is not just your mistaken calculation, but the dodgy assumptions you use in choosing the numbers to make the calculations. You appear to assume (wrongly) that a category is fine unless it is actually deleted, taking no account of mergers or renamings; and you also assume wrongly that a categfory which has not yet been taken to CFD is fine. Wrong on both counts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, and that's another thing: why, after all these years, when you surely should know better, did you invent the fake identity User:Tpetrosi, "a Pure Mathematician by profession," to intervene on your own behalf at Cfd. You've never acknowledged it. Never apologized. Nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support action. The sockpuppeting shows a complete unwillingness to reform. Pichpich (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Even in my dramatically reduced editing time, I still run across a confusing Stefanomione category more often than I could imagine possible. I think the low % of his categories that have been taken to CFD is more an indication of the massive number of categories he creates, not that there is broad consensus for the categories themselves. I'm sure the number would be much higher if someone had the time and patience to babysit every one of his edits, which is clearly an unreasonable ask of anyone. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure where these numbers are coming from. I am one editor who has stopped placing Cfd notices on his user talk page. 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• But then, this remarks don't fit well when considering this : my 2004-2005-2006-2007 creations almost NEVER appeared on CFD. Production then was 40-50 edits or 2/3 categories a day. Slower, but still massive. Is it technically possible to publish my watchlist detailing my creations ? If yes, I could prove the 0,4 % "error-rate" (= red marked deletions). Stefanomione (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

But that's part of my argument of why we have to shut you off. I didn't say you were never of help. But as I stated above, you have become a huge net negative at Cfd. The early low-hanging fruit work has largely been done -- @Fgnievinski: pointed this out to you back on May 3, at the Cfd for your now-deleted Category:Historical works. But you're unable to stop and you've become increasingly preoccupied with "idiosyncratic" experiments in x of/in y/ y-ian names that do little else than satisfy your own ego. You are, to put in mildly, going off the rails: I don't know if the Stefanomoine of 2004-2007 would have created User:Tpetrosi. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And again, "this remarks don't fit well..." Yet you're the one who tediously argues with us that we don't understand how you're correctly using English prepositions, etc.? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Oh dear ... here we go again. I will try again to unpick some of the points this latest round of Stefanomione silliness:

1. The fact that your category creations did not appear at CFD does not mean that they are good. It just means that no editor has yet challenged them. This may be because they are good ... but it may also be because editors were fed up with the time-consuming task of tidying up after you, and the brain-sapping exasperation of trying to discuss these issues with someone whose command of English is so poor.
2. You don't seem willing to consider the point made by others that you have declined from making good categorisations a decade ago, to your recent sprees of increasingly bizarre and convoluted idiosyncratic categories
3. If it is true that, as you claim, you made far fewer errors when you worked more slowly, then why have you speeded up and increased your error rate?
4. As I noted above, your claim of a "0.4% error rate" is based on a failure to understand percentages. Please learn maths before trying to use maths.
5. Your assumption that red-links indicate the sum total of your errors is mistaken. Inappropriate categories may be repurposed, or they may be redirected after merger or renaming.

