Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Conduct of Dan56

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: [1], [2], [3], [4]
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [5] + my response: [6] + [7]; [8] + [9]; [10] + [11] + [12] + [13]; [14] + [15] + [16] + [17] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([18]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details: [19]

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [20] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [21]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: [22])

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More tendentious editing: [23] --Lapadite (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he is right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for WP:ALBUMS/500 I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to come down like a ton of bricks on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of opening an RFC/U on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent RfC on Dan56, in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at Talk:All Things Must Pass and Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#"Heavy metal album"; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at Talk:Crime of the Century, Talk:Are You Experienced (can't access the archive for that page), Talk:Sgt. Pepper's – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he is right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Wikipedia – pillars four and five, as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He initiated the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as Albums or Rock; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly invited to a proposal on alphabetising album articles' personnel sections (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Wikipedia but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of an episode in March 2014, it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Wikipedia. That's the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you hit the nail on the head JG66. That is precisely the grand problem. My frustration is exactly because this concerns a longstanding pattern and is far from the first time Dan56 does this on this band’s articles - which I discussed above. Dan56 certainly has had numerous disputes with other editors on other articles regarding this kind of behavior, and he does immediately delete all objections and warnings he gets from his page, sometimes mocking the editor that leaves a message or asserting his ‘status' (e.g., here and when I left him a disruptive editing notice in September of 2014. I’d actually mentioned a few of those past disputes, admittedly inappropriately, out of frustration, in that Garbage album talk page (inside the “off topic” shell) he linked in his post here. If what admins need is more proof of Dan56’s pattern of disruption I personally and perhaps others would have no problem linking several examples there and elsewhere. But like I said before, this is a topic ban proposal for this bands’ articles as my own interactions with Dan56 have mostly been there, and his constant disruption, disregard for collaboration, and POV pushing there is intolerable at this point. The problem is Dan56, as usual, might temporarily stop his overtly tendentious disruption and then start up later after ANI thread is closed, but especially if objecting editors leave the article. Like JG66 said, It will certainly reemerge, again (like it did months after the last album dispute); editors like Dan56 who don’t get sanctioned for their disruptive actions never learn and change; obviously they'd have nothing to learn from since, as they mask POINTy, OWN and tendentious behavior largely through Wikilawyering and 'status', hiding behind it and professing no wrong doing (others are at fault and personalizing), they normally don't see consequences, beyond a ‘don’t do it again’ slap on the wrist. In fact, the lack of consequences only reinforces that behavior. I’ve personally stopped improving this particular article, at least temporarily, as I find it futile; only thing I'm still doing is restoring Dan56's tendentious, POV edits/his inability to stick to source when it doesn't suit his bias. Like JG66 mentioned, Dan56 likes to appropriate an article, shutting out others who object to his editing practices, wanting to be left to his own devices. Other editors in the past have noted how he edits tendentiously on articles of artists he does not like, but he also edits tendentiously on artists he does like (for example, the reception section of this album - an article he wrote, and fixed after much FA dispute [ironically, concerning things of which he has accused others]). You can see this in his comments in both talk pages initially linked here. I don’t know how many more diffs from this particular article are needed; figured I’d linked enough and was already tired of linking as the thread received no comments. The page history is plenty evidence of how much revert/restoring happened there as a result. Much of that has been linked here, as well as the talk page discussion. 

In the recent RfC that I'd linked, the three editors that responded clearly want nothing to do with the dispute, understandably. At the start of the RfC you can see that one editor noted the inappropriateness of removing the initial reviews I’d added from the album ratings box ("simply removing everything Lapadite added seems drastic").  I'd be shocked that anyone would agree with Dan56’s egregious behavior unless they’ve agreed with Dan’s POV editing in the past. That he may be “sometimes right” - everyone is at least “sometimes right” at some point - does not remotely null or invalidate his history of disputes and disruption, disruption at this band’s articles, or any he makes in the future there and elsewhere. --Lapadite (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More, under false pretexts: [24], [25]. For how long would this need to go on? 5, 10 revision history pages? Lapadite (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan56 apparently went on overdrive instead; More again, this being the first of multiple edits largely of the same nature as previous ones and as described above (his edit summary merely repeating what I stated in the previous edit): [26]. Restored by me here, with some fixes and additions on further edits. --Lapadite (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Action needed here; proposal

• Dan56 was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 in October 2014, which (despite the stricken participation of a sock) was closed by Beeblebrox with findings that Dan56 be reminded of WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN.
• AN/I threads involving Dan26 after his RFC: [27], [28]

This is a complex case that I think is headed to ArbCom if it doesn't get resolved here. I have observed Dan56 in many places (he's difficult to miss if you work on any music articles) but I assert that the primary sources of his conflicts on Wikipedia are: plagiarism, music reviews, and music genres. I will attempt to concisely demonstrate that Dan has continued to exhibit problems with WP:COPYVIO, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN pursuant to these three items since his RFC, and then propose a remedy in an attempt to avoid ArbCom.

You haven't concisely demonstrated anything. If anything, you've barely inspected what flimsy evidence you provided below. Also, the second AN/I thread you cited above was opened by a frustrated, genre-warring IP, since blocked for being the sock I suspected. You're building a flimsy case just to draw more attention to me, simply to have some action done to me. Also, since my RfC, I fixed the close paraphrasing issues at Talk:Of Human Feelings and performed source checks before I reopened its FAC. I haven't exhibited any problems with WP:COPYVIO since then. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I last interacted with Dan56 directly at this FAC where 3 different editors expressed concern about plagiarism and close paraphrasing in his writing. I was surprised by his aggressive and uncivil response to such concerns, and to my own concerns. By the second nomination, I had given up dealing with him and so had anyone else who initially offered constructive criticism. He then asked for it to be withdrawn, saying it was "tainted" because he believed one of the objectors to be a sock. Rather than conceding that Rationalobserver had any legitimate objections to his nomination, he accused her of being a sock with a grudge against him who was only opposing his nomination out of spite. He succeeding in getting Rationalobserver blocked as a sock of Jazzerino (talk · contribs), which was later demonstrated incorrect. However, Dan56 edit warred to maintain a note in the second FAC nomination calling Rationalobserver a sock. I will note that Rationalobserver will not be commenting here because she actually agreed to an interaction ban with Dan56 to demonstrate that she wasn't here just to harass him. I will also add that I thought it was sneaky that Dan56 opened this second nomination and notified several editors, but specifically did not notify the editors who opposed the first one.

The situation at Xx (album) demonstrates that the plagiarism problem has continued despite the RFC, and demonstrates how Dan56 reacts to normal constructive criticism in this realm.

I stand %100 by my suspicions and what I had to say on that matter, a matter which I did not provide the deciding evidence but @Mike V: had, who then offered this cryptic explanation as to why that decision was overturned, NOT that it was "incorrect"--it'd be great for the purposes of this insulting thread that you get your facts straight about the situations and disputes you decide to use as "evidence" here, because I feel you're painting an inaccurate picture of that situation in broad strokes. I find it equally dubious that you pretend to forget I responded to what you claim as finding "sneaky" at that FAC page. You're forcing me to explain and discuss a dispute I've been warned not to, so it's incumbent upon you not to misrepresent it. Btw, you do realize I have an open FAC for Of Human Feelings where I "reacted to normal constructive criticism"? Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music reviews

One of the constant sources of conflict for Dan56 is his interminable addition and removal of music album ratings and reviews to suit his personal opinion, many times with a fixation on Robert Christgau. Lapadite77 provided diffs above for recent conflicts involving reviews and ratings at Garbage-related articles. I'm concerned that Dan cherry-picks and promotes/demotes sources to back up his preferred vision for how the reviews and rating should be reflected. Here is a good example of his removing a source he doesn't like under an unclear and disingenuous edit summary. You would think he was simply adding Newsweek and NME, but he is also removing a source he has argued against without clear rationale or consensus. These are clear WP:OWN violations post-RFC.

I'm tired of having to defend myself against this type of nonsense. Being as active and involved as I am means you're going to butt heads with some fancruft and POV-driven editors from time to time, but I'm offended by your accusation that I add or remove ratings or reviews based on my personal opinion--on one hand you say I'm fixated on Robert Christgau, yet support Lapadite77's assertion that I have a negative opinion of an album (article) which Christgau gave a positive review of? I addressed and explained my role in this "Garbage-related" dispute already in my comment above on 3 February. Furthermore, your above example demonstrates what a flimsy case you are making--did you bother to read anything at the article's talk page where the review sources were being discussed?... because that edit was made when I made a case for a source I had originally added be removed in favor of obviously more notable sources per MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception. Either make a close inspection of this dispute--that article's talk page, each editor's edit summaries and arguments--or don't bother slinging vague accusations of ownership at me when the same could and should be said about the other guy (WP:BOOMERANG). The burden is on you to read through Talk:Version 2.0#Revisions to Critical reception and the corresponding revisions made to the article during that discussion, if you're to introduce it here as some kind of evidence of disruptive editing made on my part. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This, for the record, is emblematic of the ownership issues exhibited by Lapadite77 on Garbage-related articles, articles I hardly care about, with the exception of Version 2.0, whose Critical reception I took upon myself to improve and expand starting last October, with (take a guess)... positive reviews! ([29]) But then I continued my research and found reviews not to the liking of Lapadite77. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Music genres

Again for anyone editing music articles, you will see Dan56 all over your watchlist because he reverts anonymous and established editors who attempt to alter the genres on any article he watches, without any rationale or explanation. This is well-documented in his RFC, and he has continued the behavior despite the RFC findings. You needn't go further than the first page of his contributions to find him reverting genre changes calling them vandalism ("rvv"). Most of the time he's changing one unsourced genre to another. This violates WP:BITE (calling people's good-faith contributions vandalism) and WP:OWN (attempting to control the genres on large selections of articles without sources or discussion).

Untrue. Also, the link you provided is my revision restoring the genre sourced in the body of the article. With what I've contributed to Wikipedia, including the improvements I stand by at Version 2.0, I deserve for my accusers to get their facts straight rather than relying on their impression of isolated disputes I've been involved in. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

We need some help here. Beeblebrox, since you closed the RFC, perhaps you can be of some assistance in putting this to bed. I don't think any progress has been made since the RFC. Therefore, I propose the following:

1. Dan56 is required to solicit an independent plagiarism review for any article he's developing before nominating it for either GA or FA status.
2. Dan56 is prohibited from editing reviews or ratings on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status.
3. Dan56 is prohibited from adding, removing, or changing genres on music articles unless he is specifically preparing that article for GA or FA status. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The genre warring too characteristic of past dispute at the album Garbage article. I support the proposed solutions, especially the second and third. However, Dan56 could just use the 'preparing article' as a pretext, augmenting the OWN and WP:POINT issues. --Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Dan56 characterizes the aforementioned as "isolated disputes". Let's see, a scan through the ANI archives of the past year also brings up: [30]; [31]; [32], where an editor who initially disagreed with the OP of the report said:

"All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

and [33], where Dan56 is reminded: "I see the changes as improvements, albeit minor ones. Just because the article is an FA, does not mean that it cannot be improved or changed for the better. Please remember it is a collaborative project, repeatedly templating good faith editors is just not good practice and often invites a hostile response." --Lapadite (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Both the report and the ANI threads you are referring to involve editors who were found to be sock puppets or IPs evading a block--Harmelodix and 5.81.225.225. Just like in your research for the articles you edit, you haven't critically assessed the sources for the case you are trying to make and instead are relying on making a lot of noise with weak evidence in hopes that whoever makes a decision on this matter wont carefully look through it. Dan56 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan's insubstantial, retaliation claims shtick was addressed in the talk page here, where he first professed them. On that note, again the start of more disruption and WP:TE of the same from Dan56, likewise just mimicking my previous restore edit summary (mentioned in above section). Does he care, think he's at fault in anything, or believe he will see any real consequences? Clearly not. He is still reverting what has already been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of some of the content in this subsection created by Spike Wilbury, I'd remind that after the first disagreement and dispute with Dan56 at this article he too accused me of Wikihounding (addressed here), as previously noted in the first post of this ANI thread. --Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Shtick"? That's cute, you used a word from the Newsweek review you've removed numerous times without explanation. And on that note, the start of more "disruption and WP:TE of the same" from Lapadite77, who is still reverting after having been called out for multiple guideline-violations or cleared up on the talk page. Given the nature of this insulting thread, I'd like to bring up the fact that Lapadite made these edits here while editing had grown hot and tempered between us at Version 2.0. In any case, I've opened multiple RfCs now at the article's talk page, because Lapadite is showing little civility or competence concerning the guidelines his edits are violating. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is clear Dan56 is merely repeating exactly what I've said to him regarding his gross guideline-violating behavior and edits, on talk page and edit summaries, and projecting exactly what he's been accused of doing. Everything is on the talk page and page history, and detailed above. Dan56 opened two more RfCs (with multiple misleading statements, unsurprisingly) and restored his WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit again, which was questioned and challenged on the talk page; one of his reverts states: "unexplained removal", which is not the case and is something one of the editors quoted above from a past ANI questions Dan56 on *. It is beyond clear, from all that has been discussed and linked, how much WP:OWN is exhibited, and how disruptive, biased, and uncollaborative Dan56 is; particularly at this band's articles. He has been called out and warned multiple times on various talk pages and ANIs before, and, looking through ANI, edit warring, and SPI archives, Dan56 appears to been been blocked multiple times in the past for disruptive behaviors, largely edit warring. It is clear he has not learned and has no plans to. Nor does he appear to have read the entire ANI thread as I pointed out more than once his lack of ASG and baseless accusation of Wikihounding, which, like I'd said. and linked, was addressed on the talk page.

* An editor's comments from a past ANI thread are relevant here again:

I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers ... I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers. Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly)."

--Lapadite (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has questioned what Lapadite calls my "WP:TE, WP:POV, possibly WP:OR edit" other than Lapadite himself, who has been the one accusing me of tedious or tendentious editing at Version 2.0 since the content dispute began. After I had opened the first RfC there, he canvassed other editors who had worked with him on other "Garbage-related" articles ([34], [35]). His most recent "unexplained removal" that he is referring to is his removal of text expressing criticism of the article's topic from The Times and NME magazine, a removal he did not explain in any way, either in an edit summary or at the talk page. I don't understand why he continues to refer to the sockpuppet case of Harmelodix, who was in fact found to make tedious GNOME-like edits at good/featured articles I had either created or promoted. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this thread, it's nothing new for a disgruntled editor whose edits have been disputed to accuse those disputing his edits of disruptive editing and edit warring at an ANI thread. In fact, Lapadite's done it before, here and here, where he accused Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) of ownership and edit warring at, you guessed it, a "Garbage-related" article. Before Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) invited me to a discussion at one, I had no interest in Garbage articles. I regret having the idea of improving Version 2.0 because of having to interact with such fan-fueled ownership on the part of Lapadite, but all this crap he's flinging at my character and motives doesn't obligate me to bow out. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

More projecting from Dan56, like I noted at the beginning of the ANI, throwing out accusations and (laughably) claiming things of which he is guilty. How predictable; randomly citing the two times I've posted on ANI - one seeking resolution on an article tag dispute after reverts of by two editors who were uncivil, the other, reporting an editor's edit warring on an article, as one can clearly see. On the other hand, one can see from all aforementioned part of Dan's history of being the subject of ANI and other disputes, regarding various articles and various editors, as well as his block history. Obviously Dan56 is "disgruntled" with and inconvenienced by having another ANI report on him, and the possibility of actual consequences, such as a topic ban or the aforementioned by Spike Wilbury, which then won't allow him to freely and persistently subject others to his WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:EW disruptive behavior on selected articles. See how he's continued engaging in all the aforementioned while the ANI is opened, but arguably to a less degree than before the report; I can imagine his drive after it is closed if nothing were to come of it. More WP:TE from Dan56, also misrepresenting a tag: [36] --Lapadite (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, Lapadite's only concern in this thread is removing my presence from Version 2.0 so he can develop that article to suit his preferences (WP:OWN), by any means necessary. Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Lapadite's accusation that I "misrepresented a tag", he is not being truthful. this diff clearly shows he added a "failed verification" tag without good reason, to which I responded in my following revision and removed the tag. He then added a different tag, albeit with the edit summary "Undid revision by Dan56", and is now falsely accusing me of misrepresenting it. He added a "failed verification" tag, and I responded to it in my revert. Dan56 (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255

User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page

1 2 3

Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-4 5 6 7 8

Governing Body-9 10 11 12

Vyselink (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[37] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[38] in regard to four words in one sentence[39] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[40] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)

Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.

In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for many years, and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Wikipedia, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.

It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made any attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.

For several years, I have edited Wikipedia articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only restored the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.

When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.

There has not been any discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your specific concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about what is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - the editor User:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0, who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Wikipedia. See User_talk:2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (only one Talk section).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Wikipedia processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no 'associates' on Wikipedia.

It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at WP:BRD, after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet alert: It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. This edit, however, from an IPv6 address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See [41][42] and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case 73.11.72.255 on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.

It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, "straighten out" the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates"[43]. That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. BlackCab (TALK) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:73.11.72.255's "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history. As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly 4 edits to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits I have ever made to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's sock puppet warning as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. Vyselink (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Time to close? - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. 2601:7:1980:5B5:21C2:E1D6:3861:74AB (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry [44] continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. The user admits he is behind both IP addresses[52] but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. BlackCab (TALK) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a kind manner. However, additional efforts may be necessary to overcome the apparent schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. I will no longer be editing any of these articles. But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a legal threat.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Lies by anti-religious activist Jeffro77 - I have never lied about anything. I told you from the beginning that my IP kept changing. Another IP posted some things about creationism in one of the articles that you reverted at the same time, so I didn't want to take credit for all IP contributions. You sure know how to play the Wikipedia game with your NLT accusations.2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ho hum... now I'm an "activist". Where do I find the time!

So your threat about "harsher chastisement" it was just a meaningless assertion about an irrelevant theological opinion? Rightio. You're most welcome to imagine whatever scenario you like where I'm tortured and killed by your preferred deity. Enjoy. (Who even says "chastisement" anymore?)

You claimed there "there are some edits from an IP that are not me" and that there were "at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3". The only other IP editor has only made one edit (pasting an entire article form the source, which is a copyright violation) on one article, and that article isn't one of the two that generated this discussion. You suggested that "they" are "editing under dynamic addresses", which is a conclusion no one could draw from a single edit by one editor. Your new claim that you only referred to that one editor is therefore false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see there's been some historical revisionism of the IP editor's 'kindness'.[53]--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins Please Take Notice: At this point I believe that the block on both the IP originally addressed in the complaint and also for the other IP he has been using (2601:7 etc just above) is called for immediately and permanently. While he may insist that he will no longer be editing it is irrelevant at this point. His latest edit at my talk page, as well as I believe at Jeffro77's, clearly shows he has absolutely no intention of attempting to reach consensus and having a reasonable debate about his changes. The veiled threat of being "put on warning that you will answer for your error" (mentioned above here) and the veiled threat at my talk page (see link, but it reads "you may face serious consequences for your actions") while obviously the ramblings of a disgruntled IP user who can't get his own way, seal the deal as far as a permanent block is concerned. The history of the IP users edits, his original personal attack on myself and BlackCab by naming us a "Known Apostates", and his complete refusal to even tell the truth about what he himself has said is getting absurd, and taking valuable time from myself, BlackCab, and Jeffro77 to continually attempt to mitigate the damage, as well as wasting space on this ANI noticeboard. Vyselink (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink may need preventative block - Like Jeffro and BlackCab, Vyselink is part of a group trying to invent reasons to block people who disagree with him. I suggest a topic ban for the three of them from this area. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

After making bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted him,[54][55][56][57] IP editor has since gone on a rampage of blatant POV editing on a range of JW articles. EdJohnston has blocked IP access to some articles he has already tampered with, but he continues to find others, including Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Some prompt blocking action would be appreciated. BlackCab (TALK) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell us more about "religious threats"... what does that mean to you exactly? I tried to disengage from the two of you but you have taken to following me around to revert my edits on sight. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of events - BlackCab has been editing articles related to certain religious denominations in a way that reflects bias in favor of the denomination. Perhaps he is a member? In any event, Jeffro77 has a similar ownership tendency along a different POV. All the new editors to these articles are being chased away by their automatic reverts going back 5+ years - look at the article histories. I told them they would need to discuss matters rather than just ignore earnest efforts to improve neutrality and sourcing. BlackCab and Jeffro now stalk me and revert my edits on other articles. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

IP 73.11 has clear POV issues with this area e.g. this amongst many others - I would suggest a topic ban initially, followed by blocks if that does not work. GiantSnowman 11:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP have no more POV issues than some of the other users contributing to the topic. The IP may need to adjust and adapt to be a productive editor, but the ban proposal seems to be based on the IP's views rather than behave. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor's behaviour is indeed certainly a significant problem. The editor has lied about consensus,[58] about sources[59] (none of the editor's changes provide additional sources), about who has introduced changes,[60] and about his identify as other IPs (says multiple IPs weren't him[61]; says all but one were him[62]). Subsequently, the editor has engaged in retributive editing, refusing to comment on content instead of contributors, and bizarre threats about 'judgement by god'.[63]

It is also telling that at the outset of this discussion you characterised the editor's repeated reversions to their preferred version of significant changes to multiple articles as merely "editing", but you have previously reported me for changing four words in one sentence (diffs supplied earlier in discussion). As such, there are indeed some POV problems to be addressed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To lie about anything is not a reason for imposing bans, even less if it is not intentional ("lie" imply it is done on purpose). Presenting "religious threaths" is may not good conduct, but probably no reason for a ban, while legal threaths are. Making use of puppets could be a reason. User:GiantSnowman introduced users with clear POV issues, while I can't see the IP being in a more POV positions than other users editing topic-related articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

