Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to AN because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 03:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135's behavior

For months, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented on me at the Charlotte135 talk page in inaccurate and disparaging ways. When I've pointed this out, noting that I would eventually do something about it, Charlotte135 continued, except in ways that do not mention my name; this is seen in spades in this section, which Charlotte135 retitled to take the focus from away from the topic ban. Charlotte135 also has a tendency to follow or track editors Charlotte135 has had significant disputes with, in ways I would categorize as WP:Hounding. For example, as noted here and here, with me, Montanabw and CFCF weighing in, Charlotte135 was hounding Shootingstar88 (talk · contribs). And before Charlotte135 claims that it was because of WP:Copyright issues, I advise editors to look closely at that matter; Charlotte135 had started following Shootingstar88 before the WP:Copyright issues drama Charlotte135 became a part of in that case. And now Charlotte135 is following me. And by that, I mean that Charlotte135 has scoped my entire contribution history and is choosing to edit articles I am clearly involved with, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is clear by this inaccurate summary of my and Montanabw's editing, Charlotte135 is very aware of the type of articles I edit. Charlotte135 stated, "It seems that some editors primarily edit on topics like horses or sexual type topics and then cursory minimal edits on other types of articles to blur their POV pushing." That section shows that Charlotte135 was testing the waters when it comes to what Charlotte135 can edit. For one, the "cursory minimal edits on other types of articles" wording speaks to the way Charlotte135 edits; the vast majority of Charlotte135's edits have been to the domestic violence areas, and related areas, on Wikipedia. Since Charlotte135's topic ban, Charlotte135 has been making minor editors to other articles, as if to indicate "Look everyone, I'm not a WP:SPA. I'm branching out." For two, I mainly edit sexual articles, anatomy articles, medical articles, social topics and popular culture topics. And even though I edit many things on this site, Charlotte135 is suddenly popping up at the medical, sexual or gender articles that I heavily edit, including the obscure or relatively low-traffic ones, as seen with this edit made to the Vaginal disease article, and this edit made to the Facesitting article. Coincidence? I think not.

When Charlotte135's topic ban is brought up by me, such as in this recent case at Talk:Domestic violence, where I made a point to note that Charlotte135 was continuing a past dispute soon after the topic ban expired, Charlotte135 goes off on an irrelevant and inaccurate tangent about my block log, as if to try to paint me in a bad light and put us on equal bad footing; as seen here, administrator Boing! said Zebedee thankfully commented on my block log after I once again suggested that Charlotte135 actually get informed on my blocks before repeatedly commenting on them inaccurately. In that same section, I noted to Charlotte135, "You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. [...] I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. [...] Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me." As that section shows, Gandydancer and Johnuniq are also still concerned about Charlotte135's behavior. Whenever Charlotte135's disruptive behavior is addressed, Charlotte135 argues that I am simply being a bully, accompanied by a gang, and that my main goal is to discredit. In fact, Charlotte135 still fails to see any valid reason for the topic ban; this is evident all over Charlotte135's talk page. Charlotte135 plays the "I am the victim" card. And in this case at the Domestic violence talk page, Charlotte135 accused me of an agenda for removing a WP:Undue weight piece from the lead. I am at the end of my rope with this editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I crossed out the Urolagnia article above, because even though that article was added to my watchlist because of my concern about this this IP who eventually became this editor, I have yet to edit that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll first of all point out that Charlotte135 has edited topics related to the female reproductive system at least as early as last November, while Flyer22 Reborn accumulates hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily. That there is some intersection is hardly surprising. The allegedly hounding edits do not seem to be in furtherance of any dispute on those pages, with Flyer22 or anyone else.

The conflict between Charlotte135 and Flyer22 apparently began in October at Talk:Domestic_violence/Archive_5#Claim_about_male_self_overestimating with a content dispute that Flyer22 almost immediately personalized. I first encountered the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Domestic_Violence_article, where it became quickly apparent that there was a simple resolution to the content dispute. I noted at the time the solution could have been easily reached had Flyer22 simply stuck to commenting on content rather than contributors.

Rather than accepting this resolution, Flyer22 continued to policy/forum shop by trying to get support from MEDRS Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_21. Note especially how CFCF's opinion changes after Flyer22 tells him what to think. Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page itselfWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Disruptive_editing_on_Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_.28medicine.29_by_CFCF to make it agree with Flyer22. I don't know if Charlotte135's present accusations of canvassing can be supported, but Flyer22 and CFCF should definitely be regarded as a tag team wherever they appear.

While my attention was elsewhere, Flyer22 brought Charlotte135 to ANI based on the insinuations that Charlotte135 was an MRA and impersonating a woman.[[1]] These are not policy-based reasons, and making these allegations was a conduct violation in itself. Astoundingly, Mark Arsten placed a 3 month topic ban on Charlotte135 rather than boomeranging as would have been appropriate.

Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas. This gives the impression of attempting to intimidate editors and exert WP:OWNership of articles. This has in the past been directed towards myself, and is certainly still on display with regard to Charlotte135.[2][3][4][5] It can even be seen in Flyer22's presumptuous refusal to "agree to" a 2-way interaction ban.

The above notwithstanding, Charlotte135 needs to drop the stick with respect to the question of symmetry or non-symmetry of genders in domestic violence. Regardless of the merits, its a point the community would like to move on from. I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, you were on the opposite side of CFCF and myself in these disputes, as should be clear to anyone who does their research on the matter. You mischaracterized things then, and you have done it again now. Case in point: Editing "hundreds of minor edits to diverse articles daily" via WP:STiki and Charlotte135 having some overlap with me in that way is one thing. Charlotte135 specifically targeting articles that I heavily edit (in a way that mirrors a tab on my contribution history), and obscure or barely-active articles that I edit, is another thing. Two, there was no WP:Forum shop violation. Three, CFCF and I are not as closely aligned as you make us out to be; I didn't even fully agree with CFCF and his proposals (again...doing one's research is a virtue). Four, there were no simple solutions at the Domestic violence article talk page when it came to Charlotte135's involvement; anyone is free to see what happened at that talk page during that time; they are free to see that Charlotte135 repeatedly failed to accept the literature with WP:Due weight, would ramble on about editor bias, editors being so and so, and that multiple editors were frustrated with Charlotte135 because of all of this. They will see exactly what led to Charlotte135's topic ban from the article. Another editor (Ongepotchket) is just the latest person to note that Charlotte135 is disruptive there. So you coming here and defending Charlotte135 and acting like the proposal and consensus for the topic ban on Charlotte135 were baseless and uncalled for makes not a bit of sense. If you are going to come to WP:ANI and defend a highly disruptive editor, then at least make a better case than that. As for your claim that "Flyer22's general style of interaction is to make arrogant and imperious demands, often declaring that their preferred changes are inevitable, and that their opponents are not competent to edit in certain areas.", it has gone on my top ten list of false claims made on Wikipedia. I do not make imperious demands, unless it's telling someone to stay off my talk page or to stop making false and inaccurate claims about me, as Charlotte135 repeatedly does, or to stop editing disruptively. And I have usually only noted that my preferred changes are inevitable when interacting with Charlotte135, since my preferred changes are policy or guideline-based and Charlotte135's preferred changes usually are not, and since Charlotte135 will waste editors' time with talk of supposed bias and repeatedly make false commentary and accusations of POV-pushing for following the WP:Due weight policy, or some other policy or guideline. Furthermore, as many know, I have a very low tolerance for disruptive editors; I do not treat disruptive editors the same way that I treat productive editors (the top my user page and talk page are clear about that), and I never will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Rhoark's claim that "Subsequently CFCF began to edit war the policy page to make it agree with Flyer22," I advise editors to read that WP:ANI thread, which didn't end in any kind of sanction against CFCF or consensus that CFCF was in the wrong. CFCF was restoring the guideline to what it was before it was changed without consensus. And as a number of medical editors agreed, the guideline supported my arguments anyway. But that's another discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There you go again Flyer22reborn. Aggressively belittling and demeaning other editors that simply disagree with you. What utter nonsense, following you. To the contrary, you have been following me. If I was interested in following you, why did I suggest this? [6]. As a number of editors have noted, you seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles as did the blocked editor shootingstar88 whom you befriended and was indefinitely blocked for extreme copyright violations and opening the project up to potential litigation by the authors of this original material they copied and pasted. IMHO you are far too personally involved in this emotional topic of domestic violence for some reason. I think it would be best for the project if you, and I, accepted Rhoark's neutral advice, and we both walked from this topic not just one of us, but both of us. I just don't care, to be honest with you, but I do believe your personal opinions on the topic and aggressive ownership of the article are preventing other fair minded editors from making neutral edits based on what the reliable sources actually say. That may then allow other editors to make changes if necessary without you and I bickering over nothing. It looks like at least 2 other editors on the talk page also disagree with you, not just me, and countless others you have scared away. Here's editor OpenFuture commenting [7] So, what do you say? You and I can then edit other topics and stay away from each other. Sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: And yet the inaccurate statements from Charlotte135 continue above. For example, there have been no number of editors who "have noted [I] seem to hold a very strong POV in relation to these domestic violence related articles"; instead, what a number of editors have noted is that I help keep out severe WP:Neutral violations (especially as they relate to that policy's WP:Due weight section), and correct editors who misunderstand that policy. My contribution history is also nothing like Shootingstar88's.

Charlotte135, you are problematic when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics...period. Various editors have been clear about that. When various editors, ones not tied to men's rights activism, state the same thing about me when it comes to gender topics, and especially the domestic violence topics, then I will consider walking away from them. Right now, I am helping to keep the type of mess you want to add to these articles out of it. My supposed POV adheres to the literature with WP:Due weight. Your POV does not. The only true support you've had thus far is from those who are sympathetic to men's rights views or those who hold men's rights view. From here on out in this thread, I will not respond to you any further, since you cannot help but present matters inaccurately and tell falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you keep following me, despite your asinine denials, I will present a thorough case against you with diff-links making it explicitly clear that none of these articles you are suddenly showing up at are coincidental matters. And along with that thorough case, there will indeed be a proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As I say7 Flyer22, it is clearly you who has been following every edit I make. And just as Rhoark and so many other editors you attack, demean, threaten and belittle, I could, and should provide a detailed list of diffs whereby you have obviously followed me. You are far from neutral on these gender topics. Everyone knows this. Further you aggressively attack other editors and exhibit ownership behavior on these articles. I just decided to stand up to you, that's all. Why not just walk away now if you are so neutral and let other editors clean up yours and shootingstar88's mess? If you do, I will. I just don't care, to be honest. But remember, I actually suggested an interaction ban, two way, well before you posted here. As you carefully cherrypick your diffs to include and not include, just like your sources and editing language, that was something you did not include above. Many editors have pointed this out to you, but you don't listen and your disruptive behavior is scary to be honest. But Rhoark and so many other editors has already pointed this out.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And yes, your own contribution history on these gender based articles, most of which I have not edited, is almost identical to blocked user Shootingstar88's. Absolutely, no doubt about it. If any editor wants to see an actual SPA and real POV pushing anyone should scrutinize carefully Shootingstar88's entire edit history, and you Flyer22reborn, helping them create it, and then your desperate attempts at trying to get them unblocked for their severe copyright violations that open the project up to potential litigation. Something you fail to understand. And as administrator Diannaa told you, it would take several months, and three hours a day to clean up, and you assured everyone you would do it, and actively prevented other editors from going near Shootingstar88's copyright violation mess, which still remains in these gender related articles. Yes, I do find that particularly disruptive and damaging to the project Flyer22. Litigation from authors of original work that editors copy and paste into articles, is a real and definite threat to the project Flyer22reborn. It's their original work. They own the rights. You don't seem to understand or care.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone not involved in these broils, I think I might point out a trope or habit which consistently worsens things -- in my opinion, probably intentionally and unquestionably disruptively. Charlotte135 often replies to her adversary’s edits with direct address, and then repeats the name -- usually again with direct address -- later in the rebuttal, often as part of a rhetorical question. The effect is often to infuriate her interlocutor, first because it personalizes a content dispute, and second because English has a specific term for a rhetorical question posed in direct address. This is a taunt. The quality of breathless schoolyard taunting is accentuated because Charlotte135 often omits the comma required before the appositive direct address. We see all this in the paragraph above. We see it here [8]. It seems clear that either this editor wants to exacerbate tension or that their English (or perhaps their manners) are not up to the task of managing tension in these areas. There are lots of areas on Wikipedia that deserve attention -- biographies of women in the sciences, botanical articles on Australian plants.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone peripherally involved, and therefore targeted by Charlotte135, I have to agree with Flyer22reborn and MarkBerstein that Charlotte135 engages in WP:BAITing, and has repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing followed by personal attacks against Flyer; Charlotte135 was topic-banned for their behavior and we are less than a week back and once again Charlotte135 is doing exactly the same thing -- inserting nonsense edits with a "men's rights" tone, claiming innocence and neutrality, then baiting opponents until they are ready to rip their hair out. This needs to be stomped on, now. I suggest at last a 60-day topic ban on Charlotte135 and if this editor fails to learn their lesson, then indef bans are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

pinging Diannaa, since her name was invoked above. I'm sure her input would be clarifying. John from Idegon (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Montana said it very well and I am in complete agreement with her. In fact that includes the "tear your hair out" comment as I've often thought the same thing myself. Editors should not be tested to the end of their patience, as Charlotte is always so good at. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've reviewed Charlotte's edits and I agree with the original posting and what others have said here. Charlotte is violating the spirit and letter of WP:HARASS, and is following Flyer around picking fights. Sanctionable and unwise, and something that Flyer seems to attract for some reason. I am with Monatabw and will make a proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll take a step past what Montanabw proposes and simply propose a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS with standard appeal available after one year. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Rhoark's neutral, objective and detailed comments above, talking about Flyer22reborn's disruptive and aggressive behavior, all we have is literally the same set of friends of Flyer22, Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog falsely accusing me of following their friend Flyer22?? With no evidence. And even though, and well before Flyer22 posted here, I was the one who suggested a 2 way interaction ban, to stop Flyer22 and her friends following, harassing and bullying me.

Obviously administrator Diannaa would be the only one to look at this please, and adjudicate and dare I say, have the courage as an administrator, to actually place sanctions on Flyer22reborn as well. I would respect their decision. However otherwise this is just like a gang at school bullying an individual for standing up to them, like Rhoark and others have tried to do, but got beaten down by Flyer22reborn's unrelenting aggression and fear tactics on Wikipedia.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also note that while Flyer22reborn and I are vacant from the domestic violence article, other editors are actually able to edit the article in the spirit of things. I hope this continues. However I fear that if Flyer22reborn were to be allowed to continue their editing at that article, they will again scare off other good faith editors trying to add content that is actually based on what the reliable sources say. Looking at the edit history on these articles Flyer22 seems to have engaged in many conflicts with many different opposing editors. And many editors have noted Flyer22reborn's lack of neutrality and POV pushing. Can I ask Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [9]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that John from Idegon has pinged Diannaa, and said "her input would be clarifying." I think this is appropriate as I don't see how friend's of Flyer22reborn, (administrators or editors) could possibly make any neutral and fair decisions on this matter.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A question to administrators please? Is contacting other editors/friends off or on Wikipedia a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? I have been reading the policy for a few days and I'd appreciate clarification. I must hastily add, so not again falsely accused of following Flyer22reborn, because once again they are over there at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, fighting it out with another editor. Flyer22reborn is once again over there now, demeaning, belittling and mocking another editor. My question though stands as when I brought it up before with Flyer22 and her friends, they called it ridiculous, and demeaned my understanding of the policy. Just like they Flyer22reborn seems to be doing again at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. I'd appreciate a neutral administrator to explain canvassing to me, especially here at ANI?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To all that, i will just say, wow. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Wow. However Jytdog, you are very often called upon or pinged, to partake and support Flyer22reborn's point of view. It happended in a few conversations I've had in the past with Flyer22. And I'm sure if I did go through your edit history, which I certainly can't be bothered doing, there would be other instances over the years. Once again, boom, here you all are, right on cue. Is pinging in this way, for support, esp here at ANI a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing? Probably best you don't answer. Same discussion is happening over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. When good faith editors like me and others wonder if this is allowed or how much weight, editors opinions who are pinged, off, or on, Wikipedia, it is a valid question Jytdog, despite your sarcastic "Wow," in an attempt to discredit, demean and belittle, my serious question. I realize I don't have your experience here, so please excuse my ignorance.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the good work that Flyer is doing and I hate to think what some of our articles would look like if she had not stepped in. I support Jytdog's suggestion re a ban. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you are grateful Gandydancer but I'm pretty sure the project will survive, and other good faith, neutral editors, were allowed to got on with the job based on what the reliable sources actually say, in these emotional topics, if Rhoark's sensible, fair and workable solution, of a 2-way interaction ban and topic ban for both me and your close friend Flyer22 was applied.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa Can I ask administrator Diannaa to please consider a fair, reasonable and equal sanction here, based on Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [10]. I would agree with Rhoark's solution of "I suggest a 2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." The key word is both.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• A two-way interaction ban punishes the victim equally with the bully and is inappropriate; here it is crystal clear that Charlotte135 is the primary offender. I concur with Jytdog that perhaps admins could consider a TBAN for Charlotte135 under the GamerGate DS. We have a pattern of hounding and vicious attacks on multiple people, gaming the system and manipulating what has actually been said and done across multiple articles. This editor needs a different sandbox in which to play. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Save the further abuse and scary talk Montanabw. It is very clear on my talk page User talk:Charlotte135 under the Questions & Answers header that this was going to happen again, and me be ganged up on. Please don't be so rude and dismissive of Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above [11].

And why would I have suggested an interaction ban myself before Flyer22reborn posted here, if I was the bully. It is very clear the same old gang members or Wikipedia:Tag team are at it again. I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa prior to being set up, baited and then dragged over here. This discussion on my talk page is here [12] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [13]. My only mistake was to take the old tag team's bait and then be dragged back in so Flyer22reborn could post it here and the rest of the tag team come in on cue, and comment. Flyer22reborn's aggressive ownership of these articles needs to be stopped and Rhoark's solution of a "2-way interaction ban and 3 month topic ban for both Charlotte135 and Flyer22." But as I said, both is the only fair solution and Diannaa is the best person to adjudicate, not you Montanabw. Charlotte135 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

While some admins adjudicate disputes, I am not one of them. Dispute resolution is not something I am good at. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with interaction bans is that they can sometimes increase tension between editors. Some editors become vigilant about enforcing an interaction ban and viewing crossing paths with the other editor as harassment and then we are back at ANI, often on a regular basis as an editor seeks sanctions for violations of an I-ban. Admins want to defuse conflict, not take measures that increase it.

It would be best if you two would voluntarily keep out of each other's way. These reappearances at ANI are not good for you, Charlotte135 or for Flyer22reborn. I would think since you are adults you could find a way to resolve this dispute without having to have admins imposing topic bans or blocks. You can see, by the fact that no admins have jumped into the discussion that there isn't a strong desire to impose sanctions on either of you. But that can change if you can't drop the stick and walk away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Liz while i hear that, the evidence here is very clear that Charlotte135 is pursuing Flyer in a very harass-y way. Flyer gets these men's rights activists who stick to her and do hound her, and "Charlotte135" is the most recent edition. This behavior is not OK. It is part of what makes WP a nightmare for some people. I really believe that a TBAN under the Gamergate DS is the way to diffuse tension here. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So it's a new day. But still, the men's rights stuff is re-hashed, once again. Whoever you are directing that at this time Jytdog (and it seems at me I really, really, really think you and others should drop it. It is sounding pretty childish I have to say and I'm sure there are many editors here who would agree. This is something Diannaa and I have discussed and Diannaa gave me excellent advice, which I should have applied. That is, don't take the bait, and react to such attacks. I am a feminist Jytdog, for the record, and do actually identify as a feminist, but really who cares? Does that matter here? What I see by this mens rights nonsense that you, Gandydancer, Montabw, Flyer22reborn and a few others throw at other editors is bias and uncivil behavior. Nothing more and nothing less. I also wonder why it has been allowed to continue. It's offensive and disruptive to the project and goes against policy. Unfortunately it seems to have been a pattern over many years on Wikipedia talk pages I have noticed, and I actually think it needs to be stamped out permanently. I'm sure that other editors are adult enough to handle any biased editing, from any editor. However accusing people of being mens rights activists, in a desperate attempt to discredit them, should end right now. Please. Liz, I am an adult, so I can drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be great Charlott135, if you steered away from the topics where Flyer edits. You are the one who steered into them. It is clear as day. You can absolutely make all this go away by just indeed walking away and stop pursuing her. If you agree to do that, this thread could close right now. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my genuine request to please drop the men's rights stuff Jytdog. At least with me. I really have had enough of it and consider it entirely unjustified, and a personal attack. I really would like you and others to stop that, if that's okay with you and your friends. And I have not "pursued" Flyer22reborn, contrary to what you say. However I have engaged in long winded mutual discussions and conflicts with Flyer22, which I am willing to walk away from. I will also try and avoid Flyer22reborn, wherever I can from here on. For my sanity, if nothing else. By you saying I have pursued or harassed her, does not make it true. And I think Liz was actually directing her advice to stop our bickering and conflict on the few occasions we do come into contact, not the false allegations, with no evidence, you are posting here to discredit me. And for the record my recent single edit to the domestic violence article, two or three other independent editors agreed with. Flyer22reborn deleted that sentence right before my topic ban expired, because we had discussed it at length in the past, and she knew it would provoke a reaction I'm sure (bait). I wasn't going to comment (take the bait), but I did, stupidly, and doing so fell right into her trap, and we all ended up here. Even that, I've let go of.

The problem here is that Flyer22reborn seems to have edited, to some degree, every single possible sexual topic on Wikipedia. And I really mean that, without exaggeration. It's quite incredible. That's okay, but are you, or anyone else actually saying I cannot edit any of those hundreds of articles? I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [14]. Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments seen here [15] at least provided some evidence as to Flyer22reborn's behavior, whereas no evidence has been provided to back up your accusations. My point again is yes Liz, I can definitely drop the stick and walk away if Flyer22reborn can, and have already taken the lead. I won't accept this one sided blame you and your friends are trying to stitch me up with again Jytdog, that's all. There is another solution here too. Let's all be adults here and work with me and be civil toward me if we cross paths. And I will pay you the same respect. I promise. However if you can't, or won't do that, I do insist that you, Flyer22reborn, Gandydancer, Montabw and a few others drop the mens rights BS, at least towards me. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to walk away, then agree to walk away. Don't turn back and try to "get" Flyer. If you will not agree to walk away from the GamerGate field then the community should TBAN you. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, were you talking to Flyer22reborn too please? Jytdog, I've admitted getting into stupid 2-way bickering and conflicts with Flyer22reborn, which are not helpful and are disruptive, but I won't accept your false accusations of harassing or following her and definitely not accept you trying to now embroil me in any way in the gamgergate controversy and biased editing. Editor Rhoark and so many other good faith editors have also been offended and unduly scared away from articles by Flyer22reborn's aggressive and uncivil editing and men's rights labeling, and it needs to stop, or at least be tempered, rather than Flyer22reborn and the rest of the Wikipedia:Tag team, believe they are above any sanctions here on Wikipedia and continue to roam free. If I'm ganged up on again, rather than reading my comments above and how I have already taken Liz's two-way advice to "keep out of each others way" wherever possible, then so be it. However I'm hoping that neutral and fair administrators like Liz and Diannaa can again read my comments please, and look at my actual edits to articles, and make their own decision to close this thread rather than feel pressured by you Jytdog. IMO it also would have been appropriate and respectful to Liz, and the community, if Flyer22reborn had responded to Liz's fair suggestion to resolve this too. I'm pretty sure Liz and Rhoark were not just talking to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that a topic ban should be placed on Charlotte135.--MONGO 13:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Could you please provide one diff here as to why a topic ban?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

MONGO Just so your opinion is neutral Mongo, and based on something, would you mind providing any actual evidence, reasoning and some diffs. Anything?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god please stop randomly bolding words. It doesn't make your argument any more impressive much like how using capslock doesn't make you more important. --Tarage (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of god, I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is giving an excellent summary of what's been going on here and I suggest we take his advise on the solution. Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. "advise" is spelt "advice". Administrator Liz, I have for my part, at least, taken your fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. What more can I do? The issue dragged here was my alleged interaction with Flyer22. Since my topic ban expired on the 15th, my editing has shown no bias, in any way, and no editor here has provided any evidence, not even a single diff to show otherwise. Please rule on this Liz. Surely there are other real cases to be dealing with. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I know the difference - it was an error and not something worth mentioning, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It was just that I remember you making such a big deal of the fact and bragging to me that you're IQ was in the top 5% of the population on internet IQ tests. I did not think that was necessary to try and demean other editors by saying that, that's all. I mean, who cares what you think your IQ is. So when you made that spelling error I thought it was worth pointing out.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you seriously nitpick someone's spelling on a non-article page? Stop. Now. You are burning every god damn bridge you possibly can and it needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is time for an admin to step in here; the parameters of this discussion are well-defined and Charlotte135 has taken the WP:ROPE. At a minimum, the topic ban needs to be reimposed. Charlotte135 IS taking the same tone of editing that got this editor their original topic ban, is stalking and harassing Flyer22reborn, and though Liz means well, a two-way ban is not going to work; Flyer DOES get targeted by men's rights activists and has any number of people who mean ill-will just waiting for an excuse to harass her further. This is Charlotte135's behavior we are looking at and Charlotte135's alone. The responses and personal attacks by this user toward just about every other user who weighed in here with any kind of critical commentary pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I've had encounters with both parties in the past, so I may be considered marginally involved. That said, I'm having a difficult time figuring out the root issue here.

Charlotte135 has a clear beef with Flyer22. Their interactions started back on 20 October 2015 on domestic violence where the two begin to edit war a bit. Flyer22's behavior and interactions with Charlotte haven't been ideal, especially for a veteran editor. However, Flyer22 has been the subject of repeated harassment in the past and often gets the brunt of antifeminist, homophobic, and transphobic editors' personal attacks and sockpuppeting users (note: not calling Charlotte these things)... which makes me under understanding of short tempers and incivility from Flyer22. Flyer22 has a record of grumpiness, but a strong record of constructive editing as well. We certainly has our resident grumps and incivil editors and after months of strong concern about CIVIL and enforcement-related bashing of my head against a wall, I've come to the conclusion that so long as they aren't making direct personal attacks, harassing, or using slurs, leave them be. Or maybe trout them a few times. Flyer22, turn down the grump, disengage (which she seems to have done already after the ANI filing), and avoid being so BITEy. If an editor starts making questionable or POV edits, let other editors address the behavior if your initial attempts to address it fail. There's little harm in having POV or UNDUE editors on an article for a bit; they'll be addressed soon enough. I acknowledge that I'm generally sympathetic to Flyer22's experiences on Wikipedia and that my interpretation of events is informed by that).

However I'm unclear as to why Charlotte resorts rather quickly to name calling and bludgeoning. From what I can tell, it stems more from a strong POV than past issues. From the get-go on domestic violence, Charlotte shows a strong POV and battleground mentality. This is not unusual for a motivated new editor though. The thing is, that hasn't seemed to change at all. It may have gotten worse. And it continued after a 3 month topic ban. I am wondering if Charlotte is able to be a constructive editor in this area at all. She seems able to edit other areas well enough, so to me a tban would be a reasonable course of action. I do think the evidence Flyer22 provided supports the accusations of hounding/harassment/following. But I've seen so many ibans fail, and frankly this is about more than just two editors who can't get along. The BLUDGEONING and combative tone on this ANI alone demonstrates some level of inability to see her own problematic behavior.

Based on Jytdog's and Montanabw's and Liz's comments, as well as Charlotte's BLUDEGONing, abuse of deceased horses, and lack of recognition of own problematic behaviors, I think a tban would be best. Had I commented a couple days ago, I might have gone for a formal warning, but the comments on this ANI shift me more towards a tban. Jytdog suggested the Gamergate DS, but I don't think Charlotte was alerted to those discretionary sanctions before. However, Bbb23 did notify her of the Men's Rights Movement general sanctions ([16]) which includes the possibility of "other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". A tban on gender, sex, sexuality related articles (or articles related to controversies thereof) would seem to cover most of the area of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis, EvergreenFir. That makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I thank EvergreenFir as well. Sounds good. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Could EvergreenFir or any editor please point out just one single diff where, since the 15th my editing would possibly justify a topic ban. I have kept asking this, but no-one, not Mongo, no-one, has been able to show even one single diff or any actual evidence whatsoever. This was dragged here by Flyer22 reborn for our two-way interactions and conflicts. Suddenly a topic ban has been imposed, but with no diffs and no evidence presented from the 15th onward. I asked this question of administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten a few weeks ago and here was Mark's response [17]. Also this discussion with Diannaa on my talk page is here [18] and my reply is here [19]. When I dared to made one single edit to the domestic violence article, that two other independent editors agreed with, sure enough, I was jumped on, and here we are. And the only people who have weighed in on this discussion here too are the same group of editors and friends I discuss on my talk page. Editors who I am sure, in other respects, are all good editors. But that point is also discussed in the Wikipedia:Tag team essay too. All very strange.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on domestic violence mere days after your tban edited, a continuation of your initial beef from October which results in your tban, and the ensuing argument on the article's talk page. Which then continued the following day with other users ([20], including a personal attack on Flyer22 (see edit summary) despite the fact that you were the one to initially delete comments ([21]) which Flyer22 reverted ([22])... likely an edit conflict, but you seized on it as evidence of malice. The argument continued two days later ([23]). While all of this is happening, you're following Flyer22 to brand new pages (shown in diffs in initial complaint). You literally only stop once this ANI is filed. Like I said, I think Flyer22 and you have a major beef, but I don't think that's the locus of the problem. You edited just fine on psychology-related articles during your tban... you dabbled in feminism articles even (where I first encountered you). But that you immediately returned to your dispute on domestic violence immediately after your tban and followed Flyer22 around suggests your behavior is the problem and the certain areas foster problematic behaviors from you. Flyer22 might be a catalyst, but isn't the cause. She isn't following you, she's just reacting (admittedly in a hostile way) to you when you show up. It doesn't seem fair to punish Flyer22 for your problematic behaviors (which is what an iban would do). And frankly one-way ibans don't seem to work. So tban is my conclusion; remove you from the areas that foster your behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I'm not going to bother compiling a detailing diff history of exactly how Flyer22reborn baited me by removing certain edits, right before the 15th, and all the times they monitored my talk pages and the masses of personal attacks and uncivil behavior toward me. What's the point, nothing would happen to them anyway, and everyone knows that. I also can't be bothered, as I said to Diannaa. However foolishly, after the 15th, I took Flyer's bait. I also felt like testing my liberty on the project to be honest. Just like any other editor, and apply Mark Arsten's response to what I can do and cant edit after Flyer22 kept commenting on different talk pages trying to restrict me unfairly and for no reason at all, from editing certain articles [24] and Diannaa's advice [25]. But then I even apologized for my own childish reaction and suggested an interaction ban with Flyer22reborn - before they posted here. In fact I have asked Flyer22reborn to work with me many times but they refused and instead wanted to continue the conflict. I'm not the only one Flyer22reborn has conflicts with either. Over at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing Flyer22reborn has been upsetting more folks. It's becoming almost daily. Wherever you go, Flyer22reborn is upsetting, beliitling, demeaning and taunting other good faith, and in many cases very experienced editors too, apart from her large group of friends, both editors and administrators. These good faith independent editors are then labelled disruptive, or men's rights, or just plain daft, and ignorant for not agreeing with Flyer22 and not understanding policy as well as Flyer22reborn does. My concern is that Flyer22 knows damn well they can get away with it here on Wikipedia nowadays, for some reason. It doesn't seem to matter how rude, how disruptive they are, and how many edits are blatant POV pushing, it's tolerated again and again, much to the amazement of many editors here. And it seems to be getting worse. They can basically do whatever they like and get away with it. I thought Rhoark's neutral and detailed comments above summarized all of these points very well, but was again quickly smashed by Flyer22reborn. [26].

EvergreenFir As far as my topic ban, I can happily walk from the ridiculously biased domestic violence topic and articles that Flyer22reborn and shootingstar88 and some others have filled with cherry picked sources and POV, but why the gender and sexual topics EvergreenFir? Especially since I have already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each others way" wherever possible. If I see Flyer22reborn I will not interact. Simple. Can you provide some reasons for those other topics please? And for goodness sake, please not the men's rights stuff again. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it because Flyer22reborn has edited to some degree literally every, single possible sexual article that exists, and therefore a broad brush has been applied? As an adult, and an editor who is here to help with the project, I can assure you again, that I will follow Liz's fair advice. Would you possibly consider just a topic ban on the domestic violence articles instead? I don't understand otherwise, especially given Flyer22reborn's has had absolutely no sanctions applied to them over all of this.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, it looks like you are trying to quickly close this off now, but administrators Liz and EvergreenFir have proposed very different solutions and so did editor Rhoark. And both administrators Diannaa and Mark Arsten, have been involved indirectly here too, through the advice they both provided to me prior to the 15th. Would you mind please just letting EvergreenFir read these new comments, and my fair proposal, and then they can close it off as an administrator and hopefully consider my good faith proposal and points I've made. Like you, I am here to improve the project despite your bad faith accusations. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

All I did on this thread was fix indenting. Stop digging. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to apologize to you, after seeing it was another case you were referring to not this one, but you beat me to it. Sorry.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been hacking up the DV article like a Dexter montage, and surprisingly, there has been no resultant shit storm. The issue seems to have boiled down to

• Flyer and Charlotte had bad blood to begin with, and pretty quickly devolved into assumptions of bad faith.
• Lot's of accusations mostly centered around Charlotte's prev block, and somewhat less so about her current behavior
• A recent discussion that is mostly a stylistic difference of opinion
• A lot of unhelpful comments by a very new editor, Shy1alize

At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem. Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway. Flyer needs to practice how to have discussions with new editors without it translating in new-editor-speak to "fuck you and your wrong opinion." Shy1alize has a lot to learn period. And the RfC seems to have resolved the issue anyway. Charlotte served her time and nothing in this case in-and-of-itself seems like grounds for a ban, at least to me. The article moves on. There is no current disruption except for the ad nauseam discussion here. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are missing, is the whole point of the OP which is not about the DV article (and your metaphors for your work there are inapt at best) - it is about Charlotte following Flyer around. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's in the "bad blood" part. Flyer is ubiquitous in gender/sexuality related articles, as has been pointed out, I believe.

Perhaps most importantly, I haven't actually seen that much Dexter. The prevalence of serial killers just doesn't add up. My wife went through a Netflix phase. Also, the overuse of voice over...oy vey, don't get me started.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased and independent comments Timothyjosephwood. Your input here is appreciated. By the way, even though I’m not a Dexter fan either, I thought your metaphor was quite apt on the domestic violence article. Although I stayed well clear, thank you for your recent work on that article. It would be good to see further consensus-based editing over there, and in related articles, where a number of different editors, work together to form an article that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's core content policies, such as neutrality (WP:NPOV), no original research (WP:NOR) and verifiability (WP:V).

The other largely unsubstantiated comments on this thread, are from a few close friends of Flyer22, mainly Gandydancer, Montabw and Jytdog. It should also be noted that I have had interpersonal conflict with Gandydancer and Montanbw in the past and they dislike me personally, with a vengeance, that’s for sure, and from also a motive of vengeance IMO but the fact is, they never, ever provide diffs, or any evidence at all to back up their drive-by comments and just suddenly appear, wherever I am being discussed by Flyer22reborn. On the other side of the ring, is Rhoark's comments [27] Timothyjosephwood’s comments above, administrator Diannaa's advice [28] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [29] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [30] and of course, my own defence, with diffs, which unfortunately appears a little lost in translation. Another neutral editor, Kingsindian, who carefully analyzed the situation when I was topic banned a few months ago, and added their thoughtful and detailed comments, can be seen here for some further perspective on this mutual bad blood between flyer22reborn, and I and also paints Flyer22 as being far from innocent in our interactions. [31]

Could I make a number of facts very clear here for the record. Firstly, I am not a men’s rights activist (no offence to anyone who actually is, by the way) but for the last time, I am not. And I don’t believe most of the many other editors who have had conflicts with Flyer22reborn are either. Secondly I am here to help, and be constructive, and my edits are not disruptive. Both Timothyjosephwood’s and Kingsindian’s comments directly support this fact, particularly after the 15th March. Nor have I exhibited any POV since the 15th, anywhere, and no diffs or evidence have been presented here, showing otherwise contray. Thirdly I am not, I repeat, not following Flyer22reborn around. If anything, the opposite has occurred. Here are my comments, prior to Flyer22reborn dragging me to ANI, and me actually suggesting an interaction ban. [32]

For the record, I have also genuinely asked Flyer22 if they would like to work with me and bury the hatchet on no less than 8 occasions (maybe more). Each time Flyer22reborn has rudely told me to piss off, no way. So I’ve actually given up on trying to work with them now, to be honest, and will instead, like Liz fairly suggested, just ignore or avoid Flyer22 in the future, rather than taking her bait. One can only get rejected, demeaned and belittled so many times before one gives up on working with someone. Here is another example of me deciding to try and resolve further conflict and not take the bait, which is the complete opposite of harassing, Flyer22reborn. [33] And here’s an example of me just letting it go and walking away before, Flyer22reborn still decided to drag me over here. [34] I think the point that everyone realizes, even Jytdog, is that Flyer22reborn seems unable to ever accept they are wrong or just back down. A current ongoing example of this is at Talk:Child abuse, where Flyer22reborn is once again insisting they know best, and belittling Coconutporkpie’s knowledge of policy. Further evidence against accusations of harassment I chose to stay well out of that dispute also, although I definitely agree with Coconutporkpie. And by the way, I only noticed this long running dispute at that article, as I have made a number of edits to the child neglect article and thought at one stage the two articles could have been integrated. Anyway, we all need to back down sometimes in life. We all need to admit we are wrong too. That is if we are adults. I think this is why Liz and other editors here have also advised Flyer22 to be an adult and stop demeaning others if they happen to disagree.