It really is a huge waste of everyone's time to try to seek consensus with someone whose contributions are so persistently silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• I do see that Stefanomione states well above that he would now "Support action" against himself, so as to force him to restrain his actions here. Which seems to be another way of saying what I have been arguing from the outset, that he is not in control of himself. I have never seen anyone so obsessed with maintaining his influence over categorization, by any means. Let me put this another way: you need to find something else to do with your time -- or your life. You have just stated that you find yourself unable to voluntarily stop yourself from creating 400+ category edits per day. And again, now you've descended into sockpuppetry to abet this. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. You've been here a while but it is in everyone's best interests that you and this project now part ways. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Just an intro phrase, Shawn. Nothing more. Indeed, I'm there since 2005. By average, 300 edits a week. That is why I mentioned the number 300. I never descended in sockpuppetry, only accused of doing so. Never notified to come up with proofs. Strange IP-theft by some 6-edit practical joker, I guess. But back to the core of the discussion : the combination "being prolific" + "Main topic classifications" - "Current event classifications" - naming issues, ... as I said, the sandbox waits for me. Stefanomione (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Never notified to come up with proofs" is a lie. You were notified of this SPI. "Strange IP-theft by some 6-edit practical joker" is you suggesting that the reason checkuser confirmed this as a linked account to you is that someone hacked you solely to support you fictitiously at Cfd? You really expect us to believe this nonsense? Your persistent attempts to say, 'oh, well, the issue is not me it's this darn category name now back to the sandbox' is not going to fly. The "core of the discussion" is not one particular category name, it's you: a disruptive and frankly delusional problem editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to some perspective : 6500 categories bear my name, went undisputed, and, in my opinion, after 11-10-9-8-7-... year, never will be disputed. Fulminating against an error-rate of 0.4 % is out of proportion, especially for this Crowd intelligence project. My access-code to the IP-network was changed at 13 May 2016, 23.59 ... The complete story of this case remains unexplained to me. Stefanomione (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V:, we spoke briefly when I asked why you had only blocked this user for a single week at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stefanomione/Archive. Stefanomione is continuing to deny sockpuppetry, asking us to buy a story that "access-code to the IP-network was changed at 13 May 2016, 23.59" in order for someone to gain access to his IP, solely so as to support him at Cfd. As we are trying to determine whether any further good faith should be extended to this editor (I argue vigorously that it should not) I'd like to know from the SPI closer what to make of this hijacked account argument, which seems to me to be a rather preposterous lie -- but I am no expert in this matters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed personnally the code to my home-network at 13 May 2016, 23.59 ... The so-called sockpuppet could not enter my home-network after 23.59, and he didn't. Shawn, there was never a hijacked account, but somebody working on another device (computer ?) using my home-network ... So, his device was very near my modem. Stefanomione (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

So you have a next door neighbour, who created an account, User:Tpetrosi, solely to echo your arguments at Cfd. And yet you have no idea who this might be. And never raised it during the SPI. And it's a mystery, you have no idea who this person might be. You're asking us to believe this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I saw with the technical evidence, this is highly unlikely. In addition, it brings forth further questions, such as why this other individual knew that you had a Wikipedia account, the name of your account, and why the individual would have supported you in the same areas of discussion with the same rationale. Respectfully, I don't believe that Stefanomione is being truthful here. Mike V • Talk 19:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, but technically possible without codebreaking or intruding, just by using my internet modem. Maybe I should add two more things : I run a bookstore/ library near an education center. That I am a Wikipedian is very well known to some 100-200 students or visitors, who surf freely on my network (code is put at the entrance). The name of my Wikipedia account resembles the name of the store. These are the plain facts. Very soon, I will install a private network. I regret this incident, the only one in many years. I take full responsibility for the incident. Stefanomione (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that took some time. Even if that's the case, the main issue here is the long-running behaviour in disruptive category creation, the disregard of community consensus to stop, indeed, the apparent inability to stop -- not the SPI, or any one particular Cfd alone. And I'm truly glad to hear that you're as busy as that. Because if I -- as I dearly hope -- we do manage to finally and permanently block you, once and for all, you have other things to occupy your time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to the main issue, indeed ... Could give an answer here, Shawn ... I repeat my question : 6500 categories bear my name, went undisputed, and, in my opinion, after 11-10-9-8-7-... year, never will be disputed. Don't you think that fulminating against an error-rate of 0.4 % is out of proportion, especially for this Crowd intelligence project ? Stefanomione (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione ... for the love of god (or a non-god, if you prefer), would you drop this ridiculous 0.4% nonsense? As explained above, it is bad maths applied to a completely bogus set of figures.
And I don't believe this very belated explanation for the sockpuppetry, which you wheeled out nearly 2 weeks after you were blocked, and only when it is has become clear that this discussion shows 100% support for sanctions on you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I took full responsibility for the incident, took my sanction and didn't appeal that sanction. We are discussing something else here :

• • • Quote 1 (on this page) : Whilst it's difficult to find examples of single edits that are clearly a problem ....
    • Quote 2 (on this page) : ... not the SPI, or any one particular Cfd alone ...

