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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Iñaki LL

The user Iñaki LL filed a complaint against me in the ANI, asking me to be blocked, which was rejected and he was warned: "Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option.",

Despite this, he has continued with his behavior, questioning my edits and commenting on me in the articles talk pages [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

EDITED Notice how the first thing he did after after the closing of the incident in the ANI on 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) by Swarm and the rejection of his blocking request on me was to question the decision of the administrators, returning to accuse me on my talk page on 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) of clear "POV overtones" and saying "Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really" .BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

He accused me several times without proof of "You removed verified information 'in your information re-arrangement", "removing 'unpleasant' information" in a talk page [6], [7], in his talk page [8] and in my talk page [9]. I replied in his talk page [10], asking him to provide evidence of his accusations, or if not, that he apologizes or strikes his accusations [11]. He has not done it, he has circumvent the answer and he has erased my messages from his talk page [12] [13], claiming that I have not right to answer there [14], even though I explained that the policies do allow it [15] [16]. See the full discussions here [17] [18].

I think if Iñaki LL did not want me to respond, he should have thought before writing me (notice the tone and content of his message, with which he started the discussion [19]). I am posting this here because he has erased my messages and I'm still waiting for him to provide specific evidence to corroborate his accusations.

IMHO this seems Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I feel harassed, despite my attempts to dialogue with him showing my good faith [20] [21].

I want him to stop once and for all his attitude towards me and just discuss how to improve the content of the pages from a neutral point of view, calmly, politely and respecting the Wikipedia policies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This dispute originated in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempted to clarify some of the details of the events but was reverted in a series of edits by BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for example BB removed "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." (properly cited to the The Independent) and glossed over it by re-writing an earlier sentence to "four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the eye in the protests". This is typical of the grip that BB has on the article, as a glance at the page history and the article talk page, where he has wikilawyered away many edits from multiple other editors, will show. This particular complaint from BB is nothing more than an attempt to remove a dissenting editor from the article. BB's conduct is classic: Inaki complains on BB's talk page about BB's behaviour, so BB immediately takes that post over to Inaki's talk page and makes an entire wall of text blaming Inaki for his response to BB's behaviour. When Inaki objected to BB moving the thread to Inaki's talk page and removed it, BB re-added the wall of text twice more, [22], [23] in complete contravention of WP:TPG, and tantamount to harassment. This only ceased when another editor MPS1992 reminded BB of WP:OWNTALK. That is enough to attract sanctions on BB.

What adds to this however, is that BB then went back to a previous dispute with Inaki from May, on around 10 articles about people who are or were well known as Basques where BB had added a "Spanish" qualifier, for example, BB changed "a ska punk band from the Basque Country" to "a Spanish ska punk band from the Basque Autonomous Community". Inaki had restored the original wording in each case, which had remained stable since then, until BB reverted again in retaliation for this dispute. He has since edit warred the same information back twice more, and against another editor, Theklan who agreed with the original wording.

BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda and comes here with unclean hands. i strongly suggest that there is a case to apply WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You are not providing diffs from the page nor from the discussion on it in the talk page for your claimings on the injured in the eye, nor the rest of the information about that edit of mine, so you are only giving a partial view of the situation, distorting it. This is explained here in detail [24] "Iñaki, with this new edit you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice: ... (I do not quote everything, so as not to overload this discussion). And the page already contained detailed information about the injured in the eye just below for months. Let's see for example this version of 11 January 2018: "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes.[193] The man injured by a rubber ball lost the vision of an eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.[215]". And a picture and a footage.

Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: [25] "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] ...

RexxS, you said "BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda" You are violating WP:AGF. I do not have any political positioning, I just want to improve the encyclopedia and I look for neutrality. On the other hand, both Iñaki and Theklan openly declare their POV. See:

• Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)
• Iñaki LL This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All three are Spanish users with strong views on a subject many Spaniards have strong views on. RexxS mischaracterises the dispute by asserting only Ballena Blanca has strong politiical opinions on the matter, as Iñaki LL and Theklan have equally strong views that oppose those of Ballena Blanca. Is this general Spanish political issue a case for arbcom? Which would of course require dispute mediation first. There are no simple ANI solutions, IMO. I don't think there are any excuses for edit-warring across multiple articles but it is clearly coming from both camps. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So how come you have Spanish and Basque as your native languages? Basque isn't a nationality. You can self-identify as you want of course but your statement anyway indicates you aren't neutral in this topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Only the first of TWO threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Because they are my native languages. If you claim I can't say I'm Basque but not Spanish (something quite usual, even on your narrow minded system) then I understand why you have a problem with calling Basque people Basque. -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this as a matter of strong view from my part but to comply with Wikipedia policies and neutrality.

What worries me is that Wikipedia's policies are violated by writing freely without adjusting to the sources and distorting the information.

For example, claiming that "rubber ball" does not exist in English [40] [41], insisting on using a news title “A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough” when the actual content of the news and several other sources contradict it and so I had explained it [42], etc.

I would like you to read this complete thread [43], motivated by numerous edits that a user has made in the last month and that included various irregularities. I would like you to see the discussion, how I have been arguing in detail, listening to other users, trying to dialogue with Iñaki and reach consensus, thanking his signs of goodwill [44], accepting his proposals [45], proposing solutions and seeking consensus [46] [47], recognizing my mistakes [48] ... But I feel that as much as I try, it seems that he does not see my good faith.

A suggestive fact: Iñaki LL expanded the information about the injured in the eye and added statements of four witnesses about the pacifism of the demonstrators, but when I included the other version, with sources that include footages that contradict those statements and that pacifism of at least part of them (including the man injured himself), Iñaki LL was outraged and protested [49]. Is this a matter of a view opposed to Iñaki's? I do not think so, I think it's a matter of WP:NPOV, which I complied with.

In that same message [50] we see how he tries to impose rules on me on where I can edit and how the length of the discussions on the talk page should be, violating WP:No-edit orders.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I have some advice for you, but it may not help you very much. First, if you feel that someone who is not an administrator, is trying to impose rules on you, then feel free to ignore them. They cannot force you to do anything. But, you might like to think about their advice anyway. And one thing they can insist on, is that you do not keep repeatedly posting the same thing on their talk page. Especially if what you are adding is a dissertation. And also, I am guessing that both you and the person you are reporting both write English as a second language -- this if fine, but, in English we do not say that a police officer shot someone in the eye "with a rubber ball". That's not English. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you very much for your advice, off course is a help! Thanks for taking the effort to post here, you're very kind.

I especially appreciate your intervention on the Iñaki LL's talk page, to prevent me from continuing to be wrong. I thought that in this case we had to apply WP:TPO, especially due to the fact that he deleted, moved and copied my messages directly in another place, without quoted them (as for example using the Template:Talk quote inline#Usage) and therefore, he also misrepresented my signature, which is personal and non-transferable. The problem is not with reporting words, but that with copying another editors signature unfortunately it gives the impression that the editor posted in a place where they did not. There is a behavioral guideline for this WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. I do not think for a moment that Iñaki LL intended to impersonate me, but the consequence of copying an editor's entire post from one place to another inadvertently creates a false impression of what was posted where. Anyway, I apologize if I made a with Iñaki LL for my mistake. Edited --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

Regarding the term "rubber ball", it is used in numerous verifiable sources in English "A rubber ball police fired at protesters", "A guy received a rubber ball impact on the eye", including Amnesty International "the use of rubber balls" and the manufacturers / providers themselves, such as this one from the UK (South Wales) Site Search: rubber ball (see for example one of the several images of the search result Bolt Action Rifle Rubber Ball Grip --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca is that they don't see they are trying to impose their POV. They think they are trying to work with neutrality when impossing their world view. I WP:AGF, but they do the same thing again and again and again. And I don't have as much time as he has to follow on with the discussion. If having time is the way to imposse a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV, then he will win and Wikipedia will lose. You can follow on with the discussion, I will try to give 5 minutes a day to see where it goes.-Theklan (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, please, do not make personal attacks. Do not label me as "strongly Spanish nationalists", you do not know anything about me, speak only in your name, you do have a expressly declared POV [51] "Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)"

In addition, your opinion here has a clear COI, since you were blocked by edit warring and I was the one who reported you [52], and then as revenge you pushed for me to be blocked, such as here [53] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also Darwinist. Please, look after all my articles in every language about evolution, maybe I have a POV than can't be tolerated by the police of rectitude. -Theklan (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, the same can and must be said of those with an anti-Spanish bias, typically supporters of Basque and Catalan independence. You haven't been assuming good faith, eg accusations of gaming and labelling those you disagree with as the enemies of wikipedia and accusing other users of being unable to read. You justify your own edit warring and here, attacking me, attacks trans people (particularly vile, IMO), and attacks editors while blocked. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What I see above is a lot of noise. Basics, I am not taking accusatory walls in my talk page, repeatedly posted after I removed them, clear harassment.

The editor in question has shown a clear tendency to compulsive editing and litigation during the whole article Catalan independence referendum, 2017.

BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it? I attempted advise to him on behavioural issues, to improve editing towards smooth, fluent cooperation in this article. Instead he has adopted a reactive attitude, e.g. just after repeatedly posting a wall in my talkpage he went on to do serial, controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters I had edited roughly a month ago (see diffs provided above by Rexxs), adding "Spanish", removing Basque, with a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors. At the same time, he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes (see my comment here at the bottom [54].

His ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting does not surprise me, despite knowing; there are no NPOV editors, but POV edits. BB's ideology is clear to all the editors contributing to the above articles, but that is not my concern, his attitude in the article is. Check this edit full of self-entitlement [55]("you do have your own POV, as you declare on your user page. Not me, I'm editing for neutrality"), clear WP:TEND. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I remind you again that it was you who initiated the discussion, not me 13:47, 1 July 2018. I answered asking you to prove your accusations 23:03, 3 July 2018 and I am still waiting.

You are again replying with accusations violating WP: AGF (and without providing any diff): "a clear tendency to compulsive editing", "a lot of noise", "a reactive attitude", "controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters", "a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors", "ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting", "BB's ideology is clear to all the editors", "clear WP:TEND" ...

Regarding this: “controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters”, I will not repeat the whole explanation, you can read it again here: “Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles… have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator …”

You have a problem when you speak without verifying what you are saying and without providing evidence to prove it, which unjustifiably discredits other editors, me in this case. You say “BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it?” Is 11% "all"? Also, there is not much difference between you and me. Let's see:

Found 131 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.2% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 215 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.23% of the total edits made to the page)
Found 114 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 67 edits by Iñaki LL on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (3.5% of the total edits made to the page)

And finally, you said that you did not have time to answer the specific information I was asking you to prove your accusations, but you did have time to delete my messages, copy them in another place and leave a message, and to delete them again. As I said on your TP "I would not have opened this incident if you had not deleted my messages from your talk page"

You are also violating WP:AGF by saying "he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes", especially if we consider that your complaint about time is permanent "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "no time now", "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "I have not got time now to waste", "I do not have more time" ... even reproaching me that I do have time "I do not have as much time as you do", "You seem to have a lot of time, right?", "First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not.", "he does have a lot of time", "The editor in question, (...) besides having plenty of time" ... So, how can we know what is the right moment for you? Wikipedia can not be stopped because you do not have time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Very funny RichardWeiss. Specially the part when you say I attack trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca, who says that Wikipedia can't reflect what people think about THEIR OWN IDENTITY. So if you want to expose someone, start looking at the spanish ultranationalist you are defending here and there.-Theklan (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan I've removed the trans example. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing content, RichardWeiss?

Theklan, I am asking you to stop labeling me and attacking me, you have done it again, now labeling me as an “ultranationalist” and also without any proof.

"trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca" (???!!!!!!) Oh, my God, Theklan, what a way to distort the words, misrepresent the facts and take things out of context!!!

Why do not you provide diffs? You were referring here to these messages of mine, based on the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context:

• [56] If we allow Wikipedia to take into account the wishes of the person and how they want to be described at their whim, and not the realities, it would be a wreck for Wikipedia that would shake all its foundations. This violates all the Wikipedia policies and all common sense. (…) We can not allow people to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own objectives, in the case of this RfC of a political nature. (…) No one is denying that he is Catalan, the real situation is put in the right context: he is a Spanish from Catalonia.
• [57] His country is Spain, his nationality is Spanish. We have to establish the correct context per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, and in the body of the article, he can be called Catalan as many times as needed. It is explained and re-explained in this thread ... The nationality and not the ethnicities, is what has to appear in the first place. Ethnicity is added, in addition to nationality, if is relevant for the person in question, and for that reason we support adding "from Catalonia".