I think the fact that administrator Liz was involved in another case where Flyer22reborn’s friend and protégé Shootingstar88, was reprimanded at ANI for attacking me, and then later Diannaa blocked twice for copyright violations, puts her in the best position to decide on this case, but anyway. And I had already taken the lead on administrator Liz's fair two-way advice, to both Flyer22reborn and I, to be adults and "keep out of each other’s way" wherever possible. I have also now taken on board Timothyjosephwood’s advice that “everyone needs to learn how to avoid ad hominem” and his direct advice to me that “Charlotte needs to learn when trivial things are trivial and defer to more experienced editors, because it didn't really matter that much anyway.” Having said all of that, could I possibly be given a warning instead, and some good faith assumed here, without an actual topic ban, and we then see how things go, instead of smashing me and imposing a sweeping topic ban for ….? and let Flyer22reborn to continue roaming scott free? Seems a tad unfair. If the same behavior did continue, could we then deal with it in a heavier handed manner EvergreenFir? Please at least consider this option instead, and as administrator Liz first suggested, and now another independent editor Timothyjosephwood has reiterated, after their own careful consideration and work at the domestic violence article. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

♫ Let it go. Let it gooooo. ♫ Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Great song, thanks Timothyjosephwood. So inspirational. My 5 year old daughter and I love that movie. I feel like an idiot everyone. And not for the above reasons, or because Flyer22reborn and her friends keep telling me I am, for not agreeing with them and standing up to them. No, it's because some lovely kind hearted IP just left an enlightening message on my talk page. It was simple, sincere and direct. It read EvergreenFir is not an admin You see, those five words: EvergreenFir is not an admin, changes everything for me. And they explained everything for me. Thanks so much EvergreenFir, for not telling me that fact, and casting such ridiculous aspirations, without any evidence in the way of diffs. I also wondered how EvergreenFir's solution was so very different to the real administrators fair minded decision. Now I know. Since I did my time as Timothyjosephwood put it, the evidence clearly shows I have not edited either disruptively, nor with any POV. The mountain of evidence also shows that no, I have not been harassing Flyer22, and in fact, the opposite may be true. But let's let it go. From here on, I'm going to follow administrator Diannaa's advice [35] administrator Mark Arsten's advice and opinion [36] and administrator Liz's fair minded comments and solution [37] So Liz, could we please just close this ridiculous thread, and in the words of the great Idina Menzel, just let it go the past is in the past, and we all get back to editing and building the project. Please Liz.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. But I don't think you understand that a good portion of the cases here just get ignored and auto archived if you stop being disruptive and....Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm envious. We're pregnant. My wife wants a boy. I kindof want a girl. I wanted to name her Rosa, but my wife thinks it's too ethnic (she white af). PM me with good girl names if you can. We're committed to a "II" if it's a boy. Family thing.

Also if you can be constructive, I could use some shovel and hammer over at DV. A lot needs to be done. If you can help me take one word out of every sentence for tightening, that would be great. Just don't sweat the small stuff, which is how this all happened.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid Gamergate and "Men's Rights" issues, but it's clear that there needs to be a TBAN and NPABAN on Charlotte135. I don't see evidence that Flyer22 is a problem, but there may be some complex issue that needs resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Always liked the name Rose, Timothyjosephwood. Maybe that could be a compromise, if she's a girl that is, and your wife likes the name. I'd be happy to help over there, and thank you for your good faith offer, but seriously given that Flyer22reborn is still actively involved, I think I will continue to follow administrator Liz's solution instead, and try and keep out of each others way wherever possible. I noticed that the second paragraph of domestic violence I mostly wrote is still standing though, after all the trimming, so at least I have been able to offer some constructive editing to that article.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support for excessive walls of text including jumping on any opportunity to turn the discussion away from germane topics, ad hominem arguments, and for general badgering people who disagree with their viewpoints. Now I await the incipient TLDR-coma inducing rebuttal from the user at the core of this debate. Hasteur (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor's personal behaviour in Basque sensitive articles

This Basque conflict and prisoners articles have shown lately the intervention of the editor Asilah1981 (talk · contribs) with a long history of irregular editing. I should urge a prompt, conclusive intervention, the editor has lately engaged in some kind of campaign regarding these sensitive articles with no attention to detail whatsoever, breach of civility, extremely charged, confrontational style, personal attacks, and eventually threats against myself, leading to an unacceptable risk of lack of freedom to edit. He was warned by another user both of his behaviour and editing stye, but the editor remains basically the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

another user and me have no issue, we are both editing articles together productively, despite an initial misunderstanding. These are not "Basque sensitive articles". They are two ghost articles which have been surreptitiously written by ETA apologists, particularly the article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners, which is clearly not under the supervision of more than two wikipedia editors - Iñaki LL and the original editor who has deleted his account (or has been blocked, I don't know). The entire article is written in language which exalts, justifies and expresses sympathy towards Basque terrorists ETA. It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources. Its entire objective is to pass-off individuals in Spain condemned for murder, attempted murder, kidnapping etc.. for political prisoners of some sort. The opening paragraph is, in its entirely, a justification for ETA's existence and actions.

My "personal attack" against Iñaki LL was a indeed a bitter comment in Spanish (you are welcome to google translate it), following his systematic reverting of me removing a couple of the more outrageous statements in the article (the whole article is outrageous and offensive). He is offended by me stating he is an ETA apologist, when he has positioned himself as the defendor of this article in its current form. I stick to that claim and remind him that he is a citizen of Spain, a democratic country, where in our criminal code breaking law 10/1995 of 23 November is punishable with a prison sentence of one to two years: 'the exaltation or justification of terrorism by any means of public expression or diffusion.' You can find this in articles 571-578 of our criminal code. Wikipedia may not be censored but it is my duty as a citizen of Spain and the European Union to warn my fellow country men when they are breaking the law in a pretty vile way, particularly today when the continent is yet again hit by this scourge. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I can see there has been a heated discussion at Talk:Basque conflict#Spin-off Article drafted by ETA sympathisers but, Iñaki LL, I don't see that you presented any evidence/diffs of misconduct. I recommend that if you all have reached an impasse, that you move the discussion over to Dispute Resolution where a mediator can help you move to a resolution over content disputes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Asilah, as I said to you on the Basque conflict page, I think you raise valid points, but I can tell you from many years' experience editing in that area that labelling people that disagree with you "serial terrorist apologists" is ill-advised, unlikely to persuade opponents or neutrals, and is a personal attack and sanctionable. Similarly, this edit where you say: "The (Spanish) state prosecutor can't act against Wikipedia, but they can act against individual editors if the offence is committed on Spanish territory. So if you are going to continue pursuing this with me, make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory" is really unhelpful, verging on a legal threat. Your input in that area is important, but you can make your points without attacking or issuing veiled threats against other editors. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Content disputes"? I beg you pardon??? It is a direct threat of prosecution against me, even other more serious. It is not over contents, it is over irregular behaviour, and serial violation of WP rules destined at intimidating. I thought his contribs were telling enough. The above editor threatens with legal action against me should I revert his edits, see edits here and here (this last one telling "I got/know you", in Spanish). More on legal threats "by the state prosecutor" against editors ("although it can not act against wikipedia") should I act in a way or another here "make sure you are not currently in Spanish territory". Check the intimidating tone, using terminology that has legal implications here.

I posted an edit in Basque conflict talk, making it clear: I am not willing to discuss in the present conditions of continuous verbal abuse and threats. It is a clear case of an editor bulldozing its way by intimidation, citing my life outside the WP. The above editor, whom at this point I cannot consider legitimate given this episode and previous history, has gone on with its veiled threatening style against those who do not think like him here. S/he has thereafter continued editing the article having his own way. I demand prompt unequivocal action against the above editor, and its indefinite block from WP. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the same unacceptable, abusive line here. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is ill advised, but it is not a direct threat of prosecution. You both need to cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you really read the links above? Did you? Let me tell you it looks like not sorry. It is a threat on my out-of-the-WP life as pointed by himself, based on we do not know what really, since the Asilah1981's statements do not point to specific problems that may be addressed, but an overall feeling of aggravation. The goal seems rather to spread a feeling of being unsafe to dissuade editors from editing legitimately in freedom ("if you undo my edits"). There is an unacceptable inflammatory, emotional accusatory plea that makes any discussion impossible, the goal pursued as it seems (it is basically a 'my way or highway'), and thus create biased articles. Other than me and other WP editors, WP's reliability is the main victim. I should urge an immediate call to the free flow of legitimate ideas into the WP, and therefore a block to the above editor. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the links above. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have cooled down, I suggest you do the same. I have already stated in the edit you mention that I am NOT going to report you to the police in ANY case, so I am NOT threatening you. I am, however pointing to the fact that, if you engage in an edit war with me over an article with content which in Spain is clearly illegal (as well as deeply immoral), you are likely to be liable for "apology of terrorism". This is a serious risk for you outside wikipedia. I don't think you have committed a crime as of yet but you were definitely going down that road - Best warn you in advance! The risk you face is somewhat diminished by the depressingly low numbers of Spanish citizens who speak or understand English fluently but it is a risk nonetheless, particularly since your edits remain recorded into the future. The creator of article Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners was fully aware of this and this is why he has deleted his account. Your edits in general are largely apolitical and constructive. Why get into trouble over such an ugly thing. I'm sure you know of what Madrid town Councillor Guillermo Zapata is going through right now. In 2016, one cannot continue to believe that the internet is a separate universe without real life consequences. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you have cooled down. However, you still are very confrontational and non-constructive. I suggest you stop interpreting Spanish law and leave that to the legal system. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture Understood. But I remind you that the least offensive of the two articles: Basque Conflict has already been discussed in the Spanish parliament with an official request by Spanish party UPyD to the government to formally complain to Wikipedia (Simply because of its title/definition)http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2013/12/04/upyd-wikipedia-eta_n_4384982.html. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has picked up on the worst of the two articles that I went ballistic over. This is not a question of my interpretation. The law is clear and the Spanish police has an entire team specialized in internet hate crimes and terrorism apology - a correct application of Wikipedia rules would bring such articles and their editors within the realm of legality as well as leading to another quality article which does not tarnish the reputation of wikipedia. Its a win-win situation. Up to you guys...Asilah1981 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's up to the Spanish legal system. What you are doing NOW is getting very close to making legal threats against Wikipedia, which is an automatic ban. Don't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For a start, Spanish state security laws and procedures overall are extremely controversial both in the Spanish and Basque political life. Secondly, I should demand Asilah1981 to retract now from unacceptable verbal abuse and personal attack against me, like here (literally if someone does not understand Spanish: "(...) you are coming here and lying in English, standing up for your coward shoot-in-the-head friends" in order to start re-establishing some kind of normality. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While the article should be written from as neutral a point of view as possible, the Spanish legal authorities have no jurisdiction over this American website, and what they think about the English-language Wikipedia is irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know really why this is being belated, it is a matter of concern as a contributor to the WP and as part of its community that the serial violation of WP rules including serious personal attacks could go without consequences. I feel revolted specially as a wipikipedian by the two paragraphs starting and finishing "Valenciano You may be right (...) which kind of sucks." meant at paralyzing editors (by fear of editing something for which Asilah1981 may feel aggravated), dissuade from contributing unless they edit in one specific direction that s/he may find suitable enough by his/her own standards, citing a law (and the police) that looms over the editors like a sword of Damocles.

In fact, we do not know what the specific problem is (sentence, word...), it is the general intimidating atmosphere that remains. Check just this acusatory statement by the editor in question for the article "Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners" (as labelled by ex-Spanish premier Aznar): "It is largely unsourced except using pro-ETA sources", check it for yourself, nothing more to add. And the (wo)man continues with the self-talk... Iñaki LL (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki LL actually, I would say the correct translation is "your friends of the bullet in the back of the head". Since the "soldiers" of the "basque national liberation movement" in the "basque conflict" seemed to consistently be unable to kill any of their victims unless it was from behind, particularly the nearly half of their victims who were basque civilians. Important clarification! OpenFuture I am nowhere near making legal threats against wikipedia because Spanish law does not apply to an American website nor does it even apply to editors who edit from outside Spain, such as yourself, for example. You could edit wikipedia saying ETA and ISIS are the best thing ever and that all Jews should be gassed and you would not be breaking Spanish law - unless you wrote that while being physically in Spain. Then you would be in hot water... I have mentioned this a couple of times already. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should just drop it now that you have indeed mentioned this a couple of times already. And maybe you should read WP:NPA while you are at it, calling an editor a serial terrorist apologist could be considered a personal attack, I certainly think it is.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

173.216.248.174 Drop what? Have I started this discussion? Someone is requesting me being blocked indefinitely from wikipedia. Apology of terrorism is not an insult or a slander. It is a rather common phenomenon in Spain, which is why it has had to be criminalized (it is offensive to the victims of those murdered). As an example, only two days ago, a basque local chapter of a major national party Podemos refused to condemn the recent ISIS attacks in Brussels because they felt that being requested to condemn a terrorist attack is an oppressive restriction of their freedom of speech. Such is the country in which we live, sadly....Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You personally attacked an editor by calling them a serial terrorist apologist, and have yet to apologize for the personal attack. Then, you continue to insult them and poke at them by calling them a wimp and state they have nothing to "fear" (in scare quotes). And up above you accused them of "breaking the law in a pretty vile way" and also informed them that if they revert any of your edits, they could be held criminally liable for their editing here on Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is if you have a problem with the content of the article, then discuss ways to improve the content, and stop discussing the editor, or you risk being blocked.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

173.216.248.174 (talk If someone honestly tries to argue that I am restricting their human rights and they are now living "in fear" because of me, do not expect me NOT to poke fun at them. I suggest you stop portraying me as some sort of mafioso thug or member of the Stasi and we just move on from this silly discussion. I sure have. Asilah1981 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a false claim against an editor can also be considered a personal attack and is clearly disruptive. Please provide evidence in the form of diffs where I portrayed/stated/said/claimed/alleged/implied that you are "some sort of mafioso thug" and/or a "member of the Stasi", or kindly retract that false statement. Thanks and please read WP:INDENT as well.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While you may have moved on, your comments concerning authorities and potential criminal liability leave a chilling effect on discussion. If you wish to move on with meaningful discussion, you would do well to redact such comments. Making light of the concerns of others at your comments is disrespectful and not conducive to collaboration. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane What exactly would you like me to retract? I found an article which was an ode to terrorist group ETA and the convicted killers who are its members and a justification of their "armed struggle", peppered with outright lies. I tried to tone down the terrorism apology and was promptly reverted. Criminal liability is a reality, I mentioned it and was careful not to threaten anybody. Those editors who feel "fear", do not fear me but the justice system of a democratic european country, otherwise they would simply brush off my comments as lunacy or as idiotic. Note that nobody involved has actually denied my statements here. They have just complained that me pointing to the fact that apology of terrorism is a crime makes them feel fearful and uncomfortable. Why do they feel fearful? Do they think I am some kind of psycho serial killer who is going to track them down and kill them in their homes? No! Obviously not! Their fear amounts to accepting that they are engaging in this activity. So, tell me again, what should I retract exactly? 173.216.248.174 My claims are no less false than yours, where you say I use scare quotes, when they are just that... quotes citing someone. Anyone who says, implies I am being threatening is also engaging in a personal attack against my character, particularly when I have made it clear on multiple occasions I have no intention to harm anyone - quite the opposite really. 12:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

Fear is not the issue here. The issue is that you are saying things that are hard to interpret in any other way than legal threats. You have been told to stop, but you don't seem to get the message. You need to understand that you can't do that. It's perfectly understandable that you didn't know about that rule, but now you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, OpenFuture, well I simply won't bring up the argument again. I will try to use Wikipedia-specific arguments like NPOV etc...

But, as my final explanation: They were never meant to be threats. If we were discussing something else and we all lived in China or North Korea or some country which was not within the EU (where human rights and freedom of speech are pretty much guaranteed), then maybe yes - it would be threatening somehow. I bring up the point of illegality precisely to underline that this type of editing is on the same level as holocaust / armenian genocide denial (illegal in other normal countries like France and Germany). In these countries freedom of speech is not more curtailed than it is on wikipedia.

If something is illegal in Spain, or Germany or France it is going to be contrary to wikipedia policy. If someone defaced the holocaust article with a German I.P. writing 'Burn the Jews' or 'the holocaust is a lie', I don't think any of you guys would complain if I mentioned that such editing is illegal in Germany. Anyways, as I said, I will not use this argument anymore since it seems to be misinterpreted.14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)

What you intend them to be is much less important than how they are perceived. And it is threatening now as well. Glad to see that you agree to stop doing this, but I would like to point out that you call it an argument, and it isn't an argument. It is, at best, telling somebody that he is putting himself in danger by expressing a certain view. That is not an argument against that view, or even an argument against expressing that view. It is simply not an argument. So yes, please, use "Wikipedia specific" arguments only. This is in fact a good rule in general, the only arguments made should be based on Wikipedia principles such as NPOV and RS, etc. I might start calling it "Wikipedia specific arguments" in the future. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Packerfansam still removing content for POV reasons

In 2015, Packerfansam was brought to AN/I for repeatedly removing content related to non-Christian religions, LGBT people, pornography, magic, and so on. No action was taken due to a lack of consensus. Since then, Packerfansam has continued her behavior.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] (Some of these diffs might be individually defensible; the pattern is not.) After collecting those diffs, I warned her in September 2015 to stop.[53] I stopped keeping track of her after that warning, so I don't have a complete list of newer diffs, but she is apparently still bowdlerizing articles. JohnInDC has fortunately continued to revert her removals and has warned her repeatedly since.[54] Just today, she removed mention of a Playboy model. On March 21 she deleted a porn actress and the word "magician". I think she's had enough warnings. KateWishing (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for Packerfansam to respond to this before making an opinion/judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As KateWishing notes, I've been restoring these excisions from time to time. Here is a partial list of questionable removals of content I've restored since September:

September 27 - Removed without comment from Green Bay, Wisconsin, mentions of places of worship for Muslims, Unitarians and Jews, while adding information about Episcopalians.

October 15 - At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming that it was “contradicted” by information elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text.

October 28 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she deleted without comment a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people.

November 24 - Removed “porn actor and activist” from description of a notable person, when that is largely the basis of their notability

November 25 - Changed description of notable resident Theodore Hardeen from “magician” to “performer”, when notability of the subject (Houdini's younger brother in fact) was specifically as a "magician"

December 4 - Changed description of notable alumnus John Hamman from “magician” to “performer”, when Hamman was known specifically for his innovative magic techniques

December 6 - Removed phrase, “of disputed gender” on the dab page leading to an article of a surgeon whose notability largely rested on this fact

December 10 - Deleted a Jewish temple from a list of local churches in Mentor, Ohio on the ground that it is “not a church”.

December 28 - Again removed “paranormal investigator” from the description of an alumnus (following a prior reversion of the same excision)

January 3 - Again removed “porn actor and activist” from description of notable person, when that is largely basis of their notability

January 7 - At Waukesha, Wisconsin she once again deleted a former Playboy Playmate from the list of notable people without comment.

January 10 - Deleted without comment a notable “erotic actress” from a list of List_of_people_from_Devon

January 23 - Again removes without comment "magician" from the description of notable alumnus and magician John Hamman

February 7 - Again deletes without comment the Playmate from Waukesha,_Wisconsin

March 20 - Deleted without comment notable adult actress and Cleveland native Mary Carey from List of people from Cleveland

March 21 - Removed, yet again, the term “magician” from the description of John Hamman

March 22 - following my comment to her on her Talk page she substituted the inaccurate term "illusionist" for "magician" to describe John Hamman

March 23 - Deleted mention of a Playboy playmate from a list of notable residents

JohnInDC (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute to me. Take, for example, your last March 23 diff. The porn actress removed is not notable and doesn't appear to be from Kent. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. The linked content says the person is from Canterbury. Canterbury is in Kent. And, while the woman now appears here in a List of Playboy playmates rather than in a standalone article, a standalone article was in place for five years unchallenged on any notability basis before it was consolidated with the List, as redundant of it. As for the rest of the edits above, most - if not all - are indefensible as good faith, objective revisions, but rather reflect the POV of the editor. JohnInDC (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The ANI link at the top of this entry contains a couple of summaries of the editing that prompted that original posting (which was mine). That discussion also reads in an uncommonly linear fashion down as far as the collapsed text, for those who are understandably daunted by revisiting the ANI archives. A partial list of similar, post-ANI edits can be found here, under the heading "Packerfansam". I suggest that folks give those two locations a look to assist in understanding the concerns that KateWishing has raised. These and the prior edits are all of a piece. JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern of editing seems rather clear and problematic. The two past ANIs past discussions (here and here) strongly suggest a long-term pattern that shows no signs of abating. I would like to hear from Packerfansam before voting on KateWishing's proposal below. That might take a day or so though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good idea to be patient. She can sometimes go a week between edits. (BTW that second link I provided is a Talk page discussion, not an ANI.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Frankly, yes there are a number of things that I disagree about with regards to things like notability. However, there are some instances listed above that I take issue with, even factoring in our apparent differences in beliefs. Referring to the edit on Mentor, OH, the section at the time was about local churches, the title of the section was about churches. There didn't seem to be any major concern about it at the time, and if I recall correctly, the title was later changed something along the lines of 'Places of Worship'. Regarding Ted Turner, it had established in the article that he had declared himself no longer an agnostic. I didn't see if there were exact dates attached, but if that's not a contradiction I don't know what is. Regards to the alumnus of Beloit College, no I'm not particularly a fan of his genre, but if I remember right, at the time I was under the impression that he had also hosted something else in a different genre and so 'TV host' as a more general description seemed like it would have worked fine. I could be or could have been confused or remembering wrong.

I would like to reinforce that if I'm a bit slow in my responses, don't automatically take it as meaning that I'm blowing this off. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So long as you keep grasping for any semi-plausible reason to remove information that offends you, you're going to keep making these mistakes. You say you removed information about non-Christian religions here because of a "Churches" header, here because (???), here to simplify, and here because it was unsourced? No. All of those edits were made for the same reason. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the clarity and specificity of the concerns raised about Packerfansam's POV editing, it is striking how little reassurance she offers that she is careful to edit free from her (acknowledged) POV, or, that she even recognizes the issue as a proper subject of community concern. JohnInDC (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a large section, like the one at the Eau Claire page should have been better-sourced (see WP:PROVEIT). I would also point out that I've made a number of edits to pages, such as the ones for Pewaukee, Wisconsin and West Bend, Wisconsin, and I made no alterations to sections that apparently stir up this controversy. That would seem to disrupt the so-called pattern. Packerfansam (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit restriction proposal

Most of Packerfansam's edits are helpful, so a topic ban on certain contentious subjects should resolve the issue. I propose: "Packerfansam may not remove content pertaining to religion, sexuality, magic, or the paranormal." This should not unduly interfere with her primary task of improving political biographies (in case it ever does, I'd be happy to review any edit she suggests). KateWishing (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be better described as an editing restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support edit restriction (perhaps the better term than “topic ban”). Packerfansam above acknowledges – albeit obliquely – that certain of her beliefs may conflict with Wikipedia policy. Previously in a similar context, she has indicated that she has “opinions”, for which she is “willing to take the heat”, link. While generally her problematic edits are made without explanation, she has from time to time afforded a glimpse into her thinking by expressly and specifically objecting to material that, by Wikipedia standards, is wholly acceptable. (E.g. Playboy Magazine, here; the “notability” of pornographic actresses, here.) When confronted, she does not deny a POV or that she edits based on it, but instead picks and defends two or three of her least troublesome edits with explanations that can be at least tied back to proper policies, and foregoes comment on the balance. This has been going on for more than a year. Packerfansam has been made abundantly aware of the problem and yet continues to remove material that offends her personally. Her judgment concerning certain topics simply cannot be trusted and she should be prohibited from making edits relating to them. JohnInDC (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support after seeing Packerfansam's comments above and JohnInDC's comments, which seem like an excellent summary and interpretation of events. Further, given the diffs JohnInDC provided, I think the editing restriction is warranted. Boldly changing section header here to "edit restriction proposal" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I believe a minimal editing restriction could fix the problem here. Max Semenik (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is virtually no basis for this restriction. Edits such as this are quite appropriate. A formal restriction because she changed "magician" to "illusionist" here? That's ridiculous. Or for removing removing "magician" from the description of John Hamman as Notable alumni from Gale College here? Again, this is ridiculous. He is notable as a Marianist Brother and as a magician, but this is a list of notable alumni from Gale College for which his religious notability is most relevant in a brief description. Contrary to the claims of JohnInDC, Packerfansam does respond to issues raised with her edits. The vast majority of the diffs listed above are OLD, have been previously discussed, and Packerfansam has changed her editing in response to criticism. The few new diffs are almost entirely unproblematic. Let's drop this and handle content issues the Wikipedia way by discussion. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article talk pages (Crimea annexation, Aleksandr Dugin)

In a current discussion with myself and others at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, User:Iryna Harpy made a post [55] which said very little about specific content questions, but instead accused several other WP users — User:Tobby72, User:Haberstr, and User:Moscow Connection — of "POV pushing" , "disruptive editing" , and presenting arguments with "no good faith" .

I contacted Iryna about this on her user page, sending copies to each of the users she had named [56]. Iryna's response was that she found my message "bizarre", she said I was using her user talk page to bully her, and she asked me not to message her user talk page again, except to notify her of a formal complaint. She did however clarify that she does not think Moscow Connection had engaged in disruptive editing or had lacked good faith, though she does think Moscow Connection had pushed POV. She regards her comments about the other two WP users, Tobby72 and Haberstr, as "legitimate criticism". [57]

I noticed a more extreme though less recent personal attack by Iryna Harpy on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin (a somewhat related topic). There she accused another WP user of putting "pineapples up his arse, leafy side up, just to get his juices flowing" . [58] Iryna made that comment about 12 months ago, and it is still on that talk page right now (22:21, 22 March 2016) [59], it hasn't been removed or archived, although it is at present in a collapsable/expandable box.

Iryna is an experienced WP editor, who should know better than to misuse article talk pages in this way. Her actions suggest to me that she has a strong sense of WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to these pages, and wants to push away users who have different views regarding their content. Whatever her motive, the personal attacks she makes are not appropriate for article talk pages, because they don't contribute to civil content discussion. [Highlighting added March 25]. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't "personal attacks", those are fairly accurate descriptions of these editors' editing practices. Tobby72 in particular has been driving people crazy with his slow motion edit war and attempts to insert text into these articles against consensus which has been going on for something like a year now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section is a nonsense, and should be closed. Iryna is one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles. She might get frustrated sometimes, but that's a common feature to us all. Furthermore, if one is confronted by the type of disruption that is evident in this very AN/I thread, which is rooted in canvassing, one will inevitably let one's lips slip from time to time. Please shut this thread. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say Iryna is "one of the few good faith editors capable of dealing with these articles" . What does your comment say about the others who have tried to deal with the articles, either by making edits or by commenting on the talk pages? Is Wikipedia still "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? Or is it now "the encyclopedia which only a few good faith editors are capable of dealing with"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelnes: "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." If Iryna had valid criticisms of the way Tobby72 and others have been editting, she should have put her criticisms on their user talk pages, where they would immediately see what was said, and not on the article talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it with the WP:WIKILAWYER. These users, whom you've been encouraging [60], were disrupting THESE articles hence it made perfect sense for Iryna to comment on THESE articles' talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As predicted on my talk page, the user fully intended to canvass in order to embark on a WP:HUNT, posting on Moscow Connection's talk page, on Tobby72's talk page, and on Haberstr's talk page. The most telling of these have been his/her communications with Haberstr on 21 March where s/he commended the editor stating "Lack of neutrality re Ukraine conflict: I agree with you that WP's coverage of the Ukraine conflict has a neutrality problem, and I respect your efforts to address this problem." in a bid to align himself/herself with other users who support his/her POV. Haberstr's response to the "cc" (or, let's start this hunt because WP:CRUSH doesn't seem to be working) makes for interesting reading in itself.

All of this ducking and diving in and out of ARBEE sanctioned articles, and WP:BAITing editors who are constantly working on them is going to elicit a WP:SPADE response eventually. Mind you, I have publicly apologised to Moscow Connection for tying him in with the other two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside, while this ANI is being used to tie up editor and admin time, Haberstr is using his valuable time to keep edit warring the article's content. That's NPOV? Really? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is NPOV in my opinion. But you disagree, which I respect. Your comment simply illustrates that you don't respect others having a good faith disagreement with you, and you express that disrespect by getting angry and accusatory on talk pages and here. And that is exactly the problematic behavior that fellow editor Kalidasa has asked administrators to do something about. I think I can summarize your response to Kalidasa so far as "I don't understand what Kalidasa is getting at, and here, let me angrily express more assumption of bad faith to make sure everyone knows I don't get it."Haberstr (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr, you exhausted good faith on the part of other editors participating in these articles years ago. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to stay on the Iryna Harpy behavior topic, and to stop the ad homimen attacks on me? If you have evidence put it on my user talk page.Haberstr (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Where no one will see it? Nah, I think this is the appropriate place for it, which is why I did provide the evidence below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What Iryna Harpy said in that post ([61]) is reprehensible but utterly routine in my experience with her. In response to Harpy’s allegations: I engage in good faith NPOV editing. My aim is to create Wikipedia Ukraine/Russia NPOV entries, i.e., entries that respect the distinction between fact and allegation and are at least inclusive of the two main ‘Cold War II’ perspectives. I hate disruptive editing and resist it as best I can.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Harpy’s bullying and threatening language, from the last 12 months of the Crimea Annexation talk page (other examples are at other Ukraine-related pages). All of these were in response to what I think outside editors would regard as polite-or-neutral-in-tone arguments by other editors for RS-based edits that they believed were NPOV: [62] “For the last couple of years, Tobby72 has been POV pushing the same content over and over and over and over and over against consensus. Personally, I've had all I can take of his disruptive editing and intentional gaming.” 05:05, 15 March 2016; [63] “Haberstr, you're at it again. Drop it …” 22:05, 26 January 2016; [21:44, 2 February 2016] “Wow, I'm sincerely impressed by your continuing POV pushing about how terrific the RF really is, and how much every citizen loves 'em. Drop the propaganda, pleaaassseee.”; [64] “Stop wasting our time. How many times are you intending to incriminate yourself by gaming?” 05:09, 1 April 2015, [65] “Any further envelope-pushing will be understood as WP:POINTy. Please familiarise yourself with this guideline, Tosha, as it is just a hair's breadth from tendentious editing behaviour.” 04:26, 21 March 2015; [66] “…both you and Mobolo and disruptive, tendentious editors. … How can it be an ad hominem attack when the nature of your continuous POV pushing for unencyclopaedic information - which contradicts RS and is designed to promote spurious content - is antithetical to what the project stands for? As editors, you are not even vaguely neutral, and neither of you can be extricated from the biased, unbalanced content you push. … it's about time you realised that your continuous and blatant lack of civility can't be disguised by a dusting of civil POV pushing. In fact, we have huge tracts here … demonstrating your relentless bad faith disruption.” (Highlighting added 25 March) 05:09, 25 March 2015 Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking over some of the edits, this is prime territory for WP:BOOMERANG. None of Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits. Meanwhile, repeated non-neutral edits in an area subject to discretionary sanctions and an attempt to force out dissenting editors through coordinated action (i.e. canvassing for an ANI) are serious issues. ~ Rob^Talk 05:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this statement is about User:Haberstr or User:Kalidasa 777. Yes, Kalidasa has definitely engaged in disruptive canvassing in this instance. In the case of Haberstr, the problem is compound because:

1. The user has already been warned previously about disruptive canvassing here and here

2. Previously warned about making controversial, POV, moves and the purposefully salt-ing the redirects so that the moves could not be undone without admin intervention here and here

3. Has been previously warned multiple times about starting edit wars and edit warring against multiple editors here and here and here. This includes purposefully starting edit wars in the hope of getting an article protected to "their" version [67] [68]

4. Has been previously warned about making personal attacks and using partisan language here

5. Haberstr was the subject of this WP:AE report which was closed with no action only because it went stale, although three of the commenting admins recommended some form of topic ban (presumably from Russia and Ukraine related topics).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume you are attempting to change the focus of discussion away from an incident report regarding Iryna Harpy's alleged personal attacks, but that is in fact what your comment does. Please stay on topic, which is not my past. Nonetheless, since you have made allegations and claims against me, I will briefly respond: In sum, we have "closed with no action ..." and your recitation of a small group of 'pro-Ukraine' editors' massive number of 'warnings' against me, based completely on assuming bad faith.

We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive," and then attacking them on the Talk Page, as Iryna has been doing repeatedly for years. Such accusations make Talk Pages toxic and off-putting places, not just for the person over and over again so accused, but also for all newbies and potential newbies who might've wanted to participate in a welcoming editing environment. Regarding Ukraine-related articles specifically, I think it is obvious there is honest disagreement on the meaning of NPOV and POV from the perspectives of the two sides of the (unintentional but inevitable) edit wars regarding Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries. There also seems to be good faith disagreement regarding the meaning of consensus, which is also the basis of many angry/rude/dismissive attacks, nearly always by the 'pro-Ukraine' side (including Marek and Iryna) against the other side of the debate. Based on a close reading and good faith understanding of WP:CONS, and on the long-standing and failed efforts to find consensus, I don't believe there is consensus on the array of Ukraine-related Wikipedia entries where edit wars unfortunately occur. It is a difficult situation but we nonetheless should be civil and assume good faith.Haberstr (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"We all really need to stop assuming other editors are editing in bad faith or assuming other editors are being "disruptive,"" - you mean like when you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia"? And the reason edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjust!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them. Will he ever actually be on topic. His comments so far have all been off topic. If he feels that Iryna has not been assuming bad faith, why not simply say that, and provide evidence and support for that opinion? I think my first comment on Iryna above, where I've quoted repeated instances where she seemed to me to be assuming bad faith, can serve as a rough model for him.Haberstr (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Marek's charges are all false, and he notably has provided no evidence for them." - ahem: [69]. Who do you think the closing comment - "participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives" - was directed at? Jimbo Wales? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of the following:you went around accusing everyone who disagreed with you (even Russian editors) of "hating Russia" and you have provided no evidence. Please retract the false accusation and apologize. The closing comment was directed at all participants, which included you and Iryna. Please comply with that request. Haberstr (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to the counter-charge of "canvassing". I find it difficult to take this seriously, but it has been raised by a number of wikipedia users (Iryna, RGloucester, and Marek), and Rob has indicated that he takes it seriously, so I'll briefly reply. Yes, I put a message on the user talk page of User:Haberstr, expressing approval of some of his work. And, as I've already mentioned, I alerted User:Haberstr, User:Tobby72, and User:Moscow Connection to the fact that their editing had been attacked on an article talk page. I also informed them (and Iryna) about this AN/I... Aren't these the sort of matters which user talk pages are for?? Am I missing something here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do Iryna's comments go beyond identification of non-neutral edits? @ Rob Please take another look at the diffs I've already presented. The first, on the Crimea article talk page is a generalised attack on 3 WP users. It states that they've been engaged in dispute about the article for a long period, during which "no good faith argument" was ever presented by them...[70] Iryna has already admitted that her comments in relation to at least one of these users, User:Moscow Connection , was unwarranted. The other is her statement on the Aleksandr Dugin article talk page about the user who she says has "pineapples up his arse" .[71] A civil comment?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Let's take a look at how honest you're being about the comment on the Dugan talk page, shall we? This is the actual context in which I expressed myself in December of 2014 when the bio was inundated by 'interested' WP:SOCKS, WP:SPA's, WP:POVers from both the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian sides, as well as multiple IP's crippling the article and WP:SHOUTing on the talk page. Yes, the section got heated with regular users starting to loose their cool... which is why I suggested collapsing it (and did so). Such is the way with high traffic articles when the annexation of Crimea was still fresh, and the war in Donbass very, very fresh in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and certainly does... relentlessly and abusively... across a multitude of related articles. Now, this is the editor who started the thread. So is this, and this. Are you getting the picture? - Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur. Please desist from WP:CHERRYPICKing through my editing history. As I already explained to you on my talk page, I understood your intention in posting that 'warning', and you've gone out of your way to make it come true. The fact that you are holding a personal WP:GRUDGE against me for disagreeing with you on both the Dugin article and the RF annexation of Crimea articles does not speak well to your editing priorities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts, and has given an explanation at User_talk:Major_Torp. If you thought they were using the accounts improperly, WP has processes for dealing with that. See WP:SPI. I do not see how that could justify what you said about the pineapple in the rectum [72], nor what you've just said about "agent provocateur" . Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't followed the contributions. It was not the user who was self-identifying, it was another editor who was trailing this user's SOCKs (see this). The notifications on the user page were all placed there by the editor tracking this SPA here and here + here + here. This is not a valid use of alternative accounts, and the user was WP:NOTHERE but, rather, was only interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, pushing their own POV, and harassing editors (here, here)... and not to forget all the fun of conducting 'discussions' with himself/herself (see this). Quixotic tirades on article talk pages ≠ the user really is a nice person who feels deeply outraged by the injustices of the world. In this case, the user's intent was to be as disruptive as possible in order to soapbox and get their own way which does equal agent provocateur. Who wastes the time of those who work on SPIs when the user is opening new accounts using their existing accounts? Also, please drop the pineapples: you've really done them to death. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The user you're talking about has acknowledged use of multiple accounts" - maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that Iryna's characterization of that account by the phrase "Have disposable accounts, will act as agent provocateur" is exactly spot on. This in fact has been a recurring problem on this topic - throw away accounts that show up, start a lot of trouble, start edit wars, start drama board discussions demanding that they be allowed to push their POV and that anyone who disagrees with them be banned... oh wait... Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see the comment by Iryna as especially problematic. She tells about "dropping the stick". Yes, guys, pleased drop the stick. As about her claims of POV-pushing by other contributors, such claims are very common in this subject area and are usually true. Starting an ANI thread every time when someone claims "POV-pushing" is extremely disruptive. She mentioned three contributors, but only one of them (Haberstr) felt offended by her comment. Others said nothing here. Actually, I must agree with her that Haberstr does POV-pushing. Why exactly user Kalidasa777 started this battleground request on behalf of Haberstr is not entirely clear. Perhaps there is a reason, but I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: the statement "Others said nothing here". No longer true. See Tobby72's post below. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a reason, yes. I started this ANI (not "on behalf of Haberstr" or anyone else) because Iryna's recent post doesn't just allege "POV pushing". Iryna wrote: "There has been no good faith argument brought to the table, and this is really starting to get way beyond another irritating bit of POV pushing." (emphasis added) [73] It was especially this denial of GF which I objected to, even though I wasn't one of the 3 WP users she named. That is why I took the step of complaining directly to Iryna on her user talk page. And her negative response left me no other option but to begin this ANI.