So, not my contributions (6500 categories still standing) seem at stake, but the way I edit, not my creations themselves, but the way I create. Isn't that a personal attack on the contributor (not on the contributions themselves) ? Stefanomione (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If the unending torrent of category edits ever stopped, one day maybe someone might perform the monumental undertaking of sorting through all of them and we'll see how many of those 6500 categories still stands at the end. Currently, it's meaningless to point to them and say WP:ITEXISTS if you are the one who put it all there. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I count seven editors who support action to stop Stefanomione's category changes (Axem Titanium + BrownHairedGirl + DexDor + Good Ol’factory + Mike Selinker + Oculi + Shawn in Montreal) and no opposes apart from Stefanomione who has made 14 comments here without acknowledging the opposition. The complete disinterest in what others think shows the problem is real and an indefinite topic ban from creating or changing categories is required. It appears several months of peace and quiet would be needed for those working on categories to assess what should happen with Stefanomione's creations, with 224 new categories in April and May 2016 alone. Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Make that eight editors. I would definitely support a topic ban of significant length. Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

it does have to be permanent, in my opinion, I'm afraid. I believe we blocked him from using automated category creation tools for year, and he offered all the usual bromides about being more careful, etc. But eventually he's going to return to form. He's admitted he can't help himself. There's something very unhealthy about this relationship, and the degree to which one obsessive editor of questionable mental competence - sorry, but that's how I see it -- has been allowed to use the categorization structure of the English Wikipedia, one of the world's largest websites, as his (in his own words) sandbox. I think it's nuts that we let it go this far. I do feel that anything other than permanent is just kicking the can down the road, once again. And as has been noted above, it's important to keep in mind not just the time spent endlessly cleaning up after him at CFD, but how that time could otherwise have been productively spent elsewhere. Categorization at this Wikipedia must now enter the Post-Stefanomione Era, full stop. Thanks. I won't comment again, unless requested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support action - I'm surprised the sockpuppetry alone wasn't enough to ban this guy. Parsley Man (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The word we tend to use here is "indefinite", not "permanent". That said, as someone else noted above, the general sense of I-didn't-hear that, is pervasive. Once several editors are involved, like at cfd, the editor then will start to negotiate, to try to get what they want, possibly under a different name or set of names. All the while editors are saying that the category is inappropriate.

Now to be fair, the editor will discuss, but let me give one example that didn't go to CFD - Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media. The thing to note though, isn't so much the discussion, but rather how clear it makes it that the editor waded in, created a bunch of categories, all without understanding the underlying concepts at all.

Then CFD or a similar discussion becomes a group education session. I don't think anyone here would mind answering questions. But not after-the-fact, requiring cleanup of hundreds of categories. (This can disruptively affect existing structures that are undone by this as well.) We have "article for creation" and other such places on Wikipedia. But the category system, unlike most of Wikipedia, isn't as easy to reconstruct after a disruptive editor edits it. The edits are scattered across many pages, and if socking is involved, this can be an overall loss.

So all of that said, I Support a category editing ban (creation/modification, broadly construed). I would also Support mentorship, if someone was interested, though the tendency to jump in regardless of understanding makes me hesitant to predict that being a success. - jc37 08:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC

I'm glad you were fair and mentioned this discussion (Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media). And then, remember, the massive renaming was done (almost exclusively) by me, without tools. But let me tell, it goes without explanation that I Support some kind of mentorship. Stefanomione (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that after 4 years of Stefanomione's persistent failure to learn the limits of their abilities, mentorship would just be a mechanism for some other editor to spend a lot of time and energy trying to explain to Stefanomione a set of concepts which Stefanomione cannot or will not grasp. That will just bring us back again to considering some sort of a ban.