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Another wall of text from BallenaBlanca. ANI isn't the place to make content arguments, but as you've introduced it, you're completely wrong about how Wikipedia treats a person's self-identification. The principle here is that we do indeed give considerable weight to how a person describes themselves. It is essential in matters of gender, religion and ethnicity that we defer to an individual's wishes. In the case of regional identity, an individual from the Basque Country may choose to identify as Spanish or as Basque, just as I may choose to identify as English, or British, or as European. You have no right to contradict both reliable sources or an individual's self-identification to impose your view that they are uniformly "Spanish". What is more relevant to this discussion is that you have no right to edit-war your preferred nationalistic view that people from Spain can only be identified as Spanish into an article such as Kortatu who clearly identify as Basque ("{in their last record all the songs were sung in Basque)". Nor may you repeatedly re-post the same screed onto a user's talk page as you did at User talk:Iñaki LL. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: No, this is not the place to talk about this, in this you are right. I just replyed a specific message from Theklan, nothing more. But in the rest you are not right, what applies is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, except in exceptional cases and after RfC. This is being discussed at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, I invite you to give your opinion there. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you continue to make content arguments. As you wish. You are completely wrong about MOS:LEAD. Or at least lack understanding of the full guidance: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." A band that comes from the Basque region and sings in Basque – and is known for that – like Kortatu will quite sensibly be described as "a Basque band", not "a Spanish band from the Basque Autonomous Community", which is blatantly a nationalist formulation. The same goes for Jorge_Oteiza, a famous Basque artist, where you changed a Basque Spanish sculptor to a Spanish sculptor more than once. I could give the diffs of a dozen more examples of you removing "Basque" or changing it to "Spanish". So don't try and tell me you're not pushing an anti-Basque/anti-Catalan agenda, because the evidence is there for everybody to see from your edits. It's about time admins dealt with this. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that you have not read the full disucussions, otherwise you would not be saying this and you would not be reaching those erroneous conclusions by saying I am "POV pushing", discrediting me without reason when I am fulfilling what has been talked there. Is the administrator Yunshui also pushing their POV [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] ... ? In fact, you have not participated in the talk page until a few minutes ago [72], your first and only post till the date [73]. There is where you should continue discussing this topic, not here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page, so you try to discredit me. Pathetic. You have no idea what I've read and your assertion that I "would not be saying this" is completely without any substance or foundation. When you come to this notice board with unclean hands asking for admin action, you're going to have to justify your own actions in the dispute. You've edit-warred against multiple other editors and violated WP:TPG, and now you've made a complaint here in an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute. You want to imply that everybody has a POV except you, but uninvolved editors need only examine the history of an article such as Catalan independence referendum to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place. This discussion here is about your behaviour, not the tangent you started about content. Now address the issues of your conduct and see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please, stop your accusations, I am feeling harasssed by you, you are not fulfilling WP:AGF “with unclean hands”, “an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute” “to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place”, “see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't” and I do not understand your reactions, especially considering that you had never edited in that page nor in its talk page.

“You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page,” Sorry, but I have explained it in detail here, with links to the policies that I thought should be applied, although I apologized nonetheless if I made a with Iñaki LL for my mistake. Edited --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

“the tangent you started about content” Excuse me, it was not me, it was Theklan who started that. How can I defend myself against the accusations if I can not answer? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: If you don't want to have your actions examined and criticised, don't start ANI threads with unclean hands. AGF is not a suicide pact. You're in no position to try to play the "victim card", as you've been pushing your own POV no less than the other editors involved, and you've continually failed to answer the complaints I've made about your behaviour. It is not harassment to point out at ANI: (1) your poor conduct in edit-warring; or (2) your repeatedly making the same argumentative posts on another editor's talk page; or (3) your returning to an old dispute and making 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent. All of those are sanctionable, and you need to start revising your position, apologising here for your poor behaviour, and trying to convince uninvolved administrators that you won't do the same in the future. Otherwise I'll start compiling the diffs of your editing to make the case for you to be topic-banned from Spain-Basque-Catalan topics. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not care if my actions are examined and criticized. The problem is the tone and the attitude, that I feel as aggressive and assuming bad faith, and the misinterpretations.

For example, you are now saying that I did "10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent." Those reversions (btw not 10 but 9) had no relationship with Iñaki LL, they were motivated by 8 disruptive edits by Theklan and 1 by an ip. I just explained this here in detail, in response to your other message where you asked me for explanations about them. I think it's a very serious accusation and you should apologize.

I also do not understand why do you continue insisting on the edits on Iñaki LL's talk page, since I have already explained it here and apologized for my mistake on two occasions [74] and [75]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just saw that an administrator had already warned you that you were harassing me and attacking me, but you are insisting on the same behavior, with the aggravating circumstance that you are making mistakes that are harming me even more, as explained above. Details here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: on the contrary, you do care very much if you are criticised, and reply to it with walls of text, all of which fail to address the issues raised. Smoke and mirrors and I've seen it a hundred times before from POV-pushers. You don't mind dishing out the complaints but think that you should be immune to criticism. Well, you're not. This is ANI and you come here asking for administrative action, but don't like it when your actions are exposed as being even worse than those you are complaining about. WP:BOOMERANG would be a good page to read.

I object very strongly to your tone and attitude as well. You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air, and refuse to accept that your own behaviour (edit-warring, violation of TPG, retaliatory reverts) is something that can be criticised. You constantly misrepresent my examination of your conduct as "harassment", and you should be aware that false charges of harassment leave an editor open to sanction as well.

Stop writing in boldface - other editors can read your walls of text without any need to shove it down our throats.

Learn what it means to apologise - there's a good essay at WP:APOLOGY. A qualified apology is no apology at all. "I apologise if I made a mistake" is insincere and avoids making a genuine apology. Do you take us all for idiots? --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale... You seem to imply that @BallenaBlanca: covers himself behind walls of text. I must say that while the answers he provides are lengthy, I find them also relevant. I don't see them as some kind of grinding technique. Moreover, I don't see you as open and neutral as you state you are. You have a well defined opinion on the mather and I fail to see comments from you where you try to understand the behaviour from other editor with different opinions. I see you refer many times to wp policies when defending your views (reading them also takes a long time). And I see you tend to bring your opinions as "common sense". Claims like "Do you take us all for idiots?" don't help. Probably "Do you take me all for an idiot?" would come closer to what you mean. In any case, I want to bring to the discussion my experience with @Iñaki LL:. I was intervening on the discussion of Puigdamont's BIO. Then some aggressive user tried to discredit me for having given my opinion on the mather some 4 years ago (I forgot about it). I must say that Iñaki LL promptly chered those accusations. The user in question was a fraud account. I did not find Iñaki very friendly. And I see the same discrediting attitude being applied on a much larger scale to BB. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: calling me "patronising" is a personal attack. Retract it, please. I understand you are an inexperienced editor and don't appreciate our customs here, but you need to learn to comment on the edit, not the editor. How would you feel if I called you a "POV-warrior" because of your many edits to remove "Catalan", e.g. from Anna Gabriel i Sabaté, from Alexandre Deulofeu, from Antoni Gaudí, and from Carles Puigdemont? That's just looking at a few of your contributions. How many more of those have you done? Isn't your account just a single-purpose account devoted to removing the word "Catalan" from the encyclopedia? Of course you find BallenaBlanca's edits relevant; he shares your POV and mission. Of course you don't see me as open and neutral as I actually am, because a neutral POV like mine doesn't fit your aim of deleting the "Catalan" description from biographies of people who were or are notable for being Catalan. I don't need lectures from you on common sense. It is not common sense to say that Carles Puigdemont is not a Catalan politician, and yet that's exactly what you did. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a "fraud account", but you shouldn't be judging other editors by whether you find them friendly or not. Judge Inaki on his edits, just as folks will judge you on yours. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I write "I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale". I did not say anything about you as a person. I clearly mentioned I was talking about your statements. Didn't you write "You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air"?, Didn't you write "Do you take us all for idiots?" I would find that a personal attack. I just copy and paste your sentences. If you don't like the tone, you should not use it with others.

My account is very old. If you try to present me as single-purpose account go ahead. I have several interests and from time to time I'm interested in a sole topic for a long period. I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now. Nothing new.

Let me be clear: I don't know anything about you as a person. I only know that you can use some WP tools better than I do. Likewise, you know nothing about me. If you read my opinions you will see that I have a more nuanced viewed than what you described. And yes, I do revert edits when someone changes an article exactly when the topic is on tv.

When you start your sentences with "Of Course bla bla bla" you are assuming things regarding my motivations or me as a person. You don't know them so please don't. I did not lecture you on what common sense is. And just as a side note: I am aware of all that wp terminology, I just don't use it as much because I think that the comments can be more readable for people joining the conversations. The account was a clear case of WP:SOCK Arcillaroja (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: please read and take note of WP:LISTGAP, thanks. I look at your contributions before I make any judgement about you being an SPA. They certainly give that appearance, but naturally I could be mistaken. Perhaps you'd like to prove it to me? I am, of course, aware that you previously edited with a different account but do not disclose that. Still, that's up to you. The difference between you calling me a "nationalistic zealot" and me calling you the same, is that I edit on the topic of scuba diving, where I have written featured content, and have never edited on Spain/Basque/etc. topics. Whereas you seem to have spent quite some time changing "Basque" and "Catalan" into "Spanish" in a number of articles of notable Basques and Catalans. So how much credibility does that leave you with? --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS:Thanks for the advice on WP:LISTGAP. I'll try to follow it correctly. Could you please be more specific regarding another account? I only use my own account. I've been editing for about 10 years but I don't remember having another account. I'm not an active member as yourself, as I have said before and I'm not aware of all the rules and policies as you do. But you should stop discrediting me. Why do you think I have or had another account and for what would I do that? How is that relevant for this discussion? Please be specific. "I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now." It was not you who I had in mind on my previous comment. I point out that you acted like those "nationalistic zealot", NOT that you are one. I frankly don not care what you write about on WP. I don't spend much time on wp because unfortunately I'm not retired and I have a normal job, family and other obligations. But if you want to go on with SPA accusations, please be specific and prove it. "In all So how much credibility does that leave you with?" Are you trying to discredit me? Do you think I have to prove anything to you? are you planning on attacking me rather than my opinions? Go ahead, but perhaps it would be more wise to relax a bit and try to be less grumpy with other editors and be the way you want them to be with you. BTTW, please allow me some days to answer to your comments. Thank you. Arcillaroja (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rexxs for your contribution to this discussion, also to MPS1992 for the removal of repeated unhelpful, overbearing walls in my talkpage by BallenaBlanca.

For what is worth, the last time BallenaBlanca intervened in my talkpage reverting my removal of his walls (which he attempted to justify with WP guidelines and policies, I should remind [76]), I saw 20 notifications at a time in my alerts, at least 17 of them directly serial reverts made by BB in Basque articles that were quiet at the moment of erupting this dispute. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki, why do not you give all the information and once again you are limiting yourself to expose only one part, distorting the facts, and also again without providing any diff? (By the way, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?). As it is happening to me many times with you in the articles and their talk pages, when I deepen in your edits / claimings and contrast the data, the real facts and adjusted vision of the reality come to light. And then you take refuge in arguments such as "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "I have not got time now to waste in another discussion on WP policies", "I do not have as much time as you do", etc.

Let's see in this case:

I made edits in those pages about a month and a half ago, which you reverted with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO:

1. (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
2. (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor)
3. (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
4. (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing)
5. (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
6. (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
7. (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
8. (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr)
9. (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing)
10. (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
11. (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing)
12. (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor)
13. (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)

I had patience despite these multiple attacks. I respected your reversions so far because I was waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont was resolved, as I explained to you in detail here. I did not want to do any edit until I knew exactly what the correct attitude was.

It has been now when it has been clear and that's why I have recovered the previous versions, following the advice of the administrator Yunshui Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles." and his own reversions (I will not go back to paste all the links here, you have them a little above [77]), which seems you are ignoring despite the numerous explanations here, in other talk pages and edit summaries. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now claiming that your excuse for the retaliatory reverts is that you were waiting for the outcome of the RfC before making your reversions? The Talk:Carles Puigdemont #RFC on nationality concluded that "There is a clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician" on 15 June. So, please explain how that justified you consecutively removing "Basque" and "Catalan" descriptions from 10 articles on 6 July. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you really intepreting as something negative the fact that I have waited more time, until I have a certainty? This is very unfair, since it is the opposite: I have been very cautious and I have waited until I had clear ideas, that is, until I knew with certainty if the RfC about Carles Puigdemont was applicable to more articles or not. This has not been clearly discussed until July 4, motivated by the edits in which a user "sistematically changed the supposed nationality on the bio articles of a number of political personalities from the independentists spectrum" (see Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC). The administrator Yunshui pronounced about it: Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui (→‎Controversial use of above RfC) "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles. It covers the one case of how Wikipedia should describe Carles Puigdemont. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should affect all articles dealing with nationality - for that, you would need a site-wide RFC debated in a central location. Using the above RFC to justify sweeping changes to other articles is verging on disruptive."

These edits from 6 July that you are naming have no relationship with Iñaki LL. There are not 10 articles, but 9 (8 Basque, 1 Catalan). The 8 Basque are reversions of edits that the user Theklan made unilaterally, contrary to what was discussed and is being discussed in Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, in which he is participating. As you can see above, as explained by Yunshui, it is a disruptive behavior and therefore, my reversions are adjusted to policies.

In addition, I have not "removed" Basque and Catalan, it is a misinterpretation of my edits. What I did was apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, which specifies that the country and not the ethnicity is what should appear in the first place of the lead. I have already explained in this same thread here and here.

I will explain the reversions one by one, so that you have no doubt. I collapse it, so as not to overload the reading. Please, then do not protest and tell me they are "walls of text", you are asking me for details and I give them to you. I give the links to the diffs of my reversions, with the edit summaries and a small excerpts from the lead, so that you can see how I have not "removed" the allusions to Basque or Catalonia (and there are many more in the rest of the articles), but I have adjusted the nationality following the MOS. NOTE: the Basque country, despite its name, is not a country, it is an autonomous community of Spain, and Catalonia too.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, BallenaBlanca, stop citing me, stop the harassment against me. Note to Swarm: I have been cited three more times here today... what should I do? -Theklan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Theklan, I was just defending myself against an accusation and I had to give specific information. I thought it's more honest to ping someone to let them know that someone is talking about them. I will not ping you again. I apologize.

By the way, I just read your talk page, in which you've been talking about me and I would have liked if you pinged me, but you did not. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you twice, in two different messages, not three times. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that there is anyone uninvolved still commenting in this thread. The wise thing for those who are involved, would be to back away from this noticeboard and back away -- as far as you are able -- on the battleground articles. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just see that you have been talking about me in another place (without pinging me) and that the administrator Swarm warned you that you are committing "harassment" and "personal attacks" and that "Your own behavior in the thread was poor and counterproductive and I would ask you to refrain from escalating drama at AN / I like that in the future." "What you did in the AN/I thread was harassment. I'm sorry if you were pinged by someone there, but you made the choice to involve yourself, as well as the choice to use that as an opportunity to harass BellenaBlanca, for no other reason than that your personal beliefs differ and you have a personal issue about it."