As Haberstr has mentioned, in an earlier posting to the Crimea article talk page, Iryna used the expression "relentless bad faith disruption" . [74] You really see nothing problematic in that sort of language, My very best? As for the expression "dropping the stick", I quite like it. Perhaps it's time for Iryna to do a little stick-dropping herself, by withdrawing her claims of bad faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So, she responded you this on her talk page, which left you "no other option but to begin this ANI". OK, but prior to staring this ANI thread you suppose to ask her some details (or investigate yourself) if she was right or wrong about this, meaning you must be sure these two users were not in fact disruptive. Did you check what these users did on various pages? Why are you sure they were not in fact disruptive, exactly as she said? My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to establish whether she what she said on the article talk page is right or wrong. Because even if she had a valid complaint about behaviour of other editors, an article talk page is not the right place to put her complaint. See WP:TPG. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• The right place to complain about bad behavior of these editor would be WP:AE. However, instead of complaining about them on WP:AE, she simply said them: "hey people, please drop the stick and follow WP:Consensus", except that she said this using a slightly rougher language. That was commendable as something to actually minimize the conflicts and disruption. But instead of following her advice, you guys brought this to WP:ANI, which you know is not the place for resolving these disputes (the place is WP:AE). That is WP:Battle by you. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "you guys", My very. This ANI was started solely at my own initiative. The policy page WP:CIVIL says that serious incivility can be reported to ANI if the matter can't be resolved via the user talk page. Since this ANI discussion started, you're the first to suggest that it should go to AE instead. Maybe you're right though. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest to submit your request to WP:AE because your request is without merit: you suggest to punish a good contributor and protect more biased and disruptive contributors. I do agree, however, that people should not discuss each other on article talk pages, even when discussion is heated. They must definitely realize that. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Really, Kalidasa 777? Hmm, have you taken a look at the article's edit history right now? Please elaborate on how this demonstrates any form of good faith editing on behalf on Haberstr. He is edit warring against multiple other editors, including editors who have not spoken up here or on the talk page (but who are aware of what the consensus is, and that this is pure edit warring behaviour on his behalf). Stop defending the indefensible and casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices. You're persisting with this hunt despite having had it being demonstrated that you are way off base. I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against someone who has made it clear that this is personal, and that they have an axe to grind. This has gotten to the point where even I'm going to say that you truly deserve a WP:BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as is obvious from the edit history and the talk page history. I am not edit warring but simply inserting what I consider an NPOV and RS edit. As we all know, there are multiple long-standing and unresolved content disputes on various Ukraine-related pages. For years I and many others have attempted to discuss these civilly on the articles' talk pages, and have also made good faith edits based on our understanding of NPOV. Both sides in the current content dispute noted by Iryna I assume are making edits in good faith. Unfortunately Iryna does not, and this makes all of the Ukraine-related talk pages extremely toxic and extremely anti-Wikipedian experiences.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Tobby72, "relentless bad faith disruption" is exactly what has happened. From the start of this article, he has kept inserting PoV content into the article hidden behind benign edit summaries. When he is reverted, he stops editting for a few days and comes back, inserting the same material. If a talk page discussion occurs, he ignores it, and keeps reinserting the material. He has been doing this for years. Just going back to 17 October 2015, as that is as far as I care to go right now, we see Tobby inserting a GfK poll, along with tons of pictures. The pictures, which are irrelevant to the article, are meant to hide the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE. When the content is removed again, per that previous discussion, Tobby comes back on 24 October to reinsert it with "relevant, cited" as the edit summary, which is totally nonsense. He is reverted again, of course. That's not enough for Tobby72, however. He comes back on 23 January 2016 to reinsert the content again, calling the removal "politically motivated", and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis. He comes back again on 3 March 2016 to do the same thing, and then again on 14 March. This is just slow motion edit-warring, nothing more than disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

THIS ^^^^^^^. Tobby72's behavior on this set of articles has been nothing short of ridiculous. The fact that someone can carry on a slow motion edit war against multiple editors for more than a year and who insists so blatantly on playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and who uses misleading edit summaries to mask the fact that they're just trying to restore the same POV text over and over again (for over a year!) and THEN turns around and accuses others of "being disruptive" just takes the cake. It's an insult to the reader's intelligence it's so transparently dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The good faith interpretation of Tobby72's behavior: 1) He/she does not believe there is a consensus. 2) He/she adds an RS source that he/she believes is NPOV in order to solve what he/she believes is the POV bias in a section of text. 3) He/she is frustrated by the very-long-term and repetitious attacks on his/her character and good faith and on what he/she believes are his/her efforts to improve various Wikipedia entries. This phenomenon has happened to several other good faith editors who have tried to edit the Ukraine-related articles in a way they believed was NPOV, but whose conception of NPOV conflicted with the beliefs of Iryna/Marek/Gloucester/Wishes, the first three of whom then attacked their character and good faith. I get where Tobby72 is coming from.Haberstr (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:RGloucester (btw, this user has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive behavior - [75]) : "... and claiming in his ES that he is restoring a "stable version", a clearly false statement on any basis." — Actually, it was stable version, inserted on 1 September 2015, removed on 22 January 2016. ".. the insertion of the GfK poll, the inclusion of which had been previously discussed and determined to be WP:UNDUE" — No consensus has been reached on this, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

• User:Volunteer Marek : ... and who uses misleading edit summaries" — Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you - diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that edit warring, fast or slow, is not the best way to resolve content issues. The best way is by means of civil discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks on article talk pages are a bad idea, because they make it impossible to have that civil discussion about content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over it, see — Iryna Harpy: diff, diff. Volunteer Marek: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes: diff. RGloucester: diff, diff. Numerous discussions have taken place, all resulting in no consensus, see POV blanking, Crimean opinion poll, Bobrov vs GfK public opinion research.

Vague accusations like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:CRUSH, "disruptive and bad faithed" [76], [77], [78] are leveled at other editors in an obvious attempt to silence them. I would also note that my experience has shown that User:Volunteer Marek is constantly rude and offensive towards other editors — [79] “Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.” 23:40, 30 August 2015; [80] “exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. ... Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk.” 21:39, 13 September 2015; [81] “Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere.” 2:40, 9 February 2015; [82] “Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.” 17:39, 3 May 2015.

User:My very best wishes has been repeatedly retiring and unretiring, often several times a week, since 2013, see [83], [84], [85]. Is this behavior appropriate? - -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What it is, is none of your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Tobby72, you do realize what your diffs actually show, right? They show that you've been involved in a freakin' year long edit war against multiple editors and that your level of disruption has reached truly ridiculous proportions. Here's what you've been doing: consensus was against you. But instead of moving on and dropping the stick you've been coming back to the same articles and trying to make the same edits about once every two weeks driving other editors crazy in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable sources. ... Volunteer Marek's year long edit war against multiple editors: diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marek that if an editor wants to take a wikibreak, that's their own business. It's certainly preferable to insulting people. I agree with Tobby72 about the rude and offensive language Marek has repeatedly used on WP talk pages. Examples like "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" and "not only insulting but moronic" help me to understand why Marek sees nothing wrong with Iryna's rather similar behaviour. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The "not only insulting but moronic" was a comment directed at a user who was falsely accusing me of bigotry. And not only were they falsely accusing me of it, they were also implying that a prominent Russian journalist was "anti-Russian". And guess, what? It was THAT user that got ban-hammered. Deservedly so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at the policy page WP:CIVIL, Volunteer Marek. "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I did engage in civil discussion on the talk page, as tobby72 has, and as you have. There is no responsive discussion, and no consensus.Haberstr (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You've only started "being civil" (while still POV pushing like crazy, per WP:CRUSH) after you came within a hair's breadth of getting indef banned because you were running around accusing anyone who disagreed with you of "hating Russians" and of being CIA operatives and the like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No matter why Haberstr started being civil, the fact remains that he did start. The diffs presented here, and your response to them, show that Marek and Iryna Harpy have not yet started being consistently civil to people who disagree with them.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course everyone assumes good faith on your behalf, Haberstr. Let's see: ah, here's an example of that assumption. I'm not even going to mention prior AE encounters as to your good faith, nor how many times EdJohnston has been called in to examine both your good faith and Tobby72's good faith. Donning all of the trappings of being civil is not civility, it's WP:CPUSH. Again, my calling WP:SPADE is a matter of having had enough of the GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna, good to have you back. Once again, though, you assume bad faith on my part. I am not sure why you do that. I assume you are in good faith editting the Ukraine-related articles in an NPOV manner, and I don't know why you don't assume I am doing the same. The problem here is entirely about you assuming bad faith, and expressing that assumption, on the part of all editors who just happen to disagree with your perspective -- and there have been many over the years, most of whom have abandoned editing the pages in the face of withering attacks on their good character. All Kalidasa and I are trying to do is to get you to stop attacking people's motives. Attacking substance is fine, but attacking motives based on 'reading minds' is not.Haberstr (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Update — New claims of "bad faith" on Crimea talk page Since this ANI began, there have been two further postings on the Crimea annexation article talk page which contain the words "bad faith" . One by Volunteer Marek [86], the other by Iryna Harpy. [87] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop bolding your comments for no reason, as if they were way more important than they really are ? 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

I've bolded key words to prevent them being lost among walls of text. Unlike some people, I've also signed each of my comments. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Come on, I don't want to see emboldened phrases present 332 times somewhere on every line. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello QEDK. I'd love to read your comment on the substance (rather than the style) of my incident report. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless we want to consider a WP:BOOMERANG against User:Kalidasa 777 for disruptive canvassing or against Tobby72 for his year long edit warring and misleading use of edit summaries to mask it, I'm pretty sure this conversation is going nowhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are more users disagreeing with Volunteer's POV, than those who support it, but Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes and RGloucester are more determined to keep things as they are.

— User:Alex Bakharev — diff, User:Dstary — diff, User:Anonimski — diff, User:MyMoloboaccount — diff, User:Seryo93 — diff, User:LeoKiev01 — diff, User:Kudzu1 — diff, User:Buzz105 — diff, User:Tobby72 — diff, User:Haberstr — diff. As far as Bloomberg News goes, I think it's a reliable source. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna is hypocritical, having accused me of bias just because I removed a section full of POV content that happened not to match with this person who may be called "frantically pro-American" by some of my acquaintances 116.31.83.159 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's no such removal in your edit history which means that you're referring to something you must've done with some other account. So... yet another throw away account trying to create controversy, abusing multiple accounts, etc. etc. etc. same ol' story which is so old by now it's not even annoying anymore, just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP user is referring to an edit to the article Human rights in Russia. Yes, it is there in the user's edit history, and yes, it was reversed by Iryna... It's perhaps only marginally relevant to the question of personal attacks on the Crimea and Dugin article talk pages. But there's no need to bite the newbies, Marek. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: The IP was actually referring to two articles they'd made POV removals of content from, one of them being the removal of important content from an infobox. Despite my being 99.999% certain that the IP is someone I can identify for WP:BLOCK EVASION, I responded to their 'query' (although I use that term as being extremely loosely construed) on my talk page here. The removal of information in the second article is particularly ludicrous given that their fighting the Nazis was attested to at the Nuremberg trials. Nonetheless, I have treated the IP as a fallible human being who may likely be uninformed, and making errors in judgement based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:You've claimed to be 99.999% certain that the IP user is violating WP:BLOCK EVASION, but you've offered zero proof. When will you stop making unsubstantiated attacks on WP users? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Because I know where the IP is operating from, just for starters. In my response the the IP, however, I treated any suspicions as being absolutely irrelevant as I did not revert them because they are probably the user I have in mind: I reverted them for removing valid content without so much as an edit summary, only to have them leave a response on my page telling me that I'm not a neutral editor, and that they think that their removals were based on somehow being just instead of just being uninformed WP:PPOV. So, when are you going to stop scraping the bottom of the barrel in your campaign to discredit me because you're floundering to save face over having started a badly investigated, badly thought out ANI out of some sort of sense of superiority and self-righteous witch hunt? Now that you have the ball rolling, it's rolling right over you and, rather than back down and preserve a little dignity, you feel compelled to have the WP:LASTWORD and WP:WIN the day. You've elicited input from uninvolved editors and admins, yet none have rallied around you in support as you had hoped would happen. Initially, I actually felt a little sorry for you, having given you credit for being inadvertently caught up in a highly complex and long running WP:GAMEing campaign by Habserstr and Tobby because you're not an experienced editor. Your ongoing admonishments bogged down in any petty incident you can scratch up has, sadly, left me in no doubt that this is not the result of jumping into the editing deep-end by throwing yourself into the most controversial areas of Wikipedia without having any idea of the history of these articles... so, with this last 'reprimand', you've truly and finally lost any of my sympathy or support toward you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You say your have suspicions about IP 116.31.83.159. What is your suspicions happen to be wrong? What is this person is a genuine newby, and is watching this page to see how you and others respond to his/her comment here? Do you think the flame you've just written is a good introduction to Wikipedia? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy also routinely engages in accusations of bad faith in her Edit Summaries: [88] ”Do not edit war, or engage in disruptive editing.” [89] “Stop your WP:POV pushing. Take your issues to the talk page instead of edit warring.” [90] ” Don't just modify or remove content because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT.” [91] ” If you want to refactor the lead to reflect the RF narrative per WP:POV pushing, take it to the talk page instead of sneaking in changes under misleading WP:ES.” [92] ” Rv WP:UNDUE + WP:POV pushing for lead.” [93] ” you are using misleading WP:ES to POV push.” [94] "blatant POV refactoring.” [95] ”no discussion over WP:POV use of 'incorporation'Haberstr (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Because you are acting in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More precisely, looking through these diffs, it seems pretty much every single description is accurate. So all you're proving here is that you have been in fact editing disruptively and in bad faith, and just got called out on it. Remind me why you shouldn't be topic banned (and a hefty block as a warning to stop this kind of WP:GAMEing behavior is warranted too)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, there is zero evidence for your contention that I, tobby, or kalidasa are editing in bad faith. I'm not sure what you consider evidence. Is it possible that you think that editos who have a perspective different from yours on NPOV are always POV-pushing and therefore acting in bad faith? Assumption of bad faith on that basis creates an exceptionally abusive editing environment, as we readily see from your and Iryna's comments.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you actually managed to provide the evidence yourself. Every single one of those diffs shows that you were doing exactly of what Iryna said you were doing. What's worse, saying that a user "is acting in bad faith", as Iryna did, or actually acting in bad faith, as you and your buddies are doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).

Now Marek is also accusing me and others of bad faith editing. Again I ask you and Iryna to stop doing that, since there is no evidence and it is very unpleasant being constantly accused of bad character and bad motives. That I insert edits you don't like, because you and I have a different point of view on NPOV, is not evidence of bad faith. Please stop making the current discussion toxic, and please stop making the annexation talk page discussion toxic. And that goes back, always, to you (and Iryna) learning what 'bad faith' and 'evidence of bad faith' mean.Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the problem

1. A few days ago, Iryna Harpy used the Crimea annexation article talk page to accuse 3 other editors (Tobby72, Haberstr, and Moscow Connection) of faults including "no good faith". Regarding one of these editors (Moscow Connection), she afterwards withdrew her accusation. Regarding the other two, she did not withdraw. She has since again used the same article talk page to accuse people of "bad faith". Another editor, Volunteer Marek has followed her example by also making accusations of "bad faith" on the article talk page.

2. Accusing someone of "bad faith" (in other words, bad motive) is more personal and serious than criticising something they did. It is like accusing someone of vandalism — deliberately harmful editing. Besides, article talk pages are supposed to be there for discussing content, not for criticising other editors.

3. This is not a case of previously civil editors who suddenly snapped. Haberstr, Tobby72 and I have presented diffs above which show that both Iryna and Marek have a long history of making personal attacks against multiple people on article talk pages, including extreme expressions like "pineapples up his arse" (quote from Iryna) and "ridiculous thoughtless jerk" (quote from Marek). Iryna and Marek haven't denied these incivilities, instead they have talked about faults of the people they attacked, apparently wanting to show that their flagrant incivility was well deserved.

4. Iryna and Marek have complained about edit warring. However, edit wars are frequent in WP, generally have two sides, and are symptoms of a dispute about content. A content dispute is best addressed by civil discussion. Surely not by misusing an article talk page to attack the motives of others.

5. Iryna and Marek have complained here about "canvassing" by me in relation to this ANI. In fact I did one thing Iryna herself should have done but did not do — I contacted each of the persons she recently attacked by name on the Crimea article talk page, and let them know what she had said about them. I also notified each of them, and Iryna, about this ANI. That was canvassing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest insulting prose by Iryna at the Annexation page [96]: Talk about wrapping a paradigm into an enigma, then stuffing it in a won-ton wrapper and asking someone their opinion on whether the weather is 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent' compared to nothing other than what kind of weather they like. 02:27, 26 March 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberstr (talk • contribs)

Thanks to Drmies for discovering that... I got lost. But it would be interesting to know why Kalidasa 777 felt the need to try and hide another editor's post; particularly giving the somewhat lame reason that it had been left unsigned. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fortuna. I didn't know how it got there. Because it was unsigned and undated, I was concerned that it might be misunderstood as my own postscript to my signed dated posting immediately above it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that Haberstr isn't the first to make the mistake of leaving a posting undersigned. Marek did the same in his post at 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC). I wish everyone would be more careful... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that refactoring other editors' comments without good reason is looked upon far more dimmly by the community than the not signing of posts  :) whatever. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Fortuna. I slipped up. My apologies to Haberstr and to the community for interfering with his GF post.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to you, Kalidasa, and to everyone for forgetting to sign the above, and thereby confusing folks.Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a farce, as I predicted it would be. I don't know why Kalidasa 777 has come out of the woodwork to gang up on Iryna and Marek, but I can tell that the reason is far from rooted in good faith. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that you're not sure of my motive, but you know it isn't a good one. Is that what your saying. RGloucester? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree: Harbestr does not conduct these discussions in good faith. How do I know it? Because he started a discussion that materials about PEW center survey were not included [97], while being perfectly aware that they are already included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Haberstr's proposal was the Pew poll finding re Crimeans' confidence in the referendum result should be mentioned in a different section — the section specifically about the referendum and what various people thought of it. That is your proof that Haberstr lacks good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're getting the point, Kalidasa 777: Haberstr's 'proposal' is to stick it into the section describing/outlining the circumstances of the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and exclusion of international groups who would be in a position to observe and monitor the legitimacy of how the referendum was held, and where the content explicitly deals with RS describing the international community's disdain for the preclusion of genuinely neutral observers (selecting, instead, a handful of representatives affiliated with groups that he and his administration hoped would be more receptive to saying that it was all fair and above-board). Bottom line: wanting to stick it in there per the rationale offered by Haberstr here is a POV-push to demonstrate that 'this was the popular choice by the people of Crimea' as it has no bearing on the content being examined in the relevant section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this particular content question, I happen to agree with Haberstr. Does that mean that I also lack good faith? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... Staring a discussion with demands to include info that has been already included. Doing this in a 101th time (same question just was debated in a previous section of the same page [98] and many times before). Reporting users who are frustrated by this WP:DE drama to ANI. This is all certainly in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is all certainly in a good faith". Are you being sarcastic, My very best wishes? -- Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The subsection on the referendum, in which the conduct and fairness of the referendum is attacked, should also have the poll where the Crimean people, through an RS poll reported by an RS source, state their opinion on those matters. There is a full and civil discussion of this matter at the talk page, where I have not been accused of bad faith. Can we get back on topic now? I think that topic is Iryna Harpy's repeated assumptions of bad faith against other editors, where her essential evidence seems to be "I disagree with your edit."Haberstr (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The way ANIs work, the discussion doesn't have to be only about the person mentioned at the start... Others can be criticised here, including the person who brought the ANI. What seems to be emerging, is that (1) RGloucester and Wishes not only defend Iryna's right (?) to make accusations of lack of good faith on an article talk page, they are also adding their own voices to Iryna's (though here rather than on the article talk page itself) (2) Now, not only you (Haberstr) and Tobby72 are being accused of having bad motives, I (Kalidasa) am being accused as well... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kalidasa 777: Why are you so surprised at the BOOMERANG principle? Yes, the ANI is used by editors to report warring, disruptive behaviour, and other problems on articles where they are uninvolved. You opened this ANI because you were (and still are) involved, therefore your motivates for bringing this to the very public attention of admins and members of the editing community and are, rightly, subject to scrutiny. As soon as negative responses to your submission started coming in from other editors, you widened your net to drag in more and more editors and accused them of collusion, all the while claiming that you, Haberstr, and Tobby72 are somehow innocent bystanders who have been caught up in a cabal of evildoers. At the end of the day, the behaviour you are displaying is what I would qualify as being bad faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Iryna, I'm not surprised at the WP:BOOMERANG principle. I knew when I started this thread that my own behaviour could be critically examined. I'm confident that the administrators will look at complaints made about each of us in an impartial spirit, to see which (if any) complaints are substantiated and actionable. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the REAL problem

A couple users with a history of disruptive editing - Haberst, Tobby72, and Kalidasa 777 - are upset that they're not allowed to push their POV in peace. So Kalidasa 777 starts an ANI threat making nonsense accusations against a well respected and long standing contributor, Iryna, and engages in bad faith'ed canvassing to make sure his buddies show up. They do. And they join in the screaming and crying and hysterics. Haberst, who almost got indefinitely banned for going around accusing other editors of bigotry, and who as a result lay low for awhile, but now decided to come back and restart edit wars from long time ago. And Tobby72 who has been trying to stuff the same text over and over and over and over and over again against consensus for more than a year now and who uses purposefully misleading edit summary to try and mask what he's doing. That's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, you've accused me, by name, of "a history of disruptive editing". You have diffs to demonstrate where and how I went wrong? Please present them here, with comments, so I can learn from my mistakes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We want to include the GfK poll results, as reported in reliable sources. That's all. I don't think there's a consensus to exclude the GfK survey, see diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you believe that me, Kalidasa, tobby, and in the past molobaccount and others in the long-standing content disputes on the Annexation of Crimea page are all engaging in disruptive editing? I've heard your assertion many times, but what is your reasoning? Diffs are not reasoning. I look at the same diffs and, assuming good faith, what I see are content disputes over non-consensus, non-stable sections and subsections.Haberstr (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for Marek, but you guys are bringing either very old diffs that are now completely irrelevant (this info was included) or a more recent change that has been reverted, discussed on article talk page and did not cause any further objections from the person who try to include this duplicate info. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The GfK survey was removed — diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, you keep repeating "this info was included". Are you saying that once a piece of information is included in an article, there can then be no further good faith discussion about how the information is presented, e.g. about which part of the article it appears in, how much prominence it is given? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Numerous edits promoting Mr. Jwala Sharma and the Asian society of Safety Engineers

I've been tracking an IP-hopping vandal that makes promotional edits to articles related to safety, inserting sentences and paragraphs that begin with "As per Mr. jwala Sharma (Asian society of Safety Engineers)", and then continue to restate points already in the article, state the obvious, or are copyvios. None of the edits cite any sources other than Mr. Sharma himself. These edits are usually accompanies by an edit summary that same something like "upgraded" or "upgradations". This appears to be a concerted effort to promote Mr. Sharma and the ASSE. I have found over 160 almost 200 such edits from the following IPs:

I have submitted an edit filter request for "jwala sharma", but I'm not optimistic about that happening soon since Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is backlogged by several months. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If edit filters are impractical, how about page protection? How many pages are we talking about? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a partial list or 40+ affected articles, but they keep finding new articles to add him to. Anything in Category:Safety and its subcategories seems to be fair game. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just blocked a couple that were active in the last two and a half hour or so. Strange how they are switching between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and even overlapping with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe one of those IPs just deleted content from here just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So they have. Geolocates to Navi Mumbai (Ghansoli) like the other IPv6 addresses but a different /64 range from yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a couple more IPs: 27.58.157.103 and 27.58.140.243. These don't seem to numerically fit the pattern, but they're also from India (Gujarat). I also added four more articles, which shows that a reactive semiprotect of affected articles probably won't be enough. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And 27.58.14.37, which I've blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I added this to the edit filter, so that should be the end of this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Collusion, Intimidation and ad hominem attacks at Stephen Sizer

I am of the opinion that users Keith-264, Hillbillyholiday and John have been colluding in an attempt to intimidate me so that they can undermine factual material in this article which is properly referenced and sourced in order to promote their own agenda.

• The problems started after Keith-264 deleted much of the lead paragraph on the specious grounds that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately pls take to talk page". This was after Philip Cross had already pointed out to him "That policy applies to unsourced material, not from an RS like the Times.". [99]
• I subsequently restored and edited the deleted data adding additional references. The paragraph was once again deleted by Keith-264 with this comment "Undid revision 711029654 by Clivel 0 (talk) pls discuss on talk page for consensus"
• In an attempt to discredit the sources, Keith-264 then posted on the talk page:
  "Again please discuss the allegation of antisemitism here, given the gravity of the allegation and its effects. Please also not that newspaper articles and other ephemera are not always of sufficient reliability and should be used with caution. Please make sure that the lead reflects the article, not drive-by edits." [100]
• Nomoskedasticity then correctly pointed out:
  There's nothing wrong with the newspapers being used; your implication that they are "ephemera" ("newspapers and other ephemera") is bizarre. Since the article discusses these issues, the lead should reflect it in that respect."
  To which Keith-264 responded in a threatening manner:
  "Please stick to the point, the lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. Please also remember WP:Civil"
• At about the same time, without posting a notice as required on Talk:Stephen Sizer Keith-264 simultaneously opened a parallel discussion on WP:BLPN [101].
• The conversation then went back and forth simultaneously on both Talk:Stephen Sizer and on WP:BLPN, I was initially unaware of the latter discussion as despite my name being mentioned in the discussion by Keith-264 I was not pinged as he had not include '[User: ]', he updated this some days later when at the same time he also posted the notice on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
• During this time Collect entered the conversation largely supporting Keith-264 who then falsely claimed:
  "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect".
  Keith-264 then threatened me:
  "Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me" [102]
  It should be noted that at this point Keith-264 had only deleted material and had not attempted to add any material.
• Keith-264 then repeated the same threat on WP:BLPN to which I responded:
  "Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it"
  Which he followed up with an implied threat: "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk)"
  followed by an ad hominem attack:
  "If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise." [103]
• For three days the lead paragraph remained essentially bereft of content, and despite having deleted it Keith-264 had made no attempt to try and provide alternate text. I then inserted what I considered to be an accurate account of the controversy surrounding Stephen Sizer complete with source references.[104] this was almost immediately deleted by Keith-264 who again offered no alternative text, so once again left an almost completely void lead paragraph. I restored my deleted text, which once again was deleted by Keith-264.
• Without any prior input to the conversation, Hillbillyholiday entered the fray with a blatant and uncalled for threat [105].
• As Keith-264 was making no effort to add any content, but only intent on removing content, I filed a WP:AN/EW and correctly notified Keith-264 on his talk page. He responded with a threat on WP:BLPN [106]
• Nomoskedasticity then added a replacement paragraph which although likely to be less contentious than my text, still reflected reality.[107]
• Both Keith-264 and Collect made some modifications to the text by removing anything they considered contentious, Collect added a partial quote taken from one of the references. Being a partial quote, it gave completely the wrong impression. [108]
• I completed the quote and added some of the controversial material in accordance with the sources. [109].
• Hillbillyholiday then removed the quote completely, along with other controversial material. [110]
• Hillbillyholiday and I went back and forth a few times, at which point I requested that the page be locked and I started a new section on the Talk:Stephen Sizer page to try and reach some sort of consensus on the lead paragraph. [111]
• I subsequently added a list of five points that I thought could be discussed in order to try and reach consensus prior to us making any attempt at the actual wording. [112].
• Rather than accepting the genuine attempt by myself at trying to reach consensus, this was instead followed up by a number of personal attacks by Keith-264 [113] [114] [115] [116]
  And Hillbillyholiday enlisting John to intimidate me on my talk page by railing against a perfectly rational change I had previously added to Stephen Sizer. [117]

Clivel 0 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject the allegations above as baseless slurs by a vexatious editor and request a ruling from a disinterested admin to end this vendetta once and for all. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Collect, Keith, and I have merely been trying to follow BLP policies.

What really needs attention here are the actions of three editors who think it is acceptable to write Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism in the lede of this BLP.

• E.M.Gregory, who added it here
• Philip Cross, who restored it here
• Clivel 0, who added it here

As has been pointed out by various editors, both on the article's talkpage and BLP noticeboard, this is a highly contentious claim which is not even supported by the sources they have provided. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Respond I made 1 edit; it was well-sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI isn't the place to discuss the lede Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do, however, wish to point out that the page as it stands reads oddly. The brief lede states that Sizer is a parish priest. It's second sentence reads: "Sizer is also notable for his opposition to Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works." What is omitted is that , Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson (bishop), not for opposition to Christian Zionism but for, "chosen to disseminate, particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [118]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[119]. The lede certainly needs revision to reflect the things that has made Sizer notable, some would say notorious.[120].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I think that the lead is unsatisfactory too and have suggested Sizer opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works. In 2015 Sizer agreed with his bishop to refrain from using social media for six months after he linked to an article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for which he apologised. It is believed to be the first ban of its kind issued by [a bishop]. I think something on these lines will give due weight and be notable, reflecting the body of the article in a descriptive manner. I thought that this edit had almost established consensus and that everything else would be aftermath but I was wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the edits that Clivel 0 is making are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this editor is covered by the arbitration ruling barring editors with fewer than 500 edits from the topic area. I have notified them on their talk page of this restriction. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the WP:ACDS warning on my talk page which I can only assume was made in good faith, nevertheless, as so many Israel haters are prone to point out, anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel are not necessarily synonymous so please do not conflate the two. In this case, this ruling clearly does not apply, because the discussion is about Sizer's dissemination of anti-Semitic material, and not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The OP made a specific attack on editors on the BLP talk page (bolding his)

"I am finding the continual threats, bullying and attempts at intimidation by User:Keith-264, User:Hillbillyholiday and User:Collect to be getting more than a little tiresome. Clearly there is collusion, because without any prior involvement User:Hillbillyholiday wrote on the WP:BLPN ...

As there was no "collusion" and no "threats" and no "intimidation" on that article, I find the posting here of the same personal attacks to be quite reprehensible. The issue is one where WP:BLP applies, and the issue boils down to whether a claim should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice that a person is an anti-Semite, where prior discussions have averred that such a claim is, by its nature, contentious. Further deponent sayeth not. Collect (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am weighing in to point out that describing many of Sizers' statements and online activity as anti-Semitic is "contentious" only in the sense that the theory that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks is contentions. Sizer asserts that Israel was behind the attacks. Sizer is widely known for having been disciplined by his supervising Bishop, Andrew Watson for having "chosen to disseminate (material), particularly via social media, some of which is clearly anti-Semitic," for his "increasingly undisciplined commitment to an anti-Zionist agenda", for "promoting subject matter, which is... openly racist," and for his 9/11 conspiracy theory, Bishop Watson called it, Sizer's "ridiculous suggestion that Israel may have been complicit in the events of 9/11." [121]. This modern disciplining of a Church of England clergyman was an extraordinary event.[122]. [123]. But many reputable sources on Sizer's anti-Semitic activity and remarks exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the article's accusations (The Independent), and the bishopric website has the apology I have never believed Israel or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided. Seems to me this was a "one-off" per se linking to "WikiSpooks" and was retracted by Sizer - so accusing him of being an unrepentant anti-Semite as a claim of fact is a violation, per se, of WP:BLP. Cheers. And the earlier Daily Mail sourcing which was re-added is not only insufficient to call Sizer an anti-Semite, it quite carefully does not even make the claim which editors asserted it supported. Collect (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments demonstrate why the lead was outside BLP criteria before I edited it. Wikipedia is no place to scapegoat someone or push nonNPOV agendas. If you look at the discussion you will see copious amounts of information that negates all of your claims. Might I suggest that since the Church of England is an arm of the British state and run by David Cameron, a politician, any claim made by any member, not just Sizer must be treated cautiously? Might I also suggest that is is common for newspapers to make inflammatory claims without grounds or with only spurious links to a supposed source? Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The Church of England is headed by the Queen, not by David Cameron, if you want to give it a non religious leader. Furthermore, RS is RS. If newspapers and other R report something, it can be included, even if it doesn't suit your particular POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

L. Windsor is an employee of the state, which is run by D. Cameron. See how easy it is to make claims based on the obvious which are instantly challenged? My POV is clear, WP:BLP was violated in the lead. If you read the discussion you will see that. I want a description of events that are covered in detail in the body of the article. Is that so bad? I also commend "*We certainly cannot use a tabloid source to support anything remotely controversial on a living person. I applaud the idea of discussing here and getting full consensus before adding or restoring anything on this to the article. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)" by John to the audience. Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you in there, Your Majesty?

Queen Elizabeth is a red herring. The point is that reliable sources, including his boss the Bishop, state that many of the things Sizer has written and/or posted on social media are anti-Semitic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about Liz but no he didn't.Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee campaigning

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff: 21:57, 24 March 2016

Inappropriate notification. Non-neutral wording of notice. Campaigning; attempt to sway the person reading the notice.

Previous reports of Springee for canvassing

1. 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing by Scoobydunk
2. 11 March 2016: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

Respectfully request:

1. administrator removal of inappropriate non-neutral personal comment portion of RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction; and
2. warning to Springee reminding of our project's behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, in particular our community norm regarding the need for neutrality in notifications.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee has been a problem since day 1. How have they not been indefed yet? 107.181.21.54 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The above statement are likely from a banned editor who has attempted to harass both Ricky81682 and myself over the past six months or so. Springee (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Allow me to be the first one to say that this is going too far. You obviously have a problem with Springee that you are unwilling to address. Besides seeing a failure to discuss the wording with Springee, I personally do not see any violation of WP:CANVASS. The only way that the wording is not neutral is if you look for a personal attack in the first sentence, which is absurd. While the wording could have been "An editor has raised question to...." The comment as it stands (I'm not sure why the editor responsible for the below RfC failed to notify this board.), is by no way something deserving of ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am requesting that someone other than myself, if they agree, please remove that first sentence from the notice, and remind an editor of our norm of neutral notice wording. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any canvassing either. The wording was simply "I don't know why the editor didn't notice the wikiproject". It wasn't any accusation at all. Frankly, there's no requirement that someone notify a project about an RFC occurring at a page within it especially since it does show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles#Article_alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the RfC was already on the project page, which explains why talk was not notified. Yes, no one is required to notify. May I respectfully request that you take another quick look at the notice with an eye toward specifically campaigning, using non-neutral wording of a notice to sway respondents, by slyly attempting to make an issue of motives? Again, I seek only a little clean-up and a warning from a third party, perhaps a reminder of the availability of Template:Please see? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD

I propose a 1 year two-way interaction ban between HughD and Springee.

Reasoning: I recalled seeing an ANI post like this just days ago (found here) and upon searching "springee hugh" in the noticeboards, I was appalled by how much I found and how recently it all was. Even today an AN3 case was closed (1). These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) or end up proposing sanctions for each other ([124], 8). Even Ricky81682 proposed such an interaction ban back on 25 September 2015 ([125]). Both editors have most recently been on Ford Pinto and Chrysler and Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and associated talk pages all month, raking up dozens of edits. They appear to have followed each other to these pages, as well as other pages back in January (Interaction timelines: Ford Pinto interactions, Talk:Ford Pinto interactions, Chrysler interactions, Talk:Chrysler interactions, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, Talk:Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. interactions, ExxonMobil interactions, Talk:ExxonMobil interactions, ExxonMobil climate change controversy ineteractions, Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy interactions). In sum, these two appear to follow each other, report each other, and cannot edit constructive together. They cause disruption together and need to be separated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Something needs doing, and this is probably the only thing that will do it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Traveling: I've been traveling for the past few days and have had limited internet access. I would ask for an opportunity to reply before any sanctions or blocks are applied to my account. Thank you. Springee (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

While we're waiting, can someone please pitch in with a little clean-up of the totally unnecessary, non-neutral, personal comment prefacing the RfC notice at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction? After all, an RfC is one of our important mechanisms for de-escalating content disputes, please can it get off the ground free of a cloud of early non-neutral notification. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Thank you, EvergreenFir for suggesting this - I've been watching Springee and HughD carry on for months now, the bad blood between them has been seriously disruptive across multiple articles. Both users have indeed followed the other to unrelated articles they'd never edited before, and engaged in some seriously disruptive behavior in a bid to win whatever argument they're currently having. It's been clear to me for some time that both of them are basically trying to goad the other one into further bad behavior in the hopes that they'll be blocked - despite repeated pleas from admins and other users (including myself) to just move on and leave each other alone. Their conflict has resulted in edit wars and train-wreck talk page disputes across too many articles. It's way past time admins put a stop to this. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would like to avoid having editing restrictions placed on my account. I asked several editors for help related to this issue (Fyddlestix [126], Callanecc [127], EdJohnson [128] and Ricky81682 [129]) specifically because I didn’t want this to turn into an edit war. I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that. Please note that I have been involved with the Pinto topic since last year (3 edits not realizing I was logged out at the time, the Grimshaw article is about a Ford Pinto fire) and the Chrysler topic since last December. I think it is unfortunate that HughD would choose to edit those topics given my obvious involvement and his statements regarding our previous disagreements[130]. That said, before any restrictions are applied to my account related to these edits I would ask that other editors on those two topics be given a voice here (NickCT and Greglocock on the Pinto talk page, CZmarlin and Historianbuff on the Chrysler page). I would also ask that editors consider this recent topic on the Pinto Talk page regarding HughD’s edits. [131] I will happily, voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to a 3 month interaction ban with HughD and that during that time we avoid any topic which we were not editing prior to March 1 of this year. I do not feel that it is fair or just to sanction my account for these editing issues given the stark difference in article page feedback between HughD and myself. Please note I am still traveling and will have limited internet access over the next day or two. Springee (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose at least so far as as pages which Springee has long edited. Regarding seeking out interaction, i dunno one way or the other, but it's a frequent temptation to any good editor to seek out and repair damage to other articles. That can often be found simply by tracking a particular editor's ...I dunno. "Contributions" looks like a euphemism, in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think topic bans would be an easier way to get at this. HughD needs to be topic banned from Ford Pinto where he is editing disruptively. Start with that page, then look at others both editors are on. Whoever was there second should be banned from the page. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Callanecc, who on 18 October 2015 asked Springee:

  There's no ban violation there. You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.