Since the destination is clear, let's save all the community energy involved in postponing the inevitable, by implementing the ban now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I can, BrownHairedGirl, I can and I will grasp the set. Stefanomione (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a few examples of Stef's edits. Here he put articles such as this one about a naval attack in a category for airstrikes. He recently created Category:Categories_by_art (CFD) and related categories that (for example) put Category:Musical techniques in Category:Visual arts. Note: It's quite understandable when editors who don't specialise in categorization (e.g. those editors who mainly add content) don't categorize a new article perfectly (in fact, that's a good reason for keeping categorization as simple as possible - something Stef seems to be working against) - but Stef is an editor who works only in changing categorization (many thousands of edits) and still gets it wrong (whether that's by poor English, lack of understanding of categorization, a slapdash approach or a combination of all 3) - e.g. building elaborate unnecessary categorization structures that take a lot of editor time to dismantle (whilst also causing watchlist noise for other editors). Another example (from a few years ago, but he mentions Arab Spring categorization above) - he took 6 edits to add a category tag to an article (which had been well-categorized by the article creator) - and that category was then renamed by CFDS before being deleted at CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 11:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Also glad you mentioned this, DexDor,as it clearly shows that in the heat of the events where violence had taken over politics, I mean the 2011 spring - (Category:Arab Spring) -, I managed to leave only one white-noise element, out of 250 subcategories dealing with the revolutionary events which I "covered" on a daily basis back in 2011 (until now - The Arab Winter). Just to show the extent of the Arab Spring-tree (all mine) and the subsequent Arab Winter-tree (all mine) :
  • • Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War - 18 subcategories (all mine, minus 2)
    • Category:Military operations of the Syrian Civil War by year – 6 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:Military operations of the Syrian Civil War by belligerent party – 11 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:Consequences of the Syrian Civil War - 8 subcategories (all mine)
    • Category:European migrant crisis - 6 subcategories (all mine, -1)
    • ... and 204 categories more ... 1/250, which - strangely enough - brings up again my eternal 0,4 % white noise factor, which, I agree, should disappear. Stefanomione (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefanomione: AFAICS, most of the other editors participating in this discussion have made more edits than you; some have made a whole order of magnitude more edits than you have. So your repeated boasting about making lots of edits is unlikely to impress. And the your choice of words in making that claim is very unhelpful to your case.
As to your claimed error rate, how many times does thid need to be explained to you? That the fact a category has not yet been merged/deleted/renamed/restructured merely means that it has not yet been merged/deleted/renamed/restructured. It does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Stef, I don't understand all of your comment (I think your limited English language skills are part of the problem). Your continued (and afaics consistent) use of numbers in format "0,4 %" suggests that you have an extreme lack of understanding (and/or unwillingless to accept) the conventions of the English language Wikipedia (do you ever look at the content of En Wp articles?). I've just had a look at Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and see various problems with it - take, for example, Category:Italian involvement in the Syrian Civil War (which you didn't create) - it contained 2 articles neither of which belongs in it. If you want to do something useful in categorization then you could start clearing up these categories by removing articles from them where it is inappropriate categorization - e.g. here's one I've just done. DexDor ^(talk) 22:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi DexDor. I know. I'll clean all the subcats. Consider this discussion - and ... I didn't create Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War either . So, Category:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War contains 16 creations bearing my name (not 18). Stefanomione (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As devil's advocate on a fairly trivial issue — FWIW, I'm a native-English-speaking American, and I prefer using "0,4%" over "0.4%". (I don't really like Stefanomione's space before the percent sign, but I prefer the , for marking the decimals.) I don't see a problem with Stefanomione using their preferred number format on talk pages, as long as they can be understood and as long as they follow MOS in article space…. Goldenshimmer (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to clarify

@Stefanomione: Perhaps this will help:

1.) The purpose of the category system is navigation. It is not a "tagging" system to group things in as many ways as we can. That has been repeatedly opposed since the creation of the category system. This is reflected in policy. See WP:CAT and WP:OC in particular.