These message are from 21:06, 7 July 2018 and 21:27, 7 July 2018 and your recent messages accusing me of "unclean hands", "pushing your own POV", " 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent", "retaliatory reverts" have been after that warning (on 15:59, 8 July 2018 and on 16:14, 8 July 2018). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I am under no obligation whatsoever to ping you when I mention your behaviour elsewhere. period. As for Swarm's request to me, I've taken it up with him directly. If you think that I'm wrong to characterise you as coming to ANi with unclean hands, then you'd better start explaining how I was able to quote chapter and verse of your own poor behaviour in the very disputes you came to complain about. That is the very definition of wikt:unclean hands. If you're claiming that multiple reverts which changed "Basque" or "Catalan" to "Spanish" was not pushing your POV, then please justify how you can claim that the reciprocal edits were pushing the opposite POV. Is it a case of one of those irregular verbs: "I have a legitimate position; You are pushing a POV"? And are you seriously asking a neutral observer to believe that your 9 reverts on 6 July were simply the result of waiting for an RfC that closed on 15 June? --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Yes, I do really hope that the neutral observers can interpret my explanations. Actually, I would like everyone to interpret them correctly.

On the subject of nationality, you have begun to comment on the talk page for the first time on July 7. You are repeating the same thing that has already been said and explained many times, as @Crystallizedcarbon: has told you "RexxS: You can review the RfC as many of these issues have been covered above". You are in your right, of course, and I do not question it, but IMHO you still have to go a long way to understand the whole situation and assimilate everything that has been talking about the issue for about two months [78] [79] [80]. Then you will understand why you are wrong when you interpret that I am "removing Basque and Catalan".

As you can see in the discussion, I am in favor of having a wide RfC [81] [82] to be able to definitely set a pattern for all the articles or the exceptions that should be made, to avoid more disputes. And as I have accepted the result of the previous one, I will accept this one. Meanwhile, what applies is the MOS. You can not reproach me for fulfilling it. It is very unfair. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: One of the problems that you are facing is that you don't recognise a neutral observer when one appears. I have no interest in arguing about nationality or citizenship, and I have no "dog in the fight" between Spanish and Basque/Catalan proponents. I am English and don't edit on the topics you are so heavily invested in. That does not, however, give you the right to dismiss my opinion simply because it disagrees with yours. You are attempting - just as on talk pages - to swamp a discussion until you wear out those who disagree with you. You have now made 19 posts to this thread, while I have made 8. Iñaki LL has made just 2. You have added well over four times the amount of text that I have posted. I have made no posts to this thread other than as a response to yours, and those were made because I do not believe that you are the innocent party and Iñaki is the villain. If administrative action should be the outcome here, I intend to make sure that neutral admins understand that Iñaki LL ought not to be singled out because he cannot find the time to respond to your constant walls of text. That is a tactic I can see you use regularly - a typical example would be Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have added more text in your 21 posts than all the other editors to that talk page combined. I am not wrong when I tell everyone that you are removing "Basque" and "Catalan" from articles, and I find it astonishing that would blatantly claim not to be doing so when anyone can look at these diffs from the last few days and see that you are not speaking the truth:

• Nestor Basterretxea] - you changed "Basque artist" to "Spanish artist"
• Arnaldo Otegi - you changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Joseba Sarrionandia - you changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• Negu Gorriak - you changed "Basque group" to "Spanish group"
• Jorge Oteiza - you changed "Basque sculptor" to "Spanish sculptor"

There are multiple other edits of yours where you changed |nationality=Basque to |nationality=Spanish and Catalan gets similar treatment. I'm not interested in debating with you whether you think you can justify those edits or not. That's a content debate and this board is for dealing with behaviour. Your behaviour is to remove"Catalan"/"Basque" and replace it with "Spanish" and your denial in the face of clear evidence does not do much for your credibility. I understand completely that other editors involved are making the reverse edits to yours, but that does not make their behaviour wrong and yours right. You are simply interpreting MOS very narrowly to suit your own POV. Others are entitled to interpret it more broadly: some will state that the Basque people constitute a nation, with their own language, culture, traditions and self-government. That would satisfy the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition of a "country", although it is clear that the sovereignty of the Basque region belongs to Spain. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to interpret MOS, as the RfC on Carles_Puigdemont (a "Catalan politician" by consensus) demonstrates.

What would be fair is for you to accept that the other side in this dispute has a POV that is equally as valid as yours; to accept that you can't force your POV on articles by edit warring; to accept that you should not fill article talk pages with so much text that nobody else has the strength to keep up with you; to accept that you should be striving to find consensus and common ground with those whose opinion differs from yours. Editing Wikipedia does not have to be a win-lose endeavour. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Again, you continue to misinterpret and distort my words.

I no longer know how to explain that I have done what was talked on the talk page "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles", that is, to use the ethnicity in the first place of the lead only in the case of Puigdemont ("Catalan politician"), in the rest of articles, to use the country ("Spanish x"). Is not it right? Do you want to reform the guidelines or discuss another interpretation of it? For that, an RfC will be opened and I will respect it as I am respecting that of Puigdemont. I did the same as the administrator did, it was not "my" opinion" nor "my" interpretation nor "retaliatory reverts", my behavior was not incorrect. Look at his edits, all with this edit summary "Precedent is not set by a single-article RFC" (Catalan, Basque... can be used anywhere else on the page, we have not removed them from there):

• Ibon Areso - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and architect" to "Spanish politician and architect"
• José Antonio Ardanza - Yunshui "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Sabino Arana - Yunshui changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• José Antonio Aguirre - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and activist" to "Spanish politician and activist"
• Bakartxo Tejeria - Yunshui changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• etc... (14 in total on July 4)

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: What nonsense. I have neither misinterpreted nor distorted your words. That's a personal attack and you know it. You're not only attacking every editor that disagrees with you, but you are wilfully avoiding addressing the issues with your behaviour that I have pointed out to you. Your refuge is to go off on a tangent again about content, and never to address the problems your behaviour causes. Yunshui has expressed his opinion about the result of an RfC not setting a precedent, but that's just his opinion. That carries no more weight than my opinion, which is that editors are free to observe precedent and base their arguments upon it. Is that clear enough for you? In the rest of the articles, editors should use whatever description is most appropriate to the subject's notability (location or nationality per MOS:OPENPARABIO). Is that clear enough for you? You're not the only person who can interpret MOS, and your POV leads you to a selective interpretation. Other people have a POV, just as valid as yours, and you have no right to insist that your interpretation is the only correct one. Editors have taken the time to express their opinions in an RFC that lead to Puigdemont being described as "a Catalan politician". That doesn't suit your POV so now you're trying to pretend that the arguments there don't apply anywhere else. Of course they do. You've lost the argument, so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments. No thank you. Yunshui is an editor just like you or me, and when it comes to content matters, it matters not one job that he's an administrator. You are mistaken to think that an involved admin's opinion on content carries any more weight than anybody else's. It doesn't. Would you like me to go through those articles and revert Yunshui's edits? I am entitled to by WPBRD, if I disagree with the changes, but I have held off from editing the disputed articles because I believe that it's better to discuss than to edit-war. I wish you were as restrained. When you make an edit, it is "your opinion", "my interpretation", and "your reverts", nobody else's. You are responsible for your own contributions, and it is no defence to say "I was just copying another editor". Your behiour is that of an editor determined to remove "Catalan" and "Basque" descriptions from people who are notable for being Catalan or Basque. That is not in accordance with our editing principles. You are imposing your POV on many articles, and have expressed no interest in seeking any compromise with the editors who disagreed with you. Rather, you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree with from editing the articles that you are controlling. I'll start compiling the diffs needed to seek a topic ban for you from those articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if people could stop using the "Yunshui did it, and he's an admin, so sucks to be you," argument. As it happens I'm personally in favour of the Catalan/Basque/whatever-the-subject-identifies-as side of the debate, but I'm also in favour of Wikipedia not being disrupted by people applying the result of a precisely-worded (leastways I did the best I could to make it article specific) RFA unilaterally across all articles. I have not used my admin tools in relation to this issue that I'm aware of, so I'd appreciate the retraction of that "involved" jab, but most of all, I'd appreciate it if folk could dispose of the idea that my admin trousers automatically make my edits the "right" version of the article. I am an editor here, nothing more. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

All right, Yunshui. No problem. For my part, I admit my mistake: I believed that since you were the mediator on the talk page, we had to follow your dictations. I apologize. Btw, I do know clearly that you have intervened as an uninvolved administrator.

Reply to @RexxS::

"so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments" I said specifically "an RfC will be opened" but it is not "me" who is asking for a new RfC, I did not start that proposal but @RichardWeiss: [83] and several other editors have seconded it Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC, me among them, because I think it is better to mark a clear guide to follow, regardless of what is approved, one way or the other, and I will comply it.

"you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree" This is not what I am saying and repeating. I just want to collaborate with him focusing on the contents and without him attacking me. I said this in the first message of this thread [84] and I repeated it yesterday [85]. Or are you calling me a liar?

How do I have to feel when you accuse me unfounded? It is not me who is attacking.

How can not I say that you are misunderstanding me and distorting what I say? I do not understand your aggressive attitude towards me.

Please, remember WP:AGF and check WP:POV railroad. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I do apologise (and sorry for pinging you once more). I did not express myself well and I've struck the 'involved' wording. To be clear: the general principle is that once you have made a series of edits to an article (such as BB's diffs), you are an involved editor and obviously cannot act as an uninvolved administrator. I hope you agree with my understanding.

@BallenaBlanca: You've now made 23 edits to this thread which is almost as many as all the other editor's comments put together. The volume of text you have added certainly exceeds the total of that from all other editors. The content dispute will not be settled here. It will be settled by a single RfC at a central location. I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont did not. It is typical of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to see legitimate criticism as "accusations". Each and every one of the criticisms I have made about your conduct (edit-warring, pushing a particular POV, and wearing down any disagreement by sheer volume of text) have been illustrated by ample examples. You are not the victim here, and I strongly reject your ad hominem characterisation of my justified complaints as "misunderstanding" and "distorting". I understand you perfectly well, and I've seen enough examples to recognise your editing pattern. You will not wear me down by reposting the same walls of text repeatedly, so you can either carry on this fruitless debate or you can start looking for compromises at the articles where you have so far displayed a singular lack of enthusiasm for seeking solutions acceptable to both parties to this dispute. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont". I am amazed, I can not believe what I am reading! @RexxS: Of all what you said, possibly this is the most offensive comment and with which you have definitely crossed the line of respect.

Besides, you're reproaching me for answering.

Therefore, excuse me, you can continue to slander me imagining the darkest intentions on my part as long as you want. I will not reply to any of your messages as long as you do not apologize and you respect WP:AGF. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Haven't you noticed that there is an RfC already started, no thanks to you. We'll see from your contributions there just how interested you are in finding a compromise and how interested you are in merely defending your fixed position. How dare you demand an apology from me for stating the truth? You're the only who owes the community an apology for starting this waste of time and for your 25 subsequent posts to this same worthless thread. --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I confess I passed on reading all of the above but I get the sense that there is not only one NPA breach there. Let me say this. Back in the fall, when the Catalan protests were raging, I worked on the page with Ballena, Inyaki and also some others (Carbon, Impru20, etc), and often what I ended up doing was mediating conflicts between one side that could basically be called Spanish sovereigntist and the other that is at least regionalist (see Basque nationalism, Catalan nationalism -- much of the acrimony is due to hangover of events from the Francisco Franco era, which is why this is a more volatile area than say English-Scottish topics). The sense I got was that despite hte accusations of "being nationalist" hurled back and forth above, neither Ballena nor Inyaki are the sort of the tattooed soccer hooligans you might imagine -- they're actually both very productive editors in their respective domains. My feeling is that both are "defensive" on the rather emotive issue -- for example, Ballena would react very negatively to portrayals of Spanish police as abusive and present sources (which to be fair were from RS) portraying Catalan protestors as violent, which would cause Inyaki to become defensive and present more sources (also RS) either mitigating these or reinserting ttext about police abuse, and the "defense" cycle would continue. There was never an independent POV push by either party that wasn't in reaction to something. I noticed WP:NOTHERE POV warriors on both sides, neither of these two was among them.

Well many months have passed since I stopped editing in the topic area but I believe the same trajectory probably continued. The central issue was a mutual inability to WP:AGF plus the gradually worsening personality conflict (both sides consider the other to be Spanish/Basque nationalists and loyal only to that, rather than also loyal to our collaborative project of an online encyclopedia -- which I actually believe both to be). I'd recommend to both to stay out of their area of conflict for a month or so -- you'll notice how much nicer life is without constant Wiki wars. They're really a waste of time and even when you actually are a POV pusher, they're kind of futile.--Calthinus (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Thank you very much for your feedback, you are very kind. I really appreciate your opinions, I consider that you are a neutral and very valid editor. You are right in many of your observations, but I would like you to see how the situation is now (see for example this and this) and how I am trying by all means to reason calmly with Iñaki LL, but he usually reacts with little tranquility, as he himself says "Admittedly, at times I got bit on my nerves."

I just want him to calm down and he answer calmly, objectively and without personal attacks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you definitely do deserve credit for trying to work it out as collaborators on his talk page BallenaBlanca. Iñaki LL did make a mistake not to engage you there (though I don't think that deserves a block). Looking further at this it seems a lot of the worsening of the dispute came as a result of the dispute about Carles Puigdemont's identity -- honestly, that is just a waste of time for all parties, you expended 10K or so of talk page argument text over a couple words which don't really even matter to readers, and both sides managed to alienate each other (for what its worth, it is true that Wiki policy prefers mentioning citizenship in the lede versus ethnicity -- but personally I think this should be amended for the special case of those who have strong separatist identities).