• Though an administrator, Callanecc was but an arbitration clerk at the time, and the opportunity for a voluntary interaction ban was unfortunately ignored. Hugh (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Scoobydunk, who on 14 September 2015 reported Springee here for Hounding and Tendentious editing of me and others. Hugh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - EvergreenFir, thank you for your proposal. I believe your proposal will greatly improve my enjoyment of contributing to our project. I am I think rightly proud of my good articles, and my article space percentage, but both have suffered mightily since Springee made me his project at the Americans for Prosperity good article effort in Spring 2015. May I please point out, I am not socking as the IP you link to as suggesting a sanction for Springee, and though not the main issue here, to be fair, there is hardly any sort of equivalency between my reports of Springee and Springee's prodigious noticeboard volume. May I respectfully ask that my colleagues decline consideration of voluntary alternatives, and decline attempts by some to use this noticeboard filing, originally over one incident of non-neutral notice, to fashion some kind of interaction ban hybrid with a topic ban, via drawing a complex armistice line through Wikipedia subjects. As far as waiting for holiday travel, if my colleagues here want to hold off until they see yet another wall of text arguing why Hugh should be banned, fine, but I'd just as soon get on with getting on with what best I can tell is a simple reasonable measured proposal. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again to EvergreenFir for your simple reasonable proportional proposal. Thank you to my colleagues for your support of the proposal. I have read and understand interactions bans and support the proposal.

EvergreenFir wrote: "These two report each other to various noticeboards far too frequently or end up proposing sanctions for each other." May I clarify and quantify. Springee has reported HughD 7 times:

1. AE 27 December 2015
2. ANI 31 July 2015, proposed topic ban
3. ANI 6 August 2015, proposed topic ban
4. 3RN 22 August 2015
5. 3RN 26 October 2015
6. 3RN 7 March 2016
7. 3RN 12 March 2016, proposed topic ban

Springee proposed topic bans for me three times, twice an at ANI and once at 3RN . I have reported Springee twice, at ANI, 11 March 2016 and the current report, and the harshest sanction I have proposed for Springee is above in this report: a warning reminding of the importance of neutrality in notifying and a reminder of the availability of the "please see" template. Springee's project for going on a year now has been getting HughD banned. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, you should also mention that in the last year you have been blocked five times, been topic blocked and had that blocked expanded. Perhaps the number of reports is just reflective of your editing behaviors. If you think I'm so mean why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics? Springee (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think an IBAN would work. Although I honestly don't see a problem with the content of Springee's edits, and I do see a serious problem with many of HughD's edits, I think the only solution which would reduce disruption is to ban one or both of the editors from Wikipedia, or just ban both editors from any article and talk page where they have caused disruption, either being able to immediately appeal in the unlikely event that one is not at fault. Springee seems unable to avoid taunting Hugh, and Hugh seems unable to avoid making absurd statements about sources and policy.

  As for me, I have actively avoided editing in topics where Hugh is likely to be found. My enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I believe Wikipedia's accuracy, would be greatly improved if Hugh were banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded re HD. I oppose any action on S but would ask him to back off a little William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if an IBAN would address the underlying issues. HughD and Springee are by far the two most active editors on the articles they are currently sparring at, Ford Pinto and Chrysler. If they can't interact on the talk pages of these articles, I'm afraid they'll just edit war in article space instead. However, it's not like their interactions on the talk page have ever yielded anything constructive. It seems quite clear that HughD followed Springee to automotive articles. Springee first edited Ford Pinto on January 11, 2016, while HughD made his first edit on March 2, 2016 (for Chrysler, Springee's first edit was in July 2015 and Hugh's in March 2016). HughD seems to be on a sort of revenge campaign after being topic banned from U.S. political articles. His newfound interest in automobiles, which is an area Springee edited in prior to HughD's involvement, seems unlikely to be a coincidence. It looks more like calculated aggravation. I would know something about Hugh's penchant for appropriating his least favorite editors' interests, as several months ago he bizarrely plagiarized my statement of editorial interests from my user page. I don't think Hugh is interested in US Weekly or cars. I think he's interested in trying to make the editing lives of his perceived foes less pleasant. So yes, I'd support an IBAN as a first step, I suppose, but I think Hugh's continued involvement on automotive pages is highly likely to render him topic banned from that area as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The "calculated aggravation" works both ways here - while it is less recent, Springee has done just as much (and as blatant) following of HughD - I detailed some of that at 3RR and at AE months ago. Check the diffs, some of the harassment was pretty severe/blatant. More recently, Springee has posted eight times to HughD's talk page since HughD specifically asked him not to post there (ie "banned" him from his talk page) in December, and devoted considerable effort and time into trying to get HughD sanctioned (multiple reports, contacting individual admins directly, etc). Both of these editors have been bearing a grudge against the other one for a long time now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee persistent violations of WP:NOBAN despite repeated reminders:

• 19 October 2015 First notice HughD WP:NOBAN request to Springee "Do not post on my talk page" at User talk:Springee
• 19 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 20 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 21 October 2015, 22 October 2015, 25 October 2015, 26 October 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 26 October 2015 Second notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 22 December 2015 Third notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 23 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 26 December 2015, 27 January 2016, 2 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 2 March 2016 Fourth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 7 March 2016 Fifth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD
• 11 March 2016, 18 March 2016 Springee posts to User talk:HughD
• 18 March 2016 Sixth notice Springee reminded of WP:NOBAN request at User talk:HughD

Thank you for your attention to this harassing editor behavior. Hugh (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments: I would like to address some of the comments here. I appreciate Safehaven86’s comments about HughD’s editing behaviors and following me to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Like Safehaven86, HughD added an interest area of mine to his home page after the fact[132]. HughD’s first Chrysler edit was reverting me (removal[133], added back[134]).

Fyddlestix has my respect and I contacted him for help[135] related to these issues. I do not agree with him in this case. Fyddlestix mentioned his comments in a previous AE [136]. My reply is here[137]. The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics. HughD clearly followed me to the automotive topics. Regarding posts to HughD's talk page, consider what they were. Notifications of admin discussions are a requirement. I asked him to please watch the 3RR/warring hoping to avoid bigger issues. One post because it was clear he followed me to the Pinto article[138] and one in frustration (but not attack)[139]. These are not attempts to provoke.

HughD’s Pinto edits have clearly upset other editors as well as myself. 250 edits at a rate of ~50 per day when many editors were asking him to slow down is disruptive [140]. Chrysler page editors are also concerned about HughD’s edits as well[141] [142]. My efforts were appriciated[143].

I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD but the other way around and rather blatant at that. Like Arthur Rubin I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics. I was unhappy to find that HughD followed me to those topics. I do not believe it would be just to sanction my account because HughD decided to follow me. That said, I am more than willing to voluntarily and if need be unilaterally agree to an interaction ban. I would suggest that HughD respond in kind with a voluntary interaction ban and also agree to leave the Pinto and Chrysler related topics. If HughD feels I violate that voluntary ban then he has ample ammo for an ANI. Given his actions on the Pinto and Chrysler pages I would support topic blocks but I think a voluntary agreement to abandon the topics (hence my future work in the area would not be seen as an interaction) should be acceptable to us both. I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again. Again, I do not wish to be sanctioned because HughD followed me here. Springee (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee claims to have forsworn following after his previous report to WP:ANI:

I’ve been involved in automotive and closely related topics since establishing my account and certainly didn't follow HughD to these topics. Previously I have said that I do not wish to engage HughD in new topics and I have stuck to that.

and

The wikihounding accusations last fall, though they didn't stick, made me wary of ANY actions may be seen as following HughD to new topics...I think Fyddlestix’s POV is based on the past, not the recent issues. I want to assure him this is not a case of me trying to provoke HughD...I’ve shown that I can stick to my word and will do so again.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Recent incidents of Springee following HughD, with diffs (the following list is focused for brevity to incidents of Springee following HughD, when Springee's first edit to the article was to revert or undo HughD in article space, and does not include following to talk or noticeboards or following when Springee's first edit to the article was tagging):

• 14 September 2015 Springee reported at WP:ANI for for Hounding and Tendentious editing, report opening with 8 articles to which Springee followed HughD
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was to revert HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 7 March 2015)
• 15 October 2015 Springee's 1st edit at Beacon Center of Tennessee was to undo HughD after 4 hours (HughD 1st edit was 30 September 2015)
• 18 October 2015 Admin asked Springee to stop following HughD and to stop commenting on HughD's edits
• 12 November 2015 Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 21 December 2015 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil was to revert HughD after 5 hours (HughD 1st edit was 18 August 2015)
• 22 January 2016 Springee's 1st edit at ExxonMobil climate change controversy was an undo of HughD after 3 minutes (HughD 1st edit was 22 January 2016)
• 4 March 2016 Springee's 1st edit at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. was to revert HughD after 3 hours (HughD 1st edit was 2 March 2016)

Respectfully suggest to my colleagues that voluntary concessions are unlikely to be effective in curbing this disruptive following behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. However, because of Hugh's frequent violations of content policies, Springee should be allowed to comment on such violations, even if he/she is not allowed to revert them. So this would be a somewhat modified IBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a voluntary, two way IBAN not work HughD? Are you afraid you won't hold to it? What evidence to you have that I can't be trusted? Springee (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment to HughD's accusations:HughD's accusations beg a question. If I have been so mean to him, why follow me here? It's not like automotive articles have been a topic space of HughD's. If he just wanted to be left alone doesn't following me to a space I've been in for a long time and he's never been in seem like he was looking to start a fight, a fight I didn't engage in per the views of the Pinto and Chrysler editors. I’m sorry but HughD’s claims above are very misleading if not outright dishonest. I would like to start by pointing out that HughD's current topic block was the result of dishonestly presenting his own actions in a previous ANI [144] as part of an AE request against another editor. Please keep that in mind when reading his accounting of events. To avoid a wall of text I have used the collapse feature. He is taking a laughable accusation of canvasing (later changed to campaigning) and trying to turn it into a dumping ground of old accusations. Why mention these issues months after the fact? Sadly I believe this is a plan on HughD's part. If he gets an IBAN then I believe he assumes that will result in an effective Pinto and Chrysler topic block for me. Regardless of outcome I would ask admins to consider the fact that the editors replying from the recent topics have been supportive of my participation on the topics in question. No editors have been supportive of HughD's involvement with the articles in question. While I believe a voluntary IBAN would solve the issue (not sure why HughD is against such a thing other than malice) it would be unjust to block me from automotive topics because HughD chose to follow me to those areas with the intent to be disruptive.

General replies to HughD's accusations

HughD mentioned the Americans for Prosperity page. I replied to an RfC that HughD had at the page. I had no idea who HughD was prior to that article. A large number of editors were involved. Like the outside editors responding to the Chrysler and Pinto pages I was badgered by HughD because I didn't agree with his POV. A review of the editorial history of the page, an article which HughD was topic banned from, doesn't show any misbehavior on my part. I'm not sure why HughD would even claim it other than it was the first time we interacted as editors. HughD states I followed him to several articles months after his first edit. That is a half truth. The topic of editorial disagreement was the use of a Mother Jones article citing the “dirty dozen of climate change”. This was a questionable article that HughD added to about a dozen articles. It was the subject of NPOV[145] and RSN[146] discussions and a number of editors including Arthur Rubin were involved. A range of related articles were noted in the NPOVN and RSN discussions. HguhD's additions began around August 18th. Because other editors, Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo among others were involved in these edits I didn’t initially act on every page where HughD tried to insert this questionable reference. Thus while HughD wants to claim these as unique interactions, they are in fact all related to one issue, the insertion of a questionable source into many articles. In cases where HughD said I joined the article months later it was simply a case of others had previously reverted HughD’s edit. Rather than accepting the previous group consensus, he returned a month or so later and undid what the others had done. These aren’t examples of me following HughD to many new topics but rather restoring previous consensus related to a single citation used in a number of articles on a topic I was alread involved with. Articles include ones HughD mentioned, Coalition for Clean Coal, Constructive Tomorrow, Beacon Center, ExxonMobil and API articles. Basically that whole list of “he followed me” is actually related to a single topic. HughD's claim related to the ExxonMobil climate change controversy article is again a half truth. The climate change article was spun off from ExxonMobil in January. I was one of the editors involved in that spin off and using HughD's reasoning I could claim he followed me to the article because my first talk page edit was January 15th [147]. Hugh’s first edit to the article was Jan 22nd[148] and he first joined the talk page 2 days later. However, I am honest enough to see the EM climate change article as just an extension of the parent article. It would be dishonest if I claimed HughD followed me to EM-climate change article, as is claiming I followed him. We were both involved in the parent article's climate change section when it was spun off. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. is the most significant lawsuit associated with the Ford Pinto case and is a closely related article as the one is pivotal in the telling of the other. Both Greglocock and I turned to the Grimshaw talk page before HughD[149] to try to engage HughD before we mane any edits to the article. In this case I made almost NO changes to HughD's edits rather I added additional material and restored that material when HughD moved/removed it. I guess using the ExxonMobil reasoning HughD followed me to the Grimshaw talk page. Hugh has attempted to make a big deal of the posts to his talk page. Please consider the nature of the posts. Some were required notifications (notice he doesn't mention that). Some were simply requesting that he please engage in talk page discussions. These were attempts to try to get HughD to the table, not attempts to antagonize. Quite unlike HughD falsely quoting me on his home page and then refusing to remove the content[150].

Regardless of HughD's misleading accusations of past wrong, if I am as mean to him as he claims and hurt his editing enjoyment that much, why follow me to the automotive article space at all? I don't think a single editor has accused me of taking a bad step when editing the Pinto or Chrysler related articles (other than Hugh himself). It would again seem very unfair to sanction me for the disruptions Hugh has caused on these articles. Springee (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban user User:HughD from Ford Pinto

Moved from another ANI thread.

--QEDK (T 📖 C)

User:HughD has been disruptively editing our Ford Pinto article. Could an admin review this discussion and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The still-active discussion above (titled "Springee Campaigning") also concerns HughD and the pinto dispute. Just sayin' Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - Thanks. Yeah. I noticed. I think that discussion is discussing an interaction ban, right? I just think HughD should get topic banned from Ford Pinto. I and others think that HughD has to get topic banned from Ford Pinto. That justifies a second discussion, no? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Support banning User:HughD: It's not worth trying to edit the Ford Pinto article with HughD participating. He's basically destroyed any pretense of unbiased editing, and he continues to seriously distort the article.842U (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose a Tban, as the problem extends far beyond just one article or one topic. Conflict between HughD and Springee has made a mess on a much broader range of articles and talk pages, ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Chicago-style politics to Ford Pinto. Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: - re "Topic banning one or both editors from a single article is going to do nothing to fix the larger issue here." - Maybe not. But it would be a start.... NickCT (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support with condition As noted above I don't agree with Fyddlestix in this case. HughD's 50 edits per day before the article was locked, refusal to accept opinions from 3rd party editors and the clear consensus among the other editors that HughD is a problem mean that at least this part of the discussion is not about me. That said, I proposed a two way voluntary interaction ban between HughD and myself that would also include voluntarily leaving the automotive pages in question. Thus it would result in HughD leaving the page but no sanctions would be levied against his account. Please note, tomorrow is a travel day for me and I will have limited web access Springee (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The appropriate venue for the resolution of a content dispute is article talk, not a noticeboard. A civil disagreement regarding content, supported by noteworthy reliable sources, policy, and guideline, is not disruptive. Involved editors are respectfully requested to bring their article content proposals and best noteworthy reliable sources to Talk:Ford Pinto. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - This purpose of this conversation is not to discuss content. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fyddlestix's reasoning. Neither article nor the topic are the cause of the disruption. Removing an editor from it will not mitigate that disruption and only serve as a punitive measure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - Not sure how removing a disruptive editor from a particular article would not mitigate the disruption that editor was creating on that article. Seems like it would mitigate it quite effectively! NickCT (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think the article is the issue. If HughD is being disruptive on Ford Pinto specifically and only on that article, I'd agree. But they're are other articles that be being simultaneously disrupted. A tban from one of those articles only makes no sense. From my reading of the edit histories the interaction of the two editors is the main problem, so I'd rather try an iban first and see if the disruption stops. It almost certainly won't stop just from a tban from Ford Pinto. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment HughD's bad behavior might have been due to my presence at the Ford Pinto and Chrysler articles. That doesn't excuse his behavior at those articles. When the editors unanomously (minus HughD) request the blocking of an editor that has to mean something. Does anyone believe his talk page interactions don't violate WP:TEND? Regardless of why he chose to edit war and be disruptive the fact is he was. Conversely the editors involved with those articles have not accused me of any editorial violations and have supported me here.

I find it disappointing that HughD seems intent on blood rather than an amicable agreement. Unless he thinks he is unable to adhere to a voluntary IBAN why request an official one? I would like to point out that if HughD’s involvement was calculated aggression as Safehaven86 suggests (and I agree) then his desire for an interaction ban would make sense. His participation on those pages, disruptive though it may be, would effectively block my participation on articles that I’ve been involved with for some time. I suspect this is why he seems to be campaigning for mutual sanctions.

Regarding HughD's editing on the pages in question, HughD added 250 edits to the Pinto article alone in the ~10 days it was open. Several editors asked him to slow down and discuss changes and expressed concern in a 3RR complaint [151]. HughD’s behavior at Ford Pinto and Chrysler had many marks of WP:TEND editing.

List of TEND examples

HughD’s editing pace was of concern to the group. Nearly 50 edits per day made tracking changes and discussing controversial changes very difficult. Additionally, these are specific WP:TEND issues with HughD's edits to the Pinto and Chrysler pages: One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism: While it is clear the group consensus is against HughD’s edits he accused others of edit warring. When group consensus did not support his addition to the Chrysler article he placed a POV hat on the topic. I was accused of warring when removing the hat[152] after seeking and getting group consensus [153]. This is one of the edits for which Historianbuff thanked me. Doesn’t give others the benefit of doubt: This largely applies to his actions towards me but others as well when he dismisses their concerns. For example HughD proposed changes which had already been rejected. CZmarlin replied to the discussion. Rather than address CZmarlin’s concerns, HughD talked around them. [154] CZmarlin cited several policies to support his POV and gave numbers. HughD simply insisted that the information was WP:DUE even when other editors disagreed. Note that just today a 3rd party editor, Damotclese, supported the view that the material was not due [155]. Per his pattern HughD badgered rather than accepted the 3rd party POV. violating the 3RR rule I filed two 3RR filings against HughD related to the Pinto article. Both were found to have enough merit to result in article locks (no negative comments against me). Another editor filed a 3RR related to the Chrysler article. Yes, my actions could be seen as someone out to get HughD but was CZmarlin just out to get HughD[156], [157]? When EdJohnston warned HughD about edit warring was that just “out to get him”? Editor, Kevjgav has avoided involvement in the article edits but specifically asked HughD to stop edit warring on both the Chrysler and Pinto pages [158] (posted to Hugh’s talk page[159]). Accuses others of malice: "Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources." HughD failed to understand that the material he was attempting to add was removed based on consensus yet he accuses of malice [160]. Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources: HughD specifically and repeatedly attacked the Lee and Ermann scholarly source. He also attacked the Schwartz scholarly source. Together these two sources, Schwartz in particular, are the most cited sources on the topic. ("three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view."[161], [162]). HughD never justified his claims of "revisionist, apologist" when asked by two editors [163],[164]. Hugh also tried to downplay author Lee as a "grad student" and thus not of merit [165]. One to whom others don't give the benefit of doubt: Certainly stating that I “explicitly state my confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia…” is less than giving me the benefit of the doubt[166]. One who repeats the same argument without convincing people: After failing to gain traction for his ideas in general discussions HughD posted a series of edit proposals (the article was locked at this time) HughD launches five edit proposals with no support other than his own. The last three each contained the same proposal to move material to a later section of the artile which was a point of contention each time the proposals were made. Why make a new proposal that doesn't fix what was wrong with the last. 1.[[167], 2.[168], 3.[169]. Each tries to downplay Mother Jones's role in the controversy despite significant support for the current article test in RSs. One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors: One of HughD's proposed edits was the removal of an article that was of lesser (but still sufficient) quality.[170] I asked a specific question [171]. Other editors noted it was not answered [172],[173]. One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This has proven to be absolutely true with regards to the Chrysler article. HughD has been pushing for inclusion of some recall material that the group feels is of low importance simply because he feels the article is imbalanced due to a lack of negative comments about Chrysler. EdJohnston mention this issue to HughD when closing CZmarlin’s 3RR complaint with a warning noting that HughD should try the RfC process rather than edit warring when people don’t agree with him [174] , [175]. Even a third party editor agreed that the material HughD was trying to add was UNDUE [176]. One who never accepts independent input Anyone who has been involved with a RfC or 3rd editor discussion with HughD has seen this. When the 3rd party opinion doesn’t go HughD’s way he constantly badgers the editor in an effort to get them to change their mind. In cases of the Pinto and Chrysler no 3rd party opinions supported his actions. HughD requested a third opinion [177] yet immediately argued with the editor when the recommendation didn’t go his way. This repeated with EllenCT’s reply to HughD’s RfC [178], HughD badgers EllenCT [179], and again when EllenCT appears to have tired of HughD’s games[180]. Finally EllenCT has had enough[181]. In a similar RfC at the Chrysler article HughD rejected arguments by uninvolved editor [182]. Just today on the Chrysler talk page an editor rejected HughD’s proposed edit[183]. HughD quickly replied back, restating the same arguments that were rejected by CZmarlin and myself.

I think it is very clear that HughD has been detrimental to both articles. That he feels I might have been unfair to him in the past is no excuse for disruptive editing in (to him) new articles. I would prefer an automotive topic block but at least a block related to the Pinto and Chrysler topics. Springee (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project

Oh, look. Yet another noticeboard wall of text on why HughD should be banned. I hope no one feels had for waiting for "travelling."

Springee's project is HughD. User:Springee is little more than a single purpose account, with just enough automotive and Southern Strategy for cover. Springee's article space percentage is 18%; this one essay is a larger contribution to Wikipedia than all his recent article space contributions combined. Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, until ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article, and Chicago-style politics his fifth top edited article! Regulars to these noticeboards recognize Springee as a noticeboard wall-of-text specialist who perceives prestige in successful proposed sanctions.

Springee claims to be humble automotive writer:

I had grown tired of dealing with HughD and wanted to move back into primarily automotive topics.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support our colleague Springee in their self-actualization effort. Please take the HughD project away from them. Please support an interaction ban. We may enable a great flowering of high quality neutral automotive coverage in our project. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question for HughD, if you think I've been so mean to you why did you follow me to the Pinto and Chrysler articles? I'm happy to agree to an interaction ban, we avoid mutual topics from prior to March 1 and agree to not interact with one another on future topics. Seems like an easy solution and we don't even need an admin to force it if we simply, mutually agree to it here and now. Are we in agreement? Springee (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you had "voluntarily" stopped following me, 14 September 2015 when you were reported to ANI for following, or 18 October 2015 when Callanecc asked you to, we would not be here.

The reporting editor, the reported editor, the proposer, and uninvolved commenters are in consensus here on the close: please put the interaction ban on the books for future reference. Thank you for your support. Hugh (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor attacking others at Talk:Twilight

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) seems to be pushing a anti-religion agenda and attacking others at Talk:Twilight. When an editor introduced an edit and started a discussion on the talk page when their edit was reverted, Pocketthis reponded with this rant that says "The subject is "CLOSED" because this is Wikipedia's protocol, and I've been helping enforce it for 5 years. You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person. A person of faith. Please feel free to contribute to in the articles written by those who also live their lives on faith and not fact. No compromise." and this one, saying things such as "This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." and "You can't pray here. Now think of the religious articles as your church. Keep it where it belongs, and all is good."

As per WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack. That seems to be this editor's modus operandi. When I asked him to tone down his rhetoric on his talk page, he stated that because I was part of a (completely different) religion, that I should "bow out" because my "religious sympathies are showing". When I reverted the article back to it's previous state per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, he reverted with the edit summary A Buddhist is trying to reinsert the religious section here. I've done my bit. If you cowards don't come to my aid, this article and hundreds like it will become part of Wikibible and noted on their talk page that YOU have started the edit war! You reversed my removal. Saying that edit-warring has "a guilty party" and it's certainly not them, despite them being the one making all the reverts.

Pocketthis is not a new editor, and should be very aware by now that this kind of behavior is inappropriate. Attacking other editors, edit-warring while blaming every other editor for edit-warring is something that would be expected from a new editor, but not someone that has been here for over four years with a few thousand edits under their belt. Their comments and actions have made it clear that they aren't here to collaborate with others (especially those he feels are compromised by having an opinion he doesn't share), and I really think some kind of administrator intervention is required. Pocketthis has been notified of this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I attacked no one. I am trying to protect the integrity of our encyclopedia from Bible pushers, who use science articles as a venue to preach. This man accusing me of attacking a new user, (which by the way isn't a new user, but an old one disguised a new one), is a Buddhist, and has sympathy for those who would insert matters of faith into a science article. I am trying to keep Wikipedia from becoming Wikibible. I should be thanked, and not spanked. - thanksPocketthis (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• P.S. I have said my piece, and made my edits as to the issue pertaining to religion in the Twilight Article. I am done. There is no need to worry about any further comments by me. If what I have said and done there isn't enough for others to come to my aid, then it is what it is, and there's nothing I can do about it. - thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis seems to be an atheistic fanatic. Case ends. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, no one is coming to your aid because you are wrong. By comparison, it doesn't matter that I personally think genocide is bad. It's still a thing, and there are still Wikipedia articles on it. It doesn't matter that I think astrology is nonsense. It's still a thing and there is still a WP article on it. By the same measure, it doesn't matter that you and I are atheists. Religion is still a thing that exists, and is therefore an appropriate topic for inclusion in WP. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion Timothy, however, our science articles are being hijacked by religious fanatics. This is the max the Twilight article should have to say about anything pertaining to religion: Many religions view the twilight time of the day as holy, and many activities in various religions are practiced during that time. Anything more, and you start a 10,000 character religious section, inviting every religious faith to come make their pitch. Haven't we seen enough religious destruction in the world to know what they are really selling? It is so obvious and absurd, I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it. From the beginning of recorded time, one faith or another has killed thousands in the name of their God. Why can't we keep a lid on it here? Or at least keep in their religious articles. Miserly loves company, let them be miserable there. - Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  Totally not a personal attack. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pocketthis, sorry man, but your personal philosophical opinion on the role of religion in the grand scheme of the universe simply isn't relevant. Get off the WP:SOAPBOX. You don't have a 10,000 character religious section, if you end up with one, then argue WP:DUEWEIGHT. You have a small (severely undersourced) section. So drop the slippery slope. Compare the section under Sun which perfectly appropriately addresses historically significant cultural and religious issues related to the sun, a section which you yourself have edited in the past and apparently had no problem with. WP is not the place to wage your personal social war. All these high handed proclamations about the fate of humanity just makes you look like you're WP:NOTHERE, and your going to wind up banned if you don't get a bit of a reality check. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have already said here that I was done with any further religious editing in that article. I was just commenting here with you as a mini debate. I see that you do not wish to debate, so I am done with debating as well. Good day-Pocketthis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your personal attacks and battleground mentality as much as your editing on the article. You cannot attack other editors on Wikipedia, especially for something as simple as having a viewpoint that you don't agree with. As far as I can see, you don't need to be touching any religious information on any article, because you have shown that you do not have the capacity to handle it, or other editors, appropriately. I don't know if a topic ban is needed, but it might be needed here to avoid a block. I don't know if you're having an off day or if there is a history of this behavior, I'm looking into that now, but the fact that you think this behavior is okay is the real issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

He is certainly not competent enough to touch religious discussions for the rest of his life (this is coming from a non-theist, hit me). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this was all over, and I really want it to be. On the other hand, I must say that the issue here I have a problem with, even more than the religious sections in science articles, is being accused by the user that opened this discussion, saying that I attacked someone in the talk article. All I did in the talk article was "talk". Yes, my opinion was very concise and deliberate, but that is just because I grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and I speak from the front of my mouth. There is no speaking from the side of my mouth, or under my breath. I tell it as I see it. I do so politely, and that is not attacking anyone. The person with real issues here, is the user/reviewer that opened this discussion. I truly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I never threatened the fellow in the talk page. The word Attack as used here is absurd. I will admit that as the years go by, I am more convinced that organized religion is not a good thing. To that opinion.....I am guilty. Also, perhaps I have been drinking a bit too much coffee. I'll cut down. Can we put this to bed now? - Thanks -Pocketthis (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"You don't come with good will. You come with religion. You are a religious person." Puts an interesting spin on WP:BADFAITH (Pun completely intended).

"This isn't the inside of someone's home where you can pop up on the TV screen begging for dollars, promising the sick, the old and the poor redemption, simply by sending in their life savings." Really? I mean, hyperbole for sure. WP:CIVIL is a slam dunk. WP:SOAPBOX and a half. WP:NPA just for good measure. (But hey, if this is a way to get rid of the WP donation banner then I'm all for it.)

And this is not to mention that your entire premise is just wrong. Compare the article on the sun, as has been brought up already. Compare bread, gold, monogamy, capital punishment. The topic doesn't matter. If there are WP:RS that make the connection, and it's not WP:UNDUE weight, then it belongs.

The grand irony is, that if you had actually argued against the section based on the weakness of its sources, you would have had a good point. Instead you've nearly categorically disqualified yourself to have that discussion. You just make things worse with the "I just want it all to be over, but before it is, I want to have the last word and make sure everyone knows I'm completely justified.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my perspective on this. First, here is the content that User:Matt1618 wanted to add. Pretty heavy on the Roman Catholic thing, and if you look at Matt1618's contribs, they are 100% WP:SPA for things Roman Catholic, and their username is the biblical verse on which the Pope bases his claim of primacy. In my view, this user is so far here to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for things Roman Catholic, which is not OK. So User:Pocketthis was hitting a mark with their shotgun blasts. Matt1618 please reply here and let us know that you understand that the way you have been using Wikipedia is not OK.

That said, what Pocketthis wrote on the Talk page was out to lunch and over the top. Almost every article on archetypical natural phenomena has a section that discusses importance to "Culture" in various ways (which is really how those article should be sectioned - a Culture section that deals with things like, art, literature, religion, etc). Examples: Dawn#Mythology_and_religion + Dawn#Dawn_in_the_world_of_Art + Dawn#Literature; Blue_hour (pretty much 100% culture); Night#Cultural_aspects; Rainbow#Culture; Moon#In_culture; heck, Mars#In_culture and even Flower#Symbolism. So the notion that "religion" as a subset of Culture per has no place in an article about an archetypal time of day, is just out to lunch. I'll add here that the Twilight article is only part of one WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Time which is defunct and never created a manual of style to guide sectioning, but I would reckon they would have a "Culture" section if they had a MoS.

Pocketthis, you also did nothing to get community input when you had your disagreement and as the more experienced user that would have been wiser of you. And you were beyond blunt and into strident. That is what everybody here has said. So let me ask you - can you hear that what you said about "no religion" was not correct, and that the way you said it was way too strident? If you cannot see those things, there are bigger problems than a TBAN from religion would solve. If you can see that, there is no need for a TBAN, in my view, especially if you can bring yourself to apologize for what you did, too. (for real, not fakey) Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal from the topic of religion

The above makes it very clear that Pocketthis (talk · contribs) cannot constructively edit, or discuss, the topic of religion on Wikipedia. Outside of the topic of religion the editor's edits seem constructive, but if they keep at this they are going to get themselves blocked from editing. For that reason, I propose that the editor be topic banned from the subject of religion on Wikipedia for at least six months. The fact that they don't see their behavior regarding the topic of religion as a problem indicates that they don't need to be discussing it at all. Saying "You don't come with good will. You come with religion." is not "polite", no matter how much Pocketthis says otherwise, and the fact that they are willing to give "no compromise" on the subject means they should not be editing the subject at all. In their own words above, "I'm having a hard time containing myself speaking of it." This edit summary, more than any other thing, sums up why they should be topic banned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You sir are a Buddhist that has lost his way. If you would have simply showed up in the Twilight talk page, and asked me to tone it down politely, I would have re-read my reply to the man, and tried to be more forgiving of his relentless posting. However, you chose to come here and make my life miserable because you felt your own faith threatened. Where is "your" compassion for fellow man? You lost it along the way. This isn't the living room with the TV in it asking for donations, or the front gate just waiting for that sought after Watchtower. It is an encyclopedia. This man put 2500 words about Christianity in the Twilight article, and when it was removed, he would not stop posting his opinions. I also didn't stop posting mine. Yes, I could have been more forgiving, and compromising, however, when the fellow lied to me and told me he was just a "new user" trying to do whatever, I closed the door on having an open mind. And......when this is all said and done and decided, the truth about his identity will eventually surface, and you might feel differently. How do I know he is not a new user? All of us that have been here for years know when they are talking to a sock puppet, or a banned user claiming to be a "new user". I don't have to give examples. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't belong here in this discussion. Any real user, that had prior posts, and was respected by the community would have gotten a completely different response from me there. I think you all of know that. I have worked here with the best in the world for 5 years, and you would block me over a talk page exchange with a sock puppet. Sad.. Sad commentary indeed.

• do not support- as recipient - Pocketthis (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Every time you comment you dig yourself in deeper. You are incapable of discussing religion in a civil manner, for whatever reason. The funny thing is, I'm certain that I've never said I was a Buddhist on Wikipedia. Not just in discussions with you, but ever. I'm an active part of the WikiProject Buddhism, and have a quote from the Dhammapada on my user page because it's relevant to how people should discuss things on Wikipedia. That doesn't make me Buddhist, and the only person who has brought up Buddhism is you, so how is it that "my faith is being threatened"? The Twilight article does not, and as far as I know, has never mentioned Buddhism, nor have I in any discussion with you up until this comment. Yet you see the word "WikiProject Buddhism" on my user page and automatically attack me for it, saying that "because I'm Buddhist" that I shouldn't have any say in the subject of religion, and that my "religious sympathies are showing" simply because I disagree with you. The very mention of the word religion seems to compromise your ability to have any sort of dialogue, and instead you start going into these diatribes that hardly have anything to do with the subject at hand. Instead of explaining why you should not be topic banned from religion, you chose to attack me and what you assume is my personal religion. If anything, that's more evidence that you need to be topic banned before you are blocked completely. - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• There you go with that word Attack again. Were you beat up as a child? Seriously my friend, I think the person that is out of control here is you. How have you ever managed to maintain your seniority here with your lack of compassion and diplomacy? Amazing.-Pocketthis (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support temp topic ban due to refusal to stop digging, and tendency toward WP:Discrimination. As for Aoidh, enough, we get it. Shh. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

True. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban - enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Why don't you fellows go and ban the sock puppet and do something constructive here. I'm being railroaded, and I would find it amusing if I didn't spend so many hours of my life here trying to improve and beautify this place. What a disgrace this is. Other than the level headed admin that ended this case, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. This is how you treat a 5 year veteran of the site that has fought vandalizum tooth and nail here everyday. I have beautified your articles with photography, and made some of the best friends of my life here, of which I do not plan on informing them of this atrocity, or ask for their help. Have fun here wolf-pack, and thank you "starter of this thread". You have only reinforced my feelings about those involved in organized religion. My advice is don't look in the mirror tonight, you might not like what you see.Pocketthis (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Dood. So much melodrama. Schtap. This is the problem. Learn to learn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Insulting other editors proves no understanding of the "write for the enemy" aspect of NPOV. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite topic ban. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Doesn't seem to be able to edit neutrally on the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - topic ban, minimum 6 months or more. Just because this user has spent "5 years beautifying the place", doesn't give them a free pass from disruptive editing, personal attacks and discrimination. - ^theWOLFchild 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (in fact, only certain editors get free passes around here, usually they're buddies with the admins, and this doesn't seem to apply here)
• Support as someone who thinks religion is a bunch of grownup fairy tales, though historically important and worthy, on the whole, for what it tries to do. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Although from a philosophical perspective my thinking is more in line with Pocketthis and EEng, this is an international project which should aim to be more inclusive in its approach to editors. Comments such as those by Pocketthis are counter to these aims and should be duly sanctioned. Blackmane (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a different administrator who can look over the EGS article rather than "Guy"?

I want to report the "Guy" or "JzG" actions concerning the European Graduate School article. He does not like the school, so he is unlikely to make the necessary edit or changes to the article. He blocked me and he has tried to ban me (without any success this time). I do not want to start a war against him because I like to do something else in life. However, I tried to raise some arguments about the EGS accreditation, the recent Maltese accreditation, the fact that U.S. sources are outdated and not official (even if my contribution are lenghty in talk page, I am referring to the official Michigan, Maine and Texas website links which state something different with reference to the EGS accreditation). A prospective student has written in the talk page and "Guy" replied that the topic was "discussed to death already". I note that different administrators have written in the Rfc (@Softlavender,@Vanjagenije,@Damotclese). This has happened each time I try to raise an argument, "Guy" has the final say. He also replied by telling me that I am here to whitewash the Egs article, that I am a WP:SYN (so according to him I should not write anymore in the talk page. In other words, he believes that only long-term editors can raise their arguments and that I should wait some time before writing that EGS is accredited), then that I was a suckpuppetry, latly a meatpuppetry. In conclusion, so long as he acts as an executioner/judge/final say of the article, my contributions to the talk page would be totally worthless. My question: Is there a different administrator who can look over the article rather than "Guy"?Claudioalv (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there an editor who can look at this content other than the WP:SPA Claudioalv? Who keeps demanding that we engage in novel synthesis such as listing accreditation of some courses in Malta and asserting based on this that all sources relating to questiona ble accreditaiton be removed as "incorrect", or that we portray the degrees as being recognised throughout the EU when actually the linked WP:PRIMARY source contains absolutely nothing demonstrating any obligation to accept degrees accredited elsewhere? And why is a Swiss-headquartered school only able to find accreditaiton in a country whose population is exceeded by that of many of the towns in the US state that lists its degrees as fraudulent, I wonder?