• 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blocked 73.11.72.255 (talk · contribs) for engaging in a long-term pattern of edit warring about the Jehovah's Witnesses and being unwilling to wait for consensus. This editor appear to be switching between this IP and 2601:7:1980:5b5:0::/64 in conducting these wars. Consensus can change, and nothing prevents our articles about the Jehovah's Witnesses from being updated by reaching agreement on talk pages, using the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution when needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, can you also give closer consideration to Grrahnbahr's behaviour in this matter, along with his history of attacking my edits? He has characterised this IP editor's edit-warring as simply "editing"; he's claimed that the IPs editor's dishonest assertions about consensus, sources, stable article versions and IPs were not "done on purpose"; he has previously reported me for much less (as indicated above and with full details in the earlier linked discussion—that was for restoring the same edit he did, and he admitted during that debacle that he had a separate agenda). It is evident that Grrahnbahr has an agenda to support pro-JW editors and argue against editors who provide a more neutral view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I am not the subject for this AN/I 2) @Jeffro77: havent discussed his concern on my talk page ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page") 3) Jeffro77 is suggesting an investigation of me, without notyfying me, or even pinging me ("When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"). The IP was blocked, and it was not given I would return to this discussion. I was not a subject of any discussion until Jeffro77's last post. 4) The reasons for a suggested investigation was me alleged having an agenda of supporting "pro-JW" editors. I find any allegations of me arguing against editors who provide a neutral view of any topic, the mentioned one included, as ridiculous. 5) I've produced tens of thousands edits in several wikimedia projects, and have started a four digit articles in several languages, and a number of featured articles and lists in the same projects, including one directly related to this topic. It is not an excuse for anything related to conduct, but, a couple of editors from English JW-related articles are the only editors complaining about my conduct. 6) It is not a violation against anything to support a new editor at wikipedia. The IP will probably never return for editing now, so good work! I'll leave this discussion, since this isn't my AN/I. Any investigations or actions against me will be taken seriously, and would thus require a proper notification on my userpage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have simply responded to the comments that you have already made in this ANI. Your claim that you haven't been advised is therefore disingenuous, as is your claim that your actions had not been called into question until my immediately previous comment. In the scope of this ANI, I first raised the problems with your ongoing bias on 6 February after your response at this ANI on 5 February. It is incredibly dogmatic to insist that I 'advise' you about a discussion in which you're already involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, I would also point out that Grrahnbahr complains that 'he is not the subject of this ANI', yet in his very first comment at this thread, he specifically sought to implicate my editing history on articles about JWs, though I was neither the subject of this ANI, nor the editor who raised it. I received no 'warning' from Grrahnbahr that he was disputing my conduct. Why does Grrahnbahr have a hypocritical double-standard here? And yet he characterised the IP editor's repeated edit warring and blatant dishonesty as "a dispute about nothing".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How does common sense tell us that the World Socialist Party of the United States is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WSPUS was the US contingent of the World Socialist Movement, which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in Anarchy Magazine, Volume 3, 1963, page 178 (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. fi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Transitive logic works only if you accept the premise. Perhaps you're not aware of just how contentious political labels can be? I'd advise you to find multiple reliable sources before slapping labels on political organizations, especially when (as in the current case) the organization itself rejects or has never used that label. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether a premise is wrong is another thing, while this is about validity: if A and B then also C. If someone's arguing that it's valid but unsound, could you please link me to the discussion? Like I said though, I am aware of zero controversy and I rather doubt WSPUS would have rejected being called libertarian Marxist (had the term been more widely used in the early 20th century) or libertarian socialist (had the term not been associated almost exclusively with anarchist communism then). It's just the most accurate description of their politics and it's not considered pejorative... not that it particularly matters if they *had* rejected it. Whether a group likes the label they're given or not is hardly the one criterion for verifiability. Anyway, I still don't understand why we're talking about this when Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists, historically. fi (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it seems you're just making stuff up. Darkstar1st's stated contention for the removal in question was the reliability of the source, not with his distaste for the idea of libertarian socialism in general. You even linked to his edit summary upthread. (And as a matter of fact, your doubts about the label are without merit; the WSP(US) denies that it is "Marxist" so it's a safe bet it would also take issue with "libertarian Marxist".) Of course, disputes about our categorizations of parties are best resolved on article talk pages, not here. There's already a talk page discussion about the categorization of this particular party, to which you're welcome to contribute. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you even talking about? WSM and WSPUS were founded by anti-Bolshevik Classical Marxists. It's pretty much the first thing both articles say. So far as the editor in question and that editor's POV crusade, I can back up everything I've said with diffs, like the user's insistence that libertarian socialism isn't real libertarianism, refusal to enter into discussion and the removal of perfectly legitimate sources on statements contradicting that POV. I'm here to talk about that editor's conduct. fi (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're trying to build a case for Darkstar1st's POV, then it help if you got the facts of your complaint straight, and demonstrated a modicum of familiarity with the examples you're invoking. First you stated upthread that Darkstar1st removed the "libertarian socialist" label from the WSP(US) article, even though you claim they "describe themselves as libertarian". However, the WSP(US) has never referred to itself as libertarian. Then you said that "Darkstar1st's only stated contention was that he doesn't like how libsoc exists" (my emphasis), though your own diffs show a variety of stated contentions on his part, including objections to the reliability of one citation (a perfectly reasonable argument, even though it proved to be mistaken) and to another's language (much less reasonable grounds, but still nothing to do with political ideology). Then you claim that the WSP(US) would refer to itself as Marxist, when in fact they have always quite vocally rejected this label. In short, I'd be taking your complaint a lot more seriously if it wasn't so easy to poke holes in your evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WSM is commonly labeled libertarian socialist and describes itself as Marxist, which takes all of ten seconds to verify. If you have some reason to believe both the WSM and WSPUS articles are 100% wrong in their descriptions of these groups, please fully rewrite these articles accordingly: articles presently describing anti-Leninist Classical Marxists. So far as Darkstar1st's removal of the source for being unreliable, that source was a pamphlet published by WSPUS, so I find it difficult to believe that the WSPUS is not a relevant source on the topic. There may be a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether this Marxist group (according to every source available on all relevant WP articles) is more accurately described as impossiblist, libsoc, both or neither, but the editor was not interested in having one. I encourage you to take your own advise and stay on topic. fi (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic is your failure to present a coherent argument about Darkstar1st's disruptive editing. Neither the document you just cited nor the one Darkstar1st originally objected to say what you claim they say, and in this thread you continue to argue against strawmen. (I never said that the WSP(US) is not Marxist or libertarian socialist, and I never said that our articles shouldn't describe them as such.) I think I've seen enough of your line of reasoning (such as it is) to come to a conclusion as to what needs to be done here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't backpedal. Nearly everything you've tried to derail this with has been total nonsense and just factually wrong; e.g. apparently WSPUS is so adamant about rejecting allegations of Marxism that they devoted a quarter of their website to a "Study Guide to Marxism." I'm sorry you tried to grandstand and got called on it. Good call on bailing out. fi (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
  
  • A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
    

On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[64] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st

Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site ban for Darkstar1st. This battleground behavior and tendentious editing has been going on for years in many articles related to his interests. He has failed to respond to the many requests and warnings to stop. There's no reason to believe that his behavior will improve in the future. I think he has exhausted the patience that has been extended to him. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any action against Darkstar1st. The editor who brought this complaint has failed to make a coherent case for any serious disruption by Darkstar1st, willful or otherwise. Most of the edits I've checked seem to be correctly, or at least plausibly, tagging or removing claims which are not supported by citations. And for cases where the edits are disputed he has requested and/or engaged in talk page discussions. He seems to have been confused about the acceptability of non-English sources, though solving that ought to have involved drawing his attention to WP:NONENG rather than dragging him to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:This disruptive behavior is just the latest in a long history of such conduct in articles on related subjects. This user repeatedly either ignores or fails to understand warnings and guidance as to behavioral and sourcing policy. He's been blocked numerous times for misconduct. Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect things to get any better. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose At worst he got into an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile), but it was such a slow burning edit war that he never came close to violating WP:3RR (and he wasn't trying to game the system either doing reverts every 24 hours) and he tried to just use tags for the part he thought failed verification but those were removed. He did misunderstand WP:NONENG and removed sources that were not in English. And I should note that when WP:NONENG was pointed out to him on his talk page he said "thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa" This is far from siteban worthy (I don't think it is even topic ban worthy). --Obsidi (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said below, it made no difference if the sources were in English and it made no difference if they said what the article said, verbatim. Nothing was read or considered. If previous comments on the talk pages of libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc, are any indication, it's hard to imagine how one can suspend enough disbelief to see this behavior as something done in good faith. Nonsense like this seems to happen all the time and I'm tired of it, for one. fi (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only English source that he removed did not support the statement (sense been corrected by a different editor). --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely, 100% false as I've already explained three times now, here and on the article's talk page. fi (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per clearly WP:NOTHERE "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". His editing resembles a WP:SPA purely to WP:POVPUSH his view that libertarian socialism is not a movement, and thus removes references to libertarian socialism from numerous articles, To further his cause he uses edit-warring, pretends he can't translate, and uses the deceitful practices of double-editing (first removing the reference and tagging, then removing the actual statement a few hours later). This whole process causes considerable time wasting and acrimony. This isn't just recent behavior but a long-term problem, just look at his record. WP would be a better place without him. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure until reading the objections, but now it's clear that this is all pretty disingenuous, and that some people are just repeating the same falsehoods in defense of this user, no matter what anyone says. Five years is plenty of time for someone to change their behavior. fi (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia works best if people question flaky citations, and that is what Darkstar1st has been doing. Finx and Mrjulesd feel threatened by that and so are campaigning to have Darkstar1st blocked. This is wrong. Various editors have looked into their objections to Darkstar1st, and found that the accusations did not really stand up. Mrjulesd claimed that Darkstar1st was edit warring in a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI), but when I looked into the accusations, the case against Darkstar1st had been overstated, and Finx and Mrjulesd had edit-warred just as much on the page in question as Darkstar1st, and none of them had broken the 3 revert rule. As for accusations of POV pushing - Finx and Mrjulesd make statements like: "non-Marxist communists are generally known as libertarians"!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the context on that quote, which is totally and verifiably true in context (as explained in the article on anarchist a.k.a. libertarian communism), see this discussion thread started by Darkstar1st's wanting to remove libsoc from the article on libertarianism. I find it hilarious that I'm supposed to be in some kind of conspiracy with Mrjulesd, who only stepped into this matter after seeing it on ANI, AFAIK. fi (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Look if we're all wrong he really needs to come to ANI to defend his position, and give an explanation for his editing patterns. These are serious allegations, his lack of input here is plainly unsatisfactory. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Have we really been discussing this problem for five years? I think that's enough time to come to a decision. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support with WP:STANDARDOFFER, which would of course entail a topic ban if he were ever reinstated. If someone so clearly WP:NOTHERE is to get the message, he needs an indef ban. Softlavender (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, why are people complaining that Darkstar1st removed political labels which had no reference? Finx is adding labels with no reference or bad references, so Finx is breaking policy, not Darkstar1st. Spumuq (talq) 12:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Where have I done this? None of those labels were originally added by me and I was usually not the first to revert their removal. I did provide sources on four occasions: three from the concerned parties' own publications, one from a respected American academic and authority on regional politics and several others on talk pages (from pertinent and well known political journals, Kevin Carson's think tank, etc). I'm not sure where I broke policy. fi (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of articles about socialist groups are old and have few if any references. Your first example, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum) is entirely unsourced. Rather than improve articles on socialism, Darkstar1st has decided to remove any reference to libertarianian in them, believing that libertarianism and socialism are incompatible. He has also as mentioned above removed sources before deleting text, and argues that reliable sources are using incorrect translations when they call foreign groups libertarian. But it is no defense at ANI to say one is right - that is an issue of content that should be decided in the relevant content noticeboards. Right or wrong, editors must work collaboratively with others, which Darkstar1st vehemently refuses to do. TFD (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. If you look at (for example) Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party you will see useful collaborative behaviour by Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, Finx and other editors that resulted in better citations in the article. None of that would have happened if Darkstar1st had not questioned a the citation to the statement that the party were socialist libertarians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is just the latest in a succession of clueless campaigns of POV editing and WP:IDONTHEAR from Darkstar1st. For example he has repeatedly tried to insert ill-sourced contentious material about Paul Krugman and other left-of-center figures, and he tried repeatedly to portray Adolf Hitler and Nazism as a leftist socialist. Check his contributions if you wish to familiarize yourself with his history. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention

I've restored this section from the archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Mrjulesd_.28Result:_.29

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--Mrjulesd (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've invited Darkstar1st to join this conversation, and let them know that the discussion is currently moving towards their being blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't care if he is changing 100 articles, if he is doing so for good policy based reasons. To ask for a source for a disputed claim is fine (which is what most of his edits have been). He did get into a bit of an edit war on Equality_Party_(Chile). That was wrong, he should have gone to the talk page after he got reverted. He did remove some content that was sourced to a site in a foreign language, he should have asked for a translation if he disputed it before removing. Other then that I don't see the problem --Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Doesn't that suggest a POV pusher? Removing references to "Libertarian" from lots of socialist political parties? And that's all he's been doing. And there are ample references he's ignoring. There is a definite pattern to his editing suggesting heavy POV against libertarian socialism, like he doesn't like that it exists. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSHEditing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If there are references he is ignoring, first make sure that he is aware of them, and then it becomes behavior issue if he continues. Demanding sources and removing unsourced labels (until a source is provided) even on multiple pages is not quite enough to be a problem. If he was repeatedly adding, especially fringe material or expanding sections beyond what would be due weight that would be far more of a problem which is what POV pushing is. --Obsidi (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor "asked" for sources and then deleted them when they were provided, or when clarification on the correct and already present sources was offered. fi (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see a few that he removed even after a source was provided because the source was not in English. That was wrong. And if he persists and keeps removing it, he should be blocked until he acknowledges that he cannot remove sourced material just because it isn't in English. So far I have seen him remove stuff cited in other languages because it wasn't in English, but after it was added back in he doesn't appear to have kept removing it (meaning a block isn't yet appropriate for that). --Obsidi (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

... removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word, as well. There were up to six or seven reverts on about dozen separate articles, each. Indiscriminate mass deletions by political POV warriors call for a complete topic ban, at the very least, IMO, though I'm tempted to agree with TFD that it might be too lenient in this case. Honestly, the editor above who pointed out that US libertarians are a site-wide problem hit the nail right on the head. I don't know of any other political group here that causes so many problems repeatedly, or spends so much time on shameless appropriation and recuperation of absolutely anything that has some imaginary tenuous connection to the USLP marketing campaign. The issue, as far as I can see, is religious fanaticism. fi (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for those in which he "removed sources in English that stated what the article said word-for-word"? There are a lot of different articles and lots of different edits, I have been through all the diffs posted on this thread so far. --Obsidi (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

sure fi (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So I followed the link for the source cited in the diff and got "Aradığınız sayfa sistemde kayıtlı değildir" which is Turkish for "System is not registered on the page you are looking for" did you get something different? Oh, I see now, your talking about the ref to the book (he didn't remove any content just the ref to the book) I am not sure why he did that, that doesn't seem right. His edit summary seems to be related to the other two edits he made about the weird Turkish page not found message. --Obsidi (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he felt that it did not support the statement. The text in Wikipedia is "The prominent grouping within the party is Revolutionary Solidarity (former Devrimci Yol (Revolutionary Path) - also known as Dev-Yol) which was formed following the split of Libertarian Socialism Platform in 2007." But the source only says "The remnant of Del Yol, now called the Libertarian Socialism Platform, is also a member of the ODP." Close, but a bit different (or at least doesn't support all the sentence). --Obsidi (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The source explicitly says: "the ODP...is a Turkish socialist libertarian party" -- which was made clear about four or five times, by my count. fi (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, and like I said that is a good source for that. But he removed the reference in the diff above for a different sentence not dealing with if it is a socialist libertarian party. --Obsidi (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter if an editor is following content policy and is not something we can decide here. TFD (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion above about a possible site ban for Darkstar1st. I have just created the heading "Site ban proposal for User:Darkstar1st". Please give your views there. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems on the American Sniper page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Original poster has found a suitable venue to resolve the content dispute. Interlopers who appear to be block shopping should stop that activity. If there is a long term pattern of abuse, as they seem to allege, it would probably be best dealt with at arbitration. This board doesn't have the attention span for a close reading of many years worth of contributions by an active editor. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in fragrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section. David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the personal attacks? Having been the subject of MONGO's attacks in the past, I would like to see something done about this. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum...somebody should remind David A if he's going to level false accusations he needs to learn common courtesy and leave a note on that editor's talkpage. Since I have this page watchlisted no need now, but thanks for nothing. There aren't any personal attacks unless calling it as it is is a personal attack. David A seems to be in severe violation of the undue weight clause of NPOV and is engaged in POV pushing on the aforementioned article. No amount of reasoning about what is and what isn't reliable sources and quality of sources seems to matter. Merge meant that the article mentioned needed to have critical reviews mentioned, but David A and one or two others believe that means the article is to be once again a coatrack of opinion pieces. The article critique was condensed to avoid the coatrack, a POV fork was created (not by David A) and then nominated for deletion and the vote was to merge back, but nothing was ever taken out of the main article in great details until now and I wasn't party to that!--MONGO 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that much of a problem with MONGO, but rather with DHewyard's massive censoring of references, but here are a few quotes from MONGO at the American Sniper Talk page:

“Its kind of fascinating to me that rags like Salon actually pay people of limited journalist integrity and zero ability to do investigative journalism (these tall tales would never hold up in a court of law) to write articles for them....I guess there is a target audience of persons with a predisposed bias that only want to read about things that support their biases.“

“I think it would be fair that if radicals and anti-American bigots and non expert opinions about movie crafting are to have their useless opinions quoted, then there is no reason to not elaborate in a few words to a sentence why each of these non experts likely hold such opinions.”

“Looks like a laundry list of wimps armed with a typewriter. “American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem... is this person insane or something?...nevermind, they "write" for the overtly left wing biased Salon. I think for every pro or con opinion, we should help frame some examples of those person's other viewpoints, to add perspective to their ridiculous biases.”

“I think the Michelle Obama quote is as worthless as the ones that rag on the movie. Who is she anyway, a Presidents wife...big deal. She isn't a movie critic anymore than I am. Look...we really need to stop all this quotefarming. I wouldn't mind seeing very brief quotes from movie critics but otherwise all we have are writers using the movie as an excuse to go off on some pro war, pro soldier or the opposite of that vein to promote their political viewpoints which are not relevant to the movie.”

“He writes for Salon, a left wing rag...of course they are going to obfuscate his firing because he now works for them in their efforts to propagate more biased "reporting" to continue to get their fan base to read their nonsense. Its pretty funny to think that even the Obama administration would have found his tweets and other commentary worrisome enough to pressure that PAC to remove him.” "Bullshit..."

"It won't be much longer before the Democratic Party in the U.S. sees a total abandonment of Jewish support what with the radical left being so antisemitic... (Caution: That's a link to Fox News website and they have fixed it so their cookies can vaporize lefties computers!!! Just wanted to give you a heads up)"

“The "writers" that are busy writing vicious garbage about the movie and Kyle say zero about the beheadings and those being burned alive by ISIS. That is the definition of mental illness. For every lousy opinion piece I'm going to write qualifying comments in the article to help put perspective on why some of these people have such hate.”

“The article is not going to be the new coatrack for every hate filled opinion piece that are primarily from those using the movie as an excuse to unload a barrage of lies and misepresentaruons. “

“this article is not going to be drowned out by every wimps opinion about the movie, provided in long winded quotes that have about as much worth as a dog turd to us, an encyclopedia.” “Well...the thing is that no one really reading the article could care less what some opinions are by anyone. They want to know what the movie is about and the mechanics of it. The sane know that the opinions are just opinions and could care less.”

“I've narrowed it down to 13 critiques...a few more are pretty much just opportunistic rants that discuss the movie only in cursory detail. That's still 13 critiques...I really have no idea what the complaints are about that the article doesn't have a critique section. Even if we eliminated a half dozen more of the most ridiculous opinion pieces it would still be undue weight to have the remaining ones in.”

“The controversy is mainly a stirred up concoction by people that want to use the movie to promote their unvisionary personal opinions about the war, snipers, Kyle and Eastwood and take pop shots and make shitty accusations about rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters. Its some of the lowest low ball bullshit I have ever read and is fascinating to me that while these "writers" get carte blanche to saw some of the most vicious things I have ever read, if people like me call them on their bullshit I'm somehow engaged in personal attacks. I'm going to take down a few more of these "critiques".”

"No one is trying to do anything but keep ranting raving opinions masquerading as movie reviews out of the article."