2.) a discussion here at WP:AN/I is usually more about behaviour than content. What editors are trying to explain to you above is that your behaviour - the mass creation/addition/modification/deletion of categories that you have been doing for years now - is seen as disruptive and counter-productive.

3.) Counting your number of edits has little bearing in this discussion. Indeed, repeating the vast amounts of edits to the category system which you have done, which, even after several years, we are still working on cleaning up (see this for example), is not helping your case at all.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And no, it's not lost on me that even this discussion is another "i didn't hear that", educational discussion. Though in this case, while I think it's fair to note the editor shouldn't be required to understand this page, I think the fact that this discussion is comparable to previous discussions of their lack of understanding of the category system, is telling - jc37 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jc37. I acknowledge all that has been said on this page. To help in the clean-up, I will publish the list of all my creations (special website - 120 pages) before Friday the 3th of June. I hope I can participate in the brush-up. Stefanomione (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione, the idea that you might "participate in the brush-up" is precisely what I want to avoid. It's quite clear from this discussion and from your latest edits (some of which I listed below) that you simply do not understand what the problem is ... and that since you don't understand the problem, any attempts by you to fix it will just create an even bigger mess to clean up.

If you want to help, just stay away from categories entirely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Stefanomione's latest contribs

While an editor's contributions are being discussed at ANI, it's likely that they will be aware of heightened scrutiny, and take a little extra care in their edits. So I took a look at Stefanomione's contributions so far today. The problems leap out at me, but here's a sample:

1. 09:19 — Category:Counterculture added[290] to Category:Political works, and head article Counterculture also added[291] to that category.
   Not all of the counterculture is political, and much of its is not a creative work -- for example, Category:Counterculture contains Gay Liberation Front, Battle of the Beanfield, Slacker, and various biographies -- none of which are "works" in the creative sense.
2. 08:37 — Category:The arts and politics added[292] to Category:Political works.
   Most of the contents of Category:The arts and politics are not actually works; they are about social movements or types of art.
3. 08:13 — Category:Politics in popular culture given[293] a new sort key for Category:Works about politics.
   Of itself, that seems innocuous ... but I see that it was Stefanomione who added [294] that category back in 2012. The problem is that Category:Politics in popular culture is a topic category which does not belong in a set category such as [:Category:Works about politics]]. The three articles which are not in subcats are Black president in popular culture (United States), Political parallelism and Politics in The Simpsons, and none of them are works.
   Similarly, Category:Politics in fiction is (correctly) a subcat of Category:Politics in popular culture ... but significant chunks of its content are not "works".
4. 08:11 — Category:Political literature was removed[295] from Category:Political works and media by country.
   I noticed that Category:Political works and media by country was redlinked, so I investigated why: it was deleted at 10:44, 29 May 2016 by the admin Anthony Bradbury as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Sure enough, Stef had tagged[296] the page for G7 deletion, and it was Stef who had created it [297] in 2012 ... but the page had been edited by 2 other editors, so it didn't meet G7. The admin missed a trick in not checking the history, but Stef should not have made this unfounded request. This out-of-process deletion of a 4-year-old category suggests that Stef may be asserting some sort of WP:OWNership of the categories they created.

In that brief trawl, I spotted a lot more of these subtle miscategorisations, but I don't have the time to write them all up. However, those 4 examples from Stefanomione's work in only 6668 minutes today illustrate the depth of the problem, because those errors are being done while Stefanomione is under intense scrutiny here. How bad does it get when the spotlight is turned off? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very Frustrated The frequent unclear or strange changes is wasting time especially given the huge volume. The premise that a low percentage of these changes has been undone strikes me as hollow since the CFD process has such low participation. I wouldn't mind helping a new, low volume editor clean up the terribly named Category:History events but the attitude is that it's my job to clean up Stefanomione's mess with tons of arguing with other editors in that discussion but no attempt to fix an obviously misnamed category. (Go ahead and link my edits to that conversation; I come by far the closest to agreeing with you on that discussion.)