All this user has ever done is try to whitewash this article and WP:FORUMSHOP endlessly in the hope that the answer will change if the demand is repeated often enough. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is no more than a compacted form of WP:OTHERPARENT. Half of the administration is already WP:INVOLVED in this (see, your talkpage), and surely that is enough. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I find this very curious. Why should the article have an entire section on the Graduate school's lack of accreditation in 2 states in the U.S.? Do articles now have to include sections on whether they come up to the standards of the U.S.? Surely there are a zillion other organisations out there which are not accredited by similar organisations in the U.S. For example, several animal breeding organisations will not even recognise each other so should we re-write the articles to say that (imaginary example) the U.K. Hereford Bull Society is not accredited by the U.S. Hereford Bull Society? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Claudioalv: Why did you delete my posting? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

[@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:] It is clear that "Guy" has more power than half of the administration. Each time I raise an argument the answer is "No" without providing any reasons. It should not take longer to see in the talk page that he is acting as a Supreme Judge/executioner/final say. It is not enough because his conduct has been reckless and biased. He just does not like that an editor (even if is a WP:SPA) raises an argument (U.S. source are outdated and that is easy to verify). I was asking to verify and update the U.S. sources, and as a result I was blocked and he tried to ban me. This is a serious problem because freedom of speech is involved. Blocking someone and attempting to ban him without any reason should not be allowed by other administrators. I am not currently asking to edit the article with the contribution I provided (even if there is consensus in the Rfc as you can easily see), I am only asking that someone else not biased can look over the article. thanks for your time. Claudioalv (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hear that Guy? Now you need to kill off the rest in single combat to gain their powers. There can be only one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The rest of them are just getting too old for this shit, Guy! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps this issue can be resolved through this venue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Graduate School (3rd nomination).  Sandstein  21:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I have not deleted any your post. Claudioalv (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see this diff.[184] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk) I apologize. I did not do on purpose, I guess I was writing at the same time you were writing. Sorry again. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted - thank you. The postings were quite close so it may have been an edit conflict. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy(talk). Moreover I do agree with your post I have accidently deleted. Besides, the States mentioned in the article state something different than EGS degrees are fraudolent. Texas is current review the inclusion of EGS in the list (the recent Malta accreditation was not on their record), Maine and Michigan do not publish anymore any list of degrees mill. This is really easy to verify. However was not possible to address this argument in the talk page because the final say has been so far "Guy"'s judgment and if you disagree with him, he firstly block you and then he will try to ban. Welcome to the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well well, inside information. Thus indicating that you are not independent if this company.WP:COI much? Guy (Help!) 00:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy. I am just citing the official links you have ever refused to read. You are aware of this information but you just do not care. Everyone can verify them by clicking the following: 1, 2, 3. Claudioalv (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that JzG is acting both as editor and admin in this discussion. At this point he shouldn't be taking admin actions wrt the article--he clearly has an editorial horse in this race. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited that article other than in an administrative capacity. One does not become involved simply by engaging with an SPA over a long period of time. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not describe the edit here[185] as "administrative". This is a large deletion being made whilst the article is under a long-standing protection allowing only admins to edit. You also stated in the Edit Summary that the addition you reverted was made against consensus - that is not my reading of the Talk page. I also find it "curious" that the admin who made the edit you reverted was the same admin who lifted the block on User:Claudioalv and refuted your accusation of sockpuppetry. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• My concern here is that Claudioalv has semi-disclosed a COI; he or she was asked directly about connections with EGS here and gave a long answer that didn't answer the question. He/she was asked again here, and in their answer, all they said was "I do not personally know EGS but someone was asking me to solve the problem ...". This is not a clear answer. i have asked them again here on their talk page, and they chose to come here and continue the drama instead of answering there.

In my view it is likely that Claudioalv is being paid for their work on this article, either as employee of EGS or as a contractor. In my view - especially in light of their refusal to answer direct questions - Claudioalv should be blocked until they make a clear COI disclosure on their talk page. So much disruption they have caused - Arbcom even, and they have not addressed this basic thing, directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. I have answered your question. If you think that banning me is the right thing to do go ahead. But at least verify If I have written nonsense or contributions supported by official governmental website (Malta, Michigan, Maine and Texas). thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only real question here is why we keep going through the same old shit with this article, and why we continue to allow SPAs and COI editors to have access to it. I suggest long-term semi-protection and dealing out some indef blocks. BMK (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User BMK You are biased toward me like "Guy" because you refused to look at my contributions and the sources I provided. Are COI users not allowed to write? If I find that an article is misleading or incorrect, I join the discussion by posting my contribution. Why shouldn't do it? I have revealed my identity the first time an administrator accepted my unblock request. Do you mean that only "Guy" can edit the article and build a free encyclopedia? Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel stated that he is not the final say, but he was probably wrong at this point. Claudioalv (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is that each time I try to raise an argument aministrators and editors prefer to define me like WP:SYN, sockpuppetry, meatpoppetry, clueless, wide-eyed and now COI, instead to verify that Michigan does not state that EGS confer degree mills, Maine does not publish any official list of No-Accredited School, Texas is currently reviewing the EGS status and an official governmental entity of a E.U. Country has conferred a legitimate accreditation (Malta even if is a small country is still a E.U. contry and part of E.U.) However, the current article states just the contrary, i.e. the school is not accredited and in the U.S. the school is specifically included in a list of degree mill (info that relies on outdated links). Claudioalv (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, the whole world is against you (except DrChrissy, apparently), and it's going to stay that way unless you provide the information that Jytdog is asking for - and do so publicly. We don't disallow paid editing, but it must be publicly declared (see WP:TOU), and we regulate the ways in which hardcore conflict of interest editors can participate (see WP:COI). As long as you fail to make a clear public declaration of your status in regard to EGS, you're going to get the same kind of treatment that the previous SPAs received. That you were able to convince a single administrator to unblock you (which he should not have done, but that's water under the bridge) is irrelevant, here you're dealing with the entire Wikipedia community, and we are passionate about keeping the encyclopedia neutral and not letting it be taken over by any outside entity for promotional purposes (see WP:PROMO). BMK (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you before Claudioalv, I strongly urge you to complete the COI disclosure work and stop battling here. You are digging yourself a very deep hole the more you push in this way. You will of course do as you like. Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we really want this seemingly notable-enough article to be deleted just because people are disrupting it? Will that win us anything, or will the ones who disrupt Wikipedia be winning? Can this just be semi-protected for a very long time instead and forgotten about already? LjL (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of block

Timeline of block Much of the problem here seems to focus on JzG's block of Claudioalv. I have prepared below a timeline of the relevant edits.

• (22:30, 9 February) Claudioalv's first contribution ever to WP is to Talk:European Graduate School here.[186]

• (22:48, 9 February) Claudioalv's second contribution ever is again to the Talk:European Graduate School page here.[187]

• (00:20, 10 February) JzG reverts Claudioalv here[188]. Reverting another user's posting on a talk page is in itself actionable.

• (00:20, 10 February) Jzg indefinitely blocks Claudioalv, leaving edit summary "(Abusing multiple accounts)" according to Claudioalv's block log.

• (16:16, 10 February) Claudioalv's first contribution to their own talk page was here[189] asking to have their block lifted.

• (23:48, 16 February) Jzg's first ever contribution to Claudioalv's Talk page is here[190].

In other words, I am unable to find any evidence of a discussion about any problem that JzG had with Claudioalv before blocking them. Claudioalv does not have appear to have been warned about the possibility of a block, nor indeed even notified about their block. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement that one be warned before one is blocked. You still have much to learn. BMK (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is you that has much to learn - about misrepresenting others postings. Read it again. Where have I said there is a requirement? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come now, DrChrissy, whatever you are, you cannot convince me that you don't understand what "implication" means. Please don't take us for nitwits. BMK (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The implication is only in your head. The reason I raised the lack of warning is that JzG was dealing with a new user. It seems only fair to me that an admin should warn a user of what may happen if the admin is disagreeing with their editing behaviour. Are you seriously arguing that it is appropriate for an admin to block a new user without discussing the problem first and warning them a block is possible? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it were in my head, it would be an "inference" not an "implication" But it ain't. BMK (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Address my question, please. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• The timeline is right there on the talk page; I will agree that Guy would have done well to talk before blocking. However, User:DrChrissy, I can't help but think that you are exporting a personal problem with Guy to this thread, and I should warn you that you shouldn't. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this at all. I was shocked to see a very experienced admin block a new editor after only 2 edits. I looked further into this and was even more shocked that I could find no evidence to support the reason given for the block, and that there was apparently no discussion with the blocked editor about their behaviour. This, to my mind, is a misuse of the blocking tool. The time line is not clear from the User's talk page because the editor was not informed about their block - I am simply clarifying the timeline and also pointing out that a users posting on a talk page was reverted with no justification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Shocked" my Great Aunt Fanny. You know, DrChrissy, the more I see your edits in Wikipedia space, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling in order to cause disruption. I'm also starting to wonder about your putative lack of experience here. I would advise other editors to keep a close watch on DrChrissy's noticeboard editing - perhaps it might strike a chord with someone as reminiscent of a previous editor, maybe even someone with a bone to pick with Guy. BMK (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(E/C)@Beyond My Ken: Apologies for shocking your Great Aunt Fanny. Please could you keep the subject of your comments directed to the content, not the editor. Please answer this question directly. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? If not, you are invited to strike that last comment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing to strike. My growing impression from your Wikipediaspace editing is that you seem to be deliberately causing problems, just as my 'impression from your conduct is that it's possible you're not as much of a newbie as you claim to be. Those impressions didn't come out of nowhere, they're based on the quality and content of your edits, and they lead to certain possibilities which I would like the community to keep an eye on. BMK (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure you are discussing this with the correct editor? I have never claimed to be a newbie apart from my very first edits over 5 years ago. My user page shows I have been registered for 5 years and 26 days and this box has been on my user page for as long as I can remember. I repeat, are you confusing me with another editor? DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, DrChrissy, I know very well that every time you get into trouble, you beg for leeway because you've not been here long enough to know all the ins and outs of the place. I also know that although you were registered in 2011, your editing counts were quite modest until 2015. [191]. I also know that 2015 was the year that your edits to Wikipedia space took off. [192]. (You seem to want to have it both ways: "I am not a newbie" and "Give me a break, I haven't been here that long.") In short, I know who I'm talking about, I'm talking about you and your editing and your disruptions. Those are facts, the questions that're open are if you are being deliberately disruptive or not, and whether the community will see fit to do something about it, eventually. (Aside from your two topic bans, I mean - you do realize that most editors go through their entire productive editing life without ever being topic banned?) BMK (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from an editor who has been site blocked 9 times! I would ask for diffs about my "beg for leeway", but I won't, because they do not exist. As for the frequency of my edits over time - I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Anyway, this is all getting well off the subject of the thread and I am sure readers are totally fed up with your false accusations, so I will leave the last word to you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DrC, it's difficult to describe the many inaccuracies in your post. I have never been "site blocked". I have been blocked for edit warring, which is the Wikipedia equivalent of a misdemeanor, for very short periods of time, and when the block is over, I have been free to continue editing, unencumbered by any restrictions. The most serious item in my block log is the one for "abusing multiple accounts", which was, basically, a misunderstanding when I changed screen names without notifying anyone about it - it's all explained in the "My History" link on my talk user page, which has been there for years - full disclosure of everything. I have never been banned in any respect, as you have.

You seem not to understand that your two topic bans are very big deals indeed, the Wikipedia equivalent of a fairly major felony. The next step up from multiple topic bans is, most likely, a complete 'site ban, which would indefinitely forbid you from editing Wikipedia again until the ban is lifted. You've already seen how hard it is to get a topic ban removed, please just imagine how hard it is to get un-site banned.

My final advice to you, which you don't want and won't listen to, is to straighten up your act, stop disrupting the noticeboards to make trouble for admins you believe you have grievances against, stop pushing fringe theories in your editing, and edit strictly according to policy. If you do that, you have a chance that your future history here will go a different way, if you don't -- well, as was said below, you're hearing the sound of the community losing its patience with your nonsense. BMK (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure DrC is not a sock, but ... that sound you hear? It's the community's patience being stretched and it's nearly at snapping point. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite possible, I've been wrong about socks before - but I've more often been right. In any event, I've decided that DrC is really not worth the time or attention -- the bottom line is that he's your standard fringe advocate who simply can't work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on non-standard medicine and science, and appears to hold Guy - a firm advocate of those policies - responsible. DrC's motivations are totally transparent, as are his methods. Although more disruptive and persevering than some, his type is pretty much a dime-a-dozen around here, so it's best to let him work his way into more sanctions on his own, since he seems to be pretty good at digging his own holes (like our friend Claudioalv here). BMK (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudioalv picked up right where a blocked user left off. Checkuser subsequently showed that Claudioalv is a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. Another admin assumed good faith and unblocked. As we now see, Claudioalv has done precisely as expected: wasted hours and hours of volunteers' time with querulous demands, novel synthesis and circular argument.

As a matter of simple fact, removing talk page comments by suspected socks is not actionable. It's perfectly acceptable.

DrChrissy would be wise not to keep coming to the drama boards with vendettas and vexatious complaints. That is likely to lead to a ban form Wikipedia space to go with your other two bans. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So, in fact, your reason for blocking "(Abusing multiple accounts)" was erroneous. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not. It was a WP:DUCK block for sockpuppetry, it turns out that the user is a meatpuppet not a sock puppet, but we do not draw any distinction between the two. One WP:SPA is banned, another pops right up, we block. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say there should be more than a mere "suspicion" of sockpuppetry before removing talk page comments becomes perfectly acceptable. LjL (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I know it's fun to poke someone you have disagreed with, but please have a quick look at the underlying issue first. That would avoid appearing to support an obviously problematic user who wants Wikipedia to promote the idea that a shonky business selling degrees has accreditation (re shonky, see for example this list of institutions whose degrees are illegal to use in Texas—the list includes EGS). Many people try to promote stuff on Wikipedia every day, and people like JzG/Guy who deal with them should be thanked and supported, not obstructed with the above retaliation from some unrelated past disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't "mere suspicion". There have been a lot of WP:SPAs at that article, and a lot of sockpuppetry too. As usual with a subject whose self-image is at odds with the reliable independent sources, they want to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world problem. And as usual the problem is that the facts undermine their commercial activities. This is not our problem to fix, of course. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to assume I'm having "fun" to "poke" you because we have disagreed. We have agreed, too. I do not particularly care about the underlying issue here, either. I do take issue with your wording: maybe there was more than "suspicion", but I didn't come up with the "suspicion" terminology, I was reacting to your claim that "removing talk page comments by suspected socks is [...] perfectly acceptable". I do not think that's generally accurate, is all. LjL (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me add something that may help show I'm not here to annoy Guy: I was informed a while ago, by a checkuser, that it's not even really considered acceptable for me to place "suspected sock" tags (the type with documentation that actually explains they're the ones to be used by non-admins) on user pages of users who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. But then, conversely, blanket removal of comments by editors who are suspect of sockpuppetry is always perfectly acceptable? I can recognize it's acceptable in some cases, perhaps including this one, but I just disagree with that blanket statement. LjL (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:CUA 27

For the past few days, User:CUA 27 has been reverting a valid and good faith edit of mine at USA Rugby. [193] [194] When I tried to politely reason with him on his talk page [195] I was met with hostility and a nonsense reason for the reverting [196], basically, CUA appears to have a problem with a Rugby league hatnote on a Rugby union page because he appears to dislike Rugby league or just thinks its not worthy. IMHO, he is breaching WP:NPOV at this point. After my attempts to reason with him seemed to fail, I invited a neutral user, User:Mattlore (as he is active on both WP:RL and WP:RU) to give his opinion on the matter. [197] After Mattlore seemingly sided with me [198], CUA escalated to making what I feel is a bogus WP:3RR accusation against me. [199] I feel that CUA is now in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:HARRASS and I would like, if possible, an administrator to a) remove the bogus template warning from my talk page placed quite nastily by CUA and b) advise CUA to stop removing the hatnote from USA Rugby. Thanks for your time. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby contains a fairly good record of our discussions up to this point. (The narrative above bears little resemblance to what has actually happened).
May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here for violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPA and possible violations of WP:CANVAS? If you think a sanction of this IP and his account(s) is appropriate, a topic ban on rugby union articles may be worth considering, given that the hostility he has shown in recent months towards WP:RU editors demonstrates some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues.
This is my first time I am defending myself here at ANI, so if admins have thoughts on how I could have handled my part better in this unfortunate turn of events, I would welcome your feedback. Thanks. CUA 27 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot to add CUA is making baseless Sockpuppetry accusations against me as part of his personal attacks. A simple checkuser would quickly show that I have only edited from this IP and therefore CUA's above defence and ban request to be completely invalid. 90.214.98.93 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Further: I've offered CUA a discussion here to try and end this silliness and come to a reasonable conclusion. (This is 90.214.212.126 btw, Sky Broadband annoyingly resets IP when modem/router resets!) 90.214.212.126 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt being nominated by one of the editors as a neutral party makes me so, but I am involved in WP:RL and somewhat in WP:RU so I'll weigh in with my 2 cents here. In my view, a hatnote distinguishing between an organisation called USA Rugby and one called USA Rugby League is a no brainer and I don't see how it has got to the stage where it has reached ANI as both users should have followed BRD. Mattlore (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've only just seen the conversation at User_talk:CUA_27#USA_Rugby and wasn't aware of those accusations when I wrote the above comment. Mattlore (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal request for Boomerang sanctions

IP has violated WP:3RR and is committed to WP:EDITWARRING.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]. After this third revert I gave the WP:3RR warning to the IP [203] and to the user that seems to be the same editor [204]
4. [205]. After this fourth revert, I asked him to self-revert [206], which he refused to do.

CUA 27 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: CUA 27 is party #2 in said edit war. He has has once again decided to make baseless and unproven sock puppetry accusations against me after other established users didn't automatically side with him [207] [208] (he seems to think he has superiority over me because I choose to edit from IP and not from an account.) I am very concerned that his comments here and at Talk:USA Rugby seem to indicate his intentions to avoid WP:3RR by waiting a few days before just continuing the same disruptive editing. I have actually not broken 3RR (I've NOT made the same edit 3 times in a 24 hour period), though I have come uncomfortably close to it while trying to combat CUA's borderline vandalism, which I believe may be exempt from 3RR anyway?

Further, I worry now that CUA, who seems adamant that a Rugby league article must not be hatnoted from a Rugby union article is now way past breaching WP:NPOV and at worst he could even be in serious breach of WP:COI, if as I now suspect, he has a personal association with USA Rugby and PRO Rugby and believes USA Rugby League to be a rival organisation.

Finally, to be clear, my only edits in 2016, or any year of this decade for that matter, have come from this IP and the IP linked from my talk page. CUA is correct to suspect that I have a lot of knowledge of wiki-rules and not a newcomer. I was an active editor from an account until about 2009 IIRC when I retired it. I'll happily pass that account name on to an administrator privately if requested to do so. Thanks 90.214.212.126 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have given the page in question a 12 hour protection due to edit warring. If edit warring continues after the protection then blocks will be given out generously. I am hoping this will prevent the need for blocks now. HighInBC 03:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Qudghks2020

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

---

Career vandal who specialises in blanking, misinformation, and alteration of cited text. Edit history speaks for itself,[209] as does his history of cautions, warnings and general notes for misbehaviour.[210]

An indefinite block seems relevant as this user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. B. Mastino (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @B. Mastino: can you please provide some example diffs? Their edit history from today doesn't appear to be clear vandalism to me. Though I see C.Fred did warn them today. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This one is a perfect summary of his whole modus operandi: [211]. Here's a mean-spirited removal of an in-source note: [212]. Here's an example of his typical blanking without cause: [213]. Sure, there might be a few "good faith" edits in there to conceal his trolling agenda, but myself and others have now dedicated too much time to reverting his "work". B. Mastino (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree this is problematic behavior. Wonder if C.Fred has any comments? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also talked about the user on WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page and was going to do the same until you beat me to it. The user is a constant vandal to wrestling articles, including Alberto Del Rio where he constantly replaces info with original research. [214][215][216] (adding in completely false, unsourced moves and names). He also reposts his created articles that were deleted per AfD multiple times (warnings seen on his talk page). "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 19:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I see from your discussion at WP:PW that it's not only you and I who've observed Qudghks2020's endless trolling; another user pointed out his "steadfastly inserting false information".[217] B. Mastino (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I had only seen the recent edits, but looking at his edit history, it looks like he's been making a lot of these same types of edits for going on nine months. Definitely he needs more than a 31-hour block if it happens again; since he's just now on a first final warning (as far as I can see), I hate to jump straight to a block without the proverbial "one last chance". However, I'm not optimistic that he'll suddenly straighten up. I'm not ready to block, but I wouldn't stand in the way of another administrator who thought it was time to hand one out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Source misrepresentation and disruptive editing by nationalist editor

Ferakp (talk · contribs) is making source misrepresentations and deleting sourced information:

• He writes about an Amnesty International report: "However, Amnesty International has published only one report about the Syrian Kurdish forces and it is related to destroying villages and homes, not ethnic cleansing at all." [218]
  • However in reality, the report concludes that "The Amnesty International report concluded that there are documented cases of forced displacement that constitute war crimes."[219]

• Here he changes the direct quote from a book ("Iraq's Dysfunctional Democracy") to something else: [220]
  • He changes: "The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. The Kurdish authorities are working hard to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks".
    • to: "One of the goal of these tactics is to make Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds. Some Kurdish nationalist have previously tried to impose Kurdish identity on two of the most vulnerable minorities in Iraq, the Yazidis and the Shabaks"."

• Here he deletes statistics of Female Genital Mutilation which are well sourced from the referenced PDF document (p. 31). [221]

• He changes all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past, but in reality it is still widely practiced in Northern Iraq: [222] [223] [224]
  • He also deletes that Female Genital Mutilation is practiced from the intro, even though it is well documented in the article: [225]

• He changes 60 percent to "some of them" and deletes cited information: [226] After a source was added that a honour killing victim was Kurdish, he still removes all mention that she was also Kurdish. He claims that he is confused because one of the sources calls her Turkish, but all Turkish Kurds are also Turkish! [227]

• He was warned many times on his talkpage but always swiftly removes all warnings from his talkpage.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Amnesty International report is not related to ethnic cleansing at all, it is related to forced displacement and home demolitions. Here is the original report of Amnesty International, you can download it here. Remember that sources you added were "clearly" lying about the report since the report itself never even mention words "ethnic cleansing". So simply the source which says that Amnesty International is accusing them of ethnic cleansing is 100% wrong and biased. About Female Genital Mutilation, two sources were used in one citation and I noticed it after admin marked them. In my second edit, I added a lot of details but he wanted to keep it simple and statements clear so I let it be. Sources you use in Kurdish woman rights are 2-3 years old and it is illegal at this moment. You have been detected at least two times from blackwashing the article. Also, your another friend was caught from blackwashing: Replacing my details with old sources' details even though I had newer sources there. I added sources that the practice is declined and it is now illegal. Also, some of mentioned areas in those reports are now almost clear from FGM as one of my sources says so. That's why I changed them to the past. About Hatun Surucu, she is Turkish, this is because all sources say so. Only your source call she is Kurdish. Here are sources: <--- This source is new from January 2016. One more source, . All sources say that she is Turkish. You have one source but I have 9 source, including BBC and Spiegel! I have warned by 4 guys and 2 of them were banned or blocked. I remove everything from my talk page, whether it is positive or negative except that sweet Kitty which I got from admin. Also, I am 100% behind my Kurdification changes, I simply neutralized statements. You are absolutely trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Ferakp (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Ethnic cleansing is forced displacement.

Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which you also deleted from the article: [228] By the way, which source says that it really declined? It is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is wrong to claim that it was only practiced in the past. Your deletions in the featured articled on FGM were also reverted.

Regarding Hatun (the honor killing victim), you already know that on the talkpage there are many sources that show that she is from a Kurdish family, so your reply is disingenuous.--92.106.49.6 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @Spacecowboy420: @EkoGraf: @Patetez: @Denizyildirim: @Opdire657: @Gala19000:--92.106.49.6 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@92.106.49.6: Law is accepted, can you read at all? Your source says that it is not enforced and it is from 2012. My source is from 2015 and it clearly says that it is now law and accepted. Read it, here is my source . Here is your source, . Here is my source about declining: . It is from 2015 and it says: In the case of FGM, the Iraqi-German nongovernmental organization WADI estimates that around 72% of adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan have undergone the operation. But among girls aged 6 to 10, the rate has dropped to close to zero in some parts of Kurdistan, such as Halabja and Garmiyan, and decreased by half in other places such as Raniya. The usual age for the practice is between ages 4 and 8, according to WADI. Researchers and activists such as Taha are quick to point out that the existing anti-domestic violence law in Kurdistan, passed in 2011, is likely to be the first of its kind in Asia to address FGM. The draft allows girls subjected to FGM to file lawsuits against the perpetrator and those who forced them to undergo the operation. If the girl is a minor, she can file a lawsuit through a trustee. Another source and source even says directly that it is declined "In the study, there is evidence for a trend of general decline of FGM. It seems that nowadays less than 50% of the young girls are being mutilated.". About that honor killing woman, I showed BBC, Spiegel and other top newspapers sources, that's what they say. About your talk page sources. The first one belongs to Welt, it's very weird that one of source is also from Welt and it says she is Turkish not Kurdish. Your second source is from Speigel and it doesn't mention her ethnicity, it says about documentary, but my Spiegel source says she is Turkish. Also, my BBC source says she is Turkish. One of users changed it to Turkish-Kurdish and I didn't touch it anymore. Wikipedia rules says more reliable sources win. About ethinic cleansing changes: Ethnic cleansing and forced displacements are totally different things. Amnesty doesn't call it as ethnic cleasing. I showed you the original Amnesty report and it does not blame them from ethnic cleansing. If you don't believe me, read the original source and you can also call them and ask them yourself, do you accuse the YPG of ethnic cleansing or not. Amnesty International knows better than you and me when to call events as ethnic cleansing or not. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can confirm that there's a problem with Ferakp's editing on Kurdish matters. He arrived at Female genital mutilation to remove or alter the context of material about FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan. [229][230][231] He removed similar material from Iraqi Kurdistan [232] and Kurdish women. [233][234] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done thousands of edits and improvements and sometimes some users are not happy but I have never vandalized or caused any problems. I explained my Female genital mutilation edits above. About Iraqi Kurdistan changes, the source doesn't say anything like that. The statement in the article said that "Human Rights Watch reported that female genital cutting is practiced mainly by Kurds in Kurdistan; reportedly 60% percent of Kurdish women population have undergone this procedure, although the KRG claimed that the figures are exaggerated." <---- This is absolutely falsified statement. Source talk about Iraqi Kurdistan not about Kurdistan. They are totally different things. Also, I couldn't find that "60%" from the source. This source was used --> . About change of this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_women&type=revision&diff=709007260&oldid=706367606. The first one says that ...also continue to face numerous problems, including violent victimization through female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, child marriage, rape, domestic violence, female infanticide and acid throwing. This is absolutely not true, we are talking about all Kurdish women. There is one reported acid throwing and it's very old, so how could it be continuous? I deleted them from lead but left them in the article. I didn't remove them, they are all still in the article and people can read it. FGM is only in Iran. In Turkey, Syria and Iraqi, it's illegal. Honor killings are problems and it already tells that it's continuing. Domestic violence is also mentioned in its section and also others. I added much more details to lead section. Before my edits it was totally blackwashed. Du'a Khalil Aswad is Yazidi and Yazidis are not the Kurds. They are Yazidis. Also, the articles with its sources says that she is Iraqi Yazidi.

I added this Honor killings was serious problem among Muslim communities until Iraq illegalized it.. It's true, it was legal but now illegal. It was serious problem among Muslim communities. Also, source says so.

Changed media to Turkish media because source says so. Other changes are adding more details. I just added more details and neutralized statements. The report from Iraqi Kurdistan is not related to the all Kurds. That's why many were changed to some when all Kurds were mentioned. Also, In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal. Especially under Saddam Hussein, women had many rights and liberties, including strong economic rights. was removed. The source doesn't mention where that information was gathered and it is based to what study. Because the source is blog (thread) and only some of statements are cited, I see it as a unreliable source. In the source, "In Iraq, non-Kurdish women and society are more liberal" statement was not mentioned but another statement was mentioned. However, because it is blog/thread, I see it as unreliable source. As far as I know, blogs and thread in forums are not allowed as sources. I might be wrong. The only mistake I did was removing this statement -- >The Free Women's Organization of Kurdistan (FWOK) released a statement on International Women's Day 2015 noting that “6,082 women were killed or forced to commit suicide during the past year in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is almost equal to the number of the Peshmerga martyred fighting Islamic State (IS),” and that a large number of women were victims of honor killings or enforced suicide – mostly self-immolation or hanging. However, the source didn't work and I tried very hard to find it but I didn't. The link is still not working. Also, I tried to find the report from the organization's website but I didn't find it. Ferakp (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Could an admin review and see whether a topic ban would be appropriate?--92.106.49.6 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My message to reviewer. I have done nothing wrong except in FGM article, I didn't notice the source. I explained all my changes and this is the first time someone reports me. I have edited and improved tons of times and for me it's normal that there is sometimes users who are against my changes, but I have always solved disputes. If you are going to give me a ban, please give me a permanent ban, not topic ban. I am so tired of users like 92.106.49.6 and similar users which have nothing to do than blackwash articles related to the Kurds. Thank you Ferakp (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Ferkp, when a government bans FGM, that doesn't stop it from happening to girls. Enforcement of anti-FGM legislation is poor all over the world, with the exception of France. And laws don't change the fact that women who had already undergone FGM before the change in the law continue to live with its health consequences. There was a high prevalence of FGM among adult women in Iraqi Kurdistan in 2011, according to UNICEF. You removed the information. When you were reverted, you tried to change the context in which it was presented, and also tried to present it as Iraq, not as Iraqi Kurdistan. That kind of editing is a problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I say somewhere that it stops it? I said that it is illegal now. The user who reported me still claim that it is not enforced but I showed source that it is accepted and it is official law. Iraqi Kurdistan is Iraq. There no such country Iraqi Kurdistan. The source mentions Kirkuk and Kirkuk is not the Iraqi Kurdistan, it's officially Iraq. It is illegal now in Iraqi Kurdistan and that has killed the practice in many regions as my newest sources say. I didn't change the context, I added details but you removed them without any reason, explaining by something very weird reason. There was high prevalence and that information was still there after my edits. My edits didn't remove any details, it still kept details. One edit I made by mistake and it was related to statistics. In another edit, I was thinking to add much more details to ethnicity section but you didn't even leave me to edit it. As I said, I made mistake and I accept it. I have edited and improved thousands of times and sometimes you make mistakes. If I get ban then at least I know I am in the wrong place doing the wrong thing. Ferakp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackwashing is not best handled by whitewashing, but by changing the article to be neutral. WP:NPOV --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's has been my main objective in previous 300 edits. You can see from my contributions that my edits have related mainly to neutrality. Ferakp (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality" by hiding everything related to FGM and honour killings, or claiming that it was the Turkish families, not Turkish-Kurdish ones (as it was). Everything that doesn't hide the facts about Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings or forced displacement of minorities is "blackwashing", even UNICEF and Amnesty International [235]. But you have now qualms in "blackwashing" the whole time Turks[236], Arabs[237], Iranians, and others. Ferakp also just removed the entire human right section from the [238], because the content is already in the Human rights article. But at least a summary of the human rights should be left. --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) @GGT: @Ottomanor:@Chickchick77:

Looks like you have nothing to do than following my changes from my contr+ page and pasting them here. Why don't you also tell us how I stopped one "Turkish" user who vandalized more than 13 Kurdish articles? About this the edit [239], Rojava has its own article for Human right in Rojava, it is called Human Rights in Rojava. I transferred those statements and sources from Rojava article to Human rights in Rojava.

Can you tell what is wrong with this edit?-->[240]. Kurds are mentioned with "Kurdish" and I also mentioned Turkish guy with "Turkish" name because he was a Turk according to all sources. Ordinary Turkish mentality, try to always blame the Kurds.

[241] : What makes this edit blackwashing if source says so directly? Source says (page 7): The available source material suggests that honour killings primarily occur among tribal peoples such as Kurdish, Lori, Arab, Baluchi and Turkish-speaking tribes. These groups are considered to be more socially conservative than the Persians, and discrimination against women in attitude and in practice is seen as being deeply rooted in tribal culture. The page was blackwashed to show only the Kurds but I neutralized and mentioned all who practice it in Iran. Ferakp (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the original points I made above, Ferakp has:

• On the first point about the Amnesty International report, he still fails to see that forced displacement is a form of ethnic cleansing. (source misrepresentation)
• He hasn't said anything about changing a direct quote from a book (source misrepresentation)
• He admitted a mistake in deleting FGM statistics from UNICEF
• He still fails to see why he shouldn't change all occurences to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation to the past (and delete FGM from the lead, and delete that it is practiced in "Iraqi Kurdistan"), while in reality it is still widely practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan (source misrepresentation) Yes, Female Genital Mutilation was made illegal, but the law is not being enforced, a fact which he also deleted from the article: [228]
• He disingenuously still claims that Hatun (the honour killing victim) is not Kurdish, even though he knows on the talkpage [242] there are plenty of sources saying she is Turkish-Kurdish [243] (and in the German wikipedia page). In another case, he even specifies that a man from Turkey is a "Turkish" man from Turkey [244]. He also makes false claims in articles as here [245].
• Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims, ... --92.106.49.6 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try to understand me a little bit. You can't call the event as ethnic cleansing because your "logic" see connection between their acts and ethnic cleansing acts. There is standards and requirements for calling something as ethnic cleansing. Amnesty International uses that word carefully because you have to come with tons of evidences. You can't call that event as ethnic cleansing if only ~180 houses are destroyed in 19 different locations. Look, Amnesty International use here "ethnic cleansing". The reason why they don't use it in their study is because it's a far away to be classified as ethnic cleansing. You are just trying to blackwash Kurdish articles. Admit it. This is 7th time you are clearly trying to blackwash Kurdish articles.

Which book?

They are past events, because it is law now and it is illegal. Your sources were from 2011 and 2012. Law was accepted in 2015 and as my source says it has almost killed the practice in many regions.

There is tons of sources which say that she is Turkish and you show me a few sources which say she is Turkish. Also, my newest source is from this year. However, I let one user to keep it Turkish-Kurdish because that was our optimal solution.

What is the problem with this edit, ? Can you tell me? I added small survey to the front of survey because it was small survey. Look what the source says: The survey group was small but the results are a reminder... My 8th evidence that you are trying to blackwash Kurdis articles.