Personally, I find this kind of language crude and offensive, but unlike DHeyward, he has actually been willing to compromise. David A (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been pretty active on that and the related Chris Kyle page but the truth is almost all of your last 250 edits spanning the last 2 plus weeks has been on this topic...as shown here...and you wonder why I might view you as a single purpose account with an agenda? Seriously...why wouldn't anyone view it that way? Your purpose at least for this period has been solely to put as much negative bias in that article as you can get away with...please correct me if I am wrong. To be fair here is my last 250 edits...[65]--MONGO 06:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been active on Wikipedia for 9 years running. I am not remotely a single-purpose account. However, I do have OCD, and get fixated on things. My attention has been splintered between different things outside of Wikipedia however. David A (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, cannot help you with that, but none of my alleged "personal attacks" were ever at you but about the SOURCES which I can say any thing I please about. You couldn't get all the attacks in the article so a POV fork (which you voted to keep) was created which was discussed at Afd and closed to be merged back but the majority of the most related negativity was still in the article...so when you can't add more and more and more you come here to complain about it? as a lesson plan, view Wikipedia:Criticism, which makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack.--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You've provided evidence that MONGO may be misusing the talk page. I say "may" because we don't have all the facts just yet. In the past, MONGO has had difficulty controlling himself on political topics due to his simplistic, black and white way of viewing the world. Reasonable people understand that reality isn't bifurcated between left or right. In any case, you've also shown that MONGO has made personal accusations against you in this thread that lack substance. I can't comment on the other issues without more evidence. If you choose to provide, add diffs instead of quotes. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Edit differences take a lot of time to sift through, but I will check if I can find them. David A (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as I said, I have far less of a problem with MONGO's crude language than I have with DHeyward's tendency to censor, but here are a few edit differences: [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81] David A (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas...you've no room to yack...lets look at your block log and history of warnings shall we?--MONGO 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will that help distract us from looking at your behavior mentioned in this report? Does the talk page require your running commentary about politics? Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources are nothing but partisan attacks about politics and not real movie reviews then they should be identified as what they are. If they were legitimate reviews (and some are) then no reason they cannot stay. But honestly, how many disruptive editing blocks have you had ? and you're throwing stones because you have a score to settle? Cute.--MONGO 07:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Having been the subject of your unprovoked attacks before, I can sympathize with the OP. I'm not the type of person who is out to settle scores, so I think you are confusing me with someone else, perhaps yourself. Thankfully, we are very different people. I just want your attacks to stop, that's all. As for your political commentary, I have to say that I don't have very much faith in your critical abilities when it comes to an unbiased opinion. You are probably a little too close to this topic, both on a personal and a professional level. Therefore, it would be sensible if you took a step back and removed yourself from the article. Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not going to step away from the article until the POV pushing stops. I've made it clear that I think all the critique both pro and con needs to be balanced...but the OP merely removed the negative quotes and left a laundry list of links. As far as partisanship, speak for yourself.--MONGO 07:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have diffs supporting your claim about POV pushing? I'm responding only to the evidence I've seen in this thread, namely, evidence that you've engaged in disruptive editing and levied false accusations. Do you still maintain that the OP is an SPA or will you be issuing an apology? Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The wordiness of your complaint without a single diff or actionable item sums up your contribution to American Sniper (film). The consensus was to "merge", not copy the POV fork into a new POV section. This is a content dispute and I trimmed the content of its QUOTEFARM 'controversy[ (both positive and negative). I removed grand introductions (appeal to Authority) of the people being quoted in the quotefarm and I removed fluff that wasn't related to the film. The decision to merge isn't "copy/paste." It means a thoughtful inclusion of valid criticism that meets our objectives of NPOV, UNDUE weight and reliable sources. There are literally thousands of film reviewers in notable and reliable local papers yet we don't want an article that simply repeats the same thing. We could literally write hundreds of pages of "John Smith, film critic for the Ottumwa, Iowa Daily Express and graduate of the USC School of Film called America Sniper a delightful film that gave us tender insight into the trials and tribulations of soldiers tasked with figfhting wars. He said "Eastwood was brilliant in capturing the subtle nuances of the distinction between battle and home life." I could write a hundred pages of that crap, just as you did for the "controversy" section but it's not how ewell written articles are constructed. I'm sorry the film isn't as controversial as you wish to make it nut that doesn't mean we sacrifice standards. --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never remotely suggested to censor all of the positive responses. There have been a massive amount of articles criticising the film with eloquent well-worded valid arguments, that you attempted to censor wholesale. You just compared said critics with the Ku Klux Klan. I had enormously compressed just what seemed to be the most relevant 9 of all the references from the merged criticism article into one brief summary sentence each, while keeping the section balanced by affording the positive defense of the movie more room than the critics, and I had also accepted to cut away several articles that MONGO took issue with. And there was a Talk page agreement to keep to this compromise. Then out of nowhere, you decided to censor 95% of everything, in an effort to cover up that a controversy even exists, simply out of personal bias. Even the New York Times has written about the controversy in articles. It is definitely very notable. David A (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, ANI can't handle content disputes, only behavior. If the behavior of MONGO and DHeyward has made the editing environment difficult, you'll need to provide diffs to personal attacks, disruptive edits, and other behavioral problems such as reverts. If DHeyward has indeed "censored" an article, that would be a violation of NPOV. Again, we need diffs. Don't focus on content, just behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well here are his latest attempts: [82] [83][84][85] [86] [87][88][89] David A (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: given this thread, there appears to be much more than a content dispute at work here. I'm seeing personal attacks from MONGO in this thread alone. David A has also offered quotes from the talk page indicating that MONGO takes a battleground approach. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but OP says that his issue is with me and I've not made any personal attacks or any battleground behavior. I've made within police edits that adhere to MOS standards for both general encyclopedic articles and specific MOS standards for films. OP hs not provided a single diff of an edit I've made. I've not censored anything, rather I cut down long rambling quotes and puffery introductions to simple sentences. I merged it into the critical response section. I'm not sure what else I can do here. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For a similar movie that had widespread appeal but some controversy, see Avatar (2009 film) for its portrayal of the soldiers and their identification as being U.S. Marines or simply U.S. military in general. Note the lack of a controversy section the OP created in America Sniper (film) or the long drawn out individual quotes by critics. The controversy is summarized in a short paragraph that is according to its proper weight. There is no reason to believe the controversy here should be treated differently. Trim it and integrate to a level that is commensurate with a hugely successful film with large amounts of critical acclaim.. --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful that Mongo or the other editor discussed here negatively is making any thing other than guideline type of edits. This is a content dispute where a lot of personal animosity is driving it. The Afd discussion said to merge, but the material was already still here in this article. IjonTichyIjonTichy...you are the one that has been blocked and warned multiple times in the past and nothing seems to have changed. You couldn't get what you wanted here, so you created a POV fork that was almost immediately nominated for deletion and you're using your sandbox to stage more stuff. If there is disruptive editing going on here its from you....something you have been blocked for in the past.--MONGO That is a fact IjonTichyIjonTichy was or is topic banned in at least one area for completely ignoring consensus and edit warring over and over and over. Mongo also has been a guideline editing 'type' from my experience. I think toss this one in the garbage. Content dispute with no real personal attacks in that but lots of old fights from other things being hashed out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing much more than a content dispute at work here; I'm seeing serious behavior problems. As it stands American Sniper falls under the standard discretionary sanctions imposed by the American politics ruling. If the talk page isn't already tagged as such, it should be, and all active editors in this thread should be given the sanction warning. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? That's pretty far off the deep end...you must have an agenda! Wow!--MONGO 08:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll ignore your latest personal attack. Far from being off the deep end, according to WP:ARBAPDS, the Wikipedia article on American Sniper, as well as any other articles directly connected to that topic, are currently under arbcom sanctions. Please consider yourself warned. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I typed is a personal attack. The article in question is a movie biography and is not a political article like the Tea Party Movement or similar.--MONGO 08:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything you typed falls afoul of our civility and personal attack policies. You may want to read them again to understand why referring to someone and their ideas as crazy is not the right approach. Further, the type of article has no bearing on our arbcom sanctions. Arbcom is very clear: This case relates to behavioural issues from many articles spanning multiple topics. All the involved articles and instances of misconduct relate to political or social issues in the United States...Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another. Please read the case pages again. This report highlights a dispute involving American politics and social issues. As such, it falls under the broad remit of arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an article about a movie biography, the politics are manufactured. There is broadly construed and then there is overly broadly construed. I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics. All this discussion is about is about whether we incorporate real movie reviews or articles pretending to be movie reviews.--MONGO 08:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't matter if it's about a film in the slightest; we have plenty of films under similar political and social sanctions. This film in particular falls directly under the American politics sanctions, and your own words about the film (quoted above) prove this to be true. When you say, " I fail to see how this article has a thing to do with political or social issues related to politics", one has to take a step back and wonder if you expect anyone to take you seriously. You yourself said that your singular motivation for participating in this dispute was to prevent political positions you disagree with from appearing the article. You said that. You referred to these American political positions as those of "radicals and anti-American bigots", people with "overtly left wing biased" views, "Michelle Obama", "a Presidents wife", " political viewpoints", a "left wing rag", the "Obama administration", a "PAC", " the Democratic Party in the U.S.", the "radical left", "personal opinions about the war", and "rednecks, Americans or gun right supporters". That's a sample of your own words from the talk page as quoted above, and they represent what arbcom calls "political or social issues in the United States". According to Variety, "the film brutally exposes the unprecedented civil-military divide that exists in America after 9/11." Those are political and social issues in the U.S. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now David A, who didn't bother to inform either myself or DHeyward about this notice, claiming he didn't yet have time, has decided to solicit another editor that has been in agreement with him on the edits to join the discussion here [90].--MONGO 08:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I was switching from my notepad to my computer, and having some breakfast. I am a slow-moving individual, and you reacted quicker than I did. I apologise about this, but was going to inform both of you, and as I said on his talk page, I was just going to do so with DHeyward when I noticed that you had already done so. Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with informing the other involved parties as well. David A (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, well, I am sure you are being honest but so you know, according to Wikipedia:Canvassing, "...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."--MONGO 08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A's notice falls under the category of appropriate canvassing and was not disruptive. However, you have once again attempted to change the subject by wikilawyering over an unrelated issues. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you're accusing me of wikilawyering and its not unrelated...he was invited here! Viriditas, I'm watchlisting your talkpage so I can enjoy the next block you get yourself into. Your commentary here, which is not helping solve the dispute will be ignored.--MONGO 08:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, my concern is just that I don't want the section to be completely censored, as I think that some of the cited articles make very valid points. It would be nice if some admins could step in and make a ruling what to do with it. David A (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An admin isn't going to have any more weight about content than either of us. My asking or pointing or things such as your editing history is not a personal attack, nor is my commentary about the lackluster opinion pieces that are not actually reviews of the movie. If I was POV pushing I could go out and find 200 positive reviews and then badger everyone ad nausea about the need to have them in the article...so all I am doing is trying to keep this mess NPOV.--MONGO 09:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But I have attempted to keep it NPOV by allowing the positive defense of the movie to be allowed more room than the criticism. In addition, there is the reviews section, which does include lots of positive views about the movie. David A (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

David A, admins won't make a "ruling" about content, only behavior, as you've previously been informed. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like old animosities revving up a content dispute, and this sure looks like canvassing with an actual introduction to the canvassers opinion instead of a call to edit in good faith. [91] Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing behavior not content, and it's already been explained that the canvassing was legitimate and appropriate. I see no "old animosities" anywhere in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note, several days prior to the creation of this report, MONGO was repeatedly warned about making personal attacks on Talk:American Sniper (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies.[92][93] It therefore seems appropriate to ask the community to put an end to this pattern of behavior as the user is unable to control himself. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The main issue here and at the related articles seems to me to be that the over-emphasis on "controversy" is turning the page into a coatrack of complaints about the Iraq war and US foreign policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor in this dispute, I can only recommend that you look at the outcome of the AfD for American_Sniper_(film)_controversies, which found consensus to merge the content into American Sniper (film).[94] It sounds like you are saying that the editors involved in this dispute are preventing the community consensus formed in the recent AfD from being implemented. I would like to recommend a way forward. Any administrator may add an entry for "American_Sniper_(film)" to the enforcement log over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Enforcement_log and tag the article and warn the editors. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often a good idea to give administrators special powers to influence content. These things are best worked out among editors on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a biographical film about a non-political subject. The politics are manufactured creations. Your definition of "American Politics" would place virtually every article in WP under sanction. Sorry but that's just not the case. This is an apolitical movie with patriotic elements. Patriotism and military service is not political. --DHeyward (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the documented greatly increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, and ongoing death, rape, etcetera threats against critics, following the movie, how is it avoiding to make a political statement? David A (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was in my version. Since I'm against "increased hostility towards Arabs and Muslims," as well as against "death, rape and etcetera" threats against critics - you must be for it if those are conflicting political issues in the United States and you oppose my edits on political grounds? Let me help you: there were both left wing and right winge and middle wing American soldiers in Iraq. There were Jewish and Muslim soldiers in Iraq. "War hero" doesn't mean right wing except in a very, very narrow reading by extreme left and extreme right viewpoints. It's not a political debate currently being waged in the U.S. -DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is that my impression is that media such as this film seems to greatly incite many viewers in a political/extremely partisan manner. Regardless of that the intentions of the movie seem more benign than that according to Eastwood and the lead actor, many people are reported to feel extremely increased hatred towards Muslims, Arabs, and critics because of it, and as the New York Times reported, part of the far right has seized upon using it as a banner, whereas the left or centrists are either outraged or worried. There is also lots of criticism about how the movie omitted relevant facts about the Iraq war. All of this ended up as political, regardless of intentions. David A (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your impression is incorrect. It incites partisan political extremists that see it and use it as a vehicle to forward their partisan, politically extreme position. They are a fringe group. Heck, even the marginally political film critic points out the film doesn't explore the politics of the Iraq War and that disappointed them. It's only the most extreme that find it to be political. The mainstream viewer is not affected politically in any way. Patriotic does not equal political. Here's an example: extreme political viewpoint writer decides to tie the movie to "Gun Culture" because she believed Eastwood threatened Moore at a "Bowling for Columbine" award. She uses this hook to get in her "this movie is about guns. Guns are bad." except one slight problem. It was at a "Fahrenheit 911" award and had nothing to do with guns. This was a source you originally provided. Salon did an in-line correction so it reads like a rambling, idiotic piece of derp until the reader reads the correction note and finds she was writing about a completely different topic. Before: [95] After:[96]. She didn't retract the story because in reality she just wanted a reason to write about gun control even when the correction destroyed her argument. Read it with and without the correction. --DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, although I agree that this particular writer made a poor point, I respectfully disagree about the overall assessment. My impression of this and similar media is that they greatly increase the feelings tied to politically extreme partisan positions. I think that if this would just have been about fringes there would not be a reported greatly increased downright murderous hostility towards Muslims after it came out. David A (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: A "merge" result does not mean that there was consensus for insertion of the entire article into the other article, the editors at the main article may find consensus to add some parts and not the entirety, especially since there were strong opinions that it was a POV fork to some extent. Collect (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. This is exactly what I was trying to do. After much back and forth Talk page discussion, and several compromises, I had shortened down 8 of the more relevant articles into one brief sentence each. As well as 6 articles more as references following a "Several other articles have also been critical of the movie" at the end. There were lots more articles at the separate controversies page. MONGO was collaborating with this approach, and we were cutting away several articles that he had specific valid complaints about. Then DHeyward decided to completely ignore the Talk page discussion, the 14 votes cast in favour of "merge", as well as hours spent by myself reading and trying to concisely summarise the articles into just one vital sentence each, to just delete virtually all of it, as I illustrated that he has done repeatedly on this page before. That said, I had asked for help to merge together all of the summaries into a more coherent text, as had been suggested by NBauman, to read better within the article, but did not receive any assistance in this endeavour. David A (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is fully protected for a week on your version so that gives anyone who cares a baseline to look at and decide if any or all of it stays.--MONGO 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings on the article talk page and on his user talk page to stop his disruptive editing and tendentious editing, mongo appears to have continued to WikiBully and personally attack users, including David A and myself. And he continued to act like he owns the article, and to edit war in an effort to remove content he just does not like. He also tends to attack sources whose criticism of the film he does not like (Zaid Jilani and even Max Blumenthal, a Jewish journalist and book author and an expert on the middle east) as anti-Semites ... mongo's behavior appears out of control. It was also explained to both mongo and DHeyward numerous times on the article talk page and on the related AfD that WP cares about how the sources interpret the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film, not how mongo or DH (mis)interpret the film. This point was made over and over again to mongo and DH not only by David A and myself, but also by several experienced editors on the AfD, and yet mongo and DH continue to refuse to hear. 'Sniper' has lots of similarities to Triumph of the Will, Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty, all films which are considered masterpieces of filmmaking but were also criticized heavily by many sources for their political/ historical/ social aspects. IjonTichy (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Warnings from who? You? You were unsuccessful in getting your coatrack established in the article so you created a POV fork which was immediately nominated for Afd and there it was decided to.merge the content since you had created a POV FORK. Just because people call you on your disruptive editing, an issue that has you topic banned and blocked previously, doesn't mean they are attacking you. I think your efforts to present an extreme POV and to do so in a very aggressive manner is disruptive so you are hereby warned to stop being disruptive or face a block and possibly a topic ban.--MONGO 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a major overreaction to a simple controversy section in an article about a fictional film based on an autobiography. Please keep your politics at home. If you aren't this tall, you can't ride Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy

Even after the POV FORK American Sniper (film) controversies was voted to be redirected and merged User:IjonTichyIjonTichy has persisted in adding more to the coatrack he created... [97] this appears to be little more than disruptive editing and POV pushing.--MONGO 16:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

mongo is continuing his personal attacks, which he has done from the first time I added sourced content to the film article, and from his very first comment on the AfD. When mongo and DH appeared to be willing to abide by the consensus on the AfD, I've added content to the controversies article but immediately reverted myself. When it became obvious mongo and DH had no intention to abide by the community consensus to merge the two articles, I did not revert myself after adding content to the controversies article. Finally, please note that on the AfD discussion, the most thoughtful, insightful, and well-considered arguments came from several independent editors (eg. user:Erik) who made no mention of any fork (especially not a screaming all-capitalized one like mongo has done) but instead focused on logical reasoning in terms of what's best for the project while satisfying WP policies, without even having to mention the policies explicitly - one of the hallmarks of great editors. (And by the way my sandbox has nothing to do with this complaint against mongo's and DH's disruptive behavior and their editing against community consensus and is only a distraction.) IjonTichy (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said above is a personal attack. You are already topic banned from an entire set of articles and was blocked for violation and disruptive editing. My pointing out these issues is not a personal attack. --MONGO 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've watched this article and the film article since the AfD was created. I think loose accusations of POV-pushing were unnecessary and that there is a lack of cordial discussion about how to deal with all this commentary. At the AfD and on the film article's talk page, I've brought up WP:STRUCTURE as a guideline to follow because the commentary is pooled by POV. For example, the sub-article has "Allegations" section headings that are unnecessarily slanted, where a section heading like "Portrayal of Iraq" could fold the negative criticisms and the counter-criticisms into one section. I think a sub-article can exist, but it started off on the wrong foot, apparently because there was a dispute on the film article itself. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this count.) In terms of trying to work together to structure all this commentary per WP:NPOV, we could start a Draft:Commentary on American Sniper which could be imported to the main article after some collaboration, or if long enough and satisfactory per WP:NPOV, re-established as a sub-article. The current "Controversies" section is lacking in high-level assessment, e.g. a mainstream newspaper basically highlighting the key points of the debate, and has too many one-commentator-after-another sentences. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism makes it clear that a controversies or criticism section, while not against guidelines, should be cautiously applied or avoided if possible. By creating and maintaining a section devoted solely to controversies or negative critique, we run the risk of it being used as a coatrack...as I stated above.--MONGO 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting "Commentary" to encapsulate the back-and-forth that has gone on. It would not be limited to the negative criticism. Even if one disagrees with the negative criticism, it is worthy of reporting since Wikipedia describes disputes as detailed in secondary sources. For example, we could focus on commentary that has been reported in high-level assessments. I think The New York Times mentioned a Grantland piece as one sample commentary, so that would be a reasonable threshold to emulate and to avoid throwing everything but the kitchen sink into such a section or a sub-article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with high level sourcing. The problem is Ijon seems determined to do nothing but coatrack. He has yet to demonstrate any desire to follow our best practices and has instead insisted repeatedly on using any and all sources no matter how circumspect they may be. Just now I reverted back the page at American Sniper (film) controversies that was voted to be merged as he is misusing it after the Afd closed to continue to post more stuff. The page is now properly a redirect and should be full protected by an admin in that version to comply with the Afd closure and to prevent Ijon from persisting in misusing it.--MONGO 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems like IjonTichy intended the page as a sandbox, but such a sandbox page should be off the mainspace. Either the draft page can be created from scratch, or the sub-article can be moved to that draft page to preserve page history (while we keep the redirect to the main article). I understand that it is difficult to imagine a proper sub-article about the debate being done, but I think it is doable. Articles like this can be referenced to capture the scope of the debate. If we start the draft page, we can collaborate to structure it appropriately. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section should start off with the reiteration that the film was based on Chris Kyle's autobiography, and then we can start including commentary from commentators, politicians, cast, and crew about whether accuracy matters or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He already is using a sandbox for this and was trying to use the redirect page to post the same. I disagree that the alledged controversies needs a standalone article...that was already tried and was voted for a merge. The issue again is such forks are usually just coatracks and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of links. If Ijon wishes to fill a sandbox up with every critique he wants then that's a different story.--MONGO 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Now Ijon is again using the redirect to post the same issue and edit warring to do so...[98]...how many examples of disruptive editing are needed here?--MONGO 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that what Erik suggests is a good idea, but when I asked for help to organise the section in this manner, I did not receive any assistance, and I distrust my competence to do so myself. However, I did write brief summaries for all of the articles that I could repost at the talk if you wish? David A (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mongo, I find that the agreement at the AfD was that the sub-article was a POV fork. This does not mean a stand-alone article is never possible. WP:POVFORK says, "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." It's possible that we would be fine with encapsulating the whole debate in the film article, but a more detailed sub-article can still be warranted provided that it is properly balanced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IjonTichy, let's move the sub-article to the draft space. The consensus was that we should not have a sub-article at this point, so we should not keep it up currently. Merging does not necessarily mean that all the sub-article's content should find a place in the main article. POV concerns should be addressed first, and we can do that outside the mainspace and then import material that has a proper balance. If we do this, maybe on that draft page we can start in a specific sub-topic and develop coverage of the debate and get others to assess it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just reminded him of 3RR on the redirect which he continues to misuse as a parking place. An admin needs to protect the redirect. Erik....as.much as I would like to, existing and past behavior by Ijon does not indicate to me that he's going to do anything other than misuse a subarticle as a POV FORK. Good luck.--MONGO 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry if I missed anything, but why does IjonTichyIjonTichy think they can override Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sniper (film) controversies days after it closed as "merge"? Drmies (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the best thing to protect the redirect? Otherwise there is a likelihood it will be used as a parking place. My last edit there told him to take it to the article talk page.--MONGO 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I will fully abide by decisions of the community, whether reached here, or on any article talk page, or anywhere on WP. The problem is mango's behavior, not mine. Drmies, please see the OP. The discussion closed as 'merge'. It did not close as 'delete,' but mango and DH are interpreting it as 'delete.' The consensus did not close as 'emboldening mango and DHeyward to remove practically almost each and every and all sourced criticism of the political/ historical/ social aspects of the film from the American Sniper (film) article because mango and DH do no like it, and emboldening them to attack and WikiBully editors that may disagree with them, and emboldening them to make a mockery of the consensus decision to merge, not to delete.'

In the words of David A: "After putting it to a vote, the official Wikipedia consensus was for the Controversies page to be merged into the main page. I have gone to extremes to put in the work to greatly compress the the articles within it, and to compromise with the other users. However, in spite of this, and multiple warnings, the user MONGO keeps making crude partisan personal attacks on the talk page, and far more significantly, the user DHeyward is attempting to censor all of the additions wholesale, in flagrant violation of the official Wikipedia decision, and all the work that I put in to summarise the critical articles into one sentence each, with no compromise whatsoever. I would greatly appreciate an intervention. Thank you very much for any help. Here is the current Talk section." David A (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, "merge" does not mean "leave the original article as it was, substantially or otherwise". It means that the original article goes away, regardless of where the content goes. And one more thing: I see a whole bunch of talk of "censorship": there is no censorship going on here. DHeyward does not have the power to censor anything, though they have the opportunity to make well-considered edits. Simply removing something is not censorship unless it is...well, look it up at Censorship; that's not a bad definition. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully support all the suggestions and ideas of David A, Erik, Viriditas, TParis and others. But mango and DH have their egos and their belief systems tied to what the sources describe as the ideology of the film and they can't bring themselves to accept that scholars found fatal flaws with that ideology. both mango and DH need to recuse themselves from further editing on these film articles. They contributed nothing except deleting sourced content, personal attacks, wikibullying and other disruptive behavior. And now they are trying to make it appear as if I'm the problem, not them. Please see the discussion on the user talk page of user:TParis. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious you're trolling when you deliberately misspell my username even though in all other posts you spell it correctly.--MONGO 22:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I might have used the wrong notice board, as I only wanted an intervention regarding not to censor all of the content, not to block anybody. David A (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think user IjonTichy is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia for tendentiousness. Its not a red herring to mention his topic ban here on another subject. His attitude was exactly the same, he could not see his errors objectively. He used a litany of personal putdowns like he is doing to Mongo to make his points and had no element of recognizing his editing failures. Wiki lawyering guidelines in an extremely negative way. I don't he will change. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this appears to be a repeat of the last ANI involving earlier harassment by Earl King Jr. Please quit while you are still allowed to edit. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would Earl no longer be allowed to edit? He has never been blocked whereby you have and for BLP violations, disruptive editing, etc. How many disruptive editing blocks do you need to receive before you get the idea that others think you're disruptive?--MONGO 06:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never made any BLP violation anywhere. You're referring to an erroneous edit summary from an admin that upon review was found to be without merit. Your attempt at once again distracting this discussion away from your documented harassment in this thread is noted. The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the three month (!!) wow block you had after a series of other blocks? How can you justify thinking that Earl King who has never been blocked should no longer be allowed to edit? That's mystifying.--MONGO 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:IjonTichyIjonTichy is engaging in personal attacks now, referring to others as SPA, questioning their competency and accusing them of lying. [99]...so its pretty odd he would be claiming myself and others are engaging in personal attacks and disruptive editing and not be willing to examine his own behavioral issues.--MONGO 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I see a lot of heat and anger from MONGO and I think that User:TParis put it well. MONGO needs to learn the art of walking away from areas that upset him and letting calmer heads prevail. Because at the end of the day this sort of plain vanilla content dispute is what Wikipedia is best at solving. --John (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see this sort of sentiment more and more often. It's nonsense and generally serves to exclude persistent objection and create the impression of consensus where one does not exist. If he can come here and invest such an incredible amount of time and energy to coherently defend his position then excluding him because he's upset doesn't serve MONGO or the article, only the people he's in a legitimate content dispute with. MONGO is an adult, it's his prerogative to invest himself in a contentious topic. GraniteSand (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In John's defense he may feel that his advice is sound. But he should know me well enough by now to understand that I don't care what he thinks about anything. I'm surely not upset as John describes it so the usual condescending tone from John is worth about zero to me.--MONGO 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." That's a quote from our core civility policy. I think admins should take close look at the last 50 contributions made by MONGO. They will find that virtually every edit is either a violation of the civility policy or consists of a personal attack of some kind. And this all seems to stem from a dispute over a historical fiction film loosely based on an autobiography. As a result of this demonstrable pattern of disruption, I would like community to consider blocking Mongo until he is able to edit Wikipedia in harmony with his fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You should learn the difference between "ignore" and "discard." Why you are hounding MONGO is beyond me. You seem compelled to reply to everything he writes. For the record, I didn't "ignore" you so don't get your panties hung up on that. I carefully and rationally read your positions and conclusions and dismissed it as nonsense. Every post you write appears to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING too as you follow every edit. At least John quoted someone when they followed MONGO around like a puppy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its just AN/I. People come here when they can't get their way on an article and make accusations. Even if in the end, the fact is that I never said to take out all the negative critique...just to prune the bad apples from it...but they either didn't hear that or decided that they wanted the whole bamboozle. Those with an axe to grind show up to join the melee. Nothing gets solved. Admins obfuscate because they have little choice since some of the situations are boring since they aren't vested in the particular article. Best not to feed.--MONGO 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the civility block for MONGO, I would also like to request a civility warning for DHeyward for making the above comments. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I support a block for Mongo. One of his arguments linking ordinary Iraqis with the modern anti-Shiite jihadist movements is a plain case of Arabophobic racism. If Mongo does not want to appear to be a anti-Arab racist then he shouldn't link Iraqi nationalistic Ba'athists with global jihadists out of nowhere. I smell something (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When did that happen.--MONGO 03:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a suspiciously "knowing" comment from an editor with fewer than 10 edits (all of them about incest, of all things.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget what we call that type of editor...--MONGO 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Various things, depending on the level of civility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And his statement might be smelly, but he is obviously missing the smell of Kurds in a way that don't really care about his distinction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No Support Barn-star for Mongo for trying to manage a little and point out IjonTichy's behavior that is out of control tendentious, attacking and pov to his personal interests. Content dispute. Figure it out on the talk page. Ijon is not here to build and encyclopedia in my view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block for John and Viriditas that have only posted inflammatory rhetoric. At the very least a One-Way IBAN that prevents them from commenting about MONGO. And an idef for User:I smell socks as obvious sock and trolling account. --DHeyward (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for immediate civility block on MONGO and a civility warning for DHeyward for continued false accusations. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence in this thread, it becomes immediately clear that the OP, User:David A, as well as complainant User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, have been under an enormous amount of personal attacks and harassment from MONGO, DHeyward, and Earl King Jr., who think that the civility policy does not apply to them. Because of this continued disruption and to prevent future disruption, I would like to see an administrator place the "American Sniper" topic area under the American politics discretionary sanctions as soon as possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since John is here and he was the most recent admin to block you maybe he can block you again to enforce our policy against hounding which you're violating in textbook fashion.--MONGO 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of evidence in this thread showing that you have violated and continue to violate the civility policy, to the point where you are disrupting the topic area. Commenting on this evidence and requesting sanctions is not "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The only disruption going in here is by you. I'm not going to be blocked or banned.There are currently no log pages for "American politics". The central DS log page covers only TPM and Gun control.--MONGO 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the evidence says otherwise. The last 50 contributions in your edit history, for example, consist of nothing but personal attacks and civility violations. And this is all over a fictional film based on an autobiography? Please learn to control yourself and keep your politics at home. The American politics arbitration case was designed specifically to enforce discretionary sanctions on exactly this topic, and to sanction editors like yourself. I am an entirely uninvolved editor, as I have neither participated in nor edited any article or AfD related to this discussion. As such, I can safely observe that sanctions are desperately needed to restore order to the topic area and to stop you from editing. It is not "hounding" to say this, nor is it harassment of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd...more than half your last 50 edits indicate you've been hounding for blocks and bans...I'd say that is harassment.--MONGO 06:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Annnnnddddd....that's all folks! Stay tuned tomorrow or the next few days for the latest get wild and crazy episode at one of Wikipedia's favorite places to be when you don't want to or can't write an encyclopedia!--MONGO 07:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• But the community agreed the page must go, and IjonTichy edit wars to restore it [100] [101] [102] [103], while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. Spumuq (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who used a sockpuppet to attack MONGO, can we checkuser? Spumuq (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The number of civility violations in this thread from you and the number of personal attacks made against multiple editors is entirely unprecedented in the history of ANI. If you aren't blocked, then the civility policy has no meaning. Viriditas. Huh! How can that be? That does not really make sense that I can see. I see nothing in that regard just an attempt to get at what is going on. Also, IjonTichy edit wars to restore it [104] [105] [106] [107], while attacking people and saying «I will fully abide by decisions of the community» and «I have not edit warred in years», I think this is dishonest. end quote from another editor. I have to agree. That is the reality of what IjonTichy is doing. It is a contradiction from what he is saying. It is not even connected to what he is saying he is doing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:TParis stated at his talk page that this behavior is not the same as the behavior Ijon demonstrated on the Zeitgeist pages which led to a topic ban there. I disagree. I warned Ijon about 3RR and was greeted with nothing but hostility.--MONGO 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for a block of MONGO. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeViriditas' ill-founded demand to stop Mongo from editing. Edison (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A question