A lot of the "extra" commenters here seem to have made this thread itself a lot worse. I see one was blocked. "Unclean hands" is something I wouldn't say to even someone I wanted permabanned. Another two went into an argument about whether someone identifying as "Basque" and not Spanish was legitimate or not -- an argument that is frankly ridiculous to have (who gave either of you the right to say whose identity is valid or not?), especially on an ANI thread. This thing has gotten so long partially due to that, it's not really fair to expect mods to put the time into reading it all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight for those who don't have English as a first language, the phrase "unclean hands" is a legal term-of-art with a precise meaning. It is an equitable defence which argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable remedy because of their own behaviour prior to the complaint. My point in this case is that I mean BallenaBlanca's editing was just as much a contributory factor to the dispute as Inaki's. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was also tactless to say, especially for those who aren't native speakers of English let alone English legalese (BB is in the biomedical field I believe). Actually the use of legalese when it is not relevant to the topic (i.e. a law article) for content conflicts is... not civil, in my opinion (it is by its very nature a confrontational form of discourse). We all make mistakes, it's okay, it just shouldn't have happened. --Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I object to your criticism. The term "unclean hands" is used regularly on these noticeboards, and I am not going to be held responsible for your failure to understand what is common usage here. A quick search shows 195 instances of the phrase's use on ANI, on ArbCom, and in the behavioural guideline Wikipedia:Gaming the system as well as the essay Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - each of which are recommended reading before filing at ANI. Please be kind enough to do your homework before pontificating in future. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on calming this RexxS and Calthinus. I would have two small points on your last edit, Calthinus, that are on my opinion the two main factors here. I think Iñaki LL (and also me), assume that we have a POV on some subjects, but BallenaBlanca doesn't think his reverts or editwarring if also reflecting his own POV. It would be a clear case of WP:TEND (as I see it). BallenaBlanca thinks (WP:AGF) that he is only defending the right interpretation of the MoS, but this was pretty clear not to be the case in Talk:Carles Puigdemont. For me, it would be enough to read him saying he has, indeed (and obviously, by the way) a POV in the subject.

I would also like to note that identifying someone as "Basque" or "Spanish" is not ridiculous, as identifying someone as male or women (or whatever) is not ridiculous for some people. If we all understand that, this discussion, the editwarring and the AN/Is would be over.

Once again thanks for your patience and help on de-escalating this. -Theklan (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Should clarify -- what is "ridiculous" to me is for multiple users to have an argument (on an ANI not about that user!) over whether another user has a right to identify as Basque and not Spanish "because Basque is not a nationality". That's their right alone. The ethnicity/nationality of subjects of wiki articles are another (largely futile, see also Nikola Tesla...) issue, but obviously challenging someone's identity to their face is considered by most people to be offensive. While I don't think challenging the identity of another user is technically a WP:PA, it's pretty obviously not socially acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not get all the details above, as I said to BB at the moment prior to igniting this incident, I am not stationary now and adds difficulty for me to gather or answer to all relevant details. Calthinus, your work to calm down the atmosphere is appreciated and your contribution of great value, it is no doubt well meant, still let me disagree.

The issue is that there is an editor who takes it as a self-assigned duty to go to articles where he has no thorough understanding and has actually contributed nothing, to impose a contended vision of his in which according to him "Spanish" is tantamount to NPOV and "Basque" is marked and second rank or irrelevant or not worth appearing in the lede, removing key identity information. Or he may claim "per MOS" just like this [86] in which the "per MOS" in the edit summary might as well be "per WP Principles", or "per NPOV", or whatever comes to BB's mind really, when it is just "Expanded", paraphrasing it, "I am adding a new piece of information and referencing it", which is the accurate and helpful edit summary for other contributors to have a clue.

Furthermore, after forcing repeatedly a wall into another editor's personal page (me), citing WP:TALKNO [87], he decides that he will open an Incident... against me (!). He goes on to do up to circa 15 reverts removing "Basque" and adding "Spanish" instead in articles where I had edited not long ago (I guess that is also per NPOV!), and I receive up to 17 alerts (notifications) all of a sudden, which has never happened to me so far.

Note also that in the edit summaries where BallenaBlanca adds Basque → Spanish, he cites "See Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC"[88]. Well, it is/was an ongoing debate, nothing is conclusive, and hence it cannot provide support to neither option.

BB keeps adding walls that knocks out editors out of tediousness. Well that very hint ("be concise, Ok?" ) and request of clarity was exactly what I added to his talk page, [89] to which he responded with an unhelpful wall in my talk page [90]. Sorry if I have been too lengthy above, I had to collect all the ideas that I think are relevant to the circumstances in which this Incident started. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You have just written a wall of text ... You have done it to explain yourself, sometimes it is not possible to be brief.

About the reversions, you're not right. Also, you're taking them as an attack when it's not like that (it's the problem of not assuming good faith). See this explanation: [91]

I have started this incident because I have grown tired of you misunderstanding and unreasonably attacking me. It is very easy to accuse as you have done and not provide evidence. I'm still waiting for you to prove what I asked for.

I remain willing to collaborate with you. See [92]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's ok Iñaki LL, you're not the only one who posts walls here. Well I have been slightly idiotic in this thread myself. I'll be more clear: I really doubt that admins will hand out bans to anyone in this thread. However, if you guys -- and all the others in the topic area that I have noticed when I edited the area -- continue down your current path, the long term result is going to likely be that Catalonia affairs (possibly also Basque) will be covered by discretionary sanctions like India-Pakistan, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine and Armenia, etc. When and if that happens, mods are not going to want to go through the history of this all (believe me there is a lot)-- instead they will simply start handing out sanctions and/or topic bans like candy until the headache dies down (remember, I edit the Balkans, I've seen it). Personally, I don't want that to happen (though I confess it may become necessary), as we lose capable editors from the area, and it will also chase away some new editors from the area. Truth is you both have your own personal POVs (so do I) and emotions about the issue, both of you do also authentically care about the quality of encyclopedic coverage there. You will never "win" against the other, instead you will boht "lose" (definitely a lot of time and sanity, possibly editing privileges). If you want to "win", stay away from wars over nothing (if X-Basque/Catalan/Galician accomplished person is describes as or becomes just "Basque/etc" or just "Spanish" or Martian, reverting this will not help you even if you were solely trying to convince the reader becuase this doesn't convince the reader of anything). Each others' editing habits also aren't as important as your ability to get along in the long run. Attempts to ban the other side will get either both of you banned or neither in the most likely scenario -- admins are humans and tend to prefer the "safest" scenario. It's good that there are both sides there to balance each other out, in the end the articles affected are better in the long run because of it (better source checking, etc...) -- if we ignore the temporary issues of disruptive edit warring and the POINTy COATRACK sections that occasionally appear. You don't have to like each other, you just have to pretend to in public enough so that you don't end up liking each other even less.

Well speaking of walls, that's it from me. I'm not perfect myself. Perhaps I haven't actually be helpful here. I hope I have, but fear I haven't. We'll see I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Calthinus, you are always very valuable and you help a lot.

I'm not looking for a ban for Iñaki LL. I just want him to stop attacking me, to focus on the content and not comment on me in the article's talk pages, as he was warned [93].

Notice how on that same page of the Catalan referendum I'm talking to another editor, we both have disagreements sometimes but we both argue civilly, calmly and focusing in the content and the sources, without accusing each other or being continually wielding a POV pushing (in fact, none of us says this) and recognizing our mistakes or when the other is right [94] [95]. And we managed to reach agreements and edit productively allowing the encyclopedia to move forward avoiding eternal disputes. Why can not Iñaki LL do the same ...? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, please do not project on others what is your own fault. The fact that Aljullu shows such a patience, does not detract from your overbearing attitude and continuous hurdles you put to smooth editing in this article. However, since you cited him, he may want to testify to his experience.

As I have said, I find your editing and attitude as extremely problematic. Not only have you shown a much contested attitude and editing in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have edited from the very beginning, but you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response, where you have never edited but I have (articles of the serial diffs added by you above).

Picking holes in just about every formal aspect, like the mines you claim above in response to your serial substitution attempt from Basque to Spanish does not do you favour, it rather brings attention to your activity, more so when it clearly alienates the Basque community and it is clearly questionable from a knowledge (you are trying to remove it) and diversity point of view. This is an issue at a par with gender or religion and should not be taken lightly. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response", "attitude as extremely problematic", "a much contested attitude" ... Do you see what I mean? You continue assuming bad faith and without being able to answer without attacking me.

Please Iñaki, do you want to solve this? I continue to offer you my willingness to collaborate with you, you just have to respond calmly and without personal attacks.

On the Spanish regionalism topic, you continue without understanding me no matter how much I explain that it's just a matter of Wikipedia policies in a very specific place of the lead section, nothing more. Everything else are your own interpretations of my supposed "intentions", as saying "a knowledge (you are trying to remove" (?!). An RfC has already been opened, where you can give your opinion [96].

P.S.: Since you mentioned it, learn from the patience of other editors, we all need it. Anyway, what you call "patience" is not just "patience", but the correct procedure in Wikipedia: editing with respect, discussing the different points of view focusing on the content and not on the editor, politely and calmly. There are longer conversations and shorter conversations, it depends on the subject in question.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Repeated blind reverts at Wonder Woman 1984 – 186.167.251.225, 186.167.243.187, 186.167.245.171, 186.167.248.216, 186.167.242.81, 186.167.244.238. Use dynamic IPs, all from Municipio Libertador, Caracas, Venezuela. No explanation in edit summaries, nor is IP willing to discuss it.

Edits in chronological order :

July 4: [97], IP

July 5: [98], IP, [99]

July 7: IP, [100]

July 8: [101], [102], IP, [103], IP, [104], talk, IP

--Let There Be Sunshine 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there has been no action here. If this activity continues, there are two possible recourses that you can initiate: 1) Post a request for page protection with an explanation more than its an edit war and/or 2) Post a sockpuppet investigation request. I would first use WP:WHOIS tools to see if they are coming from the same area and what evidence you have that these are the same people. This could include: 1) single-user accounts that only edit Wonder Women, 2) they make the same edits, 3) are from the same city (per WHOIS), 4) use the same language, etc. But they must be applicable to the situation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Erescholar potential heavy bias in editing Eritrea related pages

I noticed some articles related to Eritrea have sections that are noticeably not neutral, or conflict with the tone of the article. After checking the logs, I discovered User:Erescholar has made many contributions on these pages, and from his edit descriptions and the edits themselves, may be editing these pages from a biased viewpoint.

Special:Contributions/Erescholar

Here are some quotes from his contribution log, and some details on specific revisions:

• ""struggle" changed to "The Struggle". It is more appropriate to identify is as such because when Eritreans say he joined GEDLI, every body knows he joined that particular STRUGGLE."

• "Replaced "war for Independence" with "armed struggle for Independence" because it is the appropriate description"

• "Just clarified that Isaias and others sent to China for training were not technically "soldiers" but liberation fighters, who were called Tegadelti in the Eritrean Tigrinya language"

• "Simply removed the nonsensical grades of "2.6 to 4". First, nobody with a low 2.6 GPA can be admitted to the College of Engineering. Next, who cares of his GPA?"

• "Just semantic refinements. This is important for those who wish study the history of the Eritrean people. The STRUGGLE, or "Gedli" in Tigrinya, changed the thinking of the Eritrean people forever."

• "Isaias joined an Eritrean Liberation Front that was engaged in an Armed Struggle for Independence. He did not join an "Eritrean War of Independence". There was no "war" at the time he joined."

• "He don't join a war. Isiais Afwerki joined an Eritrean Liberation front, or the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence"

• "There was never a "war" for independence"

• "Removed the mention of Isaias' mother as "a descender of immigrants from Tigray province". I smell evil political agenda in this uncorroborated statement. Suffice it to say that "she was born in Enderta". Did Isiaias father meet her in Enderta?"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=798248487 <--Altered sourced text and called it "evil political agenda"

• "The "Eritrean War of Independence" is a gross misnomer to the genuine Eritrean people's Armed Struggle for Independence. There was never a "war" per se between the Eritrean liberation fighters and the occupying Army of Ethiopia. It was an Armed Struggle."

• "Amnesty International is a corrupt organization that is paid to disseminate false information for some spy agencies of countries. To allege that 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned in the small country Eritrea is a FABRICATION that belies logic."

• "Removed the statement alleging that a UN panel accused Isayas Afwerki of running a reign of terror. This is a LIE. This never occurred"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787778368 <-- In fact, it did occur, according to the cited source, that a UN panel said that. Full report: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIEritrea/Pages/ReportCoIEritrea.aspx

• "Removed the quote attributed to Amensty Inernational that alleges that over 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned. This is a pure fabrication."

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787777924 <--This is a sourced statement from a reputable organization he removed

• "No evidence of Isayas failing an exams at College of Engineering and no evidence as this was cause for joining the ELF"

• * According to http://www.newsweek.com/who-isaias-afwerki-eritreas-enigmatic-dictator-515761 an extract from "Understanding Eritrea: Inside Africa's Most Repressive State by Martin Plaut": "Isaias’s studies did not progress well and he failed his June 1966 exams and had to repeat his year. Without funding for food or lodging it was not a tempting prospect. Isaias decided to leave to join the liberation movement then fighting for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia." Book source on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=LVAjDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT5&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q&f=false

• "To call the 30-year-old armed liberation struggle as "civil strife" is misleading and WRONG. "Civil strife" is what occurred between the ELF and EPLF in the 1970's

• "Removed uncorrobarated information of his parents birthplaces and innuendoes about Afwerki's relationship to TPLF and Meles"

• * The information he removed about the father's birthplace was re-added at some point and is in the current article.

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=610334760 Removed some cited information, and information that wasn't cited but could have had a "citation needed" tag added. Lots of information removed in this edit.'