Excuse me can you show my your claims about "Going through his edits, there are plenty of cases of Ferakp misrepresenting sources, deleting incovenient facts, adding false claims"? It's clear that you are blackwashing Kurdish articles. I have 8 clear evidences that you are trying to blackwash Kurdish articles, I would have reported you and requested ban but you are one of those who change their IPs every time so I won't waste admin's time for such thing.Ferakp (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's a 2014 survey on FGM in Iraqi Kurdistan here; UNICEF summary here. It could be used to update Kurdish women or Iraqi Kurdistan, or to create Female genital mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the source SarahV, I will use it to update articles.Ferakp (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been caught at least 9 times from blackwashing Kurdish articles, calling me nationalist editor, trying to show my edits which are related to neutralization as blackwashings and following me. You are clearly blackwashing Kurdish articles, as I proved above, if someone has to get warning or ban, it should be you.Ferakp (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ferakp's confrontational tone and disruptive style can be seen from the discussion above, with his clear ad hominem arguments to justify his actions and allusion to criminal proceedings ("caught"). I have also suffered from his lack of collaboration personally; as soon as we had an editing issue on Yaşar Kemal, he posted this to my talk page claiming that I was editing from a Turkish POV and using Wikipedia as the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp not only misrepresents sources as evidenced above, but also editoralises to imply a particular position. This can be seen here in his unsourced addition, which implies that Amnesty was cornered by YPG's claims, and more blatantly here, where he adds a statement that is undoubtedly correct (perhaps as there were no military casualties) but is not part of the literature concerning the event and about which he could not even find a source to support, in order to push TAK's viewpoint that the Turkish government hides military casualties in this attack ostensibly targeted to the military. Also see this. He has also repeatedly removed reliably sourced material, seen here about statements regarding the persecutions of Assyrians and human rights in an attempt to whitewash. Despite the fact that the Yezidis are described as Kurdish in the relevant article (I am no expert on the issue and any disputes on ethnic identity belong there), Ferakp has repeatedly removed negative incidents involving Yazidi women from the article on Kurdish women without specifying the "sources" against Daily Mail as in here for example. In the same article, he has removed more and more reliably sourced details about violence against Kurdish women from the article (e.g. Human Rights Watch, a Kurdish newspaper) claiming that these were "blackwashing". When it came to ascribing positive topics Kurdishness, however, he manipulates sources as amply evidenced above: here, for example, when his sources do not define him as Kurdish but use the term "of Kurdish origin", which is how it currently is in the article (one of his sources actually defines Kemal as Turkish, obviously alluding to nationality, as opposed to ethnicity). Source manipulation can also be seen here, when he himself admits that two languages were spoken in the family but writes otherwise.
• Now, it is Ferakp's turn to come and claim that I am an anti-Kurdish Turkish nationalist and write lengthy refutations, which is getting really tiresome by now. I hope, however, that the evidence above will help establish the destructive and disruptive pattern that characterises this user's editing. --GGT (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing information negative information can be whitewashing. I don't agree with Ferakp's view that his edits are only aimed at restoring neutrality. Many of them are removing reliably sourced negative information. This conflict looks to me as a typical example of two editors with opposite biases trying to make the article what *they* think is neutral, and then assuming bad faith on the case of the other editor. The only solution is probably to get more editors involved, especially uninvolved neutral editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Dingowasher and sacked

Reported

• Dingowasher (talk · contribs · logs)

Reason

This editor was blocked for edit warring after report at ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303#User:Dingowasher reported by User:JMHamo (Result: Blocked). The block was issued since the editor, against consensus, kept editing that Jose Mourinho was sacked (see diffs in earlier ANEW report). The reason why I am making a new report is that I just spotted that since that report, the editor has continued to change to "sacked" in sneaky edits despite consensus. He does not stop. Examples can be seen in [246], [247] and [248]. The editor can not be allowed to re add this content over and over again after being blocked for it. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC says he was "sacked" (i.e. fired).[249] It does seem a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Media, specially in UK, announced he was "sacked" even before it was official and they use "sacked" all the time no matter what has happened. There has been many discussions about this on the talkpages and Dingowasher has been aware of this but edit warred anyway, and has now reinserted the same content again against consensus (most likely hoping it wont be dedected, until I did when he was reverted in this edit). Qed237 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And teams will often spin the manner of a coach's departure. That announcement is a "primary source". Can you find a "secondary source", such as BBC, which supports the terminology of the team's announcement? I'm thinking of Giants coach Tom Coughlin, who was pushed out, although the team didn't want to say it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If you dont agree with the consensus, feel free to join previous discussions but we are getting of topic. We are talking about a bad behaviour from an editor delibirately trying to avoid consensus to push their view. The consensus that "it came to an end on 17 December" is far more neutral than "was sacked on 17 december ([250]), just like the consensus is. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the term "sacked" is proper. But the question remains, what do the non-primary sources say? Did he "jump" or was he "pushed"? A team's press release is inadequate as a source, and if that's what's being used as the source, you need to rethink it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty of finding a source for "sacked" is key here. Qed237 has misreported the discussion on the talk page where in fact consensus was not reached because all reliable sources pointed towards Mourinho being sacked.Dingowasher (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User:QEDK

Seeking Admin intervention or community action to control disruption by User:QEDK. At a bit of a loss about how to deal with this:

• Spouting nonsense about G11 not applying to drafts Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Akira1111/New_article_name_here
• Reverted CSD tagging [251] on a hoax article
• Sustained and inappropriate attacks against me that need a boomarang [252] and then [253]
• [254] reverting many changes to policy and immediately asking User:Callanecc [255] to fully protect the page "due to edit warring" to protect his preferred text.
• Seeking more eyes on his nonsense [256] at AN after he spectacularly failed to get any support for a topic ban against me
• Canvassing and speculation about tag teaming [257]
• General incivility and lack of WP:COMMONSENSE

I'll just leave this for less frustrated people to look into. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained twice what I said. You did not read them because you were busy making a revenge ANI thread.
• Yes, so? That draft is not a hoax and I am not allowed to be BOLD when that's been the principle on which you've been acting all the time.
• Where are the personal attacks?
• I reverted changes to policy because none of them were community-vetted. To prevent people from editing policies on ILIKEIT basis was my intention.
• Why not? You're scared or what?
• Where have I been incivil? Where's the lack of commonsense?

There's nothing to look into, except ofc, your own ANI thread. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suppose it's too hard, but a kindly admin should take QEDK in hand and try to explain what is helpful and what is not. @QEDK: What do you think about WP:NOTWEBHOST? Should passers-by be able to store stuff indefinitely "because it's a draft"? How could this page ever be useful? Why did you edit it four times to remove the CSD tag? Was the tag wrongly applied and you wanted to make sure the paperwork was done correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I removed it, added a wrong tag, restored previous, removed it, so 4 times. Yes, I believe all userspace drafts should be indefinitely stored unless and until it violates Wikipedia policies like BLP violations or UP#COPIES, drafts are drafts because they are not fit to be articles, there's no reason to remove them. There's nothing to suggest I've done anything which is against policy and if so, do cite such. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You have missed the point: no competent editor could think the page under discussion is a user space draft—it's obvious junk and needs to be deleted to send the message that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Get WP:NOTWEBHOST revoked if you want people to store stuff here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? NOTWEBHOST prevents you from treating Wikipedia like your personal blog, memorial or wiki or cloud. That draft is legitimate and contains information about a certain Stephen Reynolds. Please read Wikipedia policies completely before you say something again. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing in your diffs or in a quick general look at QEDK's recent edit history that is disruptive or uncivil. Your accusation that they are not ignoring the rules (the policy that is invoked by WP:COMMONSENSE) makes them deserving of commendation rather than reprimand.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How long are you going to put this charade up? Not to mention, if you really had read the whole thing, it says When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The {{essay}} disclaimer also covers that it is not "as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• A point of correction about bullet point #4 in the opening post of this thread: @QEDK: You didn't ask Callanecc to protect it, you posted at WP:RFPP (request), correct? If your request was inappropriate, it most likely wouldn't have been granted.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask at RFPP. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to say you asked User:Callanecc directly, he/she just happened to pick up the request. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Baseless. —Cryptic 06:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary?

Here _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy should be blocked for the legal threat, but his claim should also be investigated, especially if it's a BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Baseball_Bugs, I think I know 'who' the IP is. But obviously cannot say. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Lambert (undercover police officer) is a hatchet job to all intents and purposes for a different Bob Lambert. The Ballyseedy IRA "Bob Lambert" is not well-sourced - it appears to be from a 2008 book by Peter Cottrell. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, Collect. I was not referring to the honey-trap guy. The IP has effectively outed himself though. Has the IP been blocked yet? I wouldn't call the Cottrell work a particularly WP:RS- it's a short guide rather than based on research._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for attempting intimidation through legal threats. That being done, it may be worth looking into their concerns to make sure our content regarding that person is well sourced or removed. HighInBC 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HighInBC, as above, I would suggest removing it until we have a better source than Cottrell. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any wonder so many people think Wikipedia is run by idiots? As Jimbo Wales said, The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.}}

The difference here, which isn't terribly important right now, is that the highly offensive, unsourced, and apparently quite dubious content dealt with a deceased family member rather than a living person. Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. This is not the behavior of genuinely reasonable, sensible people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Did you even notice the part where we took their complaint seriously? I am not sure if Jimbo has attempted to find a consensus to change our no legal threats policy, but as the policy stands we need to block people who have active threats of legal action.

We are not lawyers and we cannot respond to legal threats in a competent way. We block the person with an explanation as to why, we let them know that if they retract the threat the block can be reversed. And we look into the complaint to see if it is valid. I think you are not seeing the whole situation here. HighInBC 16:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Did you even notice what I actually wrote? I posted that Nobody reached out to the IP to address their very legitimate concerns. It's evident from their talk page that that statement is 100% accurate. The boilerplate language posted to the IP's talk page gives no sign whatever that their concerns are being taken seriously. The OP here violated policy by not providing the IP with the mandatory notice of / link to this discussion. This episode is just another FUBAR situation caused by inbred Wikipedia editors being more concerned with the selectively chosen rules of the game here than with matters of genuine substance. It's an embarassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling people inbred - really? SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still having this discussion? The IP has been blocked for legal threats. Close the thread.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the behavior of other editors is being discussed as well. The thread should not be closed yet. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: yes I read what your wrote, did you write what you meant me to read? I did "reach out" to the IP in that I left a notice explaining our position on legal threats. We did look into their concerns and address them. Perhaps you could better communicate what it is you think we should have said to the IP, or better yet say it to the IP yourself then teach us by example. As it is you are very poorly communicating what your actual concerns are. HighInBC 00:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, I never bought the received wisdom that we must block legal threat-eners on sight, particularly where the threat isn't directed specifically at other editors, which is usually the sign of an actual attempt to "chill". So what if someone says "Fix this or I'll sue!"? The Foundation knows how to take care of itself; if we're following our own rules there's nothing to worry about; and (most importantly) blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints.

So why do we block for legal foot-stomping, instead of just ignoring the threat and engaging the complaint, at least as long as the person seems to be listening? If they won't engage and just keep making threats (especially, as I say, against other editors) then block as with any other persistently unconstructive behavior. EEng 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the big reasons is that any form of intimidation has a chilling effect that damages our neutral point of view. If someone can say "The article should be like this or bad things will happen" that creates a very strong bias. Our WP:NLT policy is of course open to discussion and if consensus is found even change. HighInBC 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Duh, thanks for recapitulating what we all know is the logic of NLT. The questions (I guess I'll have to say again) are: whether a vague legalistic threat is, in fact, intimidating (which is different from whether it's meant to be intimidating); and (whatever the answer to that) whether instablocking is, in fact, the most useful way to respond. Since almost all "legal threats" come from very new editors, the idea that such blocks act as a warning doesn't hold much water. EEng 03:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the attitude. I am enforcing the NLT policy as it is written, if you want that changed then seek consensus for that change and I will follow that instead. HighInBC 03:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't question whether you were enforcing policy as written. The question was raised above whether our policy re/treatment of LTs is wise, at least one other editor seemed interested in kicking that around, and I joined in. There's no need for you to explain to experienced editors that the way to get policy changed is to seek consensus, that you as an admin would abide by such change, and other bits of obviousness. EEng 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk page of the policy would be a good place to have a discussion about that. If what I was saying was really obvious then you would be talking about it there. HighInBC 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, because discussants at ANI often kick an idea around in the context of a particular incident before making a formal proposal elsewhere -- though the literal-minded, and those who like everything bureaucratically pigeonholed, may find that bothersome. Perhaps you just let those who wish to discuss, discuss, without further metadefending your need to defend your earlier defense of an administrative action that I didn't question? EEng 04:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user can sue Wikipedia, or he can edit Wikipedia, but he can't do both. If an editor recants and disavows his legal threat, then an unblock can be considered. If he doesn't, then he stays blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You too are just repeating what we all know to be the current policies/practices, and chanting appealing-sounding syllogisms. Anyway, someone who says, "I'm so mad, if this isn't fixed I might sue WP!" hasn't sued anyone yet, and I'm trying to raise the question of whether those policies/practices best keep that from happening, and best get any errors corrected. Based on the straw-poll so far, however, it appears that for the moment the ground is not fertile for a reexamination of such questions. EEng 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My position is that it is not just the current policy, but that it is a good idea and a good practice. I am not just repeating the policy, I am defending it. I can't speak for Bugs but I suspect they are not just repeating something they heard, but rather expressing an opinion. I think you are belittling both of us by suggesting our defence of the policy are just "appealing-sounding syllogisms". I would love to continue this discussion on the talk page of the NLT policy, if you have any concrete proposals on how to improve things. HighInBC 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My original post asked whether the time-honored NLT arguments really are valid (for example, "blocking likely doesn't reduce the chance of actual legal action but rather increases it, by cutting off the channels by which we can explain how things work, and making it look like we don't give a shit about possibly meritorious complaints") but neither of you even acknowledged that question. Like I said, this doesn't seem like the time to shout into the wind. One thought for the future, however, is that someone should ask Foundation legal what they think about all this. Businesses often receive threats of suit, but they don't simply hang up the phone when that happens. (And yes, I realize WP isn't a business, but the point remains.) EEng 05:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I did answer your question by suggesting that our NLT policy was about avoiding intimidation in Wiki. The block is not for the benefit of the person blocked, and it is not an attempt to prevent law suits. It is taking legal matters off of Wikipedia because nobody here is qualified to deal with these matters. You responded with "Duh" and then acted like nobody was listening to you. You might not have liked the answer to your question but you got an answer. HighInBC 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone makes extra-Wikipedia threats, be they legal or physical, they have forfeited their editing privileges. There is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: actually, under the current WP:NLT policy as tweaked around the end of 2015 (I think), a user can sue Wikipedia (or one of its editors for Wikipedia issues), as long as they don't threaten here to sue: "That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia". I do not particularly endorse those changes, and I think they went under a bit of silence. LjL (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of legal threats policy

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Baseball Bugs, Collect, HighInBC, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, WaltCip, and EEng:

With all due respect to the blocking administrator and everyone else who has supported the block, this situation has been badly mishandled. As has been explained on this noticeboard several times before, a statement that something written on Wikipedia is "libelous" or "defamatory" is not, in and of itself, a "legal threat", any more than a statement that something is a copyright violation is a legal threat. A "legal threat" is a statement (or perhaps a very strong implication) of the writer's intention to sue one or more editors or the Wikimedia Foundation, or take some similar action against them. In the case of this particular edit, which deals with something that occurred in 1923, no legal claim for defamation could be brought even in theory because, at least in most jurisdictions (including the U.S., the U.K. and Ireland), only living persons can sue for defamation.

The misconception that any passing reference to an article's content as being defamatory constitutes a legal threat seems to remain widespread even though this issue was dealt with in an arbitration decision I wrote and which was unanimously adopted six years ago (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2#Principles in page history). As explained in that decision, and as subsequently written into the policy page that everyone is citing, at Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats, use of words such as "libelous" or "defamatory" is discouraged because such language could be misinterpreted or perceived as a legal threat and thus damages the editing environment. Nonetheless, the policy specifically states in discussing editors' use of such language, "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention" and that is certainly what should have occurred here.

Even if a more express legal threat had been made, and even if the "threat" would have had more substance even if it had been made, allowances must be made for newcomers who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing norms and policies, and who may be reacting out of unhappiness or anger at the treatment of themselves or a family member on the largest and most prominent interactive website in the world. See generally, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, and in a related context, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article, all of which seriously discourage blocking as a first response except in extreme situations.

Policy should always be enforced with due regard to what Wikipedia is and what we are all trying to accomplish here. The situation at the moment is that someone reached out to us angrily because he or she perceived that an ancestor was being unfairly maligned, and we struck back by immediately preventing them from editing any more coupled with a barely tailored template pointing them to a complicated policy page. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The block should be reversed and a more reasonable explanation of our editing policy and the reasons for it should be provided to the IP, with the request that he or she bring any further concerns to the article talkpage. It is only out of the possibility that perhaps I have missed something that I am holding off on unblocking pending a bit more discussion, rather than unblocking immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The block should stay until or if the user recants and disavows this statement: "‎The Ballyseedy Massacre and its aftermath: Bob Lambert did not order the killing of three Free State leaders in March 1923 and any suggestion that he did will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read any portion of what I wrote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You consider that threatening statement to be a "passing reference"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You should likely note that I did not say that the IP should be blocked - in fact I pointed out that the claim he objected to was poorly sourced in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I didn't attribute any statement to you. I pinged everyone who had commented in the thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want this re-statement of policy to become the emphatic norm amongst the community at large, I'd suggest pinging a helluvva lot more editors than just those involved here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They did not just say it was defamatory, they said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". "will be treated" is a threat of action. It was clearly meant to have a chilling effect.

I feel the block was in line with policy and our best practices. I don't think it is good for our NPOV to let users intimidate others like that. If you want to reverse the block go ahead, but please take responsibility for any future intimidation this user attempts. HighInBC 17:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor was actually following our WP:BLP (removing unsourced information). We even use the word defamatory in the WP:BLPREMOVE Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material.... That the IP editor did not know the magic word "BLP," but rather used common sense is not a reason to block; furthermore, such reactionary blocking is far more "chilling" than ambiguous edit summaries. NE Ent 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Gee I hate to repeat myself, but they did not just say "defamatory". They said "will be treated by his family, my family, as defamatory". This is a threat of action. The phrase "will be treated by [my] family" is a promise of action as shown by the words "will" and "be treated". The words "his family, my family" shows that the threat is coming from them and not just a warning about a 3rd party. This is not simply someone saying something is defamatory, it is showing an intent to take action.

The NLT blocking template explains what caused the block and what they can do to get unblocked. They can retract the threat any time. HighInBC 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, User:Newyorkbrad. User:Baseball Bugs, what are you doing back here? I thought you'd been kicked off the admin noticeboards years ago for this type of stupid shit-stirring. As for the rest of you, especially User:HighInBC, "treated as defamatory" does not equal "I will sue you". It might. But it might mean a letter to the WMF. It might mean taking the issue to ANI or BLPN. Or something else. Clarify what the editor means before acting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong, on all counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your ad-hominem attack against Bugs does little to contribute to the conversation. Nothing is gained by attacking people who disagree with you. HighInBC 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't been particularly active of late, so it's understandable why he's behind the curve on these matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not strong enough to fall under NLT directly, but it's uncivil and chilling to vaguely hint at some kind of consequences, even—or perhaps especially—where it's just as likely the threat refers to extrajudicial action. There does need to be an adequate WP:DOLT assessment here, even if we don't consider it as actionable under NLT. All that said, I would caution us all against letting the pendulum swing too far in the other direction, to the extent of only allowing NLT blocks where a "reasonable anticipation of litigation" arises. NLT may be interpretable in that way, but I believe the practices of the community have redefined the policy in such a way that NLT is broader than that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chillum, you have access to the block tool. You don't have to pull it out and wave it about in situations like this. Just talk to the man for Christ's sake. "Sorry. We're looking into it. It's being discussed [[here]]. By the way, check out WP:NLT." Listen, inform, advise, be polite and helpful. Bashing people with your tool when a bit of advice will do just as well is the very definition of being a dick. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose a change to NLT. As it stands legal threats call for a block, not a warning. Keep your insults to yourself, they are far more dickish then enforcing the policy that the community created. Seriously, I don't deserve to be treated this way for doing my job here. If you don't like the policy then seek to change it, don't just bitch at the guy who enforces it.

Wikipedia talk:No legal threats has not been edited since 26 August 2015‎. I follow the consensus of the community and that policy has been very stable. If you don't like the policy then change it and I will follow that. I don't pick and choose how I enforce policy. HighInBC 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Height is, apparently, so contentious

Chingis1991 has also been a party to the same height edits I previously reported being done by 37.150.210.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I considered reporting this to AIV but Chingis1991 hasn't received a pile of warnings yet although their latest edits seem like POINTy behavior. I considered reporting this to SPI because both the user and the IP strictly make these vandalistic edits to boxing/MMA biographies but I'm not sure there's an intent to deceive. Oddly, Chingis1991 returned to this sort of editing right after the IP got a warning from HighInBC. @EvergreenFir:, please take another look at this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If they do it again after the most recent block warning then I can do something. The only block warning I see is from after their most recent edit. It does appear that they may be the same person as the IP, however I am not 100% sure and thus don't want to act on that. HighInBC 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I'm pointing to an editor and an IP that have done nothing constructive here. Despite that, you seem unwilling to take action. I fail to understand why. This conduct is undoubtedly going to continue;

• Treker and I will have to revert this vandalism in the meantime. I prefer to spend my time making constructive edits rather than wasting effort complaining to do-nothing admins. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: WP:RFA is right there. Show us how it's done. SQL^{Query me!} 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is very common in MMA fighters and wrestlers articles and I think far more of them should be protected. I agree with Chris troutman, there is no reason to believe that the user is suddenly going to start doing useful contribution when they have so far only been concerned with screwing with articles in the same way.*Treker (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As an admin I have to assume good faith. This means I don't assume two accounts are the same person without clear evidence, it means I don't block new users who have not done anything since their first block warning, it means I know what is and what is not vandalism. If another admin wants to block then they can do so based on their discretion. Please don't chew me out for not jumping to use my tools when you ask me to.

If you think the admins here are "do-nothing" then perhaps you should run for admin and do a better job yourself. HighInBC 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

English Democrats

The English Democrats are not a far-right party. However the political ideology box on their page says they are "far right". I've been warned about saying this is slanderous. However, it clearly is - especially when the source provided does no even say "far right" but "right wing". Bizarrely I have tried to point this out on the talk page only to get people leaving warning messages on my talk page.

See also my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Democrats#Political_spectrum 86.14.2.77 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not "slanderous" just an abuse of cites - the two given do not support "far-right" at all. Happens far too often on Wikipedia - some folks think giving a "ref" means no one will ever actually check the claim asserted to be made in it. Collect (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute to me. GAB^Hello! 19:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ED are widely identified as far right by WP:RS. ED hates this and fans have spent many hours trying to change this in Wikipedia. Anything more you need to know? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Saying something is slanderous is a bad idea since it runs the risk it'll be perceived as trying the same thing as try for the same sort of chilling effect of a legal threat. In a few limited cases like with BLPs, it may be acceptable but the vast majority of the time, you should instead clearly explain what the problem is in accordance with wikipedia policy rather than needing to bring up slander/libel. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When people say things on the article's talk page such as "Since we are required to edit carefully all articles naming living persons, the rule is clear - since more sources just say "right wing" we pretty much have to stick with the less extreme adjective", it seems clear that BLP is being brought up as applying. Sometimes, to some people, rules seem very clear, and policies involving biographies apply to all articles naming living people (even when it concerns the parts that aren't specifically about the people). I sometimes wish I could have such certainties in my life. LjL (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Even in BLP cases you should still avoid bringing up defamation. I'm not going to fault someone who mentions slander if we call someone a paedophile who raped lots of kids and helped makes bombs and provided other support for ISIS and tortured random people and cute furry animals to death when there is zero sourcing for any of this (perhaps it's vandalism); but it's not likely to be helpful to bring up slander because we call a political party far right regardless of the sourcing problems and even if it does name living people associated with it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:lowercase sigmabot III & blacklisted website/s?

Not sure what is going on with this blacklisted titles issue but sigmabot's user page says for non-admins to report issues here to WP:AIV and the bot didn't archive that article's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am also prevented from creating Talk:Nigger/Archive 6, so it doesn't seem to be a problem with lowercase sigmabot, but page restrictions. I think that, the solution would simply to have an admin create the next archive page, but I am unsure if anything else should be done. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have created a blank Talk:Nigger/Archive 6. Only admins, crats, and template editors can override the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone (like an admin...) please help with this page restriction issue? I know sigmabot isn't technically malfunctioning but would like to get Talk: Nigger archived, hasn't been archived in 5 years (yes FIVE years). There are posts on there from 2011 and the talkpage has gotten too big. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

reversion of rwsa in a topic because it's not a template and "I don't understand"

today's edit following on from Teahouse discussion by tdw who thinks that a VE of a link is harder to comprehend than a VE of an rwsa link Dave Rave (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Um... In English, please? EEng 03:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

the edit made today, follow the link, following on from the discussion, follow the link, etc etc etc 04:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dave Rave is trying to add a template that only serves to obfuscate a normal link in wikitext and replace it with complex template parameters into the text of articles without ever having gotten a consensus to do this. Someone has made the argument that it makes the complex line diagram templates easier to use in that context, and I'll trust their judgement as to the template's existence since line diagram templates very rarely need to be edited. However, adding this in mainspace serves absolutely no purpose except to make articles harder to edit, and in a whole succession of attempts to introduce it and posts like this on various noticeboards, Dave Rave has not once been able to advance a single reasonable argument why it belongs in a regular article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit is disturbing, where Dave Rave's one supporter on this states that and I quote "you might be able to sucker her into falling afoul of WP:3RR". This behaviour needs to stop on both of their parts. I have always been happy to listen if anyone wants to raise an argument why these link-obfuscating templates should be used, but the only arguments they have even tried to make for mainspace make about as much sense (and are in the same tone) as his post here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask the usual "what admin action is required here?" question, until I saw that rather WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque comment pointed out.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

complex ? simpifies methinks. nevermind the actual edits resolving links to disam that need to be reverted Dave Rave (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a storm in a teacup, especially saying that If you're trying to escalate this from a garden variety edit dispute to the sort of thing arbcom needs to get involved in, you're going about it the right way. Putting aside the hyperbole and ruffled feathers, what exactly in this run of the mill content dispute couldn't be solved by raising a RFC and broadcasting it on WP:TRAINS?

A couple of editors want to use a template to reduce the wiki markup needed, another editor disputes this. Three editors thus go round and round without achieving anything concrete. Run a RFC, if that doesn't work go to WP:DRN, but don't bring a content dispute to ANI. @Useddenim: please do not use such tactics to "win" a dispute. "Winning" does nothing but create bad blood. Blackmane (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a plan. As a new (many years now) editor, I still don't get to see everything, but making it easier versus sticking my head in a sand dune is not something you get to resolve everyday despite much WP: searhing Dave Rave (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have any skin in this. As I said before, I’m not advocating their replacement of regular wikilinks in articles. I just said that it is merely personal preference. Occasionally I’ve used them in an article; sometimes they’ve been reverted, but usually not. I was pinged in the original discussion, so I gave my personal opinion. I see two editors who don't seem to want to “live and let live”, and it’s obvious which direction my sympathies lie, but WP:BATTLEGROUND?—no, not my fight. Useddenim (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Useddenim, it may not be your fight, but with that asinine comment you are certainly helping turn this area into a battleground. I urge you to reflect on what you said and I would like for you to ask yourself if you think that comment helps or hinders the collegiality we should share at a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ionuţ Silaghi—Abusing Multiple Accounts

Can an admin take a look at this page: Ionuţ Silaghi? There are three accounts that have edited the page (mainly removing speedy deletion tags) at this page since it was tagged for deletion. Here are the accounts in question:

• Acmar tramkas (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedumusus (talk · contribs)
• Francis Hardwh (talk · contribs)

If the page meets the given criteria, can an admin also delete the page, if necessary, too? Thanks!! 172.58.33.176 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The last two accounts were created in the last two hours, an hour apart :o _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Masreliez’s theorem

The article Masreliez’s theorem was just recreated, after having been deleted 6 years ago. Someone should check and see if there is sufficient difference between this new version and the old one, or if it should be a speedily deleted. Swedish Wikipedia has had trouble with people inserting stuff relating to Johan Masreliez in different articles, often with intervals spanning years.

Andejons (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed current article, appears to be supported by the second source provided. NE Ent 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

Wikicology has made a legal threat here, claiming 'Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. You are unlawfully intruding into my private life, unauthorized disclosure of my personal information.' Background: he has created an article about himself (actually the seventh article about himself). See

• Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde olalekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olatunde isaac O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have challenged his claim to be a biochemist, in the 'occupation' section of the infobox [258]. He also says on his Foundation page: "I'm Olatunde Isaac, a Nigerian academic and a medical laboratory scientist". Which university does he work at? His Academia page states 'Olatunde Olalekan Isaac hasn't uploaded any papers yet'. Are there any papers? An 'academic' technically is employed by or is a fellow of some institution, or at the very least has at least one published paper.

This raises a number of interesting issues. Is it OK on Wikipedia to say you are an academic, or a scientist, given that some would regard it as a pseudonym and not really have a problem with it. Or is it a form of identity fraud, designed to improve one's standing or authority in the wiki world? Is it OK to claim invasion of privacy, even when you have written an article about yourself? Or is he saying that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and is not writing about himself? E.g. here he claims that he has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Here he claims that olatunde olalekan and Olatunde Isaac are two different people. "One is a notable biochemist from Nigeria(I mean Olatunde Isaac) who was known for dacryodes edulis. Olatunde olalekan is a non notable researcher".

MichaelQSchmidt has argued WP:CLEANSTART, however I can't see it is a clean start, given he has repeated exactly the behaviour we saw before, namely trying to publish an article about himself on Wikipedia, by creating a whole host of stubs, or adding material of dubious quality, ingratiating himself with the WMF in an attempt to acquire notability. We had a similar case with user:Wifione, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note: What I wrote at that discussion about way-earlier poor edits only alluded to above was "Sadly, many newcomers do similar.. some from angst.. some from inexperience. For those who accept it as a learning experience and apologize and promise to not repeat those earlier errors in understanding, what is hurt by WP:AGF and allowing a WP:CLEANSTART?" That said, I see no "legal threat" in the linked quote, and simply an editor understandably worrying over "unauthorized disclosure of my personal information" shows A) a natural unhappiness about a perceived threat of WP:OUTING and B) unhappiness with your continued digging and chiding over the closed issue of his earlier inexperienced editing. WP:STICK is applicable here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "This is a young man who made a mistake. In the grand scheme of things what he did was pretty minor. Having a pseudonym, and - sort of - fleshing it out with some (pauses, waves hands) traits - that's really no big deal, I mean, that's part of online life. " That sort of thing, yes? Peter Damian (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And it's not STICK. There are two important principles involved here. (1) Is it OK to challenge someone representing the WMF, on whether their claimed academic credentials are genuine. (2) If someone writes an article about themselves, claiming that they are a scientist or a doctor or distinguished lawyer, can they claim invasion of privacy, even though they are the subject of the article itself? Peter Damian (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where you got it completely wrong. Firstly I'm not in anyway a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm a volunter like anyone here. Secondly, writing about oneself is not forbidden. See WP:WWA, where there is a notice that I'm a Wikipedian with article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I imagine MichaelQSchmidt knows a thing or two about clean starts. Peter Damian (talk)

For that matter so do you and I can't see what relevance either has on two editors in good standing. Casting dirt like this just makes you look a bit of a shit and suggests that you don't really have a case and are casting dirt around instead in the hope that it will stick somewhere. Not cool Peter, not cool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference is, unlike other people, that I have never written an article about myself with the help of an army of socks. Nor have I ever lied about a sock. Nor have I claimed academic credentials, or an occupation I did not have. My two points above remain. Not cool, Spartaz. Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment: Firstly, I never made any legal threat. I was only trying to explain to him why it is inappropriate to intrude into ones privacy. This editor is looking for thousands of ways to embarrass me. This is against the spirit of collaboration. I have tried all I could to avoid any conflict with this editor but It seemed to me that conflict is their hobby. I had tried all I could to explain to this editor while some things happened in my earliest time on Wikipedia. I'm a bit disturbed by this editor's behavior here on Wikipedia. A quick analysis of his contribution shows that he only made 4934 edit counts in his 12 years of being on Wikipedia. Out of the 4934 edits, only 18% where made to main space, 18.98 to userpage and 31.73 to User talk pages where he moves around to attack other editors, engaging in unnecessary arguments. This is odd to me!. Yes, about two years ago, I had a competency issue, trying to write about myself without prior knowledge of what Wikipedia is all about. Then, this led me to create multiple account to write on the same topic with the believe that an article about me will stay. Few days later I knew about WP:Sock Puppetry as a policy and the implication of engaging it, I told RHaworth about the accounts and my new account, Wikicology. RHaworth decided not to block me after I told him that I will continue to contribute constructively. In fact, that was when I know that a subject must pass WP:GNG or other criteria to be included on Wikipedia. Since then, I have been contributing significantly to the project both online and offline which made me to gain media attention in my country, Nigeria for my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. We normally see all manners of disruptive behavior from new editor. This particular one is a typical example of what we normally experience when new editors join Wikipedia especially those that aren't the product of Wikipedia Workshops/training. Some of this editors later get it right and they remain a long-term and valuable editors. Wikipedia is complex, and it's often difficult for new editors to understand how the encyclopedia works. They have no idea of the basic policies and guideline, WP:GNG, WP:CV, WP:BLP and what count as WP:RS. Some of them have not even heard of the word "Sock puppetry" and any other related terms. They usually think Wikipedia is like a social media where anything goes. Hence, they unknowingly get themselves in all manners of troubles and some of them get blocked or Ban. What this editor pointed out is the oldest history of a now experienced editor who has now grown to be an asset to the community. The then, new editor is now a major contributor of Nigeria related articles to Wikipedia. In addition to creating over 500 articles on the English wikipedia with GA and bunch of DYK, he has recruited several Wikimedians for the Wikimedia Foundation through series of workshops/training organized by him in Nigeria, a country where there are low number of people contributing to Wikimedia Project. He served as member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee as a volunteer and was twice a grantee of the WMF. The then, non-notable "Olatunde Isaac" is now notable. I achieve this notability as a result of my tireless contributions to Wikipedia. I will also like to mention that I didn't just jumped into creating the article. I consulted Nikki Maria and MichaelQSchmidt who advised me to write it in my sandbox which I did and MichaelQSchmidt help to move it to mainspace. I don't know Peter's motive behind this dead issue perhaps he felt I'm against "WikiProject Accuracy" conceptualized by Atsme and decided to embarrass me. However, Peter fail to understand that those accounts were blocked to prevent further disruption and not as a punishment. The accounts were blocked because they were used inappropriately to create article about a non-notable person. When Wikicology was created, it was declared to RHaworth (one of the blocking admin) on his talk where Peter found it like anybody el. RHaworth allowed me to continue editing since I had promised not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and will always make good contributions on wikipedia. Per my personal information, I'm a volunteer and not a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff. I'm never under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia. Today, I can call myself a "Dog" and tomorrow, I can say I'm "human". It is not a business of any editor. Identity verification is only required if I wish to become a WMF paid staff, WP:Oversighter or WP:CheckUser. However, if I choose to become one, I will send it to WMF through a private channel, and it will be destroyed upon receipt & verification and will not be shared with anyone outside the Wikimedia Foundation. Peter started bringing my personal information to wikipedia without any authorization to do so, which I considered a breach of privacy. The growth of Wikipedia is declining because of attitude like this. How on earth will I make legal threat? Perhaps he taught I'm going to fill a suit against him for invasion of privacy. I can never fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedian. Over my dead body! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat, but there seems to be some background here that requires further investigation, as part of a WP:DOLT analysis, particularly given there seem to be claims of WP:OUTING-like violations... which in my view would be a mitigating circumstance for what we normally consider indef-worthy behavior. Additionally, Wikicology's response above can also be read as disavowing a legal threat... which would help get us out of NLT territory, but not necessarily out of disruptive incivility territory. Telling someone that something they're doing on-wiki is legally harms you or gives you a cause of action against that person in a post intended to cause that person to stop whatever they were doing that you believe is legally harming your or gave rise to that cause of action is the very definition of a legal threat. Legal threats need not take the form of "I am going to sue you" or "I am strongly considering suing you." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To put my analysis more simply: The following sort of statement is a legal threat: "You are doing x. By doing x you are harming my y rights. Harming someone's y rights is grounds for a lawsuit." If you say that A implies B, B implies C, and A is true, then you're also saying B and C are true. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv; thank you so much for your comment. I didn't mean it the way it was interpreted. Like I said, I can not fill a suit against a fellow Wikipedia and I'm not threatening to do so. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv I think you need to look carefully at the 'outing' claim. As I mention above, Wikicology has written an article about himself (Olatunde_Isaac), where he claims to be a biochemist. If I then ask about his credentials as a practising biochemist, qua subject of article, is that outing? Common sense suggests not. Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no right whatsoever to ask me my credential as a practicing biochemist. Do I came to you for employment? Secondly, show me the policy that says that editors should be punished for writing or editing contents about themselves. Lastly, This is a clear case of WP:OUTING. per WP:OUTING, posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But I DO have a right to ask for evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist. Are you familiar with the WP policies on reliable sources? Where, as author of the article, is your evidence that Olatunde Isaac is a practising biochemist? It's really simple, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything you wish to know about Olatunde Isaac is already on the article. Every claims in the article are supported by reliable sources and if you find any unsourced claim, you're free to remove it. What you're saying is like asking Gbenga Daniel to upload his credential or send them to you to verify his academic background. This attitude is disruptive and unacceptable. Wikipedia doesn't require any editor to request for other editors or subject of an article's personal information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Can I ask if you are the same person as Olatunde Isaac ? Peter Damian (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly discouraged not forbidden and not a Criminal offense'. Why not stop User:Jimbo Wales from editing Jimmy Wales or tag his article with COI template.? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering does nothing to help this case, and, as far as a cursory inspection goes, User:Jimbo Wales has the good sense not to edit that article. Oh, and... We don't do "criminal offences" here. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology uses hos personal page as a sort of "Wikimedia CV". I guess that's OK, it's Wikipedia related. But asking you to back up the claims you do there seems perfectly fine. Or in short, if you claim to be a practicing biologist, I see no problem in asking you for your credentials. If you aren't willing to provide them, then you should not make the claim. Especially since it in the Wikipedia context is completely irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it was a clear legal threat. Please don't do that, User:Wikicology. There is no WP:OUTING, since you clearly identify on your user page. And it's not really right to say that you don't in any way represent the Wikimedia Foundation; your user page on Meta describes you in large letters as "Manager, Wikipedia Education Program Nigeria" etc., and your user page here features extensive descriptions of your volunteer participation in WMF activities like the Wikipedia Library. Of course as a volunteer you don't legally represent the WMF, but in a public-relations sense you do, given the press and outreach work you do in your home country.
• Now, as Peter Damian points out, we have had scandals within the Wikimedia movement before where people in leadership positions misrepresented their academic credentials, sockpuppeted extensively (you have candidly acknowledged your own sockpuppeting history), and so forth. They have harmed this movement. So it seems a fair question to me for the community to ask you whether you are in fact working as an academic or biochemist, because that is the impression your biography gives. If you just have a biochemistry degree, but are not currently working in the field, it would be better to say that (and there is no shame in that). Perhaps User:AKoval_(WMF) might like to weigh in here; you could for example provide documentation of your qualifications and current professional activity to her. At the end of the day, your fellow volunteers have an understandable desire to avoid misrepresentations that could lead to disrepute for the Wikimedia movement. As you are one of the public faces of Wikipedia in the Nigerian media, I think you should be open about this. Andreas JN466 13:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jayen466. I'm going to officially post the documentation of my credentials to the Wikimedia Foundation next week and I will Cced Anal Koval. I'm currently not in my home in Lagos. Do you think it's ideal for peter to slammed the article about me, Olatunde Isaac with WP:COI template even when it has been declared at WP:WWA? This is unfair. We don't have to be unfair with ourselves. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm daft; I had forgotten that Anna Koval recently left the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikipedia Education Program is now managed by Floor Koudijs. Andreas JN466 11:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know the underlying matters here but that was a clear legal threat, no doubt. Maybe made in the heat of the moment, but a threat, still the same. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that we shouldn't dig up ancient history and newbie mistakes. But Olatunde, you wrote the latest version of the bio this month, and Michael moved it into mainspace, so now it's an issue. Writing your own bio is a violation of WP:COI. Current footnotes 1, 3 and 4 are almost identical and seem to have relied on a press release. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note Re-statement of WP:NLT here, by User:Newyorkbrad. Might be relevant to your discussions. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Further concerns

I have further concerns about this editor. I was puzzled by the way that he comes across as somewhat illiterate, and yet manages to come upt with a large and apparently impressive article like Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. I now have copyvio concerns. See my investigation here. As already noted by another editor, Olatunde's references either point to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. The same seems to be true of Nitrogen dioxide poisoning. He copies passages verbatim from other articles about other kinds of poisoning (such as Chlorine and Beryllium), and refs these to completely unrelated articles. E.g. he writes

Mucous membranes are primarily affected, along with type I pneumocytes and the respiratory epithelium. The generation of free radicals from lipid peroxidation results in irritation of the bronchioles and alveoli, causing rapid destruction of the respiratory epithelial cells. The reaction's net result is the release of fluids, leading to pulmonary edema.[22]

But cite-22 refers to a paper which contains none of the text whatsoever, indeed almost no references to Nitrogen Dioxide. It's like that for every part I have looked at. This is not just a copyvio issue (he is copying from Wikipedia anyway) but potentially a public health risk, I would have thought (but I am not a medical expert). Could some expert look at this article please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this subsection: ANI is not the place to handle the content aspect of disputes like these. WP:COIN would be far better. With all due respect to Wikicology I would recommend he exercise care in editing articles about himself. Aside from that and the claimed legal threat above (which has been disavowed), there is nothing here clearly meriting administrator intervention. If some wrongdoing is demonstrated, rather than merely claimed, action might be appropriate. Even then I would advise Peter Damian to take care to avoid the appearance of impropriety in pursuing this matter: To my admittedly uninformed self, this looks a bit obsessive, and could give rise to sanctions for harassing behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Messenger well and truly shot. Thanks Mendaliv Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To prevent fragmentation of the discussion, I think it's best to keep it in one place. FWIW, spot checks of the references in nitrogen dioxide poisoning make it seem somewhat probable that there is a real concern here. To give one example, the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." is sourced to Kattan M, et al. (2007). "Health effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and passive smoking on urban asthmatic children." The source's full text is online and mentions neither methemoglobinemia nor hypoxia, which is concerning. Doc James has said he will look into this; it would inform this discussion if he could let us know his impressions here in due course. Andreas JN466 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow...Thank you. I just read through the source and sentence myself and actually, the source provided do not support the sentence "Methemoglobinemia prevents the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, causing oxygen depletion which can potentially lead to severe hypoxia." But that sentence is correct.[259]. Still a mystery that I added that source, anyway.I will request an expert to clean it up. Happy easter. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I'm familiar with Peter's history, but I'm pretty sure you're shooting the messenger, here. After creation and initial editing by Wikicology (only), the article had 37 references. I have checked the first 10 of them. Of these, 1 cannot be retrieved, 2 support part but not all of the preceding content, and the remaining 7 all have something to do with nitrogen dioxide, but don't support the content that precedes them. There appears to be a serious misinterpretation in using one of them: "The values [for EPA recommended exposure levels] were also based on concentation of Nitrogen dioxide that show a significant and direct effects on the pulmonary function of asthmatic patients," when in fact that study showed that asthma was correlated with NO₂ exposure below the set levels. Furthermore, the article repeatedly suggests that NO₂ exposure causes heart failure; that's at most a chronic rather than an acute result of exposure, and I'm not finding literature that bears that out. (One study suggested that exposure might increase the risk of mortality from existing heart disease, which is quite a different story.) I'm afraid this suggests to me that many, though not all, of the references were added at random after the text was composed to give it greater gravitas; the example chosen above by Andreas is not a fluke. Choess (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology seems to be copying text between articles without attribution. Parts of Gibbs's thermodynamic surface, which he created on 9 January 2016 (most of it in one edit [260]) appear in Maxwell's thermodynamic surface and in User:SciFox/sandbox. For example, see the internal search result for "Maxwell sculpted the original model in clay." [261]

It appears that sources are then added to some articles inappropriately or were perhaps wrong in the original.