I just noticed this noticeboard. Given that all I really wanted was to get some outside intervention and NPOV judgement regarding how best to handle the Controversies section, should I take this discussion there instead? David A (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anywhere but here. Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies for the inconvenience. David A (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Timbouctou edit warring and vandalism on Magnum Crimen article

This user keeps reverting the article content for the whole week removing huge portion of the referenced text along the references verifying it. For details see here and specifically here, here, here, here, here

He was warned here after which he reverted the article content again.

He put the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link under External links of the Magnum Crimen article. This is a commercial site selling this book, which is against the Wikipedia no advertisement policy.

He was blocked 6 times in the past for the vandalism, edit warring, and harassment.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to my past behaviour which has nothing to do with you or the article in question here. For the record, User:Michelle Ridomi seems to be a sock/meat puppet of User:Milos zankov. Both of them have been engaged in censoring edits to Magnum Crimen - a controversial book originally published in 1948 claiming that Catholic clergy was closely related to Croatian fascists during World War II and which seems to have a special place in Serbian nationalists' hearts. They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book. The text over there is a mirror of a previous version of our Wikipedia article, much of which had been added in 2010 by a user blocked since, and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review, including a few glaring factographical mistakes. Correcting these (or at least rephrasing to avoid obvious plagiarism issues) is virtually impossible due to these two editors' never-ending reverts.

Only after User:Milos zankov (a recently registered account) opened an RfC (which was ciriticised already for overall tone and lack of good faith assumption by a passing by editor) and after Milos reported me here twice did Michelle Ridomi (yet another recently registered account) appear out of the blue to start blowing the same trumpet. I think we would all have to be imbeciles not to assume these two are puppets and not to assume they have a vested interest in this article because of a political axe to grind. Perhaps I should have reported both to WP:SPI. I see now I should have, and I will, once this thread is concluded. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"They have been doing this in an effort to keep our article word-for-word identical to what has been posted to magnumcrimen.org, an external website set up to promote English-language edition of the book." It is quite clear that magnumcrimen.org copied most of the text from the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen. The time stamp here shows that the word-for-word text existed in the Magnum Crimen as of 27 August 2010. The magnumcrimen.org site claims its copyright as of 2015. If there is a copyright violation, it is on the magnumcrimen.org side. We tried several times to explain that the time does not run backward which this user kept rejecting. Collaborating in a constructive way, which I did when commenting and submitting changes to Magnum Crimen, is not puppeteering.
"and which had plagiarised verbatim a 1950 book review" In 2010 a portion of this text was not referenced. The un-referenced text was reworded by Milos zankov and the reference added which makes no sense to call it a plagiarism now, nor remove the whole section from the article.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I explained what happened quite clearly - an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed). The article was then mirrored at magnumcrimen.org (unattributed to either Wikipedia or original source), which claims copyright to it. Milos and Michelle are now edit-warring and speficically reverting any re-wording of the said text, many, many, many, many, many times. They also deleted external link back to magnumcrimen.org (the book's official website) several times, they deleted sections on criticism of the book, and they pretend they don't see factual mistakes in the quoted review itself (the book was not banned by the Catholic church; its author was not a priest, etc, etc.). They even oppose translating the title in English exactly the same way it is printed on its English-language edition cover. Milos and Michelle are just here to revert whatever anyone does on the article. And they have no intention of behaving otherwise since they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Timbouctou (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Timbouctou I'll respond to a few issues mentioned by this user.

• "an entire 1950 book review was pasted into our article years ago (unattributed)" -> the fact is just these two sentences were "unattributed": Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples. which I attributed properly. The whole book review is in front of me and has four pages. As a proof that the "entire 1950 book review" is never pasted into Magnum Crimen I'll offer this snippet from the O. Neuman book review: "The invasion and disruption of Jugoslavia in the spring of 1941 has served the author as the dividing line of the period to be covered in the third part of this trilogy. The magnum crimen is not and individual or isolated action: the author uses the the term to designate the activities of that part of the Croat hierarchy which cast their lot with the poglavnik of NDH. Ante Pavelic and endorsed his policy, friendly to the Axis and hostile to the Serbian people, and in general to all those who even after the forceful dismemberment of the country remained faithful to the idea of Yugoslavia. Two long chapters covering over 500 pages, have been reserved for the description of conditions prevailing in the NDH". The Google search will show you this
• "its author was not a priest, not banned by the Catholic church" A Corrupt Tree: An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit, A.S., Xlibris Corporation, Jan 13, 2014 page 803 Novak, Viktor, ex Catholic priest, professor, historian, anathema pronounced against him, 537 Magnum Crimen ... placed on the Index, 537. See also Autor je Viktor Novak (1889–1977), hrvatski rimokatolički sveštenik i profesor Univerziteta u Beogradu translated as The author, Victor Novak (1889-1977) , is a Croatian Roman Catholic priest and a University of Belgrade professor--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Milos. Too bad you have no clue where "A Corrupt Tree" got that information from since page 537 is missing from Google Books preview you plucked this from. Also, too bad you don't actually use references when editing the article itself instead of reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And reverting. And then some more reverting. Timbouctou (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You did not add a single reference. Moreover, you added "official site" which is just an advertisement despite the fact that advertising inside Wikipedia articles is strictly forbidden to advertise. Milos zankov added eight new references.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Zankov added very little, and the article is still mostly reliant on primary sources (although, oddly enough, things like author's priesthood and prohibition are not). You, on the other hand, had deleted entire sections about the book's criticism and you are still edit-warring over petty crap, such as the book's English-language title, external link (which is its official website), copyedited 1950 review and a myriad of other stuff that has been touched upon in the talk page. The idea that the external link is merely advertisement is pretty interesting since Milos and yours version of the article body is a verbatim copy of what is on that website. Timbouctou (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:timbouctou is known to delete any reference s/he does not like, e.g. the image in the article on Extreme right politics in Croatia ( q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-right_politics_in_Croatia&diff=645719162&oldid=645701856 )

Seems instead of disciplining and civilising extreme right wing Wikipedia in Croatian (which in all discussions calls itself "Croatin wikipedia"), shich was attempted last year, when it escalated so much that Croatian (left wing) government and Wikipedia founders were involved, we just got the same pro-Ustashi Croatian extreme right policies promoted on Wikipedia in Enlgish now. What User:timbouctou and his/her cohort user:Joy do by removing anything remotely critical of the pro-fascist extreme right wing Croatian worldview or of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia is what people with integrity should abhor and reject and those users should be banned indefinitely.

109.245.135.87 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even read all of the above but it's fairly clear to me that the party dragging Timbouctou through the mud here is WP:NOTHERE and needs to be axed. I don't currently have the time to go through an analysis of the abusive accounts, can someone else please tend to it? TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we can safely add above IP to the list. This one is obsessed with adding an unrelated image to the article on Croatian nationalism. Timbouctou (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Joy [shallot] Looks like this admin is again solicited to intervene on behalf of Timbouctou. See the earlier WP:CANVASS here and here.--Milos zankov (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User Joy: It's clear that this administrator is solicited. An additional solicitation is here. It is noteworthy to write that this administrator was already blocked for abusing administrative rights. For details, see here. After being solicited by Timboctou, administrator Joy attacked Milos zankov saying I'm not sure if this account is yet another sockpuppet of User:Velebit or what, but in any event, I'm issuing a final warning. The same Joy attacked other users as sockpuppets of Velebit which was rejected recently .. and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. My proposal is to "review" activity of this administrator equally as we reviewing Timboctou's vandalism and edit warring.--Michelle Ridomi (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

IP changing "the Beatles"

105.228.18.240 (talk · contribs) is making a large amount of edits to Beatles related articles, changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles", and (inadvertently or otherwise) going against a long drawn-out request for mediation on the issue. eg: [108], [109], [110]. Can somebody help clean up on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also changed United States to USA against guidelines. Good faith or not, these were deliberate actions and this IP did a lot of damage in a very short period of time (about 100 articles in 2 hours). Piriczki (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not now, chaps
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any admin with a spine would have blocked this user by now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I don't think it's about having a spine, it's about being vigilant. I don't know that this page is under admin scrutiny 24 x 7. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Yeah, a page called Administrator Noticeboard that states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" is hardly likely to be monitored by admins. Jesus wept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not saying it's not monitored - I'm saying it may not be being monitored every second of every day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a 4im and will roll back. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sam, while the edits were undeniably disruptive and against consensus, I would not go as far as to call them "vandalism" - you don't know whether they were fixing "wrong" stuff, or deliberately changing caps "for the lulz". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right and I have undone that warning, the user stopped editing prior to the message regarding this discussion. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've posted a notice to their talkpage explaining the mass reverts per WP:ROLLBACK. Please take care to look at each of their edits before rolling back, because some of them combine correct and useful changes. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• This IP has recently made a similar change to London Calling. They've also made some good edits. Yaris678 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple identical articles about different villages in India

Rajuyadav999 (talk · contribs) has, over the past two days, created almost 50 articles about villages in Bijapur. All of these articles appear to be built on two separate templates, such that the information in the articles is all identical (right down to the geo coordinates and population figures). All articles are unsourced or are vaguely sourced to the Bijapur page at nic.in, which says nothing about the villages in question. It is unclear whether these villages exist or not, but the creation of dozens of article with identical information is not helping. I have asked the user to stop and explain themself, to no avail. I believe a temporary block will allow time to interact with the user to ascertain what is going on with these articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

May be related to Rajkumaryadav123 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appear to have created or recreated Shri M.G.Kori and Dr.B.G.Byakod P U College. --220 of ^Borg 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say almost definite. The prior account is probably too old to investigate using CU tools at SPI, but perhaps a behavioral call can be made to block as a block-evading sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pertinent to point out that Rajkumaryadav123 was also brought to this notice board, here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is probably a competence problem. Just looking at the user's last two article creations, Bramhadevanmadu and Bolachikkalaki are recognized by Google Maps as being legitimate communities—just not at the coordinates specified in the infoboxes of those articles. I suppose that the the user is just copying infoboxes from elsewhere in WP without understanding what he's doing. That doesn't mean that the user shouldn't be blocked, though, if it is judged that his/hers contributions are more trouble than they're worth. Deor (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought: Seconding that it's probably just lack of competence. I'm not an admin, but I do think it would be good for the towns to have articles, but with the real information about them... maybe the user plans to fill the articles in? IDK. Anyway, signing off for now... Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: and @Deor: If it were just a case of copied infoboxes, I'd say fine: that can be fixed. The entire article texts are identical between mutliple communities, with the exception of the name of the town. Since none of the information on any of the towns if cited, it's impossible to know which (if any) of the towns the stated information actually pertains to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Yeah I'm not suggesting that the copypasticles should be saved, just that the villages should probably have articles. At some time or other. Saying something different on each page, obviously. Goldenshimmer (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, more evidence they're possibly the same account: both edited this page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenshimmer (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

24 hour block given, along with an explanation of what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rajuyadav has not taken the opportunity address their actions at their talk page. I suspect that as soon as their block lifts, their questionable edits will resume. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Rajuyadav's block has expired, and they have not continued posting new articles. Nor have they chosen to explain their actions. What is to be done with the spate of bad articles that were created? Should I just take the matter to WP:SPI as a fairly obvious case, and then tag all articles for WP:CSD#G5 deletion once the SPI case is resolved? Or would it be better to bring all the articles to WP:AFD. The point has been made that all of these places verifiably exist through Google searches, so they all probably merit a page; just not the pages that we presently have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:G3 "includes blatant and obvious misinformation", so given that the information in these articles are obviously wrong, they should be subject to speedy deletion. I see no reason to put these through AFD as anybody wanting to save these would need to create them from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: The only problem is that, unless the reviewing admin has seen this discussion, the information is not "blatant and obvious misinformation". I suppose I can post a link to this discussion on each of the talk pages to alert the reviewing admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I would imagine the talk page note would be the best way. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged all village articles created by this user, with a note on their respective talk pages linking to this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current version of the articles need to be rewritten from scratch or deleted, as misinformation is worse than no information. Pinging @Titodutta and RegentsPark:, who may be able to help and cut-through the beauracracy. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at some of these and believe they should all be deleted. It is possible one or two are legitimate, but it would take too much time to figure out which are legitimate and which are poor copies. I;m in the process of deleting some of them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I feel most (at least) some of these villages exist. But, yes those should be deleted. They have just copied and pasted same content everywhere (same literacy rate in every village). Notability of these villages might be difficult to establish, see WP:INDAFDKI. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Totally agree - this information is completely unreliable at this point. Kudos to WikiDan61 for spotting the issue.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form.

Lecen edited a scaled-down version of File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg, which was hosted on Commons for some time. It has, after a recent discussion, been deleted from there. Lecen reuploaded it here as File:Dom Pedro I.JPG, with no indication that it was modified. I moved it to File:Dom Pedro I edit.JPG, and added a note.

However, they really, really want to present this as an unmodified file, see for example, [111].

Quite simply, we can't change the original scan, then attempt to pass it off as the original. That's misleading.

Now, I don't think this is a good edit, and am also concerned about the rationale for it given that Lecen threw out wild accusations of racism against whites in response to defenses of the original images' colours. But, if it's carefully marked as being an edit, with the changes noted, well, it's miseducating the public, but I don't know how much time it's worth spending on this, since Lecen's clearly not going to stop. I mean, they even uploaded a version on Commons with a fake source. See commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG (now speedy deleted) if you're an admin there, and compare to File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg - it claimed to be from a 1972 book, but had no evidence of half-toning, and had many of the little unique features of the Google image (same crop, exact same orientation, same spots, etc.), albeit with a rather odd colour shift.

I don't know what Lecen's up to. Frankly, I'm not sure Lecen knows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden seems to be the edit warrior in this case. Having pushed his preference for a certain file used on a featured article to multiple fora without garnering support from other editors,[112][113][114][115] he now brings it here. Notwithstanding the inaccurate claim that any photograph's digital file is somehow more "original" than another, using this forum to raise new arguments seems to be WP:BATTLE behavior when it comes to this subject. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me that you are forum shopping to win this dispute after you failed to win it at Talk:Pedro I of Brazil. There seems to be healthy disagreement over the true nature of the image, and you are not getting your way. You then tried opening an FAR for the entire article based on the dispute over one image, which was procedurally closed and you were advised to open an RFC and otherwise contain the dispute to where it belongs. So now you are here at yet another venue. Neither the "racist" remark or the edit warring on the image page are excusable, but you've already been advised about how to go about solving the conflict. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

When we take a file from somewhere else, the default is that its appearance is not modified; it's standard practice to have a comment noting the modifications if any have been made, so users can assume that a file with no such comment has not been modified. When you modify a file and reupload it without such a comment, you've forgotten to include an important piece of information, and it's unambiguously helpful for someone else to add a comment. If you remove that comment, you're suddenly telling reusers that no, it was not modified: you're presenting a hoax, and it would be absurd to sanction someone for fighting a hoaxer. Lecen, if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"...if you continue hoaxing on this image, you will be blocked". I'll be blocked after a single warning? Really? So Adam Cuerden is allowed to enter into an edit war with several editors and nothing happens to him? First he tried to impose his file by edit warring. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with him. Then he opened a FAR just because he didn't like the file, and no one agreed with him. After that he tried to upload his version over my file. An administrator stopped him. Then Adam Cuerden tried to get the file erased on Commons. No one agreed with him and the file was kept. Then a friend of his erased the file (that had been in use by all other Wikipedia websites) without any discussion. Then he harasses me creating this topic here. He does all that and nothing happens to him. I try to at least maintain the original file and I get threated with a block after a single warning? All I know is that if I get blocked I'll go all the way to the ArbCom. --Lecen (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, hoaxing. Intentionally falsifying a description, including removing an indication that the file has been digitally manipulated, is grounds for rapid blocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

By that standard, Adam Cuerden's prejudicial "heavily modified" description, which is what Lecen reverted, should also qualify. Moreover, and as has been pointed out, there are several photographic copies of this image out there that do not reflect Adam Cuerden's preferred image in its oversaturation and lighting choices. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an incredibly inaccurate summary. You've basically cut out everyone who agreed with me from your summary, claiming I had no supporters, and also apparently created a connection between Yann and me from whole cloth. I don't think it's worth engaging with you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments are completely accurate. You've shopped this to death and won't let it go. Not garnering support on Wikipedia for your preferred version of an in-use image, you took it over to Wikimedia to delete an in-use image and force your preferred image into the article. That is a frustrating abuse of process and blatant battleground behavior. • Astynax ^talk 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My popcorn stocks say the accessibility folks should get involved here. --NE2 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I seeing correctly, that the primary complaint boils down to the difference in skin tone between the two versions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a line here that's frequently difficult to draw. Any photograph of a painting is going to alter the painting in some way, depending on lighting, exposure, etc. There's no real "original" except the painting itself. When this came up recently for me, one version looked distinctly better to me than the Google version, and I initially preferred that version -- until I looked at the version of the painting on the site of the museum where it was located, and the Google version was much, much closer to the museum's version than to the one I had preferred. If the museum staff thought that the photograph on their site best represented the painting, I had to accept that, even though the other version seemed better.

Is there a version in this case that has the imprimatur of the museum in which it is located? BMK (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the painting hanging on a wall. Compare it to the "google project version". --Lecen (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... I think if you gave a bit of thought to it, you would see that a photograph of the painting hanging on the wall is not the reference we need -- it's just another image subject to all the same problems as other images. What we need is something propagated by the professionals at the museum as an authooritative guide to what the painting looks like. BMK (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I also point out that's not even the same painting? The Google Art Project copy is at the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil. That painting is a different copy at Queluz National Palace, Lisbon, Spain. Lecen is entirely aware that multiple copies of this painting exist, but would rather modify the painting themselves than source any of the other copies. Seriously, that was my suggestion on what to do if they didn't like aspwects of the version from Google Art Project the subjective months ago this debate has been simmering, and I've suggested it ever since, and Lecen now acts as if they're completely unaware that multiple copies by multiple artists exist of this painting, because it suits them to. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if we can solve this by uploading a file that everyone agrees is both color accurate and high resolution. There's a potential one at https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/pedro-duke-of-bragan%C3%A7a/9AGSwGL-RuUKqw?projectId=art-project but I don't know how to download it from google. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Downloading the hires images would be against Googles Terms of use. It would not be too hard to write a script to do so, but I doubt we could keep them. I could write a script but I would not upload them. 80.132.71.83 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, we'd also have to delete the Google Art Project file of Adam's. The terms of use say "You may not use content from our Services unless you obtain permission from its owner or are otherwise permitted by law." It's the position of the wikimedia foundation that we are permitted by United States law to use scans or photographs of out-of-copyright 2D artworks. This new file is now uploaded. I'm just waiting for someone to say "it's too pale". DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Threatening messages from Lecen

Lecen has been leaving me threatening, harassing messages for the last couple weeks. There is a dispute about his edits to a picture, which I, the collective wisdom of Commons, where it is now deleted and failing to get consensus for an undeletion, and various other people have turned against, by and large.

But that's a content dispute. Lecen... is increasingly insisting on taking this further and further. Here's a brief summary of some of his behaviour. It started off on a bad foot before I even joined.

• "He was white, you ignorant racist. Read the article before coming here with your disgusting stereotypes on latins. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)"

But he's now decided that if anyone does something that he doesn't like, that I'm supposedly sending friends to harass him. Said "friends" have so far been people who I have had minimal communication with, who, because I posted on talk forums about the image, decided to act. Here's him on commons, responding to an administrator acting on a post I made to tghe Vaillage Pump, promising his vengeance will fall upon me.

Just to note, Yann, who deleted the image, isn't someone I actually know, other than in the vague "I've seen them editing Commons before" way. But Lecen seems convinced that only people I'm personally friends with would agree with me. He harassed them too. [116] [117]

Oh, and, um... here's him running to his friends to complain about Yann and recruit them into the dispute. [118] .