I'll defer to the other editors on the best action to take here. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 30 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.

Sound of Music (film) MarnetteD keeps undoing people's edits and creating frustration

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

---

Recently s/he deleted the `Titles Around the World' section complaining it was unsourced (because the material comes from within Wikipedia) and because according to him/her it had little interest for English speaking readers. Sing-Along Sound of Music theategoers would seem to disagree with that assessment.

Before that, they reverted other people's edits to this and other pages and have a history of generally engaging in frustrating people because s/he thinks that s/he's the king/queen of Wikipedia.

Do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, since MarnetteD's edits appear to be correct (Wikipedia is not a reliable source: see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source) and the material you added was otherwise unsourced and, yes, uninteresting - um... I mean ... not encyclopedic. BMK (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummm - did you see the big orange box when you began your edit here, the one that says that you must notify am editor when you start a discussion about them? Well, you don't seem to have done that, so I did it for you. BMK (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what this IP editor had to say on their talk page about a year ago:

When I was teaching, the last time I had to tolerate challenges to my work, my children were little and I wasn't even on tenure track yet. As I have become a respected member of the community - it's like a drill instructor in the military. you do what I tell you or you're not in this man's (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard etc) very long.

And like I said - generally people leave me and my work alone even on Wikipedia. To the first-time offenders I tell them just what I wrote on the AN page. Hardheads that do it again I stomp on, and repeat offenders I report to administration - and THEN they go bother somebody else - especially since blocking entire ranges of an ISP in the big city or major university is pointless. [298]

It doesn't appear that this IP has learned anything much in the intervening months. BMK (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, after they were blocked for edit-warring a month later, they said this:

You may have me backed into a corner for now due to the technological limitations of this itty bitty town out in the podunks and it may be true that I can't attend to you here and now as I'd like, but once I ditch this retirement life and move back to the Peninsula where I belong - where I can hang up every twenty minutes and get a new IP - all your blocking threats will return to the status of ``ineffective and a waste of time.

Especially when I re-inherit my cadre of graduate student assistants who will like nothing better than to re-revert everybody's reversions all day long everyday - and then hang up every twenty minutes as well to get a new IP. [299]

Can you say WP:BATTLEFIELD? (And I certainly hope this "tenured professor" from a "major unverisity" isn't involved in any way with the use of the English language. "Out in the podunks" is not an idiomatic English expression. It's the kind of thing a half-educated kid trying to sound old and tough might say. In any case, what tenured professor edit wars over a list of a film's names in other countries? That's fanboy territory.) BMK (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then there's this:

1. Major university professors who are tenure-protected do not "seek consensus" or "discuss controversial changes" with A) kids who could be their students B) people who have little to no personal knowledge about the subject at hand and C) are only interested in following a process/flowchart. I've been telling my students and trainees for 50 years: The world is full of clones. Do your best not to become one.[300]

Old dog, apparently only knows old tricks. BMK (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Then when asked why they couldn't edit collaboratively, they answered:

Because come January, there'll be more of us results-oriented reverters than there will be of you process oriented cubicle warriors.

1. The next time you have success telling your university professors, corporate executives, law enforcement or anybody else how to do their job, let me know I'll call the networks to send in Film at Eleven.

2. When's the last time you tried to "educate" or "teach" a 72 year old tenured university professor in newer and/or better ways of doing things that had any lasting effect?

3. Like I said - once my graduate-student staff and I can hang up every twenty minutes and get a new IP - see above under "huge staff doing nothing all day long but reverting everybody's reversions."