• "Basically removed inuendoes, lies and hearsays. Only facts should reside in Wikipedia. People with an agenda should use other mediums"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=594048201 <-- Extreme "whitewashing" of article, removed lots of information (including cited information)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=579062574 <--- Rewrote article adding unsourced information while clainimg "Just rearranged to make it more readable"

• "54% to 45% ratio is the most logical, realistic and defensible number. To say that Christians are twice as many as Muslims (or vice versa) is a very damaging misinformation. And it has to stop"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542101963 <-- Basically just made up some new numbers

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542099872 <-- Rewrote section to present a non-neutral point of view without giving any citations

• "Removed an unnecessary inuendo totally outside the life of the subject in question"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=538761994 <-- What was actually removed was a cited paragraph containing legitimate information

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=464789021 <-- Added uncited text

• "Improved english; removed lie about "10" of 11 of the G-15 being dead; removed info about Isaias' mother parents because this is unverified and has some evil intent"

All in all, this user has been editing these related pages for quite a few years now, removing useful information and inserting information that makes Eritrea and related subjects appear in a positive manner. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there have been some issues with the contributions by this user, who has their own slant on things. But, I don't see any attempt to try to talk to this user. Instead, you came straight to ANI.

In addition, it would be helpful to be familiar with {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} for those discussions. For instance, the information about the mother is from a cited source, so it is verifiable. If the user is trying to remove content because he/she believes it not to be true, then there should be a discussion about this on the article talk page... with the user providing sources to support their opinion. Basically, it seems that the user is making edits based upon their own personal opinion, or original research - versus using cited sources. Reliable secondary sources are the foundation for edits made to Wikipedia.

Can you try talking about these issues with the user? Also, where the user is making changes that are in disagreement with the cited sources, they can be warned on their user talk page of disruptive editing using a template, like {{Uw-disruptive1}} (it starts with #1 and goes up from there if the user continues to make disruptive edits).

So far, though, they have not been told that their edits are disruptive and my guess is that this would be a surprise to them, because they have a different slant on things. But, focusing on the need for reliable sources for edits should be the starting point. And, that they shouldn't remove cited information unless they can show with sources why it should be removed. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message here to get you started.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not the Wikipedia police. I have notified the administrators of a user that is editing wrongly, and it's up to the admins if they want to do something about it. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I will say the changes you have made recently have greatly improved the content. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, regarding the line-by-line review and edits to Isaias Afwerki.

I don't know if you noticed, there were no administrators that jumped on this topic. Why, you may ask? I think it's because there was no effort to try and address the problem yourself before coming here - and then you dumped a long list of issues without trying to summarize them into short sentences with diffs. Please see "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." at the top of this page. It is your responsibility to try to resolve issues before posting a message on ANI.

See for instance WP:BRD. There aren't enough administrators to manage all the edit wars and user learning curves that take place here on Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aggressive POV pusher

• Ajackson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [105] or American politics [106][107] or both [108][109][110]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the user's relatively short edit history reveals a pattern of taking breaks of several days, particularly when their edits are challenged, so it seems unlikely to me that they will respond here. (Maybe this suggests a sock-puppet? I don't have any solid reason to believe so, though.) I think administrators should act based on the already-available information. Also, FWIW, here is a ARBPIA 30/500 violation from them that has not been reverted yet. --2601:142:3:F83A:A53F:3EA1:283:8C27 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ‎Stefka Bulgaria

• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user insists on pushing for his contested edits despite opposition of three other users. He's been warned to reach consensus before reverting his changes but he doesn't comply. In this edit I stated that this section must be integrated into other sections of the article because the article is chronologically ordered among other reasons. He soon restored the section by a fallacious reasoning along the line that it is not the subject history that gives the context to this section but rather it is this particular section that gives context to some half a century length of history! Taking it to the talk, I asked the opinion of another involved editor. Stefka however came back restoring the disputed content. Other involved users agreed that this section called "suppression ..." must be eliminated because it also represents a content fork. The section along with other disputed content is neutralized by the other involved editor, yet Stefka comes back restoring everything again including the section on suppression pretending that it was only the location of the section that was disputed not itself! By the time he is warned both in the edit description and in the talk not to do more revert wars against consensus but he comes back and reverts again against consensus by making a fallacious reference to my comment on talk! I must stress that this is only one segment of the article in which he has engaged in edit/revert wars with other users. He stubbornly defies demands on the talk to achieve consensus before pushing his contested edits. Such behavior has completely hampered our efforts to improve this article. To have testimony of other involved editors I also ping @Pahlevun and Mhhossein: --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For WP:AIV, not really here. IWI (chat) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you! Does that mean I should take this to WP:AIV myself? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: yes and they’ll probably block the person. IWI (chat) 10:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the user's problem is behavioral hence ANI is a suitable place for his misconducts. Among his disruptive edits and his ignoring the talk page discussions, just see this example: He removed a figure from the lead since he thought one of the sources was not reliable, while the material was cited to three sources! I think he's now hounding the nominator. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather, it is users Mhhossein and Expectant of Light who work as a duo to push POV in order to create "consensus" on certain pages, removing reliable sources per previous discussions at WP:RSN. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhhossein Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I told you several times it is not about reliability of sources but context, weight and location of statements from a source. Moreover an otherwise reliable source may make certain claims that border on fringe. Not everything a reliable source says must be included in pages. Finally, this is your consistent disruptive editing which is the problem. You've been warned several times before this ANI but don't listen. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

More revert wars and defiance of consensus-building. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Two iranian users ganging up on a user who's posting negative things about Iran? Never seen that before! 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "posting negative things" about any country but building a neutral encyclopedia through collaboration. But Stefka has been defiantly pushing to make certain POVs stand out in the article against the long-standing version which had been qualified as B class. It is all welcome to improve articles, but not making your favored views somehow stand out through content fork. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The most baffling part is that I'm actually quoting directly from the same sources Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are using in other parts of the article, but they keep removing this info (which has already been verified at RSN as reliable) based on the "consensus" of three heavily involved Iranian editors. Expectant of Light actually stated on the article's Talk page that "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" (referring to my edits outlining the persecution of the subject of the article by the current Iranian government, which again, were backed by reliable sources per previous discussions). If this isn't POV pushing, I don't know what is. It's making it very difficult to include any sort of neutral information into the article. Gaming the system by ganging up for POV pushing should not be. Need advice here please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, you're the single biggest case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I have encountered on Wiki! And you are now engaging in personal attacks to justify your ceaseless disruptive editing in the page. Whether us involved editors are Iranians doesn't matter. You have to be able to discuss, make your point, achieve consensus and then post your edits! But when you don't, but instead try to highlight pro-MKO views in the article and make them stand out, it seems clear that it is you POV-pushing not us! As for calling this "a vile terrorist cult" that's not my POV, there have been several credible sources that have described the group as a cult which are mentioned in the page. An honestly how else do you describe an Stalinist organization which brainwashes and mentally manipulates its members, forces its members to avoid any all emotional relations separating the members' children from parents who join them, staged an ideological coup killing its Muslim members in 1976, has been involved in killing spree against innocent people over the streets of Iran, fought against their own country in alliance with Saddam, was involved in brutal repression of minorities in Iraq, have been bribing French and US politicians to turn a blind eye on their dark record and give them political protection in France, gives money to unwitting tourists to attend their highly-touted meetings where they sell them as supporters of the MKO to make themselves look popular, have been engaged in a great deal of fraud and money-laundering and I can go on and on! Note all of these are supported by the page content already. So unless you are a MKO PR agent yourself, I can't otherwise explain your stubborn refusal to have this page represent the mainstream facts about this group or your attempt to put the legitimate Iranian government at par with such a despicable terror group. As for your other claim of selective using of sources, so far I have not used any source in other than adding summaries from a highly authoritative Iranian work on this organization that you kept removing. Other than that I have not added or used any source! And I'm presently focusing on two issues, the lead and the section on repression. However your disruptive conduct have prevented us from moving forward to other sections. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My focus has been in quoting from the same reliable sources the article already has, not bickerin or name-calling, as I've already pointed out to you on the article's Talk page. I've said everything I needed to say on my previous message. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

And no longer any comments on "vile terrorist cult"? Your concern is to push your desired version by cherry picking only certain views from the wide range of facts and views covered in this long entry and give them higher weight than they deserve. In the meantime you keep saying that you "only want to quote reliable sources" as if anyone was ever opposed to quoting reliable sources per se! I suggest the arbitrating admin issuing a strong warning or temporary sanctions on your account for your disruptive behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) * Comment: This report is not regarding content dispute. It's aimed addressing the reported user's misconduct in the article. The article is locked or he would be consistently do his disruptive edits. There are many diffs showing his behavior and I'm not going to mention all of them. However:

- User's major issue is that he doesn't tend to follow the consensus building procedure ignoring his WP:ONUS. See the article talk page.

- Although he was told about COI [111][112], he used to remove well sourced contents on a bogus basis, i.e. source's COI.

- He used to forge self-made materials into the article. See Failed verifications and cherry picking. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Stefka Bulgaria, you are not listening - including about the point that just because a source is generally a reliable source doesn't mean that they are always appropriate - or the entire content from an article is appropriate. My suggestion is that you try and work with other editors, discuss issues civilly on the article talk pages, and realize that just because you want to add something to an article doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Working on an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that one comes in with an idea of what needs to be said and then finds the sources to support that position. That is WP:POV and it sounds like what you are doing. That's a problem.

Is it possible for you to work with other editors in a more collaborative manner, not cherry-pick points that fit your POV, and consider the guidelines more fully?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) per comment below

SNUGGUMS Did you accidentally archive off this section? That's the only reason I can think of as to why an active conversation would have been archived without any comment at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

added a bit to clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that CaroleHenson; this thread definitely wasn't supposed to be archived. I meant to click something that was already closed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article is protected and users must submit requests for edits, which sounds wise. And, there is a sockpuppet investigation here of Expectant of Light and Mhhossein, started by Stefka Bulgaria.

So that could be a good cooling off period. I am striking out my comments above. I still think that they are valid, but if this is a sockpuppet scenario to gang up against a user, that's not cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusations will be certainly disproved and then I believe Stefka should face more severe sanctions for this libel after he's been shown to be a disruptive editor. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you're right and it is disproven. That was my first take when I saw that a sockpuppet investigation was opened. There have been enough circumstances, though, to at least question if it's the case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson My objective here is to work with other editors, but this is deffenitely a "ganging up" situation where these users are acusing me of the exact same thing they're doing: cherry picking info, and not allowing any other type of historic background into the article that disagrees with their vision of the group as a "vile terrorist cult". If you look at the article's editing history and it's Talk page you'll see what I mean. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make it easier, this is the sort of text they're fighting so hard to remove:

According to Ervand Abrahamian, it was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam that “differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples.”

This paragraph oulines why the People's Mujahedin first started to have issues with the Islamic Republic of Iran; it's an important piece of information (which these editors have dismissed as "outdated", which just does not make any sense considering Abrahamian is an expert on this topic and actually lived through the Iranian revolution!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Jonghyun original wiki has been changed

Hi I many times have visited the ‘Jonghyun ‘ wiki. I noticed a week ago?

It has changed.

The overview is now Kim Hyun Joong and the songs are still jonghyuns

. Sadly it is not possible now to see all the info that was very informative there, filmography, tv series he starred in. It is very odd and further whoever did this has made it now look that Kim hyun joong died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

My suggestion is to get it changed ac I am dire Kim Hun joong wouldn’t like to think that he died!

I have no idea how to correct whatever had occurred. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a complaint about Kim Jong-hyun (singer). I can't tell exactly what you want done about the article, but it's already semi-protected. If there's some factual error in the article, you can discuss it on Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Use {{Edit semi-protected}} on that talk page to make edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to say he's not dead? Because CNN says he's dead. Do you have information we don't? --Tarage (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Are you perhaps talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Jong-hyun? His article still exists. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've done some more research and I think you just aren't understanding that yes, the article shows Jonghyun, and yes, he is dead. He died last year. This is not a mistake. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) As far as I can tell Kim Jong-hyun was a South Korean K-pop star who went by the stage name "Jonghyun". [113] He committed suicide late last year. His article is at Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Another person, Kim Hyun-joong, is a South Korean actor, singer and songwriter who is still alive, and has his own article, which does not indicate that he used a stage name. The article Jong-hyun is a disambiguation list of the many people with similar names. A Google search on "Jonghyun" [114] brings up articles on the dead singer,
  So, which article is the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Those two names, combined with the fact that they are both Kpop singers... can make for a very confusing situation. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] Glad I'm not the only one confused; they first brought this up on my talk page where I told them to ask on here. He is suggesting there is some kind of double article where the two people's articles have somehow been mixed. I have no idea and wouldn't mess with BLPs to this extent. I have no idea what exactly this editor is suggesting, does anyone know? IWI (chat) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This came up at the Teahouse a couple of days ago as well. If you look at Jong-hyun, you will see that there are at least four K-Pop singers and an actor who use this shortened name. I do not yet see evidence that any of those articles are messed up, but I could be wrong. What I do see is a lot of devoted fans trying to say that the most famous guy who died last December is still a member of the band, is an "angel" instead of being dead, that it is disrespectful to say that he is dead, and so on. All unacceptable for an encyclopedia, but fine for fan sites, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] I recall one of these a few years ago. So there is no mistake on the pages that you can see at all? Just a misunderstanding by the editor or something? IWI (chat) 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I am no expert on K-Pop but I do not see the problem that Jjong90 is reporting. But there are a lot of articles that are related to these different entertainers called Jonghyun or variations of that. It would be helpful if Jjong90 could tell us precisely which article has (or had) the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

B I think part of the issue that the user noted is that back in 2016, the article had a full-fledged Television section, which is now missing. I suppose it was removed because it's unsourced. I'm not sure what the issues regarding the singer's death are about, though. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved comment that had been added into it's own section: "Jonghyun Wikipedia is back to normal on Google":–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks I don’t know what happened, however, when you search Jonghyun now , his wiki with photos/ overview etc is now showing. you can also click on his link Brilliant as Kim Hyung Joong isn’t showing now.