And here's his latest harassment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdam_Cuerden&diff=646721885&oldid=646713670

"Stop following my contributions around. I will report you later on, I can assure you. You went too far. I will first begin with the usual Admin board which I know will lead to nothing. Then I'll move upward all the way to ArbCom. I'm patient. I don't write articles anymore. I gave up doing that a long time ago. I will ask for you to be topic banned, in your case, from anything related to pictures. A few months from now I want you tell me if fighting so hard over the painting of a historical figure that you know nothing about was worth it. P.S.: The painting will eventually return to Commons. Not every administrator there is a friend of yours that can side with you. As I said, I'm in no hurry. --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)"

Seriously? Because I think he made bad edits to an image that ruined its historical value - and got people to agree with me by using verbal argument, he's going to institute a campaign of harassment which he assures me willend in me being banned from working on images. At the same time as announcing he will not be doing anything constructive on Wikipedia, as he "gave up [writing articles] a long time ago".

Is there any reason why this user should be kept around? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Have any warnings been posted to Lecen's talk page? Has he even been notified of this ANI discussion? I am not seeing any and a look in the talk page history did not show any either. It's possible I missed them. As to the comments, they strike me as being intemperate and definitely worth dropping a cautionary note on the user's talk page. That's where I'd start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He was schlepped here just yesterday for basically the same problem. Calling someone "racist" because they prefer a somewhat-brighter version of a picture is a heavy charge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Was about to link him, but wanted to add another note, and keep edit conflicting. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Block or Admonish - For disruptive editing, If this same user has already been dragged here for the same problem then something isn't working right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the section above I have struck the block option as I can see there is more to this story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly? The rest of the story is this: I don't think that a photograph painting that's been heavily modified should be presented as the original image, particularly when the comments defending the image have elements that are very dodgy - Lecen's "He was white, you ignorant racist." accusations happened before I had even gotten involved; having merely been informed that a good painting exists. What really got me was a line in the early arguments - this isn't by Lecen, but one of his close collaborators: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedro_I_of_Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=642645289 "There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today."

So we have an image that's being modified, by someone who gets really, really upset if you say that the person looks "olive skinned" or "tanned" - and then begins shouting about how the person saying that is apparently racist against whites. And we have another person claiming that whites are being airbrushed out of Brazilian history.

And then we have the same person very aggressively accusing people of racism against whites becoming increasingly irrational and harassing. Proof? No. Lecen has edited a lot of images. I'd consider many of them highly problematic (he really likes posterizing images), but there's no possibility of racist overtones to them. On the other hand, he's willing to lie about sources to get a copy up that fits his preferred editing. He did so on Commons with commons:File:Dom Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG - if you're a Commons admin and can see the deleted file, Flicking between it and File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg will show that, other than Lecen having tweaked the colours, they are the same file. However, Lecen claimed the source of that new image is "Sousa, Otávio Tarquínio de (1972). A vida de D. Pedro I (in Portuguese) 3. Rio de Janeiro: José Olímpio." - a 1972 book with no evidence whatsoever of half-toning, and the exact same orientation and crop as the Google Art Project scan, as well as a lot of little details I wouldn't expect to remain the same between two photos forty years apart with different lighting and equipment. The above discussion is about him trying to keep an image from being marked as not being the original Google Art Project scan. It's all... really, really bizarre, and I've not seen a situation where a really problematic image was being rigorously defended on English Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted a combination Caution/ANI notice which they promptly reverted. But the message was delivered. Let's see if things calm down. If the problems persist we can take it to the next level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but this section should be combined with the one above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring to conceal that a file has been modified from its original form because it is the same editor having the issue about just about the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's a continuation of the same argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this as a sub-header - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

British are deleting from Gibraltar Article that this territory is under the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

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

---

It is a campaign of deleting from the Gibraltar article that this territory is under United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Then they report the users that try to edit the article. Imposible to insert this very important statement as the colonial power is trying to desinform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep2co (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[119] This is undue weight, it is not neutral, WP:NPOV Spumuq (talq) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And Pep2co has seven reverts now, [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] , this must stop Spumuq (talq) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• Pep2co was indeed edit warring against multiple editors, so the block was justified, however, Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article. My own attempt to find a compromise placement for what is, after sall, an undisputed fact (that Gilbratar is on the UN's list of non-self-governing territories) was stomped on by Wee Curry Monster without discussion or even, from the timestamps, a lick of forethought.

  That appears to be a content dispute, but when a group of editors works together to control the content of an article, that is a behavioral problem. However, it's one beyond the capacity of AN/I to correct, and would have to be handled by ArbCom.

  In the meantime, I would suggest that uninvolved and neutral editors take a good look at Gilbraltar to make sure that it is written from a WP:NPOV, that the content is fairly presented, and that all viewpoints are given appropriate coverage. BMK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Pep2co is also correct that there appears to be a coterie of entrenched editors who control the page to make sure that no fact which could conceivably be considered to show the British in a bad light makes its way into the article." — What. A. Surprise. Carrite (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On cue, the House POV is locked down with Full Protection. Carrite (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

please block randkitty

Please would you block Randkitty from editing the following pages: R. Bruce Bury, Stanley E. Trauth, Malcolm L. McCallum, Walter E. Meshaka, Christopher T. McAllister. This individual is applying his own personal opinions regarding content to the pages I have been developing. The opinions of this individual may apply to whatever discipline he/she got their PHD in, but it sure does not apply to my discipline in which I have earned my PHD. IN fact, his comments are largely completely incorrect EXCEPT when it is in regard to technical issues directly related to Wikipedia pages. The only alternative that is possible is that this individual is a confrontational adversary (and very well could be) who desires to suppress information about these people. This would be a direct conflict of interest as inappropriate as writing your own bio on here. These pages have been raked over by multiple other editors and the ONLY one who has randomly deleted material without warning is Randkitty. I believe it is an intentional attack and has nothing to do with Wikipedia appropriateness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find a user named Randkitty; are you sure you spelled that right, Herpetology2? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randykitty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, you mean Randykitty. I haven't read into the whole dispute yet, but what I can say is this...Randykitty is an admin, so for him/her to be flat-out blocked for a content dispute due to a new user's request would be an extreme thing to happen, imo. Also, please read the instructions directly above this text area:

“ When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. ”

I did that, however. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Are you also 71.50.25.97 ,Herpetology2 (talk · contribs) ? seicer | talk | contribs 05:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, sorry; I don't sock. BTW, Herpetology2, comments like this are a violation of WP:NPA, so I suggest you start being more courteous. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to you. seicer | talk | contribs 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Herpetology2: I've looked at a couple of these articles, and what I see is Randykitty removing "academic genealogies" that are both redundant - the articles already state where the subject earned the doctorate and in what year - and unencyclopedic. Notability is not inherited, and it does someone no favors to suggest they would be less of a scholar had they studied under someone else, now does it? Also, while we appreciate your writing these articles, and I know how much work it takes, this is a collaborative project and it's important for you to realize that no one "owns" the articles they write to the extent of being able to decree that others may not edit them. If you feel edits are diminishing an article, rather than edit war, you need to discuss the matter - either on the article talk page or, without insults and threats, on the talk page of the editor if the same person is doing something you object to on multiple pages. But you may not be right, and in this instance, so far as the "academic genealogy" goes at least, I fear you are not. We don't have such sections on Wikipedia unless, as Randykitty has said, a reliable source has pointed to that as a significant feature of someone's career. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• • First off, does not wikipedia state taht we are not to delete material without discussion? I remember reading something to that effect. Second, I did not feel the comments were all that insulting, especially considering not being given the curtisy to make corrections myself with a warning in even a single edit made. YOu will notice that if you look through my correspondenses with other editors, it is less confrontational, because they ahve actually been more-or-less helpful. I did not threaten the guy/gal either. I informed him/her I was requesting he/she be blocked exactly as it says we must do. But, whatever you want to call it, it does not matter. As for notability and geneologies. Is this ONLY purpose of wikipedia to assess notability? Because this is not the purpose of the geneologies. The ideals, approaches, and philosophies of academics stem from their mentors and their mentor's mentor's on down the line. Therefore, when you provide the academic lineage, it is clear that certain things are more than likely true of that lineage. For example, some lineages value writing for the public, others value only writing for the highest journals, others value conservation over evolution and vise versa. These are not fluff. They tell a lot about a person. It is no coincidence that when you discuss a topic with another academic and that academic came out of E.O. Wilson's lab that it will reflect on his/her importance and say a lot about who these people are. IN fact, those who came out of Archie Carr's lab are largely conservation-minded and interested in informing the layman. THis is not restricted to his lab, but it certainly stems from that lab and bleeds all the way down through the descendents. This is not a foreign concept, in fact, when doctoral students are advised to choose their mentors, they are largely informed to understand where their prospective advisor came from, hence what is hsi/her academic line. This has been outlined and discussed widely in the academic sector, which simply mystifies me how this individual has not heard of it. It has been discussed in Advice to a Young Scientist, which was only written by a Nobelaureate. It was discussed in courses I took at three different universities. It was mentioned to me by not by a few, but by dozens of scientists in biology, chemistry, EVS, and mathematics. But, if Wikipedia feels that it would rather have their pages be LESS informative than more, so be it. However, this problem with RandKitty is not limited to geneologies. This person has deleted citations, then turned around and deleted text stating it was not cited at least once. IN another case, he/she deleted part of a sentence, changing the meaning, then coming back and stating the info was wrong. Later, he/she listed a section as unsupported by citations which literally had the citation right there at the end of the paragraph and outside the final period as is proper to indicate that citation is for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence. I guess I could have pasted it after every sentence, but it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time. THen, he/she deleted a News release claiming it was "some email on a forum post." An official news release from a national organization is in his mind nothing more than an email? This is what makes me believe this person is in a field with very different standards of communication and which uses media in much different ways, thus making his/her opinion (although valid in his/her field) destructive to the pages I have constructed. As I said, every single editor has been largely polite and mostly helpful. But this person has been neither, refering to material as silly? That is an insult. Referring to it as fluff? border-line insult. Heck, I have interviewed every one of these people, then have been tracking down citations to fill in their background to make sure it is supported. It is pretty difficult to tweak these things when someone is editing all your material every few hours. It seems like you might give it a week or something. Does this person have a day job or are they paid by Wikipedia to do this (seriously?). IN one case I was making corrections and tried to save, only to have the guy/gal delete the section I was correcting before I could save it....because I had saved the text first, then went back to add in the cites. With all the pages on Wikipedia, why is one person dedicating so much time to deleting everything that is uncited, when some of it was up for maybe an hour, a day, or a little longer. No one else was doing this in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would like to draw Herpetology2's attention to WP:BOLD regarding the fact that I made edits to "their" articles without first asking their permission. In addition, I have provided long and detailed edit summaries, as well as explanations on talk pages. Herpetology2 inists on adding peacock stuff that is either unsourced or not supported by the sources given, source stuff to [cherokeecountykansas.yuku.com/topic/382/quotJoseph-T-Collinsquot-Kansas-Herpetological-Society?page=14#.VNgWg_54pcQ news releases posted on some email list], or claim that Christopher T. McAllister is a "prominent coccidiologist of international stature" based on a simple list of names of coccidiologists that uses none of these qualifications. Herpetology2 also insists on inserting OR/SYNTH by comparing numbers of publications of an individual with the mean number of publications of other people in their fields (for example, here. There's a long-standing consensus at WP:ACADEMIC that just having large numbers of publications does not add to an academic's notability, what counts is whether these publications have had a significant impact. Herpetology2 is also edit warring on Herpetological Conservation and Biology, insisting on inserting citation data that (per consensus at the academic journals wikiproject, see also the journal article writing guide) should not be listed in articles on academic journals, including at least one measure ("Universal Impact Factor") that is known to be fraudulent (see this list by Jeffrey Beall). I have at each stage pointed Herpetology2 to the relevant policies and guidelines, to no avail. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like theres's a little WP:IDHT going on here; in addition, Herpetology2, please direct your attention to WP:TLDR. Longer arguments aren't necessarily going to help you get your point across, especially after that point has been rejected. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beal's list is just a list on the internet. What makes that more important than any other list? Further, UIF was removed from the page and I left it off. However, the labeling it as fake is HIS OPINION and not a fact. They do calcuate an impact factor, and you know what else? Thomson Reuters selects their journals based on such completely objective metrics as "Will the journal expand their market share in another country!" Basing a decision like this on a simple list on the internet is, I don't know, kind of like placing a link to a list of coccidiologists put together by three coccidiologists who listed only those coccidiologists who were meritable. Logic seems flawed, but hey, I do more international research than wikipedia pages so I'll just fall in line with your biased opinoin. Enjoy your life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herpetology2 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation on Claudia mcHenry

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

---

Is there anything I can do without revealing any overly personal information I can do to prove that I am not a so-called sock puppet? PS, if this isn’t the right place, then where is? I want this matter cleared up now.

209.202.5.212 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We've said it now and we're saying it again. BASC is where the authority lies. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Comments by User:SveinFalk

I'm growing increasingly concerned about somewhat aggressive behaviour from SveinFalk (talk · contribs) towards other editors, in particular this comment on Fenix down's talk page, this comment and this exchange on their own talk page, and their comments directed at me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patipan Unop. Normally, I wouldn't mind so much. I'd much rather they vent their frustration at me than at someone who might be driven away from Wikipedia, or worse retaliate, but they've been warned several times about this sort of thing already. Most recently, they received this warning from GiantSnowman. More significantly, they were given a final warning following another ANI three months ago failed to come to a satisfactory close. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems). I'm hoping a brief block will make it clear to them that this sort behaviour is unacceptable and that final warnings need to be respected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC):

I agree with everything above. More irritating than anything else. SveinFalk is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, it's just he has created a significant amount of content that a number of editors have highllighted as of questionalble notability. Rather than attempt to discuss or improve the articles, he has got a bit own-y, highlighted by his talk page comments above and examples such as this, this and this which were the rather tedious results of his "declaration of war", although this at least seems to have stopped.

There have been repeated attempts to engage with SveinFalk and repeated warnings as to his general conduct, but whilst he is here with good intentions he needs to be aware that WP is not a repository for any and all information, that he has no ownership of Thai football articles and that he needs to engage with other editors in a productive way when the notability of his work is questioned. Given the history noted above I would approve of a block, although I note he is involved in a number of AfDs relating to his articles and would not want his ability to continue with these to be impeded. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm obviously INVOLVED here, as I have !voted on a number of these AFDs, and yes I have advised this editor to calm down. Their content work is good (even if their grasp of notability requirements are not) but their attitude just stinks. He has threatened to edit war and block evade - on balance I would suggest we topic ban from creating new articles, let him work on improving existing ones. If that doesn't work he should be blocked. GiantSnowman 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I too was drawn into this circle by another editor who edited in an area that I watch (North American association football articles). I followed that editor to Thai and South Asian association football articles a few months ago and SveinFalk is an editor of those articles. The subject's understanding of the content is good. That's unquestionable. The editor is not, however, a WP:RS and does not support edits with RSes. That's a problem, but one that can be fixed. As an editor who has been blocked for edit warring myself, I certainly can't point fingers, but I have never promised "wars" and understand that block evasion is inappropriate. I agree with GiantSnowman that the editor's attitude stinks. The examples are concerning and merit a block. I would argue that its duration should be determined by SveinFalk's response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@SveinFalk: your input here would be welcome, as would input from other, non-INVOLVED parties. GiantSnowman 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts

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

---

Needs to be reblocked back for a blatant personal attack [127]. Unfortunately I can not do it since a couple of weeks ago after a series of personal attacks against me I informed him (and had to do it several times since they would not stop) that they are not welcome to communicate with me and post at my talk page. I appreciate if someone informs them of this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? In reference to your issues with me - this user added several incorrect edits to an article and didn't like being told so. Clearly out to prove a WP:POINT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Until you understand how this is a personal attack, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. Clear personal attack of the lowest kind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For the administrator who is going to consider the unblock request: Pls check the page history since the user removes whatever he does not like.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I endorse FreeRangeFrog, Ymblanter and Stephan Schulz. I don't know what Lugnuts (talk · contribs) is trying to achieve - I've seen some constructive criticism by him at ANI but these personal attacks have way crossed the line. Diffs for his infamous comments:

• Against Sluzzelin - 1
• Against Bishonen - 2
• Against FreeRangeFrog - 3
• Against FreeRangeFrog again - 4

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Self-Promotion

I have just discovered a new user, User:Yahad-In Unum who, starting in December, is going through the towns of Ukraine adding trivial detail about Nazi atrocities to dozens of articles. While that, in itself, is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, although the content is generally unencyclopedic, the user is citing his own original (non-Wikipedia) research and using his own website as the sole source. While I could go through and revert all these edits, at this level of violation, it would be better coming from an admin. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and revert all of them. Then, leave a lengthy warning on his talk page explaining why the hell are his edits nonconstructive. After that, close your eyes for a minute and pray to God, that he reads it. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. But what is the policy that says, "You can't quote yourself?" It's used so rarely that I don't remember what it's called. --Taivo (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo: Verifability#Sources that are usually not reliable(section#Self-published sources) would be it. COI is when the person is related to/involved as a subject and is preemptively being asked not to edit because of probable bias (which is normal, according to human nature). --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see what problem there is here. This user's contributions appear to me not only encyclopedic and on-topic, but very much needed: the history of the extermination of Jewish communities in Ukraine by the Nazis is a crucial part of the history of the Holocaust, and one that is much less known than extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka. Jews often were the majority of inhabitants in these towns, and that the articles' history sections did not mention either their existence or their mass murder was not to the credit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I doubt that Taivo's characterization of these edits as COI and/or non-reliable sourcing is accurate: the user's name could denote interest in the organization's work rather than membership in it. Yahad-In Unum, as its well-referenced article shows, is a respected NGO that works with various universities and has received praise for their work documenting Nazi atrocities. We could discuss it better on WP:RSN, but at first glance, information published on their website seems reliable. Susuman77 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Susuman77: Well, the issue is that - this account is operated by YU and according to our conflict of interest policies that is strictly disallowed. Furthermore, they evaded their self-declaration of COI (and also, people failed to notice) and went to to add sources violating WP:SPS. I say is because firstly no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category, so it's either someone from the organization or someone who's involved with the incident. I don't think any random person would take up the NGO's name as their username and randomly edit only such niched articles citing YU as sources. Just my two cents. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@QEDK: Sorry, but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI" by User:Yahad-In Unum. Maybe we should ask them about it directly, and if they're not affiliated with YI-U they should change their user name. If on the other hand they indeed are affiliated with the NGO, we should ask them to mostly make edit suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, if I remember the COI guidelines correctly. I don't understand your assertion that "no uninvolved individual would ever undertake work just in this category", as many people are indeed interested in the history of the Holocaust in Ukraine, and YI-U has provided in the last years much new information on the subject. I guess that in order to prove that, I'll have to undertake some editing of my own... Last, I still contest that YI-U is a WP:SPS: the "interactive map" is a misleading title as I can't see any ways for users to directly add info to it, and it rather seems to be the fruit of historical research by their team which, once again, has been widely lauded by specialists in the field. Would you object to me opening a thread on WP:RSN on this matter? Susuman77 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS is for stuff that's self-published by average people, e.g. personal websites or AuthorHouse books, and it applies regardless of who adds it. When your organisation's produced reliable documentation on its website, citing that documentation isn't an SPS problem; we don't object on self-publishing grounds to the use of stuff from the US Census Bureau, a federal government agency, even though it's published by the federal government. The only thing that matters here is whether Yahad-In Unum's publications are reliable: if they're not, this is a problem regardless of who's added it, and if they are, this is fine regardless of who's added it. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Susuman77: You said, "... but I fail to see an explicit "self-declaration of COI...". That is what the problem is. He never declared that he has a COI w.r.t. the articles. And he added yet-unreliable sources. I would prefer you go to the RSN noticeboard - that's a place more befitting to establish consensus for reliability for the sources as they currently violate WP:SPS. But then, the COI issue can't be forgone. @Nyttend: Well yes (except for BLPs which is an exception). But then, we haven't yet established reliability, just as you stated. Then, we have the COI of course. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I started a thread at WP:RSN#Use of Yahad-In Unum. Feel free to comment there regarding reliability of the source. Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I broke Wikipedia's policy - I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. My point was simply to add results of Yahad-In Unum's research that I thought would be useful. I don't think this information is trivial and there isn't much content about this on Wikipedia (for instance, there is no article about the Holocaust by bullet on Wikipedia). The information I used is the result of original, extensive and continuous field research. The process is validated by historians and recognized worldwide. I used links to Yahad's map, because this is the only website with this specific kind of information. This map is updated regularly, with information about villages where the atrocities went, new information and videos of witnesses. Please advise me on how to go forward and if I need to modify my edits.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Yahad-In Unum, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope this experience is not too unpleasant for you... I generally share your opinion regarding the usefulness of the information you've been adding. In my mind, there is just one issue related to Wikipedia's rules regarding conflict of interest: someone affiliated with an organization (company or NGO) should avoid directly adding info sourced to their employer to articles. So the tough question is: do you work/volunteer at Y-I U? If not, in order to clarify it, you should request a change of user name (I can help you do that). If you do, first it would also be a good idea to change your user name to a more individual one (like "John at Y-I U" or whatever) and figure out together how you can add info to the encyclopedia without infringing the policy. Please tell us so that we can move forward. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the indentation, guys. Fixed for now. And I would recommend a response from YU before any resolutions for this thread. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and responses Susuman77. Yes, I am involved with Yahad-In Unum and I will change my username right now. Please let me know how to go forward from here and how I need to modify my posts. I am a bit confused as to why it's against Wikipedia policy for "encyclopedic" information (facts and statistics) to be posted by someone involved with a non-governmental organization that is investigating and confirming these facts. Thanks for alerting me to the problem.Yahad-In Unum (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:79.97.222.210 - Persistent disruptive POV pushing and edit-warring

The IP 79.97.222.210 is at present trying to enforce controversial and highly POV's edits on various articles by editing warring and a by on large refusal to discuss. I've decided to break the evidence down to an article by article basis rather than a daily one as it fans out a bit:

The Troubles

• On 26th January I reverted [128] several edits made that day by this IP to the sensitive and can be highly charged The Troubles article. The edits involved rewording and rearranging sentences/paragraphs to push an underlying bias making the section worse off. I called these "Nonsense edits".
• They then restored their edit [129] claiming it improved the article. I again reverted it citing to them WP:BRD and saying that "Improvement is a matter of opinion".
• After that they stopped trying to push it.

Military Reaction Force

• On 26th January the IP made a [130] large alteration to the Military Reaction Force article, which like The Troubles article is a contentious article. The edit consisted of rearranging the lede to give prominence to a "Death Squad" claim and the addition of unsourced statements with highly selective and bias wording. They claimed that they where "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country".
• On same day I reverted this edit [131], though I admit with a bit of sarcasm with the summary "Reverting systematic bias". I was thanked for this edit by User:Asarlaí who has done most of the work on this article.
• The IP restored their edit on 1st February [132] with exact same edit summary: "removed systemic bias, if it would be called a death squad in the developing world, it should be called one in an English speaking country". I reverted [133] telling them to take it to talk.
• Again, on the 5th February, they restore it [134], to which I revert again on the 6th February [135] stating "What do you not understand about WP:BRD and taking it to talk?".
• I then make a follow up edit [136] edit to the article to reflect the sources actually used.