Wikicology, if you copy text, you should add attribution to the edit summary, such as copied content from [[page name]]. Without attribution, it's a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have redirected Gibbs's thermodynamic surface to Maxwell's thermodynamic surface. See [262] and [263]. The Gibbs thing looks like some kind of exercise. Question: user SciFox (talk · contribs) = Wikicology (talk · contribs)? - DVdm (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking at the situation:
  • This is a legal threat[264]. That this threat has not been crossed out I find very concerning.
  • If one has written an article about themselves they have willingly disclosed their identity. But more concerning one should not be writing an article about himself. Linking to WP:WWA is not support for this. That User:Wikicology first says he was not writing about himself and now says that they are is a move forwards.
  • The policy that says you cannot write about yourself is WP:COI. It says "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships." It is definitely fair for Peter to add the COI template to the article you wrote about yourself.
  • As a member of the Individual Engagement Grant Committee yes they do represent the Wikimedia foundation and yes one expects a high degree of honesty. That they have blanked the article they created about them self is a positive step.[265]
  • Nitrogen dioxide poisoning has now been redirected by User:Jytdog. I am still concerned. The first referenced sentence is "It usually occurs after the inhalation of beyond the threshold limit value." supported by this ref [266]. What content in there supports this claim?
  • That Wikicology is working to improve content about Nigeria is excellent as is their efforts to promote Wikipedia in that country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean any legal threat. I crossed out this statement. I will request for cleanup on the medical related topics I wrote. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm looking at New York City Legionnaires' disease outbreak here. It's not the same order of serious as writing your own biography or misrepresenting sources in a biomedical article but seems to have some plagiarism and sourcing problems. I've just had guests arrive but will continue with this in a few hours.

Above, people are agitating to close this thread. Please don't. Let's keep all this in one place until we know what we're dealing with here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've finished (here).

Wikicology, first I have to say I'm very sorry you're going through this now. This can't be easy for you.

1. This article and 2015 Bronx Legionnaires' disease outbreaks were created at roughly the same time. They both cover the 2015 Bronx outbreak, and I presume both authors searched en.Wikipedia and found no coverage of the topic before creating their respective articles.
2. You begin the article with a falsehood (the only falsehood I could find). The outbreak the article addresses isn't the first known cases of infection by Legionella pneumophila in New York City.
3. Three of the eight citations in the article don't actually support what they're meant to support.
4. There are three instances of very close paraphrasing. In the first instance you've copied from a Wikipedia article. In such cases, as SarahSV pointed out above, it's best to mention in your edit summary that you copied it from X Wikipedia article. In the second instance, you don't actually cite the source (the New York Times). That is plagiarism. You cite the source in the last instance but, if you can't think of a good paraphrase, I recommend just quoting the source directly, between " and ", otherwise you leave our reader with the impression that you came up with that form of words.

Jytdog has just redirected the article to Legionnaires' disease#History.[267] where he's written a nice summary of the salient points of the 2015 Bronx cases. This seems appropriate to me. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly. I want to thank you for the diligent work on the article. Thanks for the helpful advice. I'm so grateful. It's a learning curve. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I spent today working over two of these articles, Nitrogen dioxide poisoning (that is a permalink, prior to the redirect with now goes here: Nitrogen_dioxide#Toxicity) and I just finished completely rewriting Chlorine gas poisoning (prior version is here). Am just starting to work on Beryllium poisoning (permalink). These articles were/are a disaster, and I am not being hyperbolic. Whatever else happens here, I would like there to be an indefinite topic-ban from anything related to health for Wikicology. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin

I don't know what user:Biscuittin posted here to get indef blocked. Not that I think he'll be missed, but if anyone has a copy could they email me, as the subject of the material? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: I suggest that you reach out to the oversighter who deleted the material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to SQL and a couple of others I have now seen the material in question. I have a couple of comments.

1. My identity is not actually a secret. It's not on my talk page right now but has been on my user and talk pages in the past - I think it would be a stretch to state that anybody who uses my full name here has outed me.
2. My talk page links to my Twitter account, and the comments Biscuittin made can be trivially verified from there.
3. The claim of COI is baseless. I am indeed an active skeptic, but I came to skepticism from Wikipedia, not the other way round. Given Jimbo's unequivocal statement on the alignment between the skeptical view on alt-med claims and Wikipedia policy I doubt anyone but the usual griefers would have given it any credence at all.

Overall, I suggest that any appeal of his indefinite block should succeed. I won't pretend that I have much time for Biscuittin and the assertion of COI here amounts to a vexatious complaint, but I don't believe anybody would have taken it seriously and I don't think that is could be justly construed as outing.

Biscuittin has said he will take this up "through other channels". That is a threat of a sort, which may still be considered blockable; he also persisted in posting his silly assertion when he was told to stop (unsurprising to anyone who remembers the history of his quixotic essay on reform of Wikipedia now at User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or his advocacy of what looks very much like climate change denial). But this is not in bannination territory, not hardly. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not the blocking admin, but I did remove talkpage access as it was being used to repost the outing threat, which is defined in WP:OUTING as a personal attack. Have let them know they can appeal the block via UTRS, or possibly to Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that this oversighter block is under discussion amongst the oversighters/arbitrators as I write. Risker (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. For what it's worth, I would say this action by Biscuittin is a dick move but not outing. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If editor A does not know that editor B's identity has been acknowledged on-wiki, but A makes suggestions at ANI regarding the presumed identity of B, and repeats them on another page after receiving a very blunt warning ("Recurrence will lead to an indefinite block"), was A violating WP:OUTING? By not bureaucracy, I guess not, but the behavior was extremely unwise. More importantly, if A is unblocked, I think some guidelines for the community should first be established: should B's identity be freely discussed on-wiki if people manage to find the trail? What if B's identity has not been generally known on-wiki for years? Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that this behaviour was unwise, and the continued insertion of the text, including on the user's Talk page, constitutes an act of abject stupidity given Wikipedia's rules on this, but I want to be clear that my identity is not a secret and although there is no love lost between me and Biscuittin I think it's important to be fair and to draw a distinction between WP:OUTING and more generic m:DICK, the latter being the actual issue IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the contents of this thread, I've undone my oversight of the original post here by Biscuittin. Those desperate to read it can find in the page history (though it's probably not worth a huge effort to do so). Other oversighters also removed other comments by Biscuittin - I've left these alone as they are a matter for the oversighters who acted on them. I've also retained my block on his talkpage access - the constant outing threats were a sufficient personal attack to justify this action, regardless of the actual content of the outing attempt. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IP disruption at Timothy Leary

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

---

I have been engaged in a content dispute with an IP, 2605:a000:1200:406f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b, at Timothy Leary. Most recently, this has led the IP to make personal attacks against me, visible here, where the IP describes me as "YOU HYPOCRITE" (capitals in the original). As this is a direct and blatant violation of WP:NPA, I propose that the IP be blocked. I am really sick and tired of this, and believe the situation needs administrator intervention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute where FreeKnowledgeCreator is stonewalling an IP, leading him to be annoyed. These things happen, but it's hardly worth doing anything about. The content dispute is in itself not an easy one, perhaps an RfC would actually be the right way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am one of several editors who disagreed with the IP, as you might have noticed if you had followed the discussion at the Leary talk page and at WP:NPOVN. I am actually pretty "annoyed" with the IP too, but I am not screaming at him in all capitals that he is a "HYPOCRITE", and thereby directly and blatantly violating WP:NPA. I stand by my call for the IP to be blocked; it has no right to behave that way. No objection in principle to an RfC. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor calling another editor's deletion of cited text "unacceptable behavior" is hypocrisy when the editor making the accusation has repeatedly deleted cited content his or herself. Calling someone a hypocrite IS NOT verbal abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to try your luck? I'm pretty sure that WP:NPA does mean that editors aren't allowed to call each other things like "YOU HYPOCRITE." It's not an ambiguous policy at all. Keep on calling me things like "YOU HYPOCRITE", and the result may not be to your liking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Realistically, FKC, you were acting like a hypocrite, complaining about edit warring when in fact your behavior was no different. That's what the word means. You've been busy edit warring as well, c.f., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. You've also been blatantly forum-shopping. When you didn't get the answer you wanted on the article talk page, you went to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Timothy Leary and then to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Timothy_Leary and now here, offering hyperbolic claims that views you don't like are "disruptive" (no, they just disagree with you) and that labeling Leary a philosopher is "the kind of thing that potentially damages Wikipedia's reputation." 6 Really? Wikipedia's reputation is on the line over this? I don't think so. I think it's time for a WP:BOOMERANG. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your hypocrisy as an editor over and over again, so with all due respect yes you are indeed a hypocrite. What difference does it make whether I write in all caps or not. Actually the symbol for yelling or raising your voice is an exclamation mark not writing in caps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your current attitude is not going to result in what you want. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:DONTBITE the newbies. I think he's frustrated by some pretty annoying behavior. Msnicki (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

As for biting, this AN/I report comes just two days after dragging the IP to the NPOV board. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's some WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here. It's the kind of thing that takes away the fun for everyone. Msnicki (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And just to make things more confusing, it is not just "one" IP editor. I initially came to the defense of an IP after patrolling recent changes and noticed that FKC was a little harsh in edit summary to an IP when rv "philosopher". FKC despite being informed numerous times, is claiming that all IP editor involvement in the topic are the same one, and, even-though for myself my IP does change dynamically, it can be discerned that there are more than "one" IP editors involved.2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling someone a "hypocrite" is repeatedly violating WP:NPA. I can see why administrators might not want to immediately block the IP for one offense, when it is possibly new to Wikipedia, but IP is doing it over and again ("yes you are indeed a hypocrite", above), after being informed of WP:NPA. As for you, Msnicki, you could find a better way of expressing disagreement. You accused me of forum-shopping, but that's behaviour users engage in when they don't get what they want, which is not the case here. Most users who commented at WP:NPOVN agreed with me that the desirability of labeling Leary a philosopher was at least open to question. My request that the Leary article be protected was acted upon here. The IP's persistent offensive behaviour and personal attacks are a different matter again, and one which cannot be addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard or requests for article protection. So I'm quite justified in bringing the matter here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course you are. Is it the first time? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should avoid turning WP:ANI into a playpen? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And that attitude isn't constructive either. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How would you respond to a juvenile comment obviously designed purely to offend? It's reasonable to suggest that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi not behave this way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would ignore it. If it continues I would consider why this person is upset, and if there is something I can do to calm him/her down and try to make the discussion constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator is running rampage through articles and leaving editing summaries speaking as-if they are an authority about who, and how certain people should NOT be labeled as a philosopher. This is NOT just aimed at Timothy Leary at this point. I really dislike FKC's authoritative tone when doing their edits, because these are edits that have been long-standing and made by other editors IGF, and yet FKC has not yet pointed-to where they get this "authority" from. Consistently stating, "NPOV", "NPOV", and complete DENIAL when given what is standard required referencing/citing. I think that FKC needs to take a rest from philosophy topics and also answer some of the questions and/or acknowledge that they are hearing what other editors are saying instead-of answering like some kind-of bot that doesn't understand English. 2601:80:4003:7416:8C4C:77AF:846C:E4CF (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagreed with an edit you made at Aldous Huxley and reverted you. You reverted right back. That isn't the accepted way of dealing with disagreements. Per WP:BRD, you should have taken the matter to the talk page rather than immediately restore the edit. Most of your comment above is just "I don't like you" stuff, so it seems pointless to respond. What do you expect, for me to say that I don't like you either? Why should I waste my time with that? I stand by the edits I made at Aldous Huxley; the proper place to discuss them would be at the article's talk page, not ANI. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you just have a bias toward any philosopher who is an advocate for psychedelic drugs. You are the only person who really has a problem with the sited source creditiing Timothy Leary as a philosopher. You should be banned from editing wikipedia for persistent edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You might try rereading the discussion at WP:NPOVN. Several editors questioned whether Leary should be called a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

IP edit warring at Aldous Huxley

Stop this ridiculous bickering. I can't believe how long this has been going on. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See here, here, and here. I have informed the IP editor of WP:BRD, and the need to discuss issues on talk instead of trying to change the article through edit warring, but am being ignored. The bottom line is that the IP editor seems to feel that no one can revert them, that they do not have to discuss their changes, and that they can always get what they want through edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, the amount of hypocrisy here is really staggering . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Note that this user has been warned about personal attacks. The IP's response was to ask for an explanation of why calling someone a "hypocrite" is a personal attack, a question which suggests bad faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Note: I didn't acctually call you a hypocrite, I merely suggested that it is hypocritical for an editor to acuse another edditor of edit warring when he or she is really the one doing it his or herself, that my friend is hypocrisy. I dont know what makes you think you have the authority to overule every other editor who disagrees with you. Frankly I am getting pretty annoyed with your authoritarian style of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk • contribs) That comment reveals a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia handles disputes. If you want to make a change to an article, and another editor disputes the change, you need to get agreement for it. Otherwise, the change is not made and the article remains as it was; that's the point of WP:BRD. I am not showing any special conviction that I have the right to "overrule" you by reverting you, and in fact I could equally well ask what gives you the right to "overrule" me by reverting my edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Not sure you're the person to lecture on how to handle disputes based on the way you've handled this one, edit warring and taking your complaint about a rather trivial content question to three different drama boards. This is genuinely over the top. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC) FKC, you never practice anything you preach, nobody ever agreed with you that Aldous Huxley wasnt a philosopher because he never recieved a paycheck for being one, but you reverted my edit anyway. What makes you think that your the only person who can decide who is and is not a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1200:406F:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC) I do not think that I am the only person who can decide who is and who is not a philosopher. I think that if you want to make a change to an article, and no one agrees with you that the change should be made, I have every right to revert you. If you want to the change the article from its default state, it is you who needs to get someone to agree with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive sock-puppet is back

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

---

103.56.240.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, posted this fake report to EWNB. Since admins don't seem to bother showing up there anymore, I figured I might as well post this here, since this is where so many admins regularly hang-out. There have been previous fake reports such as this, however this one conveniently includes links to some of those previous fake reports. - ^theWOLFchild 10:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

New editor, troubles

Please look at User talk:Nouman khan sherani, which is filled to the brim with all kinds of templates, none of them good (except for the welcome template). There's unsourced BLPs, copyvios, uploads lacking proper documentation. I think this editor needs someone friendlier than me to try and get them to talk, lest they end up quitting or getting blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I've hatted the warnings on the user's talk page, simply because I think it's the right thing to do in this instance. Friendly gesture. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea. It doesn't take away from the fact that they were necessary, of course. :( (In fact, I came to this because of a faulty image link which was supposed to go to an image--without proper attribution.) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies - they were indeed necessary, I agree, so I wouldn't have blanked them. I simply thought hiding them in their own section would be a way of saying "these are necessary although I understand you will, and should have already, acknowledged them - now let's move on". --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On the assumption they have been read and digested, agreed. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope so, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I came across this as I was going through the daily uploads. A few of their uploads are F9. Should I tag them without Twinkle so they don't get more notices on their talk page? Seems like the ones that are definitely copyright violations should not stick around to see if/when they tag them with the proper source and license information so I want to tag them but I don't want to unnecessarily add more templates to their user talk page. --Majora (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I believe if you uncheck the box at the top of Twinkle that says "Notify page creator if possible", Twinkle won't place the notice on their talkpage. However, there is nothing wrong with doing them by hand. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Psomu800

Psomu800 (talk · contribs) has persistently violated copyright policy by placing copyrighted text into numerous articles despite warnings. Recent examples:

• diff 1 – content copied to All India Radio article from here, here and here.
• diff 2 – content copied to RuPay article from here.
• diff 3 – content copied to India Posts article from here.

I think we should follow WP:CV and block Psomu800 for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive sock at ANEW... again

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

---

117.237.184.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See Diff. Same user as two reports above that was blocked by Widr.
Still waiting for some admins to do some... admin'ing at ANEW, btw... - ^theWOLFchild 17:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked this one. Widr (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for "bumping" this closed thread, but seriously, I highly commend Widr and his immediate response to cases like this. I had two AN/I reports sorted within seconds of filing them, thanks to this administrator. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Most admins are always very active with administrative actions right after they get elected. Before you get offended, it's not an accusation, just an observation. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Please ban and hide outrageous comments

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

---

Please ban the IP 2606:6000:fd07:e900:5553:91c0:e6f:d3a who's not only violating ARBPIA but posts extremely violent, racist and highly appropriate personal insults in edit summaries [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit. It should probably be hidden. The IP6 editor is from a familiar range, who likes to repeat his edit many times within a short time frame. See my talkpage history for example. The usual measure is to temporarily protect the article. Although I think we should indef block that range, usual reluctance to block IPs not withstanding. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser, that IP range should probably be indeffed. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia as a whole look bad, when racist propaganda and incitement is allowed to be put forward. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one that should also be taken care of. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AB%27Tselem&type=revision&diff=712385599 . I wonder if this is a previously banned user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... Debresser (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Virginia, FWIW. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

These qualify for revision deletion. Jeppiz I think it's best in the future to either message an active admin directly or ask for one here without posting the diffs, especially ones as abhorrent as these. Let's ping an active admin and a few willing do handle these requests - DoRD, Malcolmxl5, Doug Weller, BethNaught EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This same racist troll is back immediately with a new IP [275]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if an admin could hide this [276] and also this [277]. (I realize the latter was acting in good intentions, but it repeats the very harsh personal insult at me in the edit summary so I'd want both those edits taken out.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADebresser&type=revision&diff=712389334 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked the entire /64 range (the typical number of IPv6 addresses allocated to each customer of this ISP) and am looking at more edits that will need hiding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Good! Although... This edit was made by a IP4 address: 186.91.234.38. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: Much appreciated! I see some are blocked as LTA. Is there an SPI page or anything we should direct future incidents to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The IPv4 is an open proxy. It looks like User:JarlaxleArtemis. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And we have more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/201.7.216.85. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That one is blocked as an open proxy now. Apologies for the block warring, zzuuzz. :\ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I didn't see any accounts on any of the IPs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Got the ping. All looks to be in hand, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A few admins are familiar with this kind of abuse and know how to deal with it most effectively. If you're not familiar with it, your best bet might be to contact the oversight team. (Somebody did in relation to this, and I've suppressed some of the more ... colourful edit summaries). ANI threads like this, although started with only the best of intentions, tend to draw more attention to these things. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See this edit for his latest incarnation. Also, I strongly disagree with Mitchell. Can there be any reason not to point out at WP:ANI that Wikipedia is suffering from a vandal? Debresser (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, actually: this is what the guy *wants*. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System

See also: User talk:Godsy § St. John's Fire District and other moves, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Continued Disruption by User:QEDK, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917 § MfD end run GAME

---

After failing to get me sanctioned for alleged gaming [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284] [285], , Godsy immediately [286] embarked on his own WP:GAME mission reverting moves into mainspace of WP:STALEDRAFT articles on non-controversial and easily verified topics [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293].

This activity is quite pointy [294] and downright hypocritical. While he claims he is trying to prevent me from getting material deleted from userspace (including the stupid suggestion I'm moving pages to main to delete them) he is himself deleting the Stale Draft material from mainspace where I placed it for other editors to expand and improve. His actions are in direct contravention of WP:COMMONSENSE (does nothing to expand or improve the encyclopedia) and the guidelines at WP:CHALLENGE. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." He made no effort to add sources or verify anything.

Godsy is part of the small group that appears to want userspace drafts untouched [295] regardless of how old or unsuitable and against policy WP:DRAFT that allows any user to work on them.

I'd like to see these moves all reversed and material restored to mainspace. Let's tag up anything that is actually questionable and see if we can improve these topics rather then delete them by stealth by relegating good topics to userspace forever. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another report? Sigh... either an admin needs to boldly handle all these or it's likely to end up at arbcom (which is ridiculous imho). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, any admin who does involved is then part of problem so we shall see. WP:UP is now protected since there's massive editing going to create new policy which then gets taken straight to MFD and arguments continue again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Me thinks this is gonna end up at Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stand my move summaries. Stating the current rules and my subsequently following them isn't equal to "Godsy ... appears to want userspace drafts untouched regardless of how old or unsuitable". I think that a consensus should be formed on the issue of the types of moves Legacypac has been doing. Objections have been raised across multiple forums by many editors, and users shouldn't continue unilateral action not supported by the rules and consensus when their actions are challenged. If Legacypac wants the couple of handfuls (approx. 10) of moves I reverted reveiwed, perhaps the approx. 250 questionable moves from the userspace or draftspace to the mainspace they performed this year should be called into to question. I refuted the above twisting of WP:V on my talk page, so I'm not going to waste space and do it again here. That's all I have to say.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• The unsatisfying close of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD_end_run_GAME was unfortunate. It gives implicit approval to the GAMING, short of an arbcom ruling. The disputed boldness needs to stop for policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

On my part, the amount of activity exceeds my ability to review. It is not possible to see the full picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny Why are we back at ANI already? I really hope this doesn't have to go before ArbCom. We should be working together on an answer to the draft situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything (not true obviously since by his count I've moved 250 pages forward) but insists on himself effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace without any effort to improve them. Now he calls into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is his agenda here?

Policy development is always an option, but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE. If he really does not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Refutation of your statements point by point:

"We are only back at ANi because Godsy insists I want to delete everything"

False. I've stated that some of your page moves were inappropriate per the guideline that currently exist (i.e. WP:STALEDRAFT, "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;") in the AN/I thread about your actions (not started by me I might add). If a page you move to the mainspace is deleted, then it clearly is not suitable for the mainspace.

"effectively deleting the pages I think are a good start for mainspace"

"pages I think are a good start for mainspace" seems to be unequal to "suitable".

"Now [they] call into question all my moves. Seriously, what the heck is [their] agenda here?"

By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. If a page gets deleted, it wasn't suitable for the mainspace, and should not have been moved. That means the page moves were improper. If that big of a chuck of the page moves were improper, what is to say that others were not as well? Some of the page moves I reverted were articles slated for deletion (example).

This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination speak for themselves.

"but mass undoing another editor's good faith efforts to bring good topics forward defies WP:COMMONSENSE"

I wouldn't consider call 10/250 (less than 5% of the moves) "mass undoing". I gave a good reason in my summary of the moves: "The article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace." WP:COMMONSENSE is part of WP:IAR?, and I'm not ignoring the rules.

The fact that about 10% of your page moves have resulted one way or another in deletion, and that you nominated a page for deletion at AfD after you moved it from the userspace to the mainspace because you disliked the standards of MfD (By my count approx. 20 pages have been deleted so far this year that you moved to the mainspace. That's about 10%. This move (move summary: "move to mainspace to subject to AfD to test notability- claims at MfD that GNG does not apply are too annoying") and deletion nomination), calls into question whether your actions were in good faith.

"If [they] really do not like a page, take it to AfD, don't stealth delete it in a way that is not easy to fix."

I neither like nor dislike the pages, and that is not a reason to take something to AfD. That aside: if the pages are in a state that they can be reasonably taken to AfD, then the page move was improper, as pages should not be moved unless they are suitable (i.e. meet the core content policies). As such the page moves should be reverted and the proper forum to seek deletion would be MfD. I did not "stealth delete" pages, I reverted some page moves.

So, I'll ask those reading this thread to take your statements with a grain of salt at the least, and I won't be responding to any more of your falsehoods here.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ffs, Legacypac (talk · contribs), it's enough. We've seen enough of your bullshit, man. I cordially invite you to form an ArbCom case request, if it pleases you but stop making revenge threads about every other person who has the guts to oppose you. Forever and evermore, thine. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Ok, for the people who oppose Legacypac, what's the next step? Is there an actual plan here beyond just dragging this back here and again with accusations? There's been topic ban proposals, admonishment proposals, and now wholesale reverts of the moves. None of the proposed sanctions seem to have actual support so we're left again with people making accusations. Of course I've been accused of either collaborating or coordinating or colluding or something else so I'll wait for that as well. If Legacypac takes the pages to MFD, will we will be back here again for "gaming" because he's mass-listing these at MFD? And no, yelling and screaming that he should go away is not an actual solution here so please provide some idea of what people are supposed to do. I think everyone agrees that moving pages to mainspace is fine in concept so can someone point to a policy that explicitly says when it is appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, moving pages that will clearly not survive in mainspace is not fine. That has been, time and again, been cleared out by admins and non-admins alike. Not to mention, you and a couple of others who are overreaching NOTWEBHOST to delete drafts by saying, Wikipedia's not an indefinite place for storage of data when the actual policy says something altogether. Again, it's him against policy, not me. Moreover, this thread was just meant for revenge. Needless to say, everyone's tired of his pointless charades and if he thinks he's right, he can take the highway to heaven. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So you get to determine that they aren't going to survive in mainspace and that's enough? User:Akivah/Yeshivat Rambam Maimonides Academy page seemed like a perfectly fine stub for mainspace to me. And I'm certain there's no policy that says people can unilterally move stuff back into userspace just because they don't like the person who did it. At the very least Godsy could have combined them into a single AFD and discussed them to let other people decide. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: You do realize the references were added after I reverted the move, correct?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected on that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

10/10 Legacypac trying to clear his image because he was the one who moved the unsuitable draft in the first place. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have listed the pages at AfD because per what I can derive from policies and guidelines that is the improper forum. If the pages could be reasonably listed there, the page moves themselves are improper, and as such the proper forum would be MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do wish to be blunt. This is essentially reopening the other discussion, which was closed reasonably. While I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning for Legacypac's moves, moving them BACK to Userspace without discussion is definitely disruptive and possibly even WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, especially so soon after the prior ANI discussion was closed. If you really can't work it out without fighting and disrupting the encyclopedia, then I think, at the very least, there should be an interaction ban here or at the very least a voluntary Wiki-break for the involved persons also. Please realize that this really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, even if no one gets their own way here. Getting into these heated discussions only hurts Wikipedia. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Chrisw80: I reverted a few of the moves that were problematic and improper (approx. 10/250, less than 5% of the moves). Legacypac moved them boldy, so I think it was reasonable for me to revert a few that clearly had issues (one of the worst examples). If I had reverted the moves without being super selective or en masse, I could understand your position. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion. Just making sure you had some information that is vital, as there is a lot to read across all the discussions. Respectfully,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: That information is important, and it does moderate my opinion somewhat, but it doesn't change it materially. Thank you for replying and for the information. Best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The bold moves were discussed before and I think the consensus was that, other than the accusations, the discussion was haywire. Now, I took the problematic ones I saw to AFD and for that was accused of being in collusion for asking if the move was actually appropriate. So is the result (a) we can't leave them alone and (b) we can't discuss the mainspace pages via AFD and (c) all that can be done is unilateral reversions of page moves? That's not a recipe for resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• So as an admin, you're telling me making unilateral moves are fine but unilaterally reverting them is not? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspend all of MFD

There is one solution here: suspend all of MFD and any movement/deletion of any userspace drafts until there is a clear consensus of what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.115 (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as patently ridiculous. There are plenty of solutions to this other than suspending MfD. A suitable compromise can be made here. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Suspension of WP:WikiProject abandoned drafts would be more like it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also patently ridiculous as it would not address the issue at hand. What we do need is more help over at MfD by experienced editors and admins. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Chrisw80, that's not right. Currently MfD has more active participants than it ever had. The recent MfD battles, messy as they were, albeit continuing, have shifted the battlefront to creative (GAMING) issues of liberal CSDing, sometimes explicit reference to IAR, and unilateral moves of userpage drafts to mainspace or draftspace. While many of the moves are good or fair actions, some are not, and the activities have gotten ahead of policy documentation. I suggest suspension to allow for the policy development. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Does more harm than good.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Facepalm Hell no. Once we get a full-blown draft MfD discussion rolling I am hopeful that Legacypac will curtail nominating behavior that might disrupt that discussion. If not we can revisit the MfD topic ban idea proposed in the previous thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspension and dissolution of Abandoned Drafts WikiProject

Ok if we aren't going to shut down MFD, then the next solution is to shut down the Abandoned Drafts project and suspend all MFD discussions regarding userspace drafts. Any project this far off the rails needs to be eliminated completely. 107.72.99.115 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too draconian. When and if we get a proposal discussion actually going we can agree to temporarily suspend draft MfDs during the pendency of that discussion, but that should only happen if that discussion is disrupted, and should only persist temporarily. The abandoned drafts project is not the problem. The problem is a lack of clear, realistic policy guidance on article drafts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself? This is coming from someone who is experienced with an actual problematic WikiProject. It was merely taking Category:Stale userspace drafts and making it a static table. Other than that, the project has basically been dead since 2011. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Can anyone point out an actual problem with the wikiproject itself?". Yes. It is small and specific. It has listed a lot of old drafts with a implication that something should be done to reduce or even eliminate the list. There is clearly not consensus for that. Sure, many of the listed pages are delectable under G* criteria, others are good to move to mainspace, but the set of intended drafts of unclear potential are being subjected to actions that were not discussed and are now disputed. A little time to discuss a proper guideline please. Dissolution is overkill. Suspension for a week or two? --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite there yet. I think that if the noms continue on unabated once we have a discussion kicked off, then absolutely call for a temporary moratorium on staledraft noms (it's not like they're going anywhere). Until it's clear something's happening it'd be premature to ask for a halt to noms, but the tradeoff (in my view) is that once something's clearly happening we might call for something involuntary, from targeted bans from listing drafts at MfD up to a broad halt of the MfD process, to compel discussion. The listers are at least justified in not wanting to stop before a concrete discussion emerges since it's entirely possible nothing will emerge once the pressure is off. But, again, once something emerges the listing should stop, either until a proposal emerges and is adopted, or until discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it after my vacation is over or someone else can. No problem. I guess, the temporary moratorium can start from now? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Cloisters

An uninvolved admin needs to look at behaviour here. I don't mind a block or scold, by Beyond my Ken is bang out of order, but does not seem to realise, or have even a modicum of self awareness. My involvement started from a series of sub articles, and when I tried to link them in, was severely bitten by blind reverts and accusatory edit summaries. I suppose I fought back, but this doesn't seem like ending, and is more than imidatory. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The user in question, BMK, has single-handedly taken it upon themself to revert the consensus of four separate editors. I find their behaviour somewhat baffling. Note: I am married to the reporter; I still am a separate person with my own opinions. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute over two popcult items, both sourced to the Metropolitan Museum online website (there can hardly be a more reliable source about the Cloisters, which is a branch of the Met). If there's a behavioral question, it's over Ceoil's blanket refusal to talk about his removal of these two items, even though I asked him to do so 3 times, before he called in his friends and colleagues to help him out. (A discussion was eventually started by another editor).

I know that some editors just absolutely hate "In popular culture" sections, and if it were up to them, they'd be banned from Wikipedia, but there have been numerous discussion about the "popcult" question over the years, and that point of view has never prevailed. No doubt Ceoil thinks these two sourced items sully the article about something related to art history, but the community doesn't agree, nor does the community agree with editors (especially ones who have been blocked 13 times for personal attacks or harassment or disruptive editing [296]) refusing to discuss contested edits when asked to by another editor. Ceoil's bring the dispute here is laughable, considering his history, his canvassing, and his knee-jerk reverting. There. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs)

BMK, Ceoil, I think you'll both admit (albeit not to each other, and not when you feel backed into a corner) that you can be more stubborn than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. So: BMK, please don't re-add that until there's consensus for it; it looks like a gaggle of people have disagreed with you. There's a thread on the talk page, see how it plays out, and (if applicable) bow out with grace if it goes against you. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. Ceoil, please don't re-post things to people's talk pages when they've removed them and you know they're unhappy with you, it's not cool, and adds sand to the gears. More importantly, you're handling this much more aggressively than is good for you, or for the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair. But practically how can BMK be managed given blind reverts against established consensus? Also this about far more than a content dispute about the inclusion of wanton trivia, although it has rested on that. Its about behavior, and I never thought Id say this, but OWN. It worth mentioning that he is also trying to defend a "see also" section, that's as abstracted and unconnected, basically "other stuff on Earth". I see that as low value editing. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a lot of ignoring BRD going on before consensus was established though, right (you were bold, he reverted...)? And mutual exceedence of 3RR? I suggest (though no one ever does it) to just have the discussion on the talk page while the article is in the state you don't like. The only other option is to follow policies to the letter like robots, and block two long term good faith editors who would react poorly to being blocked. (and, Ceoil, you know I hold you in high regard, but... you broke my irony meter when you quoted WP:OWN, please don't do that! :) ) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since it was inserted in July 2014 [297] and removed today [298], the "established consenus" is in, not out. Obviously consensus can change, but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus. NE Ent 22:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems like weak reasoning; you are undermining thoughtful arguments, in an offhand, passing way. Want to try again? Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Courcelles and Fluffnutter might be very offended by the concept that they are one person. I certainly take exception to what you are implying about me. Take this to email if you have further questions about my status as an autonomous person. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, if you're suggesting a "spouse" has no say, then just wow. I might maybe buy that if you're referring to Ceoil (being sarcastic), but you're clearly referring to Kafka Liz as "just a spouse". It's for that reason that we lose high quality female editors like her who have an enormous talent and enormous amount to contribute to this place. I was there because the museum is about 15th century art and I'm working on an article about 15th century art so it's not a huge stretch it would be on my watch. But, again, I just a woman. Go at it, gentlemen. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that its much of an indication, but Kafka has seven featured articles to her name and a tenure of near 10 years. Shame on Ent. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that both editor and spouse are gender neutral, that it assumed the woman is "just a spouse" is a reflection of the reader, not the writer. The point that I was making is that while there are couples that both edit, generally they follow the prudent practice in not participating in the same discussions. Consider for example, the relatively low article and talk: overlap of Courcelles / Fluffernutter listed alphabetically [299], or Chase Me, Ladies, I'm the Cavalry / Panyd [300] (zero) contrasted with that of Ceoil / Kafka Liz [301]NE Ent 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume that meant to either cute or clever. Its neither, and hugely disingenuous. You need to apologise. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAMILY: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. " (emphasis mine). Therefore, when evaluating consensus, it's perfectly reasonable to consider a couple a single vote. NE Ent 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent you need to apologize. Kafka Liz is a person in her own right; she is not just a spouse. I was the person who said consensus had been established and you all can beat the hell out of me for saying that, but to come here and to tear down a woman in such a manner is unacceptable. It really is. Victoria (tk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that gets people to arbcom, or indeffed. I really am baffled at such ill informed cheapness. In point of fact, Liz disclosed at first posting on talk, so I'm not sure what you insinuation is based on. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What Ent said in plain English is when determining consensus, where two people are linked by marriage/living arrangements and editing in the same area, they will often be treated as one person as it is impossible to separate them. This is not an assumption of bad faith, rather this is an outcome due to numerous previous issues where spouses/partners have engaged in meat/sockpuppetry. No one judging consensus where the arguments are equally weighted is going to come back with anything but 'no consensus' in a 2 to 3 split. 2 to 4 is obviously a big difference, which is why Ent made the distinction of noting one was a spouse - as it has specific relevance in close-consensus discussions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I opened the discussion per BMK's request and I hastily made a comment about consensus quickly forming when in fact I should have kept my mouth shut, or rather not typed anything. Above NE Ent writes, "but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus". Yes, maybe a few people doesn't make a consensus. The problem here is that there are two very long-term veteran editors, husband and wife for a fairly short period, and apparently per policy one has now lost her voice on Wikipedia. In other words she cannot opine or !vote, whether or not she agrees with the other person in the living arrangement, on RfAs, RFCs, talk page discussions, FACs, etc. That makes for a fairly miserable existence on Wikipedia and I don't think it's right to hit that person over the head with the fact that in deciding to make living arrangements with a fellow editor she's become a non-person in Wikipedia terms. This is sexism at it's worst and frankly probably should be addressed somehow - particularly now that we're 15 years into the project and these things happen. As it happens they've left the building, as they should in my opinion, and as their friend who's edited with both, before and since their current living arrangement, I've never thought of each as anything but her or his own person, capable of her or his own thoughts, and on principle need to leave the building for a while too. This really could have been dealt with in a better way. But I see that NE Ent has a fair amount of support for his position, so there's not a lot more to be done. Victoria (tk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I know this is irritating at this stage, but there has been discussion on talk pages. This was posted *after that*. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you both edit warred before consensus formed (you violating "follow BRD"), and you both (and others) edit warred after a rough consensus formed (he violating "don't edit against consensus"). I'm puzzled by this desire for an admin with a banhammer to swoop in Admin ex machina and solve a content dispute that's gone off the rails, when you would normally hate that. Just (a) nobody revert anymore, and (b) discuss on talk page, and the problem goes away. But if we keep picking at scabs, it doesn't go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. No advice might have been better advice. Ceoil (talk)

@Floquenbeam: Yes, I will indeed admit to being stubborn, at times, especially when I get noting from the other side to work with. I think my very first revert of Ceoil's removal of 2 sourced popcult items asked for him to discuss it, the answer to which was an immediate kneejerk re-revert... and no discussion - and, yes, that pissed me off, and yes, I over-reacted. I have been trying (not always with great success) to simply take articles which provoke such disputes off my watchlist and just "letting shit go", and my mistake here was in not doing just that (which, incidentally, I did after my last edit to the page).