I had a screenshot saved to show you the initial problem but couldn’t upload anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably an issue with Google Knowledge Graph then? –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am starting to think that this is a Knowledge Graph issue. Jjong90, if you are referring to the information box that Google displays following some Google searches, please be aware that Google's bots display that information, and that they get much of it from various Wikipedia articles. However, Wikipedia has no control, power or responsibility for Google's Knowledge Graph. Only Google is responsible for its inaccuracies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR

Hackeraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote one article RadioBaadal in very poor English. The rest of his activity is dedicated to writing an article on himself (Hackeraj, Talk:Hackeraj and Draft:Hackeraj). The latest edition which suggests the user in question is not here to help build the encyclopedia, but to promote his own activities as a 'hacker'. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) RadioBaadal has been nominated for deletion, and so far it's not looking good. The last attempt at an article about themself was deleted and there were posted messages about the problems about writing a biography about oneself at Wikipedia. I don't see any further editing right now. I am not sure what should be done at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just had a thought The Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, regular tutorial, or writing better articles might be helpful. I'll post a message on their user page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:CoolRichWiseGuy

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

This user is repeatedly changing names without references [115], sometimes apparently based on what common naming systems are [116] [117], after a 4im warning by Dr.K. for adding unsourced content. As they don't appear to have made any non-mainspace edits, I think a block is necessary to force them to engage with the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am a little confused, I see just a final warning (no preceding warnings) on the user's talk page to stop adding content without sources, and no other conversations in their talk history or that of any of the articles. There's no mention of WP:COMMONNAME with the user and all of a sudden they are thrust into an ANI discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Far too early to be dragging a newish user to ANI. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No reason for confusion if you follow their mass edits in many musicians' articles changing the middle name of many people without providing citations. They were so prolific performing these mass changes that to stop them I went directly to level 4 warning. Now they have resorted to socking. I will open an SPI soon. Please stay tuned. Dr. K. 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please tune in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoolRichWiseGuy. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr.K., You had not thought of giving them a specific message about the nature of the problem? And, are you sure that when they are inserting middle names that they are not getting them from cited sources in the article? I am not say they are, but have you had a discussion to know that?

When did this become a sockpuppet issue, too?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Before giving a level 4 I did the due diligence and checked the article and Google for the middle names, and I could not verify many of them. Please check other editors' similar reversions of the account. Surprisingly, the SPI just turned negative. Dr. K. 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Manuel Rosenthal, I found an obituary in The Telegraph that confirms that his birth name was Emmanuel Rosenthal. Let's be cautious here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely in at least one of the cited sources here, too, from the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have had no conversation that I can see getting into the specifics that are here. I think this should be closed out until you do so. Why not give them an opportunity to get the details about what the problem is. In other words, you jumped to a relatively generic template, final warning no less, without the details.

It's mean to do this to a new user without giving them the opportunity to learn and mend their ways. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree. But like I said before, this editor was performing massive unsourced changes at a very fast pace. I feel that in such circumstances, a level 4 unsourced warning is fair. Despite the warning, the user reverted again in some articles, without providing any sources. Dr. K. 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It also looks like they are tag teaming with themselves with a deliberately obvious 2nd account (TheCRW) in a mini edit war at Pete Seeger. But it also looks like they did a lot of real editing... I'll bet that they are new and got going too fast without understanding things. Maybe a short block and force them to engage and slow down. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if CoolRichWiseGuy and TheCRW would come here and discuss this rather than needing to be blocked. And, it would have been better if rather than posting an ANI, there had been some actual discussion with them. But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a message to both of their pages to please join this discussion -- especially before they make any more changes to names in articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all I would like to know what exactly I said that led you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, I was replying to your concerns regarding my level 4 warning, versus your suggestion that I should have left them another type of message. I don't think that I said that I dismiss any further attempts at communicating with that person, especially now that the pace of the disruption has slowed down. I would appreciate if my comments were not distorted. Dr. K. 03:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This comment, that starts out Generally I agree... seemed pretty dismissive to me. Your comments in this most recent paragraph, though, help to provide greater insight. Thanks for that. I hope that means that in the future you will try to communicate with users and not jump to a level 4 template. You may want to look at WP:BRD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My reply was not dismissive. I first noticed this user when they added the middle name "George" to Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and there is no attestation of that middle name in any language, let alone Greek. The edit on the Greek composer was close to vandalism. I then checked several other edits of this user, and only a small percentage were found to be ok. This, and the sheer number and fast pace of the unsourced edits, led me to the conclusion to give him a level 4. If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless. Dr. K. 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am finding sources for the middle name George. See this New York Times article. Please also see Cullen's comment above about Manuel Rosenthal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very rare use of the patronymic name in a single source. There is no attestation of such a middle name for Mikis in the vast majority of sources. As far as Cullen's comment, I have also commented that several of this user's edits were found by me to be ok. Dr. K. 04:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there aren't a ton, but how many do you need for a middle name? New York Times isn't good enough for you? There are some books that have his middle name, but I'm not spending any more time on this. And, no, it's often "Michael George" and they mention his Greek name Mikis. I am not seeing "Mikis George".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. Here's what I would have done. I would have posted a message on their page, something like:

"I see that you are editing a large number of articles and changing or adding to the names of the subjects of the articles. It appears, though, that you are making these edits without the addition of a citation. Before adding content, you should be adding citations of reliable secondary sources. In addition, in some cases you appear to be changing the name to someone's birth name, rather than their common name, which is also an issue. Please don't make any more changes to names of subjects of articles without complying with these guidelines. I would be happy to talk through what you are doing and how to do this without making what are called disruptive edits, meaning edits that need to be reverted because they do not meet guidelines."–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your approach is perfectly fine and understandable. However, from my experience, editors who perform fast-paced unsourced edits of a similar type, don't normally respond to personalised messages. Dr. K. 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you have not seen TheCRW's talk page that you've been pinged to, then - after I posted a message there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And, I see that you deleted and did not respond to an attempt to contact you here with an apology. Seriously?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw their comments. They also left the same message on my talk. I consider this to be trolling. I trust you saw the part where they ask me since I am a doctor what type of medicine I practice. Please see also Drmies's comment at the SPI. Dr. K. 04:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Amazing. You give someone a final warning and don't communicate with them, submit a sockpuppet investigation - which turns out not to be valid, pursue an ANI incident... and they apologize to you... and you call them a troll. Claim BRD doesn't usually work in these situations, so you're not even going to try. And, did you delete the message from them before you said If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless.? And, you claim that you cannot find the alternate names and middle names... but Cullen and I found the two we looked for very quickly. A m a z i n g. Seems close to a Boomerang scenario to me. Yes, by the way, I saw the conjecture about the users earlier.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I find amazing is your lack of WP:CLUE. You seem bent on ignoring all the points I made, and you keep defending these disruptive accounts. You seem to not mind at all that a brand new account, namely TheCRW, with a username closely resembling the CoolRichWiseGuy, followed me around, reverted some of my reverts, and you think this is just a normal editing pattern despite what Drmies already said. I suggest you get some clue before you invoke boomerang. Dr. K. 05:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was a normal editing pattern. It is very clear that we would have handled this situation very differently. And, yes, I have had experience with massive, fast edits, too. I have deleted part of my comment above about boomerang. I apologize for not getting the scenario earlier, I thought something else was going on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. I respect your opinion and I also don't dispute that the situation could have been handled differently. In any case, I have struck my comments about clue. Regards. Dr. K. 06:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO especially given below the SPI was ultimately a good thing. We now know that any edits by TheCRW should not be associated with CoolRichWiseGuy. It's therefore not worth litigating Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was just responding to allegations that I did not treat TheCRW fairly. Dr. K. 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since it doesn't seem to have been made clear, the CU for TheCRW did not find that they were linked. It's therefore easily possible they are a joe job. Regardless TheCRW has been blocked but no blame should be placed on CoolRichWiseGuy for any things that TheCRW did given the absence of sufficient evidence they are the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I am wondering why Sro23 blocked the user's account automatically without discussing what is happening with them? They are not a true sockpuppet. What if they are part of an informal or formal Wiki editing group? Or, they just haven't been told that ganging up on articles is an issue? This is likely my ignorance on this specific kind of issue, but it sure seems unfair to not even discuss it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 explained it to me here. I get it, it was someone shadowing the user being investigated here to get him blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Regrouping and restating that I am not an admin. Ok, so there was the issue with the other user, TheCRW, who is now blocked indefinitely and we still have this original incident report. It's unfortunate that, so far, CoolRichWiseGuy hasn't commented here, but here are some thoughts.

• I have not seen any edits today in the last 10 hours or so.
• He made something short of 100 edits, of those 35 are still "current" or the last edit made on the accounts. I can undo those edits. Then, when/if the user finds a reliable source for the information can be added back as long as they are also following WP:COMMONNAME, at the intro. I personally have put the birth name in the "Early years" section when it varies from the common name (e.g., Emmanuel Rosenthal was born on ...."  Done - there were a few that didn't need to be edited or undone, but most did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Since birth name and the middle name may not be the common name, I don't see that a lot of sources are needed to add that information - as long as it's a reliable source.
• I'll post the message I draft above on his talk page about needing sources, disruptive editing, common name + add something about the tutorials.  Done

Is that an acceptable approach? Is there anything else that needs to be done with this one?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good day, everyone. This is CoolRichWiseGuy, and I am very sorry for not showing up on time for the conversation. Now before we talk, I want to say thank you so much for inviting me here for a discussion. I think that first having a talk here is necessary before a block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolRichWiseGuy (talk • contribs) 14:48, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Did the information that I posted on your talk page make sense regarding: 1) needing to use a source to add information, 2) use of common name in the intro section, and 3) that it's disruptive to make a lot of edits that then have to be reverted? It's also disruptive to revert someone else's edits if they are correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I am tired undoing his edit because he keeps undid it back on. I think he deserves a perm block - Jay (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you reverted a lot of his edits on July 8, but not since this ANI was posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this turned into a bit of a shitshow. As CoolRichWiseGuy does appear to have references for most of his changes and has been informed how to use them (and the joe-job sock has been blocked), I don't think anything needs to be done at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that CoolRichWiseGuy had references for "most of his changes". There was just a discussion above that the changes looked to be correct, meaning no poor intention. But, I get your point about nothing more needing to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reopen an SPI under a new name. Please see also Antandrus's comments on CRWG's talkpage. Dr. K. 20:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. From a little checking, I can see a similarity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

From the user analysis tool, articles that they have both edited, and the edits that they have both made, I think that there is a strong case for an SPI, Dr.K..–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite certain it's the same person -- same interests, same style, same edit summary style, same persistent refusal to interact on talk pages until they finally do, and then the same exact writing voice -- and then the specific stuff: adding extra middle names, patronymics, etc. to the top of an article, insistence on adding the same peacock feather to the lede of Johann Sebastian Bach, interest in Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and obscure composers. I didn't realize there was already a sockpuppet investigation on User:Smart Aleck. I'm blocking CRWG as a sockpuppet pending explanation. Antandrus (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus! Did you also see my comment about RandomGuy2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I don't know for sure if there is a connection, but there are some interesting similarities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

See this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Carole for your investigation. I agree. RandomGuy looks like a sock. RandomGuy also has the same final component name as CRWG. I also thank Antandrus for his investigation and analysis, and, especially, for saving me the paperwork of another SPI. Finally, I also thank Power~enwiki for opening this report. Dr. K. 00:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yeah, that sure does look like him. Thanks Carole for finding that one -- I would not have seen it. The only advantage of an SPI might be to find any other socks. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, paper­works's important.

-EEng

Dr. K gonna get you.

-EEng

EEng, as usual, your humour is impeccable, although I really didn't contribute much in this SPI. Carole and Antandrus did all the legwork. I only finalised the paperwork. :) Dr. K. 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again, Antandrus. I will open an SPI for any sleepers. Take care. Dr. K. 01:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dr. K. 01:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and Kempner Function

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

---

I reverted his/her edit[118] to Kempner function because they were removing content and sources with no consensus. Since then, they have:

• Continually reverted my edit more then three times[119][120][121][122]
• Left incivil edit summaries [123][124][125]
• Got disallowed by the edit filter [126]
• Started to harass Snowycats[127][128]

Thank you for your time. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww jeez, do we have to do this? To cut a long story short, this disruption started with the reverting of this edit, which while slightly blunt and cocky looks like a good-faith removal of content by Florentin Smarandache that the editor believes is self-serving and unnecessary (and a quick perusal of the talk page shows that Smarandache has turned up on the talk page in the past to argue his point across). Yes, the IP was a bit blunt and cocky, but all you had to do is listen to what he had to say, and actually understand what you were reverting, and this would have been a non-issue. I have no opinion on whether the reference to Smarandache should stay or go - that's a matter for the talk page. If you think Smarandache is an important contributor to the field of mathematics and this nasty smear campaign is unacceptable, then great, state that view - however, I think you're just escalating this dispute because an IP had a bit of a go at you. A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and I have asked David Eppstein to take a look at it. I don't think anything else needs to be done there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh goody. I would be happy to offer a detailed analysis if one is requested, but the short version is that RandNetter96 is hostile to the basic work of thoughtful editing, and deserves a talking-to. The discussion here is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in this. I particularly like the bit about NPOV and OR, but YMMV. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a racist edit summary? [129] RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I would like to escalate my comment above: this editor needs a serious talking-to. I don't really understand how that edit summary could be racist in any circumstance, but in case it needs to be said: two of my grandparents grew up in Yiddish-speaking households. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the actual content issue at Talk:Kempner function. There are merits to the positions of both sides, and fault for edit-warring on both sides (removal of sourced content by an IP is not always cause for alarm), but unless the edit-war starts up again and we need to temporarily protect the article I don't think there is any cause for administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in being a part of this. Please do not include me in the future. Thanks, Snowycats (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to direct admin attention to the fact that the filer here has repeatedly reverted my own edits to my talk page, despite multiple requests to stop (and in direct violation of our guidelines, which I have mentioned to them): [130] [131] [132] [133] . This behavior is deeply inappropriate. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Something something socks, something something scrutiny. He is just trying to get away with logged out editing. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, right. I have a variable IP (is that the right phrase?), it will be different when I log on tomorrow. But that's the third or fourth completely baseless and unsupported allegation you've through around so far. Maybe you should call it a day? --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop harassing people, as you did at יניב_הורון's talk page? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is beginning to look, RandNetter96, like you are throwing everything you can against the wall - in as many places as you can, and involving as many people as you can - to see what sticks. Had you thought about engaging in the conversation on the article talk page about the reason the IP user was looking to remove the content?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