Republicanism in the United Kingdom

• On 26th January IP made the following additions: [137] and [138] to this article.
• On same day I reverted [139] because the information was irrelevant to the article.
• IP restores [140] citing the fact that it is sourced, as if that alone is enough for it to be added. Yet they also include unsourced additions.
• I reverted [141] stating "Sourced doesn't make it better. Please abide by WP;BRD".
• IP restores edt [142] on 30th January stating "irish republicanism IS republicanism in the united kingdom and extremely relevant", despite fact most of what they add has nothing to do with republicanism of any kind. I again revert [143] stating "Please abide by WP:BRD. Discuss your controversial addition and get consensus first.".
• IP again restores [144] stating "No, because nobody is objecting to it. You have to give a reason why republicans from the united kingdom shouldn't be in this article". This time another editor, User:Red Jay, reverts them [145] stating "Irish Republicanism although present with in the UK is separate issue, and is already mentioned on this page. I have added a see also to Irish Republicanism".

Parachute Regiment

• On 30th January IP [146] makes a large addition giving in my view undue weight to one event, the prominence of which is open to debate.
• I revert on 2nd February [147] on the basis that this was already detailed in the article.
• On 5th February [148] IP restores stating "it should be in lead as it is their most famous action along with normandy and market garden", which is open to debate. I revert [149] telling them to abide by WP:BRD.
• The IP then finally opens a discussion about it on the talk page [150], however that itself is troublesome: the title and opening sentence of it tries to imply that I am removing something established in the article from it. This is willful deception.
• By opening this discussion the IP then decides to re-add [151] their edit stating "re added per talk" despite the fact they where thr only particpant in their discussion. I revert [152] and respond to the discussion. After two comments I no longer respond so that other editors can give their view without an endless too'ing and frow'ing between us.
• On 10th February they again [153] reinsert their edit citing "readded per talk" despite no other participation by anyone in it and no consensus. They are then reverted by another editor [154] User:Edward321 who states "rv - no consensus on talk page,its barely even been discussed yet".

Universal suffrage

• On 6th February at [155] and [156] at the Universal suffrage article, which includes removing accurate sourced info and adding inaccurate unsourced info whilst stating in their edit summary "removed unsourced bias". I revert this [157] stating "Controversial and biased".
• On 10th February the IP restores their edit [158]. This is despite me posting a rebuttal of their edit on their talk page on February 6th.
• On 11th February User:Vyselink reverts the IP [159] stating "rvt unexplained removal of sources, changing of information".

Young Turks

• As far back as 16th December they make this edit. It is reverted by User:Melikbilge on 22 January who states "Already resolved long ago, see Talk".
• On 9th February the IP restores their viewpoint [160] stating "there's nothing progressive about murdering people because of their religion".
• As the addition is unsourced and the fact the sentence in question is on about an idiom I revert [161].
• I alter the statement altogether to better reflect the source [162].
• IP restores edit [163] with a highly subjective response of no "sources" deny the Turkish genocides despite the fact the source and statement is on about an idiom.
• IP is then reverted [164] by User:Herostratus who states this period of Turkish history" is associated with a lot of things. Here we're talking about the phrase "Young Turks" and what it actually means in English, not what you think it ought to mean.
• On 11th february IP again restores their edit [165], stating it's so important to include because genocide is the opposite of liberal, which young turks are described as. They then open a discussion with the first statement once again implying that editors are removing an established edit.
• Herostratus once again reverts the IP [166] stating Reverted per WP:BRD, thread opened on talk page, take it to talk and make your case there. Herostratuopens a discussion with a full response.

Notifications to IP

• On 26th January I posted a message on the IP's talk page detailing the problems with their edit and to abide by WP:BRD.
• On 30th January I issued a caution on their talk page explaining again Wikipedia is a collaboration and to get consensus.
• On 2nd February I issue a disruptive editing warning. On 5th February I issue a further two warnings. [167]
• On 6th February I posted a lengthy response to their edits at Military Reaction Force, Springhill Massacre and Universal suffrage.

Note the IP responds to none of my cautions, warnings or responses.

Conclusion As far I can see this is everything covered, if not my apologies. I have given this IP numourous notifications of WP:BRD, to take it to talk, and warnings to desist trying to push their edits. I have even explained to them on their talk page why many of those edits are wrong. Several other editors have also reverted them with one or two given them WP:BRD notices. They have ignored them all and continue to insist on pushing their agenda, and agenda which belies in all but the Young Turks article an anti-British establishment bias. As such I believe a sanction of some form is required to try to encourage this editor to behave more appropriately.

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to comment only because I was notified by User:Mabuska that he had pinged me in the ANI for reverting the changes made at the "Universal Suffrage" page. I had not noticed this ANI before then, and other than that one revert have no knowledge of the situation. I happened to look up the article for my own research, noticed that it looked odd, saw the edit and undid it.

As for the revert at the "Universal Suffrage" page (diff above added by Mabuska), the IP editor removed sourced information, the source itself, and drastically changed that particular part of the page. While I can't comment on his overall bias/lack-there-of etc, that change was extreme and incorrect as far as information and removal of sources. Vyselink (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

These are content disputes in which no rules have been broken and nobody is behaving disruptively. Mabuska claims I am a POV pusher. I am involved in discussions on several of these talk pages, and whether my edits are correct or not is not a matter for ANI.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe "The Troubles" is covered by ARBCOM sanctions (not sure if they are general or discretionary). I think if this was a dispute about content on one article, it would be best resolved on the talk page or in DR but if there is a pattern of disruptive editing and failed attempts at resolution, then this belongs at AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In the past people a 1RR has been enforced on some editors of article relating to the Troubles. However, a content addition, a talk page post and 1-3 reverts all over a periods ranging from 5 days to 58 days hardly constitutes a breach of 1RR, never mind 3RR. Additionally in the Troubles case Arbcom passed "editing in someone else's area of interest in retaliation is inappropriate", and Mabuska has followed me to articles unrelated to the troubles to revert my edits, which he shouldn't do. However, I do not think this warrants sanctions either.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This AN/I was opened not because of the exact content but due to your persistent pushing of your edits regardless of protocol, which the above evidence shows quite clearly. You have been told many times to discuss and take it to talk. You have only done so twice, and both times implied the reverting editor is at fault. You also used the opening of a discussion as reason enough to re-add your edit twice!

What is your defense for your going on despite warnings and ignoring the responses I left you on your talk page which made it clear you should discuss? The ignoring of reasons why your edits where POV and incorrect. How many times have you been told of WP:BRD (by more than myself) in the past 2 weeks and ignored it completely?

In regards to following you, as a long-time established Wikipedia user, I have a responsibility to revert vandalism and try and keep tabs on troublesome and disruptive editors, which you have proven yourself to be. This means checking your contributions to this site, which in the past few weeks shows quit a bit of disruptive editing on your behalf. This is not "retaliation" and not a sanctioning offense. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also your current edit to the Parachute Regiment is also fraught with issues, containing a convolution of the source to push a more scathing sentence about the Parachute Regiment that the source does not explicitly say. This can be classified as an example of your POV-pushing.

I would suggest you leave editing these articles alone at present and stick to their talk pages until this AN/I has concluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite the opening of this AN/I and statements that they are discussin edits, the IP is still going around trying to enforce their edits. This time a different editor is reverting them.

• Removed this information from Etruscan society citing "removed racist theory", which is stretching it. Edward321 reverted it [168] to which the IP does it again [169] citing "Unsourced information can be remove by any editor who questions it. If you dispute my changes, please say so in an edit summary and we can take it to talk". The fact they where reverted makes it obvious enough that the edit is disputed and that they should take it to talk. Edward321 then again reverts [170].
• At Idealism in international relations the IP removes detailed information [171] highly relevant to the article citing "removed needless focus on american politics in the intro". Edward321 once again reverts this vandalism rightly citing "rv to better version" before the IP restores it [172].
• The IP then clearly gets annoyed with their edit summary in that last edit: "Why are you following me around reverting every single edit I make without giving any reason in your edit summary?". Though having already giving the IP an answer above to that question when they posed it to me, it should be quite clear to them that their edits are detrimental to Wikipedia and add next to nothing to site to improve it.

This IP should be placed on some form of editing restriction, such as if they are reverted they must take it to talk and seek consensus. If they restore it (tweaked or otherwise) then they should get a temporary block that lengthens each time they violate. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1

Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring across multiple pages and templates against multiple editors. The main article being List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, which resulted in page protection but the user has continued to add the disputed content to other articles and linking articles to pages outside of articlespace, despite warnings not to do so. He has also ignored invitations to discuss the matter with the rest of the community. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for your position, it does appear that you've been edit warring to remove cited material as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I contend that I have not removed cited material, as the sources did not cite what was being expressed, but regardless I have not crossed WP:3rr unlike the above user. But if it helps, I'll excuse myself from editing anything about the disputed content anywhere on Wikipedia until consensus is reached.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, here -- it appears that the text you removed correctly explains the content of that link. Holding off on article editing while discussion is ongoing is probably a good thing, though. You can edit war without violating 3RR, after all.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can here that particular bit of information was already present under the subject heading Sony Pictures. The edit was redundant and mislead readers by placing it under the wrong heading. Maybe a better edit summary would have been in this instance.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But that is not what your getting, it has been confirmed by both Marvel and Sony, that Spider-Man (though the character and the film rights will stay at Sony) will appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, will appear in a Marvel movie which would be distributed by Disney, before the character's standalone movie. Heres the source that was from the Wall Street Journal confirming what I just said. I honestly don't get why we are having this discussion its been confirmed by Marvel that Spider-Man will appear in the MCU, and its completely unnecessary for Triiple to disgorge edits that editors on Wikipedia put with confirming sources stating that Spider-Man is in the MCU, like Marvel.com, Wall Street Journal, Variety but he keeps on deleting them and saying there is a discussion which is totally unnecessary. --Zzaxx1 (talk), 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

@Zzaxx1: If you would join the discussion then you would see the arguments being made by myself and other editors. I am not alone in my reasoning and your reverting of other editors besides me shows that. None of the sources you cited state that the proposed Spider-Man film is a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe only that they reached a deal for the Spider-Man character to appear in the MCU and that they are "exploring opportunities" for MCU characters to appear in future Spider-Man films. However this is not the place to discuss content but behavior. It seems you still have not gotten the idea that discussion is a crucial part of collaborative editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass creation of empty "Year in Country" articles

It has come to my attention that in early January OccultZone, Jackninja5, National Names 2000, and <Ser Amantio di Nicolao mass created hundreds of Year is Country articles. Most of which remain completely empty a month later. The Year in Jordan articles have now all been deleted under A3 (by other admins) or moved to draft space (by me before I realized the extent of the problem). Now I see there are literally over 1000 of these worthless "articles". For a random example, see 1996 in Estonia. I would like 1) to know how these users all simultaneously came to start creating these. And 2) consensus to mass delete these. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not create any of those articles. Edit them, yes - I AWB'ed some talk pages once they had been created. But I didn't create any. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Ser Amantio di Nicolao appears to have only created talk pages, for the article after they were created by one of the others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000. No comment on other editors. Chillum 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Put them in a blank userpage, only the links. Nuke them using Twinkle's batchdelete function. Voila! --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I am aware of the tool to do the deletion. I didn't, however, want to just deleted 1000+ articles (and an equal number of talk pages) without any discussion. There is also the oddity that two well-established users and one newish user all started creating these at the same time. I think some sort of explanation is in order. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The empty shells should all be deleted IMO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Investigating further, I found that while some have content added by Jackninja5, it is generally a copyright violation. For example, 2006 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a single item "The three main militia groups in the troubled Congolese eastern province of Ituri have agreed to lay down arms and begin integrating into the Congolese army" which is an extremely close paraphrase of the linked source's "The three main militia groups in the troubled eastern province of Ituri have agreed to lay down arms and begin integrating into the Congolese army." I'm afraid all of Jack's contributions on other subjects now need scritizinedscrutinization too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Other items, such as those at 2005 in Jordan have been copied from other Wikipedia articles without proper attribution. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• I have requested a copyright investigation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A dreamer's rumination of an indented mind. Off-topic conversation. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoever breaks the indentation again shall get a trout for free. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) You do realize that you are not required to indent one step further at each comment, right. My level of indention reflects who I am replying to and was done on purpose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Well, my policy is that unless it's a reply to myself, I add one more : --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC) It might as well be wrong. And I might just do it all the same. My bad. I give up to thee if I'm in the wrong, le ThaddeusB. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Not wrong, just different, as there is no universal "correct" way to indent - which is part of the reason people don't normally change someone else's indent. I wasn't replying to Lugnuts, for example, and thus put the next comment at the start of the line since it was a new thought. (I think his comment wasn't indented to begin with either, but don't recall for sure.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Nope, it wasn't. I guess I would rather collapse this since it's off-topic. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know and I'm not accusing anyone but isn't there a possibility that these 3 users in anyway related, sockpuppet or otherwise? Other than that, I endorse MassDelete. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring/Not asking for consensus

User: Atomic Meltdown keeps changing the performers table on some Academy Awards ceremonies tables. See here:[173] and [174]. He did not ask for consensus with other people involved in similar lists promoted to FL. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring. Both of you are past WP:3RR and can be blocked. Read the dispute resolution policy, which will tell you to discuss on the article talk page (if necessary, after you both come off block), and will then provide some dispute resolution procedures to use if discussion on talk pages fail. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TowerData Rapleaf page merging.

A user seems to have merged or redirected pages in good faith. TowerData www.towerdata.com is a large company (thousands of employees) that purchased a smaller company called Rapleaf (less than hundreds of employees). It appears that the larger TowerData page content was blanked and replaced with Rapleaf. http://www.towerdata.com/company/news/towerdata-acquires-rapleaf-press-release

Maybe an admin can help to revert the old TowerData page? I have no idea how to do this... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TowerData&oldid=636672162

Then if user User_talk:OverlordQ wants to add some data about the Rapleaf product on the TowerData page and then redirect it might be logical.

If I am confused and TowerData never had a wikipedia entry until this Rapleaf entry was redirected, please forgive me. But in that case the redirect needs to be deleted as redirecting Rapleaf to this new page implies that TowerData is only Rapleaf. Rather, TowerData is a large company with many products.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a page move. Jtbobwaysf, you can move the page back if you want to, though I strongly suggest you discuss with User:OverlordQ first. Epic Genius (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment

User Flyer22 has been repeatedly making accusations of me, and posted harassing and insulting comments despite my request for them to stop.

Harassing comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Feminism_article Request to stop, and failure to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22#Dispute_resolution

Same goes for the user EvergreenFir, who has been following me around to pretty much everywhere I post and making snide comments and remarks. Requesting an Administrator review their actions to ensure they are in line with Wikipedia policies and rules. BrentNewland (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, additional comments by EvergreenFir are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement

I'm just sick of these guys following me around everywhere and trying to start an argument. BrentNewland (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What specifically do you consider to be "harassing and insulting comments"? Chillum 20:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You should include some diffs to show what you mean. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why Flyer22 started talking about me. They suddenly appeared on Binksternet's talk page, solely to comment about me. This user started making accusations about my account and another user's account (failing to follow the standard Wikipedia protocol for investigating sockpuppets). I proceeded to tell them they could have and administrator review my account (subtly hinting that they should actually go find one, instead of talking on a talk page). They did not take the hint, and decided to yet again post making accusations of me being a "sockpuppet". They also attempt to invoke some form of official authority by linking to a section of their user page about "WP:Sockpuppet_watch". To be honest, I would expect someone who claims to be part of a "sockpuppet watch" to actually know what the procedures are for dealing with a suspected sockpuppet (hint: proper procedure is NOT to follow them around hurling accusations at them). Finally, I decided to track the information on dealing with sockpuppets down myself, gave them a link to the proper procedures, and asked them to stop making accusations against me outside of the proper venue. Another post from flyer22 at the same time (probably was making their comment while I was making mine).

Here is one of the biggest problems I have with Flyer22: After (politely) giving them the information on reporting sockpuppets and asking them to stop posting these accusations against me in talk pages, they did exactly that. Incredibly immature, crosses the line. And they did it again. And then they got rude with another user.

Finally, I initiated the formal dispute process. I went to their talk page and formally asked them to stop. And they didn't. They got rude and aggressive. And then ruder.

And that's where things stand with Flyer22.

Now, with EvergreenFir: I first encountered them on the Feminism talk page and the Men's Rights movement talk page, no problems there. They followed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Men.27s_Rights_Movement (which is also not a problem).

However, they got rude. Made an edit with the notes being "rp - STICK" and basically accused me of "beating a dead horse". Generally, insulting and condescension are not acceptable arguments for discussions following pre-approved guidelines. The use of the word "equal" in quotes is also quite condescending in context - though that one is harder to quantify. That, plus their other comments, makes it clear they want no discussion to take place on this subject - in which case, their other actions are cast in a different light.

I responded, letting them know that I thought their comment was aggressive, hostile, and condescending. I suggested they be more careful with the wording of their posts, as well as some other suggestions.

EvergreenFir's response was not to own up to their mistakes, but to say "I don't need to be your friend". Then they (again) use condescending language by accusing me of being a "new editor and all". I pointed out that their comment had not addressed nay issues, and asked them to refrain from comments that did not add to the conversation. Then there's an implication that I am using multiple accounts due to my knowledge of "hounding"/google/search phrases. I respond reminding them how to report a sockpuppet account, and that their comment was otherwise offtopic.

HERE'S THE KICKER: EvergreenFir followed me to Flyer22's page and left yet another rude and condescending comment.

If anyone is using sockpuppets, I would imagine it's Flyer22/Flyer2222 (Flyer2222 left a comment on EvergreenFir's page - account name is quite close to Flyer22). But I won't report them for that because it could be seen as harassment having multiple reports. BrentNewland (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like a straightforward case of meatpuppetry to me. There has been considerable off-site coordination regarding the men's rights page. In this Reddit discussion, for example, activists bemoan the state of the article and plan their collective resistance against Wikipedia's feminist oppressors or something. One redditor suggests Let's edit the feminism wiki article in the EXACT same way, then document how those edits and editors are treated. That's when BrentNewland arrives to demand equal (one might say, the "EXACT same") treatment for feminism and the men's rights movement [175][176][177], regardless of the RS for the subjects. Men's rights related pages are on article probation but more (admin) eyes would help deal with the recent influx of new editors or relatively new reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm shocked to discover that there's been off-site canvassing from MRM. Shocked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten worse after the GamerGate ArbCom decision. They talk about GamerGate a lot and what it means for their strategy in approaching the article about "their" movement. Maybe that adds to your shock;) The most recent coordination on Reddit is definitely at least partially responsible for the arrival of so many new and reactivated accounts. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I only have one Wikipedia account. As I told them, if they suspect me of something, they can follow the proper process. Harassing me, hounding me, following me around is not following the proper process. There is no excuse for their actions. I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Just because I don't always do it when logged in doesn't mean I'm some new guy. BrentNewland (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what is meant by meat puppetry, you are not being accused of having another account. I am however glad you have drawn attention to this issue. Chillum 22:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang? Shot myself in the foot? Please. I am no puppet - sock or meat. The fact that you have linked to WP:Boomerang while saying "drawn attention" leads me to believe that nobody here has any intention of actually investigating my complaint. Instead, you've gone on a Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of whether or not BrentNewland is operating another account - and his comments about editing as an IP are not exactly exculpatory - he's clearly editing as a single-purpose disruptive account that, given the long dormancy, has probably been recruited from offsite. ArbCom sanction 1.2 may be applicable? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have edited several articles. If the admins check my IP logs, they'll see I've made many useful contributions. Just because a few edits recently have been on one subject does not make me a "single-purpose account". And as far as "disruptive", if attempting to address flaws in an article, then following the rules and bringing these flaws to the Admin's attention on the NPOV noticeboard is "disruptive", then perhaps the rules should be changed so following them isn't considered "disruptive". Also, Wikipedia:Witchhunt. BrentNewland (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• So I was not nice. Okay. Nothing requires me to be nice. However, BrentNewland flatters themselves if they think I followed them to Flyer22's talk page. I'm sure Flyer22 and any admin if such data exist and are accessible to them can tell you that Flyer22's talk page has been on my watchlist for quite some time. I am alerted to edits there via my watchlist. Imagine my delight to see BrentNewland's edit. Anyway, too much WP:MEAT around here for my formerly-vegetarian tastes. Ciao. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's about time to invoke WP:NOTHERE and the various probations/discretionary sanctions he's been notified of and impose at least a topic ban. Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Need to be a little bit careful here; the notifications issued were at 22:22, 10 February 2015 (MRM article probation) and 23:03, 11 February 2015 (gender-related DS; less than four hours ago). I'm not seeing good signs from the editor, but I'm not really seeing anything that would justify invoking the probation sanctions or DS after the relevant notification. I note also that the article probation notification was not correctly logged. GoldenRing (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

I endorse a temporary topic ban but not anything else for the user, BrentNewland (talk · contribs). My proposal would be:

• 4 months (proposal to change in progress) of topic ban in the subjects of MRM and Feminism for BrentNewland (talk · contribs). After the period is over, in consultation of an admin (who'll review his edits), he can again reach out to the community to gain approval in the editing sphere to go back to that niche and perform un-biased edits. He's also admonished for accusing editors of harassment when none has taken place.
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs) is not admonished since he has accused him of meatpuppetry, rightly and not sockpuppetry. He's however directed to be a bit more pleasant in tone and not suggest that someone might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no evidence at all.
• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) is not admonished at all.

Proposal revised. (x2) --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC) All in support may say "Aye" or "Nay" if not, below this proposal. Any constructive change to this proposal is also appreciated. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why only 4 months? They are clearly editing those articles just to be disruptive. Do we really want to invite them back for more later? There are plenty of other people working on those articles. I don't think BrentNewland will be missed. MoreTomorrow (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@MoreTomorrow: 4 months of topic ban is quite a lot for almost a SPA, isn't it? And, he'll need to regain community approval after the period is over, so I guess, it's fine. If one more reputed editor supports an increase to 6 months or such, I'll change my proposal. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 05:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A tedious bureaucratic comment. First, sockpuppet allegations should be presented at WP:SPI rather than here. Second, harassment allegations are serious and require evidence, which hasn't been provided so far. Third, a proposed topic ban with exemptions for typo fixes or bots would be hard to administer, and would widen WP:BANEX beyond even its current complexity. Fourth, being a SPA is not an offence. --Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: He's apparently not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet and it's not possible to verify the credibility so we cannot have investigations either. I've revised the proposal to fix the issue put in the third point. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a SPA is not an offence. Ofc, it's not. I argued on the same thing a few days ago at ANI. But, once someone's a proved SPA, it becomes hard to judge the POV and decide whether it's unbiased or not. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I say Aye. Regardless of the meatpuppetry issue, BrentNewland has fundamentally misapprehended our core content policies, especially NPOV. He continues to argue that feminism and men's rights movement need to be treated equally although other editors have explained (e.g., [178][179]) to him that feminism and men's rights movement are treated differently in RS and that Wikipedia must reflect that. His subsequent disruptive edits, like the tag bombing [180][181] on the feminism page, are based on that fundamental and persistent misunderstanding of NPOV. Sure, we could give him more rope as EvergreenFir suggests, try to explain to him for the fifth and sixth time that he misunderstands how NPOV works, and waste more editors' time and patience in the process. Or we topic ban him for a few months so that he can work in less contentious topic areas and get experience following our NPOV policy and working with other editors. I think that the later option is preferable. However, all of us could be "more pleasant in tone" and I don't get why Flyer22 and EvergreenFir need an extra special reminder of that. They didn't cross the line into personal attacks or harassment. Their more or less oblique (I assume to avoid accusations of OUTING) suggestions that meatpuppetry is involved don't deserve that kind of censure. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They didn't harass Brent or otherwise, which is why they're not written in the proposal. He's cited nearly every Wikipedia policy to what he's done and it sounds really template-ish. EvergreenFir has been fine but Flyer22 has put forward quite agitated comments. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm somewhere between meh and nay. As GoldenRing mentioned above, the warnings are fresh. Either the user will improve, they will cease to edit, or we just give them more rope. Waiting is a win-win-quasiwin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  Improving doesn't seem to be in the cards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps time to buy stock in the rope making industry. My stocks in glue manufacturers has paid off. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are all being absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe how far Wikipedia has fallen. I made, what, 2 edits, which were reverted, then I made no more. I'm harassed for it, I report the harassment following your rules, and you all decide to discuss banning me? Because of my political views? Even though I haven't broken a single rule? And your only evidence is you FEEL I MIGHT be a "meatpuppet"? And you let one of the people I brought claims against VOTE on this topic!?!?