So... that's pretty much it from my point of view. If an admin wants to ding me for edit-warring, well, the evidence is all there, I have no real defense (except, of course, that those items were and remain legitimate sourced popcult items - but, you know, "don't edit war even when you're right"), so I can't honestly argue against it - but with the article off my watchlist, and having been the recipient of Ceoil's hospitality, I have no desire to go there again in any capacity to do anything whatsoever - I wash my hands of it. It's off my watchlist, and I'll try not to even look at the building when I walk in Fort Tryon Park (the Cloisters is a couple of blocks from my apartment building), let alone take any more pictures of it).

I do hope if the banhammer is wielded in my direction, that Ceoil would be in the cell next to mine, as the evidence is equally compelling against him (pace my old friend Alansohn). Perhaps as cellblock mates, we might even learn to value each other's contributions to the encyclopedia. In any case, I await adjudication. BMK (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I basically think the same. I don't like you, you could choke me, but we *both* over reacted. We are both highly strung and frankly both deserve a block of some order. But whatever about the mess here, we have now hit on a substantive and tangible issue; inclusion of factoids. Grand, at least its now content, and not about personalities. Jail time is fine, I'll send you a chib in that cake you were promised. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I had to look up "chib" -- my guess that it was the same as "shiv" in American slang seems to be correct -- but, frankly, if you're going to bake anything into a cake for me, I'd prefer a file or hacksaw. BMK (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Both Beyond My Ken and Ceoil have misused rollback ([302] [303]) to further the content dispute, and as such, I've revoked the flag on both; anyone is free to restore if they feel it appropriate. I've held off on additional action, as this discussion appears to be ongoing, but it's quickly becoming clear that while both users have edit warred, Beyond My Ken's edits to the page in question are clearly becoming disruptive on top of normal edit warring. I'd strongly recommend everyone drop everything and go to the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good move, I hope they don't get into undo wars now, honestly. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Need semiprotect

Two words: Erin Sanders. Just look at the edit history. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Recommend you file a request at WP:RPP. That's the standard location for requests for page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will do, but the IP and new user who are making all these crazy fake-file edits have to be dealt with too. I just can't figure out what it is they're trying to do. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've treated them with good faith and given them the {{welcome-anon-test}} welcome template. What happens next depends on the admin who replies at RfPP -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Six

@Diannaa, Mike V, JamesBWatson, Od Mishehu, EvergreenFir, and Oshwah: The disruptive editing/trolling continues. Some IPs: 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:6C28:CF82:5C88:D44F (talk · contribs), 2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:5843:4EFB:376B:93A8 (talk · contribs), 46.50.19.144 (talk · contribs).

I have reported this user previously: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. SLBedit (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby controlling all additions to article, breaching WP:OWN ?

On Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy article, Bilby re-edits all additions to the article to his slant or Uni bias, and dogedly determines outcomes on the talk page. I believe he is breaching WP:OWN. As a newbie I will no longer edit due to these dogmatic practices. His history shows he has spent too much compultion with Uni of Wollongong topics constantly, adding sentences an re-editing Brian Martin (social scientist) and Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy, which I believe may be an alert to WP:COI. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

More likely it alerts to enforcement of WP:BLP. Both are hounded by blp violators. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that in his history. Bilby has hardly ever referred to BLP in his editorial WP:OWNership of the article. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bilby made an addition to the end of the paragraph and the IP has been fiddling with it on various spurious grounds. The talk page discussion is very illuminating. There's a lot of histrionics from the IP but nothing actually concrete nor productive from their various outbursts. Bilby was more than accommodating during the discussion but whenever they asked the IP for what the problem was, all they got was random diatribe. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's ridiculous when Admin was trying to leave out which Uni manager made the apology, it's quite unique and unacademic to make such, and as such should be included here. I think it's a concern and distortion to coverup these facts. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the identity of the person reported in the article? If so, then that can be included, if not then it can't be included as that in itself is a BLP violation. The article is stuck behind a pay wall so that's not going to be cleared up. Do you have reliable sources that could identify this mystery person? It looks like the IP has a very strong POV in regards to this article which is becoming progressively clearer. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I now have a copy of article, and the apologist person is named. And thanks for your advice. I would assume that the Admin also had copy of newspaper, so why hide that? Admin had this information and was not disclosing, ie my POV on facts as opposed to coverup. So the name of person stays in article from what you are saying. It is also obvious Bilby has strong POV when it comes to this controversy. I will no longer involve in Bilbys edit wars, it's all his. 1.144.96.24 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, the two articles have been the subject of a series of POV edits for some time, ever since the announcement of Wilyman's doctorate which had an anti-vaccine focus. This has led to a series of problems, in particular because one side - those strongly opposed to the awarding of the doctorate - have tended to dominate the two articles. This has led to serious problems, including significant BLP violations. At the moment the articles are better than they were, but fundamentally there is still ongoing pressure to keep the POV on one side of the debate. The IP's sudden appearance and editing seems to be part of this. Unfortunately, as the main editors have been very much on one side of the debate, moves towards neutrality have been shouted out as coverups and whitewash. In short, typical editing on a controversial topic. I've been trying to engage editors on the talk page, but it has been a tad challenging to get them to the table, so I've had to rely on BRD more than I'd like. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure of discussion by 31.54.154.160

31.54.154.160 has twice now closed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items about whether or not the Boat Race should be removed from ITNR (see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Removal_proposal:_The_Boat_Race). This discussion is active and ongoing, with opinions split between the two positions. While the discussion is somewhat heated, I think it is productive. 31.54.154.160's only other edits have been to nominate this year's Boat Race at ITN. He thus seems totally non-neutral, and his repeat closure of the discussion seems totally inappropriate. I'm requesting that someone uninvolved reopen the discussion and that someone uninvolved give 31.54.154.160 a warning for this behavior. Calathan (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate Calathan has omitted important information here. This exact discussion has already taken place three times recently, where consensus has been recognised by experienced closers. This discussion adds nothing new: no new evidence has come to light and there is no suggestion of a change of consensus. A direct repeat after such little time is a waste of time for everyone involved. The discussion was closed twice because of the original nominator, who ignored the closing justification and reopened it without any explanation. It is worth noting User:Calathan has strong views on this matter and was the nominator for one of the three recent discussions. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The last discussion was 11 months ago I believe, and seems to have reached no consensus whatsoever (it doesn't look like it was even closed). Also, as was pointed out in this current discussion, there was a slight majority of participants in the previous discussions who were against the status quo. Given the lack of consensus in prior discussions, 11 months seems like plenty of time to wait to start discussion up again. Calathan (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been three lengthy discussions within the past two years, here, here and here, of which two have been formally closed with consensus for the same conclusion. There is not a lack of consensus, as you claim. Beginning this debate all over again, which you admit is heated, is disruptive. Neither is it helpful to present a disingenuous account to the administrators' noticeboard. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've said nothing disingenuous here. I think restarting discussion at this point was reasonable and your close clearly was not appropriate. Calathan (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Running straight to ANI instead of posting to my talk page? Forgetting to mention the multiple recent discussions? Claiming these discussions had a lack of consensus despite the two formal closes? Come off it. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your behavior was clearly inappropriate and disruptive. Maybe I should have posted on your talk page, but I don't think you would have listened. And the discussions clearly had a lack of overall consensus, making further discussion after almost a year obviously acceptable. Calathan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to write to 31.54.154.160's talk page, but since Calathan's already started something here: I think the closure was inappropriate, because consensus is not obvious. As of time of writing, there are 12 editors who favour keeping the item on ITNR (the eleven I listed, plus KTC) and 19 that favour removing (the original 18, plus Fuzheado). While consensus is not built on vote counts, when there are more editors favouring remove compared to favouring keep, I feel whoever closes the discussion in favour of "keep" should explain in more detail why they assess consensus that way. Something to the tune of "One side says ABC, the other says DEF, but because of XYZ, I am closing this in favour of keep" would be appropriate. The current closing summary - that the discussion has happened before - is not a strong reason in my mind to end the discussion prematurely, especially since the next-most recent discussion about this [304] garnered (by a significant margin) more opinions than the previous two discussions, had twice as many "remove" votes compared to "keep", and was not formally closed. That is, while the first two discussions were formally closed [305] [306], this third discussion had more participation, more lack of consensus, and was not formally closed - it turned out more a stale nomination than a consensus keep.

With that said, I think more or less all the arguments both ways for this discussion have been given, and further discussion is just repeating old arguments + throwing around snide remarks. I think therefore the best way to proceed is for an experienced uninvolved editor to assess consensus for this and the previous three discussions, and make a decision. If that decision is "keep", this editor should also decide on whether to impose a 2 year moratorium on the discussion, lest it happen against next year. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You were going to write on my talk page twelve hours after your edit? You say the arguments for the discussion have already been given and continuing would just be repeating what has already happened: I agree, which is why I closed the discussion. It is a little difficult to ask, though, for the previous three discussions to be assessed again. We have already had two formal closes by independent editors that came to the same conclusion each time. Anyone disagreeing with this should have submitted a closure review at the time. You want two formal closes to be investigated and overturned because they do not coincide with your views. We cannot do this whenever someone is not happy with the result. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A few things. One, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Do not expect me to write on your talk page immediately as opposed to twelve hours after my edit. Two, consensus can change over time. Three, the two times the discussion were formally closed by independent editors, there were indeed more editors favouring the status quo / adding the item to ITNR than removing it. This was not the case in the third discussion, which as mentioned also attracted more participation and was not formally closed. If you prefer not to have the two formal closes "overturned", I do not mind an experienced uninvolved editor assessing consensus of the third and fourth discussions only. Banedon (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yet you had the time to make this big edit? You say consensus can change, but wrote above that 'further discussion is just repeating old arguments'. It seems as if you are not happy with the previous results and wish to keep on trying until you get your own way. Stop wasting everyone's time with these drawn-out discussions and focus on building an encyclopedia, not pushing your point of view. 31.54.154.160 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Are IP's even permitted to close such discussions? I do remember that Arbcom issued an injunction against IP's closing AFD(?). I'd have to do some digging to confirm this. @Drmies: may shed light faster than I can dig it up. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer IPs don't close discussions, they could well be someone who participated in the discussion. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In this case the IP was closing it so as not to allow a discussion to occur, not closing it to assess the consensus. My complaint isn't that the IP is possibly one of the other people posting, but that he is preventing discussion from even taking place since he wants the status quo to remain. Calathan (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's been a while since the last discussion. I think it's more-than-reasonable to have this discussion again. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• One quick look suggests that in this case it was not wise for the IP to close the discussion so quickly and yes, in general we do not allow unregistered editors to close possibly heated discussions. That's all I can say right now; I have not looked at previous discussions. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass attack at PartyNextDoor

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

---

The following accounts (and likley the same person) are vandalizing this page:

• George101lover3000 (talk · contribs)
• Newuser1524 (talk · contribs)
• IZAYATheGOD (talk · contribs)
• Lsksidn (talk · contribs)

I am requesting that these accounts be indefinitely blocked (all are clearly WP:NOTHERE and are obvious vandalism-only accounts anyways). Thanks! 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected (simultaneously with Ian.thomson!) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to restore your protection time. I can force myself to imagine that Newuser1524 might just be a new user who isn't familiar with WP:BLP yet, but since they added similar claims to the other three (who are definitely part of an attack)... Dunno. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it would be safe for you to indef-block the 3 accounts in order to prevent further abuse? 172.56.39.87 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

They've all got warnings now. If they continue, they'll get further warnings and eventually blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

John Carter continuing to post on my talk page despite repeated warnings not to

John Carter (talk · contribs) recently logged out and posted on my talk page, even though he knows I am uncomfortable with him posting there unless he is specifically required to do so. Almost a year ago, I told him several times to stay off the page, and he by-and-large obliged, but then in the past 24 hours he attempted to get around this by posting on my talk page while logged out (the IP is definitely him). His other recent (logged-in) edits indicate that he is following me.[307][308][309][310] Can I get an interaction ban? Or at least a warning to John Carter that following my edits and posting on my talk page while logged out is inappropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read those diffs and I don't see anything abusive or harassing. Can you point out to me where John has done anything inappropriate towards you? HighInBC 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

John Carter engaged in a pretty aggressive harassment campaign against me and User:Sturmgewehr88 between April and November 2015, but I don't want to discuss it. I am under an IBAN with another user involved in the case, and the whole story was pretty unpleasant to begin with. But its zenith was probably these two concurrent and baseless ANI threads he started against us.

Anyway, I thought it was my prerogative to unilaterally ban John Carter from posting on my talk page if I am uncomfortable interacting with him -- isn't it? He has done the same to me. In this case he didn't just "forget", because he logged out to do so. Further, he followed me to WT:BIBLE, and while nothing in his comments either there or on my talk page was itself harassment, he knows I don't want him stalking my edits or my talk page and has continued to do so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

IP editor does appear to be John Carter. John Carter hadn't edited on the WikiProject:Bible since October 2015, whereas Hijiri88 has been rather active this past month. John then comments on the RfC one day after Hijiri ([311]). Indeed John Carter hadn't edited since January 14, 2016 until this RfC edit. My understanding is that if a user "bans" you from their talk page, editing on it outside of required notifications is considered HARASSMENT. That and the following to the RfC seems like HOUNDing to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the ban, but the time frame you sort of hint at seems to be a key point here. Considering John Carter indeed hasn't edited since January until recently and the edits happened after the edits to the talk page, saying they " "logged out and posted on my talk page" and "logged out to do so" is unproven. It's just as likely they hadn't been logged in for a while. Particularly since it would be fairly dumb to use an IP who's last edit was to a case page involving and naming Hijiri88. Since Hijiri88 had asked them to stay away (regardless of what that should mean) and I guess there must have been historic disagreements to result in this, it's unfortunate John Carter didn't either log in or declare who they were. However in absence of better evidence there was any intentional attempt at hiding who they were, I don't think not being logged in is particularly relevant other than a firm reminder to John Carter that they should either login or make it clear who they are in the edit if they are going to get re-involved in previous disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The question of whether JC consciously logged out with the intention of avoiding detection is peripheral; I only mentioned it because otherwise someone would have asked me how I know the IP is him. I told JC to stay off my talk page and he came back, several times. His logged-in edits are almost as bad: he posted twice on a page he hadn't edited since June 2014 (subpages do not count), once in a thread I started, and once a thread someone else started about my proposal. I don't want this user posting on my talk page or following my edits, and I want an formal, mutual IBAN; John Carter said several times (admittedly last year) that he would be comfortable with such an IBAN; if a two-way IBAN is mutually acceptable, isn't this an open-shut case? Bringing up peripheral concerns about sockpuppetry is as far as I can tell pointless. (I did allude to my suspicions of deliberate sockpuppetry both on my talk page and in my notifications to JC, but I consciously avoided it in my OP comment here, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Renewed trolling on Constellation Brands and Accolade Wines

An individual with a many-year long bizarre fixation for trolling Constellation Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Accolade Wines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is at it again. This is a combination of vandalism / edit warring / socking so I'm bring it up here. The latest accounts:

• Wikiecontrols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bellademo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talatte120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Winestories (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admins have been periodically indeffing the socks and semi-protecting the articles. In 2014 there was Trojanhorse112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and looking back, various others. Blocking these accounts doesn't do a whole lot of good because they keep creating new ones. A range block perhaps? Plus time for medium-duration semi-protecting the articles. No point notifying the trolls. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Front Page Goof

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

---

This isn't an incident, but due to a lack of a better place, I think this will get the most eyeballs (and be quickly fixed) here.

On the front page, in the "In The News" section, one of the blurbs currently reads In rowing, Cambridge win the 162nd Boat Race and Oxford win the 71st Women's Boat Race. It should be "wins", not "win". Trouts for whoever wrote that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, helpings of wet fish are served to those editors who do not recognize 'headline' style _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's proper English in British English, but American English, that ain't right. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The better place is WP:ERRORS. But this case is an WP:ENGVAR issue - Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. —Cryptic 05:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what's the issue because it read fine to me. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais

If you'll look at this edit you'll see two of them. The first is his constant attacks on anons. In this case, the anon made a mistake common with association football editors: assuming that being called to play for a national team equates with being considered that nationality. WP:AGF speaks directly against this. Checking CTC's edit history, you will see many polemics against anons in this manner or worse. The second is that he insists on using Icelanding and other non-English characters. The comment he wrote was, "Anoðr reason to shut down IP edits! Unleß you fīnd prōf ðat Davies actually playd for Canada at ANY level, just shut down ur computer already." It twice uses the Icelandic Thorn: ð, the Germanic long S:ß, an i and o with a macron, usually used to mark long or heavy syllables in Greco-Roman metrics: ī and ō. This makes it almost impossible for a native English reader to understand. This is just one comment. More can be seen in his edit history. I not sure what he's here to do, but it seems he's WP:NOTHERE on some level, definitely treating editing as a battleground, repeated hostile aggressiveness, little or no interest in working collaboratively, at least with anon editors, and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention, again especially toward anon editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot throws false copyvio allegations

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

---

Dear admins, please stop User:CorenSearchBot from comparing new articles with the Wikipedia clone https://www.newikis.com/en, thereby throwing a substantial count of false positives, alleging a copyright violation where there isn't any. I already notified Coren a few days ago, but there was no response, nor was the bug fixed. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone who knows RegEx can just add it here. The page also needs to be semi-protected. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Added to list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I'm not going to remove the badges from the U.S. election stubs I created, but maybe someone else would take a look at Category:Possible copyright violations, and sort them out. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, and I've checked CorenSearchBot's deleted contribs for matching tags back to January 2015. There were a handful of articles speedied as copyvios of this mirror, but none solely for that; most were also G4s. —Cryptic 06:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Extreme personal attack and harassment by User:SheriffIsInTown

He had editing dispute with some users and he accused them of being internet terrorists. There was clear vandalism by an internationally known hackers and Internet terrorists network based in Mumbai belonging to this same very agency In the above edit made on 27th March, ShriffIsInTown has gave a link to some hacking website. I request users not to click the link.

Later on User:MBlaze Lightning filed an SPI where ShriffIsInTown started to support the sockpuppet and accuse MBlaze Lightning of filing a wrong SPI. See the comment history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VisionHawk. Even after the SPI result he started pinging administrators, requesting them to favour the blocked user, in the second paragraph of this comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ridiculous bad faith report that should earn the nom some sort of sanctionPerhaps the Nom should peruse history before reporting? Sherif was pointing out the fact that a couple of IP's have been quick to vandalise the article ever since new info was added. Well if someone calls a vandal as "internet terrorist" I am sure there is no harm, they are trying to destroy wikipedia so to be frank you can call them whatever you want. And this was not just an edit that was disputes, this was clear vandalism. As for the so called Pinging of admins to come and favor the bad bad user", the diff shows that Sherif wanted a "shorter block" not an unblock, and this is quite common across wikipedia, reporting this to ANI is beyond assuming bad faith , it is ridiculous and ****Y. Secondly Greek Legend himself wanted to "protect" or defend MBL as is clear from his own comments here on another user's TP. Now I don't want to assume anything, I am just saying that if someone beat you to the punch you should not cry and run to the admins asking for his ban, it is not Shriffs fault that you could not protect MBL from the "POV pushers", so please do not take it out on him. So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Protect? I didn't want him to be unblocked. And why did you say about the same comment Quite right User:Greek Legend has hit the nail on the head in the same user page. Greek Legend (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by this statement of yours that "you did not want him unblocked". You just wanted Kutilya to side with him on the SPI as is quite clear from your statement. Also you called everyone involved in the SPI as "POV pusherS" which is a personal attack in itself. Furthermore my comment on MBL's page endorses your statement that MBL should stay away from politics related editing, and has Literally nothing to do with this bad faith nomination. To be frank with a kettle as black as your editing history you are under greater threat of being blocked for canvassing as you did at Kutilyas TP and for calling other users POV pushers when nothing has been proven against them. Sherrif called some IP vandals as "internet terrorists" and you are all up in arms about it and you are yourself calling like 5 established users POV pushers and its all right. Bravo! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can check the timings and see that I made the comment after the SPI was completed. While you all were involved, when the SPI was going on. Talk pages are for discussion. And this user:FreeatlastChitchat is also part of the group in the above mentioned SPI who was accusing MBlaze Lightning of making frivolous SPI. And the last line of this edit So all in all, a very very bad faith report, which would have earned any student a burning bottom had he taken this to the headmaster. is a personal attack. If no administrator takes any action, then it would seem experienced users are allowed to abuse new users. And FreeatlastChitchat is also referring "User:Kautilya3" as "Kutiya". This is local slang word in Urdu. He used this word more than once. It can't be a simple mistake.Greek Legend (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend Yes you made the comment after the SPI, that is what I have been saying all along. You are so angry at sherif for beating you to the punch that as soon as the SPI is over you go over to K's page and say "OMG" we should have ganged up and defended poor MBL from these POV pushers. Then you vent your anger on Sherif by reporting him to ANI. HOW DARE he give his opinion against your express wishes? It is hilarious that you wanted to do something, but sheriff did it before you, so now you want him banned. Anyway as to your other comments. Firstly I accused MBL of a frivolous SPI against TalhaZubair and I was vindicated when the CU check showed that he had done nothing wrong. I have no idea why you are trying to add that information in this thread. you do realise that what you are linking goes against what you are trying to prove right? Secondly the word Kutiya means cunning, it is not used to denigrate anyone. Rather it is used by friends as a means of praise. You can see the use here tu bari kutti cheez hay yaar meaning that you are really cunning and astute. So that lays to rest your another assumption of bad faith. Thirdly I have now changed the word back to Kautilya so its no harm no foul. Lets get back to your attempt to canvas and your Personal attacks on user whom you call POV pushers. Also just when did it become a crime to call an SPI frivolous? You do realise that you do not own/run/have exclusive access to wikipedia right? It is a right of everyone to edit it and give their opinions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No it has some other derogatory meaning also. Greek Legend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend of course it does, as almost every single word in punjabi, but I have changed it back so please be kind enough to stop dangling the red herring. Why did you report sheriff for the exact same thing that you wanted to do btw? are you allowed to do these things exclusively? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is my last comment here - You said above that I did the same thing. When and how I have made personal attacks against any user? When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user? (That was the original post). Bye and don't ping me again. Greek Legend (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend you asked two questions, let me answer them, then you wont be pinged further. You asked "When and how I have made personal attacks against any user?". Well calling users POV pushers is a personal attack and a bad one at that. You called almost half a dozen editors POV pushers at Kautilya3's TP as I have just shown. there is no innuendo or veiled reference, you outright called them POV pushers. Your second question was "When did I ping three administrators to favour a blocked user?". I have already replied to this that your anger stems from the fact that you got beaten to the punch. As is clear from your comments at Kautilyas page, you "wanted" to gang up and "defend" MBL but were not able to do so, and this is the sole reason for this bad faith joke of a report. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to comment again, but this use is repeatedly pinging me here, misinterpreting my comments and also making continuous personal attacks in this post as saying "you got beaten to the punch" along with other personal attacks mentioned above. No administrator took any action, that's why he thinks he can say whatever he want and get away with it. Greek Legend (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Greek Legend plz do explain what has been misinterpreted in this statement of yours"He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI". Please explain it to us so you can tell us what you meant by this. If you explain it yourself there will be no way anyone can misinterpret it as you will have given the explanation yourself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of Canvassing, which I did not do ever. Users can have conversation about anything. Yesterday I saw how a group was accusing MBlaze in that SPI. Today I found the SPI was successful and those users blocked. I found that he was right and all of you were wrong about the SPI. I mentioned that to Kautilya3. Do you have any problem if I saw anything to anybody when the SPI is over? I didn't ask Kautilya to comment anywhere. Kautilya never edited according to my request ever in the past. Kautilya edits according to his own will. You are misinterpreting my comment as you were against M Blaze in that SPI and you didn't like my comment on Kautilya's talk page. That's why you are making repeated personal attacks here again and again.--Greek Legend (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Greek Legend: I don't see an accusation of canvassing on part of FALCC. I agree that users can have conversation about anything but your encouragement of MBL's battleground and edit-warring behavior and then calling his opponents POV pushers does not carry an image of a good faith editor. Your message while awarding him the barnstar tantamounts to "them vs. us". Your message "The way your opponents were screaming and shouting against you. " and "Let them push their POV." to him carries a sound bite of teaming up behavior. Please don't make it "India vs Pakistan", this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground, please keep it that way. As about the SPI, i already mentioned that i was talking about the "lack of evidence" and how "TalhaZubairButt" and "DelusionMBT" do not seem to be connected and i was proven right. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Two times he has used the word canvas. If you don't want to read then don't read his long comments. Go through his comment history in this post again and you will find what you are looking for. Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not see Kautilya's TP before but saw it now. So, how do you explain your message "He was alone against a bunch of POV pushers in that SPI." You were served ARBIPA notification by Kautilya on 23 February 2016. [[WP:ARBIPA]'s first decision calls for "Assumption of good faith" but you are completely doing opposite of it, you are calling your opponents POV pushers which seem to be Pakistani editors, you are leaving messages on talk pages of seemingly Indian editors and asking them to team up, do not leave your buddies alone. Are you some kind of assigned coordinator among them? Honestly, you should be coming under ARBIPA enforcement for this. This behavior of yours is against the principles of building an encyclopedia and should not be tolerated. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Guys, I will quickly address two points raised in this ANI. First of all, it seems like MBL is on the revenge again against an editor with whom he had disputes with. He couldn't get blocked one (TalhaZubairButt) now he is trying to get blocked the other. As you can see from my userpage User:SheriffIsInTown#Successful Sock-puppet Investigations, I have over 87% success rate of exposing socks and by looking at his frivolous SPI, I knew that TalhaZubairButt was not connected to DelusionMBT and I was proven right by CU. Instead of filing this report, he should be apologizing to TalhaZubairButt whom he accused of being a sock-puppet of Wikibaba1977 and LanguageXpert under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TripWire#18 March 2017, another accusation proven wrong by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VisionHawk. He also filed a frivolous ANI at Edit-warring noticeboard against me which he had to withdraw. He is himself under violation of 1RR imposed on Pakistan, India and Afghanistan articles. He reverted twice the content in which Pakistan and India are both mentioned on Research and Analysis Wing but so for no action is taken against him. As for IP which vandalised Research and Analysis Wing was not an IP rather it was a network address and I have never seen a network address appear like this in the edits before. Notice 0 at the end of 101.60.229.0. It looked suspicious to me so when I searched for it on the Internet, I found that International Anti-hacker Alliance website has this network blacklisted and they claimed that this network was actually tied to known hackers and Internet terrorists and location of the network shows up as well so nothing hidden about it. Mind you that website is Anti-hacker and not hacking website as MBL claimed, two opposite side of coins. Its same like email spam fighting websites such as Blue Cop etc. I would request admins to block the whole network 101.60.229.0 since it's very dangerous to allow them to continue to vandalise Wikipedia. This frivolous ANI should be thrown out of the window since calling "a spade a spade" is no crime. It seems now MBL is trying to throw everything at me to get me blocked as he did to TalhaZubairButt. I requested for shorter block of DelusionMBT because I genuinely thought he did not completely understood the whole procedure and seemed inexperienced to me and was willing to learn from his mistakes. I also genuinely did not know that pinging admins to unblock a user was wrong but you can let me know If it was wrong and I won't do in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

|}

FreeatlastChitchat blocked for one week

irrelevant Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment SheriffIsInTown just saw that FreeatlastChitchat is blocked for one week and trying to divert the attention. I don't edit all these India-Pakistan war articles. Greek Legend (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) This is again, "not an assumption of good faith". I did not see if FreeatlastChitchat was blocked. I do not follow others like you do. What do you mean by "diverting the attention"? If he is already blocked then he is already blocked. How would it serve me or him if i try to divert the attention? How this announcement of yours serve this ANI? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Any experienced neutral editor can see through what is going on here. I can't just go on explaining again and again. I have other interests in Wikipedia than these arbitration topics. --Greek Legend (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Threats from Cryptic & CSD:U5

User:Cryptic says "It was declined because it was explicitly marked as a draft, which makes it not be a U5, until you edited that off. We have a word for people who people who edit a page that was not a speedy candidate to make it into one. That word is "vandal". If you don't want to be blocked like one, don't act like one." Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Sabesh1.2FEnhanced_efficiency_fertilizers

First, Twinkle automatically replaces the userspace draft header with the CSD tag like this [312], it is nothing I did intentionally. Second, I have yet to see another Admin say anything like this, and I've had many similar pages deleted WP:U5 Finally, I take this as a serious threat because he is an Admin and could block me, and it's not the first time he's made the threat against me. Therefore I'm bringing this for wider view. If I'm using WP:U5 incorrectly I'd like to know ASAP so I can change how I am doing things.

He reverted about 14 of my WP:U5 tags in a row including these other examples I've now sent to MfD that I believe are obvious uncontroversial WP:U5:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Aponiatowski11.2FRegis_Historical_Society
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Apcuser94.2FAPSU_1000_.28Austin_Peay_State_University.29
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:AppleSocialUK.2FJames_Kenny

Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is responding appropriately to sloppy inaccurate CSD tagging. Check the opening sentence of WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cryptic is an admin and has the right to decline them all if Cryptic doesn't think a page violates U5. I think your point is fair in that twinkle for some reason does replace the userspace draft template with the U5 notice but if it doesn't violate U5 to Cryptic, drop it and take it to MFD. Cryptic, I think the accusation of intent is incorrect but I think U5 is so badly worded and so misused, I'm barely sure when it's appropriate. I'd say that if Cryptic blocks for wrong U5 tagging, it would be inappropriate but there's numerous other discussions and antics going on, Legacypac, that a block could be justified, I'm just saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't any editor have the right to remove a CSD tag, with only some specific restrictions?

Weren't we re-working the wording of U5, I guess we got sidetracted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• If Twinkle does that automatically, I apologize, but it's a pretty glaring bug that needs to be fixed post-haste. (And it's not one that I've seen with other users' U5 tags.) This is no different than it replacing the rest of the article with "aaksjhkasjhas" when you add a {{db-g1}} tag. Re U5, this is the WT:CSD discussion; the language there is "Whether pages plausibly intended or explicitly marked as drafts would be eligible under the new criterion, and which". —Cryptic 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then, Legacypac, is this resolved now? I think we can have a further discussion at WT:CSD about U5 language and wording if you want but I think the discussions before was pretty detailed. The bug someone can take to WT:TWINKLEis it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, blatant misuse of U5, if other admins do use it as a blanket deletion tag for some proper drafts, they are the ones in the grey zone. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a misuse if the CSD is declined. You can call it mistagging but it's not like U5 was actually used to get anything done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant it in the context you said - something sort of like, using U5 to try and get them deleted which was wrong. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, a misuse of the CSD tag would be if the admin deleted it based on a wrong tag (say a ridiculously expansive version of G6). That's a contrast to a mistagging when a non-admin can do. Doesn't matter, I agree, it's still an accusation, whether it's intentional or reckless is another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Amol.Gaitonde/Songs I like is a page that was appropriately deleted per WP:CSD#U5. The content was a list of songs that the user apparently liked.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as content I agree; but that user has plenty of non-userspace contributions, another blocker for using U5. —Cryptic 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

67.5.192.83 and personal attack

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

---

I feel the second sentence of this comment merits a block. The background is here and at Talk:Terry Bean, where this IP, nearby IPs, and a procession of SPAs (one blocked twice for their comments at User talk:Lurie2 but writing in the same style as the IP) have made similar comments. Perhaps a range-block might be in order, the article page has already been semi-protected. MPS1992 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Block, revdel, forget. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy, and others acting together, have acted to obstruct editing to the article Terry Bean. I would be happy to discuss all this further, but my experience is that this article is controlled by a group of people who are trying to minimize the significance of a child-rape charge against Terry Bean. Further, and most importantly, is that MPS1992 is complaining about content on MY OWN talk page. He needs to notice that since it is on MY OWN talk page, it does not need to follow a specific rule. I will quote the exception to the specific rule, and section −

"Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack."

I will continue to defend this issue. 67.5.192.83 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked for 24 hours in the hope that the IP address will change by then. I'll revdel the actual edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Tobystso6222

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

---

This user, who briefly sockpuppeted as User:A567e, seems to have taken a username change as Eqwdasf. I, however, couldn't find any record of this at WP:Changing username. Can someone confirm if this is legitimate, or he is just trying to avoid being identified by his sock record?--MaranoFan (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Seems to be legitimate - as contribution histories have been merged so must have had administrator approval. Also, please remember you must notify anyone you're discussing here, without exception. I'll do so now. Mike1901 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

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

77.238.65.171 and behavior on Flydubai Flight 981 talk page

I was looking over my watchlist, when I came upon 77.238.65.171's edits to Talk:Flydubai Flight 981. While there appears to be some discussion going on about the page, this user seems to be treating the page like a forum, and may or may not be linked to a person who was involved with the investigation for Germanwings Flight9525. Can another editor look into their behavior, as it is quite uncivil, and edits like this make me think all they want to do is spout nonsense on the talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for interaction ban with User:Winkelvi

User says he would stop hounding me, then starts that up again. See [313] I made it clear I didnt want to be gossiped about, but he did just that at [314].-MaranoFan (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you'll need to provide more than a bare accusation if you want anything done. Diffs? History? Anything? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can have a mutually-enforced interaction ban or a community-enforced one? Which one are you running for? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A community-enforced one.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about an interaction ban with a lot of consensus, can someone give a link to that?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I've never said I would stop hounding him or anyone; second, I've never hounded him; third, my comments to Calvin999 were in reference to a couple of things: MF canvassing an editor to do a GA review for him and a GA review then starting up just an hour or so after the editor doing the review was canvassed. It seems to be a vio of policy to canvass in such a manner to begin with, since the editor being canvassed is friendly toward MF and there could be favoritism clouding the GA process in this case. Further, the other issue is that there are a lot of GA noms that just sit for a considerable period of time, untouched and unnoticed, because those nominating articles for GA don't ask favors from their Wiki-friends to do a GA review for them. MF has done this before: canvassing editors he is friendly with to perform a GA review for him. This seems to me an egregious abuse of process on the part of anyone, not just MF, and that was what my comment to Calvin was about. And speaking of policy violations on the part of MF, let me include this conversation that not only mentions a policy vio by MF occurring just moments ago, but also shows an interesting attitude from MF toward an admin he didn't think was an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I know nothing about any of the editors I ask to do reviews.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Calvin accepted stuff like [315] and [316] because he likes those editors, but when I do it it is a problem?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing for this AN/I here, here, here, here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP also, Winkelvi. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

NONE of these are actually canvassing, I encourage the editors to actually open and view these links, they are being misrepresented.--MaranoFan (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Go and actually read WP:Canvassing loll, Calidum is an editor who has dealt with you before. Hence I summon him.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Another policy vio just committed: editing my comments in this ANI here. Not a huge deal, but I think it demonstrates where the issues truly lie (or, with whom). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Official discussion

• Support - I want to finally start doing good work for Wikipedia, uninterrupted.--MaranoFan (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks to me like MF isn't really after an IBAN after all. This message directed to WV on my talk page is on a par with harassment. If she has an unshakable and obsessive want for an IBAN so much, she should just stay away from him... --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That comment was directed at aches, as he archived the above thread which could've taken a negative turn. I still want an IBAN with WV. MaranoFan (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User AmitPaul23

Disruptive user 103.41.212.74 (talk · contribs) who later created account AmitPaul23 (talk · contribs) to circumvent semi-protection:

• 13:51, March 28, 2016: "Muslms cannot be trusted" (link)
• 14:43, March 28, 2016: Blanket revert (link)

I left a notification for the above user on his talk page here: User talk:AmitPaul23#Administrators' noticeboard.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)