With less than 250 edits and an account that is only a few days old, you don't need to be policing anything. You seem pretty cocksure of your actions despite being a brand new editor. One may start to think your talk of socks may be a little too on the nose if you don't take the time to learn how Wikipedia works prior to smashing buttons.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As the person that reported this to the WP:AN3RR, this should never have gotten to this situation. Both sides should have taken this to the talk page instead of a continued edit war. As for myself, I made a mistake by not reporting both 2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and RandNetter96 for the war. — Mr X ^☎️ 22:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See above. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: It might be worth going to cool down for a bit, lest a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way toward you. You've now tried to issue me some vague, unconstructive warning, despite the fact that I was doing was putting back talk comments that you removed inappropriately for unsubstantiated claims of racism, and reinstating one of the IP's edits, because it was an obviously appropriate removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. X and Deacon Vorbis. CaroleHenson, there has been for some time now an open discussion on the article talk page. Nevertheless, RandNetter is reverting edits of mine that have nothing to do with him on other users' talk pages: [134] [135] -- the out-of-controlness here is astounding. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: "I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert." You don't say! I wholeheartedly recommend the following action. Log off Wikipedia, and go to the Numberphile YouTube Channel, where (personal opinion) you'll find some great fun introductions to math, with easy explanations. Take a look at Matt Parker's attempts to build a functional computer out of dominoes, or see how the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. If you find your keyboard is covered in drool after watching the videos of Dr Hannah Fry describing the mathematics of love, dating and relationships, don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny, Ritchie333. One of the best de-escalation efforts I have ever seen. And, it made us (well, at least one of us) laugh, too. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RandNetter96, you look just as guilty in the edit warring, well moreso, because you aren't even aware of the topic... and your behavior since then is problematic. What is the world is your goal by trying to make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsiest of information? If you don't know enough to engage in a conversation about the topic, you absolutely should not have reverted after reading the edit summary. You should have immediately posted something on the article talk page to get a conversation started. And, the fact that you ignored that David Eppstein started a discussion, saw that an edit war issue was opened, and still decided to open an ANI and ping a bunch of administrators is very disruptive.

Perhaps a time for a breather and a cup of tea?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blanked his page and moved his warnings. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop modifying the IP's (or anyone else's) comments altogether, stop blanking other people's talk pages, stop moving warnings, and stop making little lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And this edit by RandNetter96 is abusive. Paul August ☎ 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Disruption caused by anonymous IP addresses (created by RandNetter96) per WP:G10 - pull that shit again and I will block you indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I change my report for the IP user and switch it? — Mr X ^☎️ 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, Perhaps you can hold off for a bit and see what happens here. And, later, perhaps ask for it to be closed out as both parties were at fault... and that the issue is being discussed with one of the parties, the IP user, on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to have a good look at the IP's talk page history. RandNetter96 has reinstated templates that the IP removed; then templated the IP for "Refactoring others' talk page comments" (with no sense of the irony); then re-reinstated their templates; then reverted the IP's talk page to a previous version; then re-added their warning template after being removed yet again; and finally blanked the IP's talk page. I make that six wilful breaches of TPG. Please just indeff RandNetter96 until they can convince you that they have read and understand WP:TPG. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rand... you need to stop. Right now. Period. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have created my own pages and will no longer edit his talk page. I will leave further discussion up to you. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No. No you fucking won't. STOP DOING ANYTHING AND LISTEN. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a user implode quite as fast as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked RandNetter96. I would have rather another admin did it, as I was pinged into this thread so there are WP:INVOLVED concerns but there doesn't seem to be anyone else on watch here, and several editors in good standing have called for it. I now have a sore head :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine block. He was driving at 90 miles an hour refusing to stop for the numerous people he'd run over. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the block is justified as the users actions called for it. Clearly there was a disregard to instruction that was provided to them by an admin along with the disregard of the suggestions by other editors to cease and desist. I feel bad to initiating this against the IP user as in hindsight they were just attempting to make a proper edit but with very controversial summaries to back the edits. — Mr X ^☎️ 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

At the very least they seem to have taken my advice and stopped editing for today. --Tarage (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

So to complete the story: RandNetter96 has been unblocked again, after being given a second chance and promising to behave. Most of RandNetter96's article-space edits continue to consist of patrolling and reverting edits by IP editors on an otherwise-unrelated collection of articles (the same pattern that got them into trouble before, because the edits they reverted were not all bad). I didn't see any problematic reversions among the new batch, but this reminds me of an older case, someone else who got in trouble for treating all IP edits as bad even when they weren't, and somehow finding large numbers of these edits to revert across widely-scattered and otherwise-unrelated articles. Someone jog my memory? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No idea if RandNetter96 is a sock, but this reversion [136] is problematic to say the least. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to my informing RandNetter96 that I had removed the material he restored, he/she states that "It is properly sourced and is relevant". [137] A response which neither addresses the WP:BLP concerns nor explains the initial claims of 'vandalism'. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just indeffed him. He has just made over 200 reverts in 3 minutes, many of which are likely wrong. It's not physically possible for him to have checked even a single one of those edits, he's just using tools to revert blindly. This editor doesn't want to listen and is not of value to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And has just admitted to being a sock. We're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well not done, now we have to comb through his last several hundred edits and undo. Some are genuinely undoing vandalism, but most are not, just IP reverts. Best way to do this? Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The socking admission seems ... implausible? Not that it really matters. --2601:142:3:F83A:1CA3:73E8:43EA:48E (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A.W. Peet

I would appreciate an administrator reverting the latest change of adding A.W. Peet's birth name to the article, this being the third time from the same IP account. Peet's birth name is not their current name, and being called "A.W." is part of their gender-neutral identity as discussed on the talk page, and it unnecessarily outs their past gender and disrespects the subject per WP:GENDERID and WP:NONBINARY.

Arbcom's discretionary sanctions apply, again this is clear on the talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Subject is publishing papers as Amanda W. Peet as of last year. Subject recieved multiple awards as Amanda W. Peet. As can easily be seen from the references and papers linked in the article. MOS:GENDERID gives precedence to self-designation. Which is why the article is named A.W. Peet and the subject is referred to neutrally (Peet) throughout. MOS:GENDERID does not mandate removal of a subjects name by which they publish material and have garnered notability. WP:NONBINARY is a local wikiproject essay and does not reflect site or widespread consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This shuold be resolved on the article's talk page. Or, if the low-drama version doesn't interest anyone, I guess there's WP:AE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Including a (bold text) birth name in the first sentence of the lead text is excessive weight and an unnecessary emphasis on outing. There can be no confusion for the reader, considering that the lead also explains their gender neutral identity as part of their notability. Given the explanation in the lead, there is no confusion when reading their past name in published articles listed later in the text, especially as they kept the same initials. Peet is extremely clear on their website as to their self-designation and their explicit preference is to restrict the birth name use to legal requirements.

Just as we no longer state that a trans-woman was born a different sex and had a different name in the lead, by ignoring the subject's statements and forcing birth name to appear at the top of the article when it can be left out with no compromise to encyclopaedic meaningfulness, this goes against the intent for a conservative and respectful editorial approach whenever possible. I refer to "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects" at the start of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines and "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" at the start of WP:BLP.

I firmly object to this avoidable prominent addition of Peet's full birth name to the BLP. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Given you have just listed 'outing' I believe the only one confused here is you. It is not 'outing' to include the name under which someone became notable in their article. Its even in compliance with NONBINARY. So spurious objection noted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If a really lengthy list of papers published (as is in the article now, and which forms about 79.6% of its flimsy content) is considered to be notable, all under Peet's birth name, then the subject had notability before they took on a gender-neutral identity. If this is not the case, then the really lengthy list of papers published should be removed. Fish+Karate 12:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The awards were also awarded under their birth name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There is actually the problem that as the papers and awards were authored and awarded under their birth name. Removing any mention of their birth name would make including them a BLP violation in itself as they would be classed as exceptional claims. It at a minimum requires a source stating they are the same person authored/recieved under a different name. Which is ironic given that the sources that discuss A.W. Peet's gender identity do not (in preference to current gender naming issues) include their previous identity to expressly link them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: As the author of some of the guidelines and one of the founders of Wikimedia LGBT+, I am not confused about this in the least, and may even know as much about this as yourself. Thanks for your concern for my mental wellbeing.

This remains unnecessary and avoidable emphasis. The length of past publications is irrelevant to a case to keep a birth name in bold at the top of the article of a gender-neutral person. I am not objecting to their previous name appearing as it has been published, but I object to this serious failure to give basic respect for the subject's current gender identity. They are most notable for being "A.W. Peet" and have given public talks about the experience of living as a gender-neutral person.

I was hoping to avoid going to AE, it's a tedious bureaucratic drag simply to enforce Wikipedia respecting living people who happen to have genderqueer identities. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I dont recall the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Scholar, Cosmology and Gravity Program award being given to them for being gender-neutral. Nor the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship. The relevant MOS guidance is at MOS:MULTINAMES which is copied almost verbatim into WP:NONBINARY. They are notable for being a respected scientist and would have qualified for a wikipedia BIO, not how they identify on their passport. And one precedes the other by at least a decade by their own words Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:MULTINAMES - In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". Given almost all of Peet's publications and all of their awards were under their birth name, it is very reasonable to surmise A.W. Peet was initially notable under their birth name. I do note you've just removed the person's publication history prior to 2016; is there a particular reason why papers published under the name A.W. Peet are considered worthy of listing and papers published under the person's birth name are not? Fish+Karate 12:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, they were also still publishing under their birth name last year. If anything the selected publications should be in line with the time-frame of their awards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. Folks cannot gripe about there being too many referenced publications and then making it seem I'm doing something wrong when I cut them down to the last 3 years. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The only reason I am aware of them is due to their talks about being gender-neutral and their activism in this area. This is potentially a lack of emphasis in the article. However sticking a bold birth name at the top of the article because "documents", is unnecessary and to my eyes very obviously disrespectful of the subject and a failure to treat gender-neutral people as respectfully as we have begun to treat transgender subjects. I guess as you are sticking to your guns, and want to keep this gender-neutral biography in your targets, it'll have to go to Arbcom enforcement. I was looking for the more recent amendment of the sexology case for wording of the transgender DS, but have yet to pin it down. The archive system is bizarrely unhelpful for cases and amendments. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No its at the top because the MOS says thats where it should be. Feel free to go to AE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ah as a result of the pointy citatation needed tags Fæ so helpfully added here it turns out that A.W. Peet has neither discarded nor rejected their birth name, continues to use it and recognises the problems inherant with a publication record - "Am I going to change my name? No. This is pretty much impossible because it would cut me off from my publication record. I also rather like my given name because it has lovely definitions in two major linguistic traditions. Amanda is feminine in Latin, meaning "lovable" or "worthy of love". It is also a masculine name in Sanskrit, meaning "bright like the harvest moon". I really like both meanings." - this explains why they continue to publish under their given name, which they still as previously said, use. so Fæ once again has made a mountain out of a molehill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User rolls back most of my edits

Hi can someone tel me if this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EP111 is an admin, most of my edits have been rolled back when i am adding sythesizers to synts category which i believe is whre they belong can some please clarify this? I would interpret WP:SUBCAT) to populate the Synthesizer category but this user says i am wrong to do this. Here are some diff as expamples. Thanks [[138]] [[139]] [[140]] [[141]] [[142]] [[143]] [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] [[147]]. I did ask the person why this why happening amy mistake i asked the question on this own page rather than the talk page and was accused of vandalism also. I have traced these even back to the beginning oj June and feel as though as this guy has got it in for me rather than being polite comes across as slighly hostile to me and i do not know why this is. I have thanked him a lot in the past for futher reading links which he has added to a lot the pages i have produced.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner:, I understand that you are not quite familiar with ANI, but please note for the future that you are required to notify the user whose behavior you bring to ANI at their talk page. For this topic, I have done it for you. Note also that EP111, whereas clearly established and respected user, is not an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: please also be aware that EP111 has not used rollback on your edits. Rather they have used WP:UNDO. There are specific guidelines for adding categories which can be found here Wikipedia:Categorization. MarnetteD|Talk 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Ijustwannabeawinner: The user you are inquiring about is not an admin, although they are an old hand on the project. That said, they do not have WP:rollback rights; they are simply WP:reverting your edits. The WP:edit summary for their reverts would seem to explain why, as said summaries are citing WP:SUBCAT; I presume that the categories you are trying to add are parent categories of subcategories already used in the articles. Here is the relevant language from WP:SUBCAT:

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorized as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category...For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."