You know what, fine. Whatever. Ban me. Delete my account. If this is how you treat people who are just trying to help, I don't WANT to be on Wikipedia. 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentNewland (talk • contribs)

Tell you what. Edit something else. Prove that you understand how to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just how to quote them. Then we'll all shut up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Economy of Serbia

I/We have a problem with one IP-address editor who seems to copy-paste material from some source, material of his/her last accepted version of the article - Economy of Serbia. In his/her version, as it is here: [182], there are few things removed, which are in my opinion very important. Also, he/she provided some unreliable sources, overriding IMF, CIA and other representative bodies for such topic, with portal ones, like b92.net etc. These edits have been repeated almost for several times and I'm not interested in edit-warring with this contributor, as it is against wiki's rules to do so. So, here am I, waiting for some admin to revise my/his/her work and give a judgement and a possible solution. Thanks!--AirWolf ^talk 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple socks filling the Recent Changes with "vector.css" edits

I was checking the recent changes and found out there was too many "vector.css" activity going on, and involving the same content on each user which I suspect sock puppetry. However, I can't open a SPI case because I don't even know the sockmaster. They first create the page, then blank it. Sometimes they create a blank vector.css page, then add content to it, then blank it again. Massive sockpuppetry going on. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW I forgot to tell something, I can't notify all the socks because it is very expensive to do so. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example at least? What are they adding to their vector.css files. Could it be a class? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Drmies for the example below. I see there are lots of others. I don't know what's going on - I'm technically nearly illiterate - but someone could, you know, ask them. I'd be careful of quick assumptions of nefariousness, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see (by installing the code myself), it just changes the displayed format of a Wikipedia page. Not sure why anyone would want to do that, but it seems harmless. I'm guessing some kind of class of some sort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I'm not the only one who saw some weird things go by--like this one, User:Jc3652/vector.css. What's going on? Drmies (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, first off, there is no executable code changes going on here and all of the changes only affect the users making the change. So, nothing to worry about overall. Regarding what it does, it is a stylistic change to make Wikipedia look like this screenshot for the user making the change. At least, that's all I gather from reading the code and the github link in the CSS comments.--v/r - TP 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• A Reddit story linked to the WiTeX thing, and people are trying it out. There is no conspiracy. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would surmise the css is designed to make the page suitable for printing in a book. It appears to have just been released and people are trying it out. I don't think it is a problem. With any luck we might get some new users. Chillum 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah these are for sure not socks. I think the best t hing to do would be to wait for someone who's using the CSS script to make a regular mainspace edit and ask them why they chose to use the script. Although it doesnt seem like it's geared towards editing since it seems to remove the edit links. So never mind I guess. We could also see if we can get hold of Andrew Belt and ask if he knows hundreds of people are now using his script. —Soap— 00:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be hard for them to make a mainspace edit, as that CSS removes the "Edit" link. :-) Some Admin might want to take a swing through there and comment out the appropriate code for everyone. Not everyone will think to look at https://github.com/AndrewBelt/WiTeX/blob/master/README.md for the instructions on how to kill it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not impossible to edit. These editors can technically edit pages even though there are no links for doing so. They need to just enter the version of the URL that looks like this: /w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=edit instead of this: /wiki/PAGENAME. Epic Genius (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Refdesk troll resuming activity after returning from block

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

---

• 92.236.100.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Csssats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: previous thread.

IP has a history of asking racist and stupid questions, and then edit warring over it. They've been blocked before because they're a clear troll. After returning from their block, they're at it again.

I've given them a warning not to use the reference desk for anything but requests for sources. They ignored that, creating the account Csssats to restore the question.

Troll block, please. If they're "not" a troll, they're clearing incapable of not acting like one. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, it's not over yet. They've hopped to this IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP's locate to opposite sides of the Channel, so it might be a copycat. But if it continues, it might be a good idea to semi the ref desk page for a short time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxy is another possibility. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. All the more reason to semi the page(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: refdesk misc protected -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that was all that was needed to be protected as the other page has not been touched by either of these two for over a year. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think all actions have been done here. (archive bottom moved) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk: William Double

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

---

Vandalism and WP:BLP violation. Needs to be deletted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

G8 should apply. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this should summarily be blipped and the history fragged. WP:BLP issue trumps procedure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted and creator blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Behaviour of user:Big Chief Thinker

This relative newcomer to Wikipedia has managed to make a few constructive edits (e.g., [183], [184]) but also several questionable ones ([185], [186], [187], [188]). However, when he/she was notified about the problems with his/her edits (mostly using standard templates), he/she reacted in a rather aggressive and disparaging manner: [189], [190], [191] (see also edit summaries!). Would anyone take time to explain this kiddo that this is not Romford High School and a degree of civility is expected from all contributors? Thank you and regards, kashmiri ^TALK 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I made an attempt, although reading through I'm afraid I may have left a wall of text. I think this editor has a lot of upside, if he can fundamentally understand our civility policy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! Let's see if it has the desired impact :) Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Please see diff from IP account. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

handled with alacrity by Materialscientist see Special:Contributions/173.73.141.248. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Two editors making repeated changes

Resolved

. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We have two editors @Wasp-1992: and @Acdcguy1991: making repeated changes which need to be discussed, here also. A lot of WP:OWN going on despite multiple reverts, warnings and pleas to start a discussion to gain consensus. These edits need to be reverted but, I'm not going to press a 3RR situation, hoping an Admin can help. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Çomment - these editors are refusing to engage in a meaningful way and are ignoring requests to edit by consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was ready to start a dialoge but my arguments were fully ignored by Flat Out. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment this edit confirms that the editor is unwilling to seek consensus. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Unusually high influx of newspaper articles

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

---

Not sure if there is a policy violation occurring here or not, but thought it should be brought to administrators attention just in case. I'm not really sure what to make of this, but several new editors have been creating pages about Australian newspapers. It's odd that so many are being created at the same time all by new users. Here's a selected list of Articles that I'm talking about:

1. Corryong Courier created by User:Lib6212
2. Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser created by User:Zactherat
3. Rushworth chronicle and Goulburn advertiser created by User:Bulldogs73
4. Dimboola Banner created by User:Librarytraining
5. Daylesford Advocate created by User:AliceBallantyne1914
6. Ovens and Murray Advertiser created by User:MLY2014
7. Wangaratta Chronicle created by User:Salve58
8. Nathalia Herald created by User:Houdain
9. Ararat Advertiser created by User:Alfrulz
10. Snowy River Mail created by User:K2lib
11. Euroa Gazette created by User:Russellbrooks
12. Mortlake Dispatch created by User:Bc.infoservices
13. Casterton News created by User:Imforlibraries
14. Dunmunkle Standard created by User:Kmudnim

All of these articles were created within an hour of each other today. I had noticed an influx of Australian newspapers articles a few days ago, but just today realized the severity of it. This may be some sort of sock/meat farm. I have no opinion as to whether all of these articles meet WP:GNG or not, but just was concerned by this activity. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

These appear to be articles being created as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/Australian libraries and WP/Events/2015 ALIA Workshops. -- Whpq (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that seems to explain it, okay sorry to waste time, we can close this discussion now. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it too, and left a message (HERE) on the talk page of one of the trainers. No reply yet... Deunanknute (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need some kind of notification system to notify new page patrollers and recent change patrollers that a workshop is occurring and to expect and influx of "xx style" articles. Otherwise how are we supposed to know of this type of creation en masse, and differentiate it from sockpuppets? I would assume because it's a workshop that the trainer is requiring that all articles be notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think such publications are inherently notable and I regularly make citations to newspaper publishers for contemporary reviews and showings for my century old film articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably just need a temporary tag for the top of the page with a link to the project page that contains a list of articles being created/edited. Deunanknute (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"How are we supposed to know?" Nearly every one of those editors has the training linked on their user page. WP:MEAT is about debates and !votes. I'd say that meatpuppeting a series of articles is good editor recruitment and training, especially if they are clearly referenced to quickly check WP:V. Anyway, if you do want a temporary tag (careful: more on-the-spot work for the trainer and less time for teaching), I'd suggest putting it on the talk page, not the article itself. 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is very sad. A group of librarians attends a training session. They create nicely-crafted and illustrated articles about newspapers. They are met by notes on their talk pages telling them that their work is being discussed at ANI, and in two cases by AfD notices (Cobram Courier by User:Rkgbro was left off the list - I don't know how many others there are). Not so much as a talk page welcome (I've done that now). Crossed wires, lack of AGF, generally a very unwelcoming experience for a group of potential editors. I think some apologies are needed, and I hope these new editors will stick around despite this mess. (Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive in this case, out of professional solidarity - and the belief that librarians and ex-librarians are among some of our best editors!) I don't know whether the trainers were being misguided in encouraging articles on non-notable newspapers - AfD might show - but I think it was inappropriate to bring these to ANI without checking a little further: every editor's user page says that they're attending a training session. PamD 14:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

So is this a case where people should not have been notified that they were being discussed? --NE2 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

attacks at Talk:Christian terrorism

Would someone kindly look there? I fear I do not liked being called [192] "You guys are as bad as Holocaust Deniers" in an edit summary,

You two continue to prove my assessment of the situation correct. You're deleting Reputably Sourced sections off of the India section, piece by piece. You're PRETENDING that the items hadn't been thoroughly vetted and sourced for months or years prior to your sudden deletions based on your "Consensus of 2". You are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. I guess the Christian terrorists in India will applaud your actions at minimizing and covering up for their murderous activities, and give you a nice big "thumbs up". My blood pressure can no longer take this kind of deliberate POV abuse by you two. I'm taking a break from WP. I'm sure when I come back, you will have completely destroyed this page, and all references to anything Christians have ever done wrong in the history of the planet.

[193] [194] etc. including:

I have tried to WP:AGF with you on many occasions, but you will have none of it. You resort to deleting every edit I make, regardless of how many reputable sources I add, and you consistently attempt to eliminate any wording that does not agree with your pro-Christian weltanschauung. We've both been editing this page for years, and you've been quite consistent in your edits. I don't need "consensus" to overcome your personal opinions regarding the NSCN. I need reliable sources, and I've been adding them...and you've been deleting them. Again, that's not how WP works

So really, you're just proving my earlier point that you would just make up some excuse to deem the source "untrustworthy" because it's Indian. Just admit you really have no understanding of this subject and move on. We all understand that you want to delete everything off this page, and you are always doing your best to whittle away at it, but you really need a new hobby

No need for overkill the mere claim that editors are like "Holocaust deniers" is quite beyond the pale, and he has done same sort of defamation in the past.

[195], (This is exactly the kind of absurd "fake logic" used by Holocaust Deniers, and used for similar reasons: Apologetics...not facts. Apparently, he thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, it will become fact... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ) [196] Saying that they don't, in spite of news articles from the BBC [36] and elsewhere [37][38][39], is no different than Holocaust Denial, and done for the same reason: Apologetics for murderers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) ,

You are suggesting that acts of murder and atrocity were just made up by "Hindu radicals," and didn't happen, even though they are reported in the media. And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, his attacks have gone way past anything normally accepted on Wikipedia, and he has been brought to noticeboards for his proclivity to compare editors to "Holocaust deniers". (I am not listing his many other uncivil remarks, as this is way beyond the pale). (user notified) Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bryon Morrigan is misrepresenting what other editors say and using personal attacks. The content dispute at Christian terrorism is whether the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, a Maoist insurgent group representing a majority Christian Sino-Tibetan minority in North-East India that uses terrorism should described as Christian terrorists, i.e., a group whose primary motivation is Christianity.

This user has an info-box on his user page that says, "This user believes that Monotheism, not Religion itself, is the source of the World's problems." ["Monotheism" refers to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.] This belief prevents him from editing in a neutral manner and leads to him making accusations against other editors whom he sees as part of the monotheist problem. He is unwilling to accept that there are other opinions about the causes of the world's problems, such as conflict over resources, ethnic division, ideology and many others.

Given the edtior's lack of collaborative editing I would suggest a topic ban on articles related to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

TFD (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Map in Westarctica's article

User Vyacheslav84 keeps on reverting my edit to the Westarctica article, more specifically keeps on bringing back the old map of the land claims of the Antarctic Micronational Union and its members, while I added the new one, which comes from the AMU's website. I'm not sure if he doesn't realize that the old map is outdated and no longer represents reality, or if he purposefully vandalizes the page, but in either case it's clearly an example of counter-productive edit warring. It's worthy of noting also that he nominated the new map for deletion for violating copyright, even though on the website it clearly states that it's licensed under Creative Commons. --Escargoten (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• The new map is based on non-authoritative source and replacing the old card is a new is war edits. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the map of the AMU, and it comes from the website of the AMU. The one you keep on reverting to doesn't have a source at all. --Escargoten (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Escargoten, it doesn't look like this issue over the map has been discussed on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. That is where you should start addressing this dispute first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• • edit conflict I'm not seeing any discussion between you two other than some edit summaries. Maybe you should speak with the editor in question on his talk page. At the very least did you notify him of this discussion at ANI? JodyB _talk 15:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And I am always ready to discuss this issue, but first let the participant ceases to wage war edits. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, so stop edit warring - you already violated the three reverts rule. --Escargoten (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • He started a discussion on my talk page and is now throwing insults at me, particularly calling me a "creature" in Russian. --Escargoten (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
      • it is a synonym "friend" Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't, the word "существо" in Russian is applicable to animals. --Escargoten (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you take this to the article page and discuss it in English. That would allow for greater clarity of other editors on the English Wikipedia. JodyB _talk 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." - Wikipedia:Edit warring Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet you accused me of vandalism too. --Escargoten (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the page.) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Westarctica#Maps_from_Self-published_sources --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen it, so made my section too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Westarctica#Westarctica.27s_map Not a self-published source in any case though. --Escargoten (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks All Around I have blocked both editors for 24 hours for violating the 3RR policy. The page is protected too but I will probably drop that now that they are blocked. Please check the page history and see how they both blew right past the 3RR. JodyB _talk 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• All this fuss over an entity which has no legal standing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Clash and legal action

So we have had a bit of a problem over at The Clash. I originally removed some text added to the lead that looked like it was copied from another website. After some investigation I think this was an error...however In the proceeding time we have had a few meatpuppetes make some comments and taking the topic to social media. Most recently a threat to take legal action has been made as seen here. There seems to be a lack of understanding of whats going on by the new editors. Just need an admin here to slow down things down. -- Moxy (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that rises to the level of a direct legal threat (they hope someone else will take legal action). I left them what is basically a final warning on their talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that what Andypunkfan said was probably not a legal threat, this posting by Kathydi1977 clearly was one: The statement "This matter is being referred to Keith's lawyer for further handling." was clearly intended to affect the discussion and suppress comment. The fact that it's "Keith [Levene's] lawyer" is largely irrelevant in light of the fact that Kathydi1977 has admitted in this posting that she's the co-author with Levene of the book that a quote from which was the root source of this brouhaha. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that is a clear legal threat. Indefed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

opps sorry about that ...i was meaning to link Kathydi1977 post not the one I linked....good to see it got solved anyways. -- Moxy (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2015: Second Call For Candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking more candidates for the currently ongoing Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The deadline for completed applications to be returned to the Committee is 2359 UTC on 17 February. As there is a questionnaire to complete, interested administrators are encouraged to contact arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org soon.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

NBA All-Star Weekend

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

---

re: NBA All-Star Weekend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a link to the NBA's own page covering the All-Star Weekend. But, the article had some spamming issues, legal threats[197], and block evasion by user(s) claiming to represent a website that believes it has the right to advertise itself on this article. (see talk pages at User talk:50.89.112.136 and User talk:Idriveorlando)

Today I blacklisted to url after an additional IP began adding the link. However, shortly afterwards I received an email pointing me to a page on the spammed website (link disabled due to blacklisting): allstarweekendnewyork.com/wikipedia-blocks-all-star-weekend-new-york-external-link-lawsuit-pending

I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone feels it should be forwarded to legal@wikimedia.org. It seems the definition of frivolous, but would appreciate other opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Forewarned is forearmed so might be worth warning them. Another alternative would be to ask them to read WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion before posting here again. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Shoot them a message but I would be surprised if this "pending" suit ever made it into a letter from a lawyer. Sounds like a lot of junk to me. JodyB _talk 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• The IP's and registered editor have been blowing hot air for a couple weeks. Their threats are about as credible as this claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to post a notice on the comments on the spammed site. But, its just someone attacking Wikipedia because they got blocked —fairly. I hope this is all just hot air, and it most likely is. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, personal attacks and hounding by former EEML member

Volunteer Marek:

• Followed me to an article he never edited to revert text that was added over nine months ago, claiming he knows what the consensus there is.[198].

And again removed the same text and more.[199][200] He is claiming that I added the text, even though the diffs show that others added the text long ago.[201][202]

• Continuously made disruptive edits in Rape during the occupation of Germany, such as removing text on false pretexts:

Reverted a paragraph, claiming that RT is not a reliable source.[203] This is debatable, but RT was only used as a source to prove that the person quoted is a historian; the main source for the paragraph was not RT.

Added the revisionist label to the same historian without providing a source,[204] which he should know is a WP:BLP violation.

Reverted text from a review criticizing the use of statistics,[205] claiming that the review is positive and I cherry picked[206] and "willfully and blatantly misrepresented" the source.[207] I made no claim that the review is negative. The text simply states a fact from a review.

Re-added a sentence to the intro[208] that violates WP:MOSINTRO; this sentence was recently added without consensus by a disruptive user (who eventually was banned for edit warring).[209]

Change historian to journalist,[210] even though reliable sources call the person a historian.[211] He has his own explanation of why they are wrong [212](comment below).

Removed relevant text without any discussion or consensus claiming he is shortening the section, when in fact he is removing important points.[213]

• Constantly made personal attacks: "You are full of it",[214] "Bull...",[215] "you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing",[216] "only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system",[217] that I sneaked in edits against consensus.[218]

Defended a disruptive user in the 3RR report I opened and accused me.[219]

Also he attacked an admin who presented more evidence on that user in the 3RR report ("someone rightly calls you on your bullshit").[220] Ddstretch replied that Volunteer Marek simply did not read his comment carefully and there was no reason to call it "bullshit."[221]

Told me to go away on his talk page.[222]

Demanded that I provide a quote for the sourced text I added (almost right after I added it), implying that I did something wrong.[223] I provided the quote, but he continued with threats.[224][225] And no I did not misquote the author; it is almost a direct quote.

• Followed me to an admin's talk page to accuse me and stick up for like-minded users,[226] even though the conversation had nothing to do with him.

All this is in the EE topic area covered by WP:ARBEE. He was an active member of the WP:EEML under his old name.
This is only one example of harassment by former EEML members. -YMB29 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a relevant quote from the EEML findings: members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.[227] -YMB29 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Response

This is a "preemptive strike" by user YMB239. In this edit YMB239 misrepresented a source. Pretty blatantly and pretty grossly. I inquired about the actual text in source on the talk page here [228]. YMB239 responded by providing a partial quote, trimmed just so it looked like the source supported the source. The KEY information was omitted in the little "...". I gave them another chance but told them that unless s/he was ready to stop misrepresenting the source (and changed his article text accordingly) I was going to report them. Apparently they decided that it'd be a good idea to preempt that by filing this bogus report here against me first.

This is a textbook illustration of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, combined with tendentious editing and POV pushing. When caught red-handed playing fast and loose with sources, quickly start attacking the other person that points out your misbehavior. And YMB239 has a history in this regard. The EEML is a irrelevant red herring, a bullshit excuse. As pointed out here [229] at least six uninvolved users have had problems with YMB239's behavior. To repeat, they were: User:Iryna Harpy, User:Diannaa, User:PBS, User:Kierzek, User:Sayerselle,User:Serialjoepsycho, User:Paavo273, User:Buckshot06 - there's at least one or two admins in there. These editors are unrelated to EEML or anything else that YMB239 might dream up. And just recently, User:PBS (a veteran editor like myself, who's been on Wikipedia since 2003) wrote in response to YMB239's false claims that they had "consensus" (apparently a consensus of one), quote: "I stopped arguing with you YMB29, not because I think that you have not harmed this article by including the text that you have, but because it was too much of a time sink, and I have more constructive things to be doing with my time. A am pleased that someone else has taken up the baton and is willing to discuss it further with you. " (my emphasis)

That's what YMB239 has been doing for the past several months on this and related articles. They have been engaged in months long slow motion edit war, combined with a complete lack of good faith discussion on talk, characterized by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparantly designed to just simply wear, tire, and bore, those who take issue with YMB239's POV and edits, out, until they quit and let them have their way. This is extremely disruptive, has been noted and commented on by several users (in addition to those 6 listed above) and a topic ban from the relevant articles has been mentioned. Personally, as a content editor, I think the dishonest misrepresentation of sources to be worthy of a month long block on top of a topic ban.

For anyone who's interested, the full text source is here. The text says pretty much the OPPOSITE of what YMB239 pretends it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Just to make this a bit less likely to hit the too long cap the request to stay away from his talk page is a perfectly valid request on their part. Amortias (T)(C) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but he could have said it in a more civil tone. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning users like Sayerselle and Paavo273, who were banned or warned for edit warring, is misleading. I never had any real problems with Serialjoepsycho or Buckshot06. There was no reason for you to try to canvass these users here. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I had disagreements with PBS, but he never resorted to personal attacks or following me to other pages. He was not the only one editing that page. The idea that I somehow fooled everyone and pushed edits through without consensus months ago is ridiculous. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've no clue what this dispute is over. Which article? This all sounds vaguely familiar. This have anything to do with Soviets raping Germans in Berlin at the end of world war 2?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Battle of Berlin and Rape during the occupation of Germany.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just canvassing users to distract from the topic. This is not about content dispute. Me and Serialjoepsycho never had problems, only regular talk page discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The place where I encountered YMB29 was Talk:Battle of Berlin, which is the same place where he is currently edit warring. The problem is the refusal by YMB29 to accept consensus and move on, as seen in Archives 8, 9, 10, and the current talk page, which has wasted an enormous amount of editor time (essentially our only resource). In March through May 2014, and again starting in February 2015, when the consensus is clearly against him. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that I edited against consensus when I was not the one who added the recently removed text?

Go read the archives and look at the page history. There was consensus to add the text to the footnotes. I wanted it in the article text, but accepted that there was no consensus for that. -YMB29 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS added the text to the footnote.[230] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[231]

Also, how does the source say the opposite of what I quoted? Here is the link to the page in the book,[232] so anyone could look and see that you are making false accusations again. -YMB29 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Before this turns into a pointless rehash of the talk page. I took the time to read through the talk page for Rape during the occupation of Germany from point 15 on before commenting here. I am completely uninvolved in this dispute. I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors

Based on the talk page conversation I would say that everyone has been admirably restrained in dealing with your POV pushing. Trying to use Alexander Dyukovand Albert Axell (Who as far as I can tell has published a couple mediocre popular histories and according to JSTOR no peer revieved work) in a controvercial article demanding the highest quality sources shows you are more interested in finding people that agree with your POV than representing what academic consensus is.

• You accuse Iryna Harpy of meat puppeting 10 February 2015, last Tuesday [233]

• You are informed that consensus was required for including of your sources by My very best wishes based on RFC on Soviet Rapes which you participated in. [234]

• You were notified of ARBEE DS on 27 Dec 2015 by EdJohnston

• It looks like you have moved your edit waring to the talk pages by apparently removing another users comments here and here. Then proceeding to argue about it in an entire section on the talk page. If it was an accident a simple 'ooppss I'm sorry' would have likely have been the end of it.