More WP:BATTLEFIELD (and, like a kid, no awareness that 11pm newscasts are not network, they're local - again, trying to sound smarter then they are), and admission they they cannot learn to do things the way Wikipedia wants them to be donw. BMK (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Still they're consistent

And then I'll reboot my internet, get a new IP address and go back to what I was doing. You guys can't block everybody on Verizon, AT&T or whoever, and if you do the reverse (block every page on Wikipedia from being edited only by people logged into the system), well, then you've just shot yourself in the foot and violated your own reason for being on the Internet. [301]

That was just this April.

So, what've we got here? WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude, inability or lack of interest in learning how to edit collegaially, constant use of the Argument from authority (How do we know he's a tenured professor? He certainly doesn't act like one. What he acts like is a headstrong stuck-up brat. Or maybe he's a dog, I dunno. Probably even dogs know that grad students don't jump out of an airplane without a parachute just because the prof says to.) Doesn't seem to have gotten a handle on signing comments, or using quotation marks (I fixed them).

I think what we've got is a WP:BOOMERANG for someone who is essentially WP:NOTHERE to do what we do. BMK (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't too riled up looking into much more of the IP's history. The IP wants "something to be done" about "it", with "it" being that MarnetteD "reverted other people's edits to this and other pages and have a history of generally engaging in frustrating people because s/he thinks that s/he's the king/queen of Wikipedia". Meh. Just close the report because it's not going to result in any action against MarnetteD. A waste of time. Doc talk 05:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as far as MarnetteD goes, but I rather think a block of this excess baggage of an editor is called for. BMK (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not "riled up", I am bemused mildy amused. BMK (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to EEng for the catch. BMK (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean riled up in a bad way. I was actually hanging out with a friend named Riley earlier and the "riled up" expression sorta carried over from that. No offense! Doc talk 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

None taken! BMK (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute that belongs if anywhere on the article's talk page, not here at ANI, but since there is no precedent to ever posting a list of foreign titles of English-language films in a wiki article, this case is dead in the water anyway. Please note: The IP is a former registered account who has returned to disrupt Wikipedia and who made threats against MarnetteD a year ago: [302]. Make of that, or do with that, what you will, including the fact that the IP stressed there that IP-hopping would be his next ploy. Definitely not WP:HERE, and definitely here to disrupt. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IPs complaint is a content dispute (and, as you say, "dead in the water"), but the suggestion for a BOOMERANG is not. Your evidence just adds to it. 'Nuff said. BMK (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to open a SPI on this one? We could simply block per the WP:NOTHERE information page, but it seems as if there is admitted socking here... Doc talk 06:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Socking and LTA and apparent IP-hopping (or intentions to IP-hop). Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The statement that gets me the most is at the end of this post.[303] Not good at all. Doc talk 06:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take your attitudes back to the Castro and East Village where they belong. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is just a stupid "contribution" from an IP with a very poor editing record: both WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:NOTHERE apply. MarnetteD is certainly among the best editors we have on Wikipedia and should not have to put-up with nonsense like this. David J Johnson (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well reading the IPs post with my morning coffee is a treat :-) My thanks to everyone who has replied to the them. The only things I have to add are that I should have added WP:INDISCRIMINATE to my edit summary about the list at the SoM article and the fact that the IP still does not feel that WP:RSing is needed with their edits shows a WP:NOTGETTINGIT mentality. Finally, I am just an unpaid volunteer (with no pretensions to anything) like everyone else. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unpaid?! Drop Jimbo a note on his talkpage, and he'll sort that out. I get $1 from him for each and every edit. Ker-ching. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Only $1 per edit? You been swindled, Lugnuts. Jimbo pays me 1 million dollars per edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And now we know who to blame the fundraising banners on. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 27 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.

Should 66.102.157.201 be blocked?