In that case then [[148]] page ( and very many other) which has no less than nine categorys needs to be re-assesed.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note also that you are meant to notify the user in question (EP111 on their WP:User talk page whenever you open a discussion about them here at ANI. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter, i think an admins view point on this vould be helpful because the electronic instruments categorys are very inconsistent and partially filled and it is difficult to naviate around the pages. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: You're correct in my implementation of the WP:SUBCAT guideline. I'd already informed Ijustwannabeawinner of the exact same thing, which they have since removed from their talk page. This has happened without any agreement, from them, that the guideline is correct. All the best, EP111 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thats because you have misinterpreted the guidelines which can be ambiguous. As we are both non-admins your viewpoint holds equal weight to mine. Which is why i ahve asked here for clarity on this matter.Rather than to keeep quoting the same rule, maybe some interpretation of it is needed?Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Snow i will doIjustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ijustwannabeawinner If you could refrain from removing or otherwise editing other editors' posts that would be appreciated. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129, i am not sure what you mean sorry.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: With this edit you removed two other editors' posts. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that sometimes just happen without an edit conflict being flagged - I'm sure there's a tiny window when two people are saving at the same time when the software loses one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It happened to me in this very thread. I also thought this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Me three. I had it happen recently without Edit Conflict being flagged. Another user was kind enough to re-instate & advise me while AGF. AnonNep (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, me too; it's rather curious, as normally I'm plagued by edit-conflicts (slow typer? Fat fingers? Too many links?) so i guess I rely on them to let me know when spmeone's posted ahead of me. (edit conflict)!!! while AnonNep fiddled with their words  :) good to know it still works... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what gets me! I'm a human typo! :) I always find something but, usually, I get the Edit Conflict warning & do a new post. But it has happened recently without one o_O P.S. Sorry for word fiddling. AnonNep (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It was this comment that i thought was not very friendly at all 15:45, 11 July 2018‎ EP111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,894 bytes) (-1,737)‎ . . (Remove user page abuse. Put it on my talk page and I might be bothered to respond.)It was not abuse i didnt put the comment on the talk age and instead it was on the main page Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So to clarify is the cateogry for example Manufacturer or Synthesizer, because both cats have got entries in and inconsistent across all vendors and all synth cats, many many are missing, what is the gerenal conses so we can have consistency on these page? Thanks

We were both editing at the same time, look at the timestamps Revision as of 08:19, 12 July 2018 (edit) Snow Rise (talk | contribs) (→‎User rolls back most of my edits)

← Previous edit

Revision as of 08:20, 12 July 2018 (edit) (undo) Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

neerali

Sir, After long talks and proper sourcing one editor agreed and did the changes about the cast in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerali. please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neerali .One editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Let_There_Be_Sunshine keep fighting for his version. without any proper source. I doubt this user. I am new in wikipedia and learning new things in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerali page is blocked for new editors. so I think some admins take this issue seriously and look in to the matter.

Thank you --Sameershan (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

S/he hadn't edited the article since consensus was reached on the talk page. But no one reverted to the more accurate version of the article, so I handled that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

...AAAAAAND s/he kept it up, so another user reverted and then warned him/her. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Let There Be Sunshine is still doing it, apparently until his consensus is reached. In addition, after he was warned (by another user), he tried to use WP:DTR as an excuse. Would an admin step in, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at nootropic

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

---

Zefr and I are engaged in an edit war at nootropic. 3RR/Edit war notices were given in that page’s edit summaries. It’s been ongoing for some time, but today is the first time where one of us has made a 4th revert without any constructive editing. I would link diffs, but I’m editing on my phone so copy/pasting is a pain.

I would appreciate it if someone here would enforce 3RR so that this dispute doesn’t blow up. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue. My bad. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't violate the bright line of 3 reverts doesn't mean you aren't both edit warring. You both ought to be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

ECP gaming by User:Drowningseagull

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

I believe this user was deliberately gaming the WP:ECP rules. This is because of this ridiculous edit to their userpage (with an edit summary "my confirmation is now E X T E N T E D E D") as edit #500, and many 1-byte edits to their userpage before that. Their adding "main article" tags to the top of articles such as 2018 FIFA World Cup Group H were generally reverted. Please investigate and remove ECP if necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He is claiming to be the Zodiac Killer, and is a new user as of April 2018. Whether he is/is not who he claims to be, this isn't a threat, but shouldn't be overlooked. What do we do? — Maile (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we also ask him where Tupac is? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't we already about Tupac? His ashes were scattered in Georgia (the US state). Maybe we ought to ask the Zodiac Killer if he's seen any news in the last 20 years ... what with being on the run and everything, he probably missed a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, per WP:RS the Zodiac Killer died of Heart attack. And the killings stopped as well. I saw it all in the film.--DBigXray 21:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me that gamey, for which a normal administrative action would be to remove the ECP flag until they make 500 worthwhile edits (manual readdition). It's not like they had an ECP article they wanted to edit, it looks to me more like HATSHOP activity. The number of edits to their user page is over 150 and less than 200. The majority of their edits have been minor, but constructive edits, in article space (adding templates to FIFA World Cup pages). I wouldn't want to dishearten them and lose the constructive editing, although a gentle note about hats is probably in order. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Redflag I find it more concerning that they have made edits to their user and talk pages (self-reverted) wherein they claim to be a sock of someone banned 11 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request: 2600:1700:1E1:5B0::/64

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1E1:5B0::/64

User is evading a block on 2600:1700:1e1:5b0:e57f:2e19:8cf6:5fe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More recent IPs exhibit similar behaviors including disallowed edits in the filter log. No apparent collateral damage if range is blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

/64 range hardblocked two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Compromised?

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

---

Since the beginning of June, Jean-François Clet has repeatedly posted random garbage and then blanked their sandbox. This has been their only activity since it started and does not match any of their prior activity. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be astronomical data instead of random garbage, and it matches very much their previous edits (see also their crosswiki edits). It's a bit unusual but doesn't seem to be a compromise nor any cause for concern. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Got a message on my talk page

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexis_Jazz&diff=prev&oldid=850007072

"Hi i believe you caught Logat as a sock previously but he is back with disruptive editing with ip address 84.81.77.172, what points out in his edits is that, he likes to label the Ajuran sultanate as an empire, one of his socks cosbey does this here [149] [150]

Recently he is restoring original research from his previous sock haltishobes.

[151] [152] 93.39.143.204 (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)"

They are referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Habar Awal king/Archive. I don't have time right now to look into this, nor do I have any special powers. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Me Too movement edits

Hello! I'd like to request editors to review the actions of User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire on the Me Too movement article. Specifically, I'd like to bring attention to the sentence "It was also a propagandist media campaign against American film producer, Harvey Weinstein, among others in the entertainment industry regarding anonymous and non-anonymous sexual misconduct allegations." Additionally, the sentence "However, these victims have many resources at their disposal especially those enrolled in an American K-12 school as well as in American colleges and universities through the federal equity law amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title IX as well as numerous local woman's centers on a national to international scale." concerns me; it seems like something that should go in an opinion piece, or, at the very least, distanced from Wikipedia. Furthermore, he seems to have violated the three revert rule. Thanks! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Riley’s Talk Page, I’ve compromised and changed the wording of a sentence in the lead. For the others, it seems he never read the rest of the article before I got to it. This whole article read like a blog by an activist. Actually read it. Even some of the sources were unreliable which prompted the template. He owes me an apology. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Roman J. Lane, Esquire, it does indeed look like you are on your 4th revert, no matter how you try to wiggle around it. If you were smart, you would revert yourself, then come back here say so, so the next admin doesn't just block you outright. Clock is ticking, and I would strongly discourage being foolish enough to debate me on whether or not this is a WP:4RR violation or not; it is. Learn to use the talk page instead of edit warring. - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

–I did use the Talk Page, Riley’s personal one at his request. His reverts are politically motivated. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I second what Dennis Brown said. I just gave User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire a 3RR warning on their talk page; continued edit-warring even if it does not not break the explicit 3RR limit is likely to result in blocks. Also edit-summaries such as his politically motivated and I compromised but he/she won’t. and He’s being troll. are inappropriate and need to stop. Basically slow-down, discuss calmly, establish consensus on talk, and then edit the article. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I made it clear that this wasn't a debate, and I gave the opportunity to self-revert, but oh well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Just my pointless 2c but as someone who reverted them I did state in the edit summary "Talkpage > Go to it." ... could've been a bit nicer but the point still stood, They had ample oppertunity to discuss it on the talkpage, Not moaning just my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The user wasn't going to stop the disruptive behavior until this happened. Multiple warnings and opportunities were given for this user to stop and correct the behavior, none of them were taken, and that's what has to happen sometimes... Hopefully this user takes this as an opportunity to shape up and sanctions don't have to be imposed. Only time will tell... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This article is under discretionary sanctions, so going forward admins may impose editing restrictions at their discretion, though it looks like we may be dealing with more of a NOTHERE situation. Swarm ♠ 02:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If it happens again, I doubt I (or any other admin) will be so generous. Thanks for the ARB template, I should have done that myself but it slipped my mind. I prefer to use normal sanctions when I can, fewer restrictions on the part of the admin, but yes, it should be on the table if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur that this seems to be a NOTHERE situation; specifically, this user appears to wish to use the page for the Me Too Movement to right perceived wrongs against Mr. Weinstein. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Another sock of "Right Wing Hero of Truth"

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

---

Original (?) account: Special:Contributions/Right_Wing_Hero_of_Truth

Sock: Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B002:523::/64

--ChiveFungi (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest sock rangeblocked and target protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, they say that they are at this edit. The user has already been blocked for one month, and it makes sense to file an SPI.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:Articles for deletion/Sabar Koti (2nd nomination)

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

---

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

---

Could an admin—or one of my esteemed otherwise uninvolved experienced editor-colleagues—look in here when convenient, please? Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

Excuse me, Serial Number, but you know perfectly well that this kind of request is to be made at AN, not here. Please be more careful next time. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

1) why are you talking to yourself; 2) what admin action do you want? GiantSnowman 15:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Its almost as if he was socking and forgot to log out, bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That was my thought, or a compromised account... GiantSnowman 15:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Or he realised he'd posted in the wrong place and gave himself a self-deprecating comment. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, all could be possible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that he was being facetious/self-deprecating in replying to himself. (I might be wrong but I'd be very surprised indeed.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reyk, is absolutely correct :) the rest of you...paranoid probably fits the bill. Anyway, close this, because the original need has been responded to (you know, getting things done instead of navel-gazing). Bonadea is also correct; and Slatersteven, is of course trolling :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that it was  Done by Winged Blades of Godric.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I Smell something Rotton, Please Check the IP of Serial Number 54129 I think Slater had it Right the First time 72.168.128.174 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Gurulupina

• Gurulupina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • edit count
• Annevalentino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • edit count

relevant articles

• George Ranalli
  • 678 edits by Annevalentino
  • 323 edits by Gurulupina
• Gaetano Pesce
  • 375 edits by Annevalentino
  • 51 edits by Gurulupina
• Raimund Abraham
  • 333 edits by Annevalentino
  • 21 edits by Gurulupina
• Elise Mercur
  • 225 edits by Annevalentino
  • 13 edits by Gurulupina

Other edits by Annevalentino

• 307 edits to Michael Sorkin
• 259 edits to Jack Newfield
• 245 edits to Phyllis Birkby
• 224 edits to Lauretta Vinciarelli
• 213 edits to Grey Art Gallery

Annevalentino was the subject of an ANI thread at here in July 2015. No action was taken. Annevalentino disclosed here to user:Moonriddengirl that she is the husband of George Ranalli.

For some reason the person appears to have stopped using that account and switched to Gurulupina around May 2016. (one stops, the other starts) It is not socking really, but it does appear to be avoiding review of conflicted edits.

Gurulupina was the subject of an ANI thread in the summer of 2016 and nothing was done then, as the thread focused on one of the articles they have worked on.

The two accounts together have about 4,100 edits; 3,500 in the AnneValentine account and around 600 in the Gurulupina one.

Neither account uses talk pages so I didn't see any point to trying to talk to them at their talk page.

Over the past couple of days Gurulupina has twice blanked Talk:George Ranalli; they have turned the associated page into excessively detailed fancruft full of promotional language.

This person doesn't grasp the COI guideline. I think they are kind of well intentioned but they do not appear to understand what we do here, and are not interacting with the community, at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Permanent removal of personal attack by Timeshift9

Please permanently remove personal attack by Timeshift9

LINK

10 Diffs from here:

Diff 1

To here:

Diff 10

DCBarrow (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is unedifying and you should let it drop. Each and every edit you have made to Wikipedia to date has purely been for self-promotion purposes, whether in articles or talk pages, and now you're expanding into picking fights with established editors. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia, please find a different place to spend your time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) This is an inaccurate personal attack. I ask the user or an Admin to please permanently remove it. DCBarrow (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please permanently remove personal attacks by The Drover’s Wife

Please permanently remove personal attacks by The Drover's Wife:

LINK

My edits to all Article pages are relevant, factual and sourced from High Court of Australia cases, judgments, transcripts and the Australian Constitution and federal legislation:

[Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis]

[46 of the Constitution of Australia]

All this can be objectively checked. Some edits refer to my own litigation and some do not. Whilst there is a surface COI for some of the edits this is fully mitigated by the source material being the actual High Court of Australia judgments, transcript and court orders.

My edits to Talk pages have been self-removed, albeit that the most recent has been reversed by an unrelated user. And in any event were relevant to the respective Article pages.

I do not object to a SPA Tag for my current edits. I operate no other account on Wikipedia.

I do object to personal attacks and ask the Community that these be removed. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally every edit you have made to Wikipedia concerns inserting material about yourself - and a good amount of your talk page edits have been posting odd attempts to drum up support for your last election campaign. You then attack any user who draws attention to this rather than making any effort whatsoever to contribute productively on matters other than promoting yourself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) This is an inaccurate personal attack. I ask the user or an Admin to please permanently remove it. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCBarrow: I doubt any action will be taken against The Drover's Wife. They have made no personal attacks in the links you've provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DCBarrow&diff=811506658&oldid=811505838 Is this a threat? This sure sounds like a threat. --Tarage (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No threat is made or intended as is obvious on reading the content. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would second Anarchyte in that there are no personal attacks in the provided links. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a personal attack, but advice on how to correct inappropriate behavior. --Ebyabe (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear 1. Anarchyte, 2.331dot, 3.Ebyabe, could you please confirm it is your opinion there is no personal attack against me in this: LINK Also are you all current Admins? DCBarrow (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am an admin; I have made my statement and have nothing to add to it at this time. I suggest that you move on from this matter. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. In response to your first question, Mi ne kredas, ke tio estas persona atako. Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

DCBarrow you are hereby advised to carefully read and take note of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Chongqing IPs

While looking at the problems caused by Special:Contributions/106.80.104.213, I noticed that the disruptive person behind the IP has been using some IP ranges: Special:Contributions/106.80.104.213/21 and Special:Contributions/14.106.222.96/21 are the ones I found, along with Special:Contributions/222.182.215.253. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)