All of the above suggest to me that you are suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and are engaging in battleground behavior to push a fringe POV on this article against the consensus of every other author involved with it. If you do not understand that Wikipedia operates on consensus you need to take a break from editing this topic either willingly or enforced. There is currently no consensus for the changes you wish to make it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Based on what I have read I would endorse the targeted application of WP:BOOMERANG. JBH (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the evidence?

Accusations like moving comments by a user (who was actually the one removing my comment) are ridiculous. I moved his comment to a new section to help along the discussion.

Iryna Harpy and "My very best wishes" are also both hounding me. I did not present evidence on them because this section was big enough.

You are going by claims by others without looking at what actually goes on. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the numbers are against me, but that is exactly what the EEML ("My very best wishes" was also a member of that) was about. Converging on other users who were deemed hostile and creating a false consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

YMB29 (talk · contribs) I assure that I'm not on good terms with Marek and the Ukraine are has been a disaster for years, BUT, when will-intentioned editors, lioke Jbhunley (talk · contribs) give you good advice, you need to heed that. Basically, you need to learn more about Wikipedia policy and learn how to address content disputes (and conduct disputes) in those terms. If you can accomplish that, you will be much more effective in seeing that the articles reflect the content as represented in WP:RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley simply looked at the number of accusations against me and concluded that the problem is with me. He did not look at the evidence I presented, and at the histories of the users he mentioned.

The problem here is a group of users (you should recognize them from the Ukrainian conflict articles) going around to different articles and removing sourced text for dubious reasons. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29: Yes, I have read the background and looked into the sources - did I not state that? You are trying to put a revisionist interpretation of history in a very controversial article based upon absolutely crap sources. Everything else is drama. An editor with the barest understanding of Wikipedia consensus policy would have stopped by now. Based on the RFC you were doing the same thing almost a year ago with much the same result. I can not imagine the frustration the other editors must be feeling with your behavior. If, with all the passion and dedication you exhibit in pushing your POV you have been unable to find better sources than you have presented then they likely do not exist or you would have found them by now. If they are out there then I strongly suggest you use the time and effort you have been expending on this futile war to go and find them. If you can not find any then drop it and move on.

I care not one iota about who did what to whom so please do not take this as an invitation to rehash accusations. Stripped of all the drama and crap the issue is simple. You do not have the sources to support what you want to say. You are being disruptive. One will not solve the other. Your disruptive behavior should not be allowed to continue. It is a detriment to the project. That is not to say that you are a detriment to the project. If you can put the goals of Wikipedia ahead of your own personal ideology then you can help shape the Encyclopedia. The end result sought is for your disruption to end. JBH (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Crap sources? When you make accusations like that I wonder about your objectivity here.

These are reliable sources (meet the RS criteria). They represent the majority Russian view, but I understand that this is a minority view on the English wiki. However, they are not fringe. Simply trying to make sure they are properly presented in articles here is not pushing some "ideology."

Consensus is not reached only by an RfC, although the RfC's closing stated that the sources are credible. The RfC, started by user Diannaa, also was not fair as it did not represent the dispute properly. There was a lot of discussion and editing going on after the RfC ended. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are also overlooking the constant personal attacks and going around to different talk pages to advocate for like-minded users (see the 3RR report I filed for example). -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how do you comment on what I said earlier:

"PBS added the text to the footnote.[235] and Paul Siebert added the other text back in 2009.[236]"

So the users were not reverting text that I supposedly pushed into the article. Regarding the second text (sourced to Bird), it is not a Russian source and I did not even edit the article back in 2009. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say for the third time: I read the talk page history. I looked into the authors you want to use. I applied Wikipedia rules and policies as I understand them in an objective manner. One source was a popular historian with no peer reviewed writings. The other was so far out on the fringe that even Wikipedia, with its BLP policy, unambiguously labeled him as a revisionist historian The only qualified author you wanted to use was Yelena Senyavskaya who as far as I can tell is a lone voice in the wilderness. Even her, according to the talk page discussions, you wanted to use in an inappropriate manner. Just because my analysis is not what you want to hear does not mean it was not objective. It means that after assessing them I found them to be crap, particularly for use about such a contentious subject.

As to the accusations flying back and fourth I already said I give not one iota about them. Based on our exchanges it seems you do not understand when I say I have done something I have done that thing. When I say I do not care about something I do not care about that thing Your inability to grasp that tells me you either suffer from a lack of ability to comprehend what someone is saying to you or you are using an exceedingly juvenile debating tactic in am attempt to discredit.

As to your specific questions. The first is a quote from Yelena Senyavskaya which the RFC said required consensus to include, obviously consensus right now is not to include. The other one I have no opinion on as I have not looked at the source.

As to your third point. Again,I just do not care who did what. The point you raise is irrelevant to your behavior. What you fail to understand is even if you are right on one of the issues you raise it in no way excuses your disruptive behavior. If you continue acting the way you are now no one will care whether you are right or wrong and the one constructive edit you could have made is lost in all the disruption. If you concentrate on one good edit you would make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. What you are doing now is, in my opinion, a net negative.Also, please do not attempt to again represent to others how I formed my opinions on these issues.JBH (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not Axell or Dyukov (Dyukov I agreed to remove even though he was RS). You constantly referring to them shows that don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe if you don't care, you should not comment here... Your selective review of evidence and insults like "sources are crap" are disruptive.

So it is ok to stalk users, make personal attacks, commit BLP violations just because you think the users doing that are right on a content dispute?

Is it also ok for users to come into articles they never edited before, make false claims and reverts, and suddenly form a "new consensus."?

As for Senyavskaya, no she is not alone. You simply overlook the other sources. -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, these diffs[237][238] show that you have interacted with Volunteer Marek before, so you are not a neutral observer here. -YMB29 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Did you really not read my opening statement where I said: "I have worked with User:Volunteer Marek exactly once and found him perfectly willing to change his position when the sources warrant it. I have not worked with any of the other editors"? Hmmm I bet it is not a reading comprehension issue. Try addressing the issues I have brought up to you rather than trying to discredit my opinion.

The locus of the dispute is you have been continuously attempting to edit a controversial subject against consensus. This has lead to UNCIVIL acts on both sides. However, based on the conversations I have read much of the other editors UNCIVIL remarks stem from from frustration with your continuous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. At the minimum, as I and other have pointed out above, you come here with UNCLEAN hands on the UNCIVIL issue.

Attempting to address UNCIVIL behavior here is all but futile except in the most extreme cases. I chose to focus on your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which the source issue directly relates to. Whether it is source choice, NPOV wording or an argument over talk page editing you seem completely unable to recognize when consensus is against you. He said, she said ultimately makes no difference. You seem to think other editors' behavior excuses your own. It does not. Hence my not caring about it.

When no one agrees with you the wise man considers that maybe he is wrong. I have said what I have to say. I hope an admin will take a look at this but it has become a wall of text for which I share the blame. If you bring up an issue of substance I will address it. I am going to wait now for some more uninvolved editors to comment. We seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns in our conversation. JBH (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well again you are not an uninvolved editor, so maybe you should not have posted walls of text accusing me and excusing violations of policy by others.

Your unexpected aggressiveness against me shows that you are not neutral and commenting in good faith. I never interacted with you before and yet you know that I am some highly disruptive user so quickly...

Advocating for other users, even when it is clear they have violated policies, is a common problem here. The same thing happened when I filed my last 3RR report, but that did not help the user being reported. -YMB29 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I can read and I can understand what the rules are. It was not difficult to see the behavioral problem. Working with one editor on one article does not make me involved. All that claim does is show you try to deflect when you can not address the issues. The purpose of ANI is to solicit uninvolved opinion. That is what I gave you. I advocate for no one. Cheers. JBH (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well simply stating your opinion, instead of throwing accusations and insults at me and excusing misconduct by others, would have been enough, if you were truly uninvolved and neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually *anyone* on Wikipedia that you don't immediately start a fight with when they try to interact and discuss something with you? The list of users who are telling you to lay off and that you're in the wrong has greatly increased in the short time since you filed this AN/I "report", but somehow that's still not getting through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Who, Jbhunley? Like said, I never interacted with him, so his attacks were uncalled for. -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly this was many months ago when I was there. Surprised it's still going. But honestly I really don't have much to add.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on all editors active in this dispute. I am not a fan of the "block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" approach, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Regarding Volunteer Marek, this user has been nothing but a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to have a civil discussion or improve an article, so a topic ban on him would greatly improve the editing environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for YMB29. Per everything I said above and based on the diffs I have looked fully into the edits YMB29 is complaining about being wrong were correct:

1. Dyukov is a revisionist historian

2. Yep cherrypicked the reviewer does not say his methods call into question the magnitude of the rapes as this quote seems to imply.
3. Removing the weasaly "A frequently iterated claim that thewar time rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence." and replacing it with "The" does not violate WP:MOSINTRO
4. Albert Axell is not a historian by any accademic measure.
5. Saying that "There is dispute from Russia concerning these claims." Re the rapes is unsupported. Saying some Russian historians dispute the rapes is supported.
   

I see no point in continuing through the rest, I want to go to bed.

Volunteer Marek and the others(not going to list them VM is the one brought up by name in the sanction) may have been UNCIVIL but I can not say I would have remained civil in the same situation. It would be great if we had a civility policy with teath but we do not. Topic banning all the other editors for responding to a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor is extreme. I am sure VM and the others can be a real pain in the ass but this is not the issue to topic ban them over. JBH (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Safehaven86 denied recollection of deleted relevant WP article space content prior to a WP:RSN request for comment and talk page discussion

The advocacy organization ProgressNow has it own WP article. Progress Illinois, an online advocacy media outlet, does not. In fact, the organizations are independent. The WP article on ProgressNow included, in the first paragraph of the body, a list of affiliates at the US state level, and Progress Illinois was (correctly) not included.

1. 21:50, 6 February 2015 User:Safehaven86 deleted the list of affiliates from ProgressNow
2. 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC) User:Safehaven86 initiated an RSN request for comment regarding two sources, one from ProgressNow and one from Progress Illinois, under the subheading "Progress Illinois" WP:RSN#Progress_Illinois.
3. 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) User:Safehaven86 began an attempt to develop consensus that the two sources are not WP:RS at Talk:Illinois Policy Institute.
4. In the course of the discussion at Talk:Illinois Policy Institute, User:Safehaven86 under-reacted to multiple attempts to clarify the distinction between the organizations behind the two sources. 20:30, 10 February 2015, 17:10, 11 February 2015
5. 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) After an additional attempt to clarify the distinction between the organizations, User:Safehaven86 claimed "I was under the impression Progress Illinois was an affiliate of Progress Now, but perhaps that's not the case."

Which claim is untenable in light of User:Safehaven86's delete from ProgressNow of a few days earlier.

Issue: User:Safehaven86 may have attempted to leverage a co-incident in naming in an attempt to unfairly aggregate two organizations in order to manipulate the outcome of a talk page discussion and an RSN request for comment. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

21:38, 12 February 2015 notification

Response

This all *might* make sense if my edit to ProgressNow [239] hadn't occurred prior to any ProgressNow sources being added by you to the Illinois Policy Institute page. [240] Are you suggesting I saw into the future and knew you would add a ProgressNow link on February 10, so on February 6 I removed an unsourced list of affiliates of ProgressNow? By the way, it's not a policy violation to remove unsourced material, which is what I did on ProgressNow. It is, however, required for you to notify another editor if you open a thread regarding them on this report board, which you have not done. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment::I see boomerangs in the air. What exactly is the problem here? Is this editor really making a complaint that someone "sought consensus" about whether a ref was RS and also took that concern to RSN? That really doesn't qualify as an incident. I feel that this behavior, both here, and at the other multiple noticeboard FORUMS the editor has launched on this matter is inappropriate. Talk about not assuming good faith. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not clear what type of issue is being reported here. This is a disagreement between users, and the OP hasn't specified which type of policy violations he thinks have taken place. In any event, this is also WP:FORUMSHOPPING, as the OP previously opened up an unresolved thread about me here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not clear what type of issue is being reported here..." See Issue, above. Forum shopping is the same or essentially the same issue on multiple notice boards. But you know that. This is not a 3RR compliant. That is a separate editor behaviour issue. Hugh (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way: it's not strange that I thought Progress Illinois was an affiliate of ProgressNow. Check out the list of ProgressNow affiliates listed here: [241]. Many of the ProgressNow affiliates in the states start with "Progress," e.g. "Progress Iowa" "Progress Florida" and "Progress Texas." It's reasonable to think a group called "Progress Illinois" is an affiliate. But this whole thread is a red herring. ProgressNow and Progress Illinois, related or not, are not WP:RS in the context they are being used at Illinois Policy Institute. I've been trying to tell you this, as have Srich, Capitalismo, and Collect, but the message isn't getting through. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"...it's not strange..." An honest mistake is possible but an honest mistake would not have persisted through multiple times having it plainly pointed out to you. Hugh (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Copied from Wikipedia talk:In the news: The Rambling Man has repeatedly acted inappropriately at WP:ITN/C. His comments have violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA several times, and are rude in general. I have several examples, all of these events having occurred in the last couple of months:

1. which went on until today, at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_RD:_Bob_Simon, where TRM !voted "Oppose for the dead American ticker. Article has serious BLP issues.", a disrespectful comment calling ITN a "dead American ticker". An argument with Muboshgu and me follows. He posts more comments using the phrase "dead American ticker"[242] Of course, this just another example of his rudeness, and not a WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA violation.
2. Anyone that contributes to ITN knows that TRM likes to oppose noms. Looking at what's currently listed at ITN/C, his record is 10 opposes and 7 supports, mine is 3/3. He often opposes based on article quality, yet he got on to me when I opposed his nom because it was a stub.[243]
3. The incident that concerns me the most is this one, where Richard von Weizsäcker was nominated for RD (and was later posted), but the article was in terrible shape. Zwerg Nase improved the article and posted to ITN/C, alerting us about his edits. Then, TRM insulted his work with sarcasm[244], an argument with 331dot follows. TRM makes rude comments[245], then 331 replies with a good way to end an argument[246], I saw this and went to 331's tp to praise him for his comment, the argument continues there between me, 331, Zwerg, and TRM. This is the most important diff. In that diff you will see in the "Well said" section that I posted a diff of 331's comment with "*applause* *standing ovation*", and then TRM comments, insulting our nationality with "Or not. *applause* etc. No sarcasm had been deployed tonight, although perhaps being British I assume y'all aint gettin' it. *seated slow hand clap* *wait for help*". Later on in the argument, TRM says "Seems like you don't get it either [referring to me] (and if you think "well played" has negative connotation, there is little hope)...". Later on, the subject of discussion morphs into questioning of why TRM removed a comment by Sca, I will admit that my comment "And while we're here, would you like to explain why you removed Sca's comment?" sounded inappropriate, I'm not the best at wording things.
4. An incident I recently found that I was not involved in is this: He insults Newyorkbrad because he posted an RD for "another dead American".[247]
5. Another rude comment[248]

I must add that AFAIK, TRM has never apogized for any of this. The examples I've listed only go back to November 2014. I could go on and on listing his rude comments. Anyone can add to this list in a comment below. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Anyone that contributes to ITN knows that TRM likes to oppose noms": so he has higher standards than you on inclusion? That's a good thing, not putting dross through on the nod. The final point isn't rude - slightly pointy, maybe, but hardly rude (and quite right too on the whole - there's way too much time talking about insignificant bull rather than actually improving content, so I can appreciate his annoyance on this. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility.

• Support as proposer. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I think you'll find ANI is the usual location to get be blocked or banned from aspects of Wikipedia. It would no doubt serve you and the others who continually advocate substandard articles nicely to see me banished. Pity is, the fewer there are of us who care about quality, the worse the main page becomes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say that I searched "topic ban" before I posted this and that users have been topic banned through discussion on this page in the past. I had no intention of bringing this to the dark place filled with monsters. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you need to do that. And once again, thanks for having the courtesy not to tell me about this discussion. No less than I expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take it there. And I pinged you, I didn't think I had to do any more notifying, as this isn't ANI. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This whole thing looks like an attempt to get rid of frequent opposition by getting the opponent banned. AmaryllisGardener, if you searched properly for topic bans, you would have seen that they absolutely must be discussed in a very public forum and that you absolutely must notify the intended recipient of the ban. Unclean hands is how I'd sum up this request. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having high standards is not something to ban people for. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attacks like #3 is why I came here, it was not because of his high standards. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed; the standards are not the issue, it is how they are expressed, along with rude comments that are unhelpful such as his recent "dead American ticker" statements(made while not offering non-Americans for nominations). A bunch of us did not get together and plan for these people to die. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think he should be topic banned but I think his civility could use improvement(he indirectly calls me an idiot here) and I don't appreciate being told I am in some sort of organized group opposed to him. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with 331dot. Today especially has put TRM's incivility and anti-American bias on display. When he opposes items based on quality, he's rightly pointing out underreferenced articles or other orange tag problems. When he opposes them because it's an American-based nom, and says nonconstructive things like "Pushing niche fields like "college basketball" as being significant enough for the English language Wikipedia has gone too far", that's just not okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, I agree. As a frequent ITNC lurker it seems to me that the constant snide and snippy comments he makes on a regular basis are not helpful in any way. It just ruins the environment of ITNC, in my opinion. Connormah (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. Involved parties seeking sanctions should lay it out and leave it to uninvolved parties to determine whether a topic ban is warranted. TRM is gruff and rough around the edges but unless that is coupled with a poor history of bad content, a topic ban won't actually accomplish what is really sought here, a request for TRM to wind back some of the sarcasm. Blackmane (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, we can stop !voting on the tban for now, I myself don't really want him to be tbanned, I just want him to realize his problems with incivility at ITN/C. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is heading into boomerang territory, no? If you don't really want him tbanned, why did you write I propose that The Rambling Man be topic banned from editing Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates because of his incivility? Was it, perhaps, to make a WP:POINT? GoldenRing (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: You misunderstood. I want him to be tbanned, but I'm not like "I won't accept anything less than a tban". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Fair enough, I guess. So, as per my oppose below, how will a TBAN actually do anything to improve TRM's civility? At best I see this proposal as essentially saying, "Make him go be uncivil somewhere else." GoldenRing (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: ITN/C is the only place where I have dealt with him, and it's the only place where I see inappropriate comments from him (or at least the arguments start at ITN/C). So, I thought a tban on ITN/C was an appropriate proposal. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think The Rambling Man should be topic banned, but I do want to comment that my only interaction with him (that I can remember) involved him assuming bad faith, making pointy comments, and generally being rude (see [249] for that discussion). That discussion also gave me the impression that The Rambling Man has an anti-American bias, and some of his comments linked by AmaryllisGardener seem to support that. I'd just like to request of The Rambling Man that he try to end the incivility and anti-American comments, rather than any specific sanction like a topic ban. Calathan (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Especially egregious behavior is exhibited in this discussion. It is full of personal attack threads, most of them started by TRM's aggressive and disparaging attitude. While some contributions to ITN are actually helpful, such as pointing out legitimate article quality concerns, a large part of them are disparaging and offensive to other editors.

In fact, the above discussion was so offensive that an editor actually posted about it on the ITN talk page essentially asking what can be done. I referred the editor to work out the differences directly on TRM's talk page, which was unfortunately not done. I am confident that this complaint was read by TRM, being on a page he edits often. While it should have served as an informal behavioral wake-up call, judging from the continuing disparaging behavior AmaryllisGardener points out, evidently a more formal callout is required.

TRM: Please take this nomination, whether it gets anywhere or not, as another reminder to show civility and respect in ITN discussions. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support for ITN ban based on repeated pattern of incivility. It's time to enforce existing policies. How many times have we been here discussing TRM's incivility? 10 times? 20 times? 30 times? There's no need to keep discussing. It's time to do what needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose On the basis of what has been presented here, far more editors than TRM could be facing a topic ban from ITN. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If the problem is TRM's incivility, how will a tban from ITN/C fix that? GoldenRing (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) Not the most diplomatic editor in the world, but a good one. If a personality clash and an editor's desire to maintain a standard lead to a topic ban, things are worse here than I thought. Miniapolis 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, one of the last bastions of enforcing quality on the main page. I wouldn't like to count how many times TRM has prevented unferenced rubbish appearing on the mainpage. Stephen 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

His standards or views are not the issue; the way he converses with others is. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - No way no how. I might have my disagreements with TRM but he's a significant part of the reason ITN is still somewhat credible.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Can you please delete this article per G4? EricJ1074 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While most of the deleted content was here reposted, the new incarnation is significantly expanded from what was deleted at AFD; for example, the entirety of the "Lawsuit" section in the AFD'd version was Alahverdian sued the State of Rhode Island among others due to alleged abuse and negligence that occurred in state-owned and out-of-state facilities. The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island before Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. G4 excludes pages that have been substantially modified. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the entirety of the lawsuit section; that section also had a {{main}} template pointing to Alahverdian v. Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families, et al, which contained the info in this lawsuit section, and which was also AFD'd the day after the main article. In addition, this current version is a copyright violation, because it is a pure copy paste of the old article, with no attribution. Finally, this article and many like it have been created over the years by serial sockpuppeteer. I've deleted it per G4, G5, and G12. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). And what do you mean by copyright violation? It's inherently in the public domain. I may be wrong. Thanks for your help. EricJ1074 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 repeatedly deleting content and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on talk page, telling another user to edit war

User:Uniquark9 has repeatedly deleted content that he doesn't like from the articles Yuan dynasty and Northern Yuan dynasty, often giving no reason at all or just saying in the edit summary that he is reversing my edits without giving a reason why. He deleted multiple sentences on different issues/topics.

Uniquark9 Philg88 Nlu

[250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255]

[256] [257] [258] [259]

Note that User:Uniquark9 is not actually disputing the content itself. He isn't challenging it or its factual veracity (I provided sources for the content on the talk page at Talk:Yuan_dynasty#Content_deletion. He just doesn't like it so he blatantly deletes it repeatedly. Most of the time on these two articles he gave no edit summaries or no explanation for his deletions. He just says things like "Restoring to a version before Rajmaan's edits."

User:Uniquark9 instead of discussing the content deletion, went to another Mongolian user and told him in Mongolian that I am a Chinese (hyatadiig) and that he should help User:Uniquark9 revert my edits. In other words he is telling another editor to help him engage in an edit war with me based on ethnicity.

After I opened on the discussion on the talk page, Uniquark9 only addressed one of the sentences he deleted, provided no source for his claim, and then totally disappeared from the discussion. [260] He totally ignored the other sentences he deleted and refused to talk about them. He hasn't addressed anything else he deleted or justified the deletions, he didn't address any of the sources I provided on the talk page which justified keeping the content.

He also has issues with civility and uses words like "bullshit" and "bullshitting" like on Talk:Genghis_Khan.

He is refusing to engage in discussion and reach a consensus and instead is resorting to edit warring and trying to promote an ethnic nationalist based edit war to get what he wants. This is not about a content dispute, this is a behavioral issue. I am trying to get him to address the content dispute on the talk page and he is ignoring it. We need a third party admin to make all the relevant users engage in the discussion on the talk page and make sure it proceeds in a civil manner.Rajmaan (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user removes sourced content

• 165.228.41.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I've had several issues with this IP user, as can be seen on the IP user's talk page. I have twice asked the IP user to stop removing sourced content, but this seems to be an ongoing problem: [261], [262], [263]. I'm tired of cleaning up after this uncommunicative user, and it's a drain my time to monitor his/her activity. It doesn't matter how many warnings this user gets, he/she goes right back to making the same disruptive edits. For example, these older diffs are all in the same article: [264], [265], [266]. This is a long-term issue with the user, who refuses to change or even discuss it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)