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

---

NE Ent's close of the discussion above as a content dispute is defendable, but only barely, because the discussion had clearly moved on to the question of whether 66.102.157.201 should be BOOMERANG blocked for all the reasons given above: NOTHERE, BATTLEFIELD, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTGETTINGIT, NPA and so on. If the IP was an account, an indef block would be in order, but since it's an IP, a long block (i.e. a year, perhaps) should be considered. BMK (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: For all the reason given in the archived section above, 66.102.157.201 should be blocked for a long period of time, to be determined by the blockng admin.

• Support as proposer. BMK (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support especially based on commentary below. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per what Ebyabe and BMK have already stated above. Based just off of the responses made on this page that I've repeatedly reverted (here, here, and here) -- this demonstrates battleground conduct, uncivil behavior, and makes clear that the user intends to continue engaging in disruptive behavior and evade the block, which is behavior that correlates with those who are not here to help. As BMK stated, if this was a user, he/she would be under an indefinite block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think we have a legal threat here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user appears to be too arrogant, opinionated and uncivil to have much of a future on WP. The reverted comments on this very page are enough to demonstrate that.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support The IP has been at it for almost a year, time for a boomerang to fly. Kleuske (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Any logged in user would have been blocked long before now with this style of editing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support block of 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs) and also Semi-protect his target article or articles for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support A chunky block of the IP. Threats to repeatedly 'hang up' and keep getting new IPs, and to encourage the others to do so, is grounds enough, let alone other factors raised above. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This IP has gone on far too long with threats, arrogance, general disruption and encouraging others to disrupt the project. An indefinite block, together with protection of the articles is called for. David J Johnson (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Arrogant tool needs to be taught a lesson. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per general intransigence and legal threat above. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support on WP:CIR grounds, for being clueless enough to think he's fooling anyone with the "professor" act. Funny how people who huff that they're academic bigshots always use language never heard in academia (such as tenure-protected), people who insist they're lawyers never know the difference between libel and liable, and so on (though for whatever reason, "doctors" usually turn out to be doctors, in my experience). I think it's cute that he seems to be using dialup, and my guess is that he's drunk. EEng 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Well warranted, though keep in mind that IP blocks can be wack-a-mole. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Block the IP editor and semi-protect pages as needed. Threats to disrupt Wikipedia are a good enough reason by themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Snow, much? EEng 23:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Findings: (1) 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs), 66.102.146.179 (talk · contribs), Koga Sterant (talk · contribs), and Max Trahan (talk · contribs) all appear to be the same person. (2) The OP in the thread above has stated they will IP-hop/sock. It seems to me that this thread should be re-opened (before someone one-click archives it) and that an SPI be initiated, and yes, the two IPs should probably be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• The two named accounts are matches for Citrus Party (talk · contribs). All already blocked. Checkuser can't link named accounts with IP's and am not seeing enough to make that link solely on behavioural grounds. However the IP's have a solid history of sock threats, refusal to follow en-WP policy and general pointless hostility. There is no indication that they will stop behaving this way despite repeated requests, so I've blocked the latest one (x201) for a month to prevent the continued disruption. Hopefully that's long enough for the problem to rectify itself, but let's wait and see. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, let's see what develops. BMK (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Development is that they are getting even more battleground-ey. Probably should revoke their talk page access, since they're obviously not going to use it for anything productive. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Am reluctant to block the talkpage of an IP. Will revisit in a few days, or if they get a lot more offensive. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance, but I think you need to do it, since the IP is simply waving red flags trying to get someone to charge at him. Definitely trolling at this point. BMK (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm contemplating ignoring him and his alleged huge staff, in the hope he gets bored. Ranting on an IP usertalk seems pretty harmless. But am not that fussed - if anyone else wants to remove talkpage access on the grounds of disruptive trolling, they should do so with my blessing. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WHAT!!! Ignore the huge phalanx of grad students he's going to have lined up (real soon now) to disrupt Wikipedia!!!! Oh mercy, is there no one left who cares?! Who will there be now to protect us from the deprivations of his hideous strength?

(OK by me.) BMK (talk) 17:25, 30 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.