Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930

Disclosure of personal information

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

---

Could someone please take a look at the edit by user:Mad666paul on the Talk page of user:Epipelagic. Although the content is extremely "unusual", my concern is that Mad666paul reveals detailed information about where they live. In the UK, a postcode can sometimes refer to just a few houses. They also give the name of the road on which they live. I think this post needs reverting to protect someone who may be vulnerable at this moment in time. I have not pinged Mad666paul as I fear this might cause them undue alarm. 14:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OS may be appropriate here. BTW DrChrissy if you think someone is giving out private information as is the case here, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org to deal with it privately. Zero^talk 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, I suspected there might be a method of doing it privately rather than drawing public attention to it. I will follow your advice, so this thread can be closed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's a good idea - do link to these diffs on here too just in case these need suppressing too. Zero^talk 14:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I deliberately did not link to the single edit as I did not want to leave another trail of information. I have e-mailed the oversight team so it is in their hands now. Thanks for the advice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem has now been addressed by @Floquenbeam: - thanks. If there is any merit in having this thread suppressed, I would not object. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No reason to suppress this thread, but (as Dr Chrissy acknowledges, but which bears repeating for anyone reading this) please report oversight/revdel requests privately; I suspect ANI is the most highly watched page on the project. Everything that I think needed revision deletion has been revdel'd; I don't think Oversight is needed. Also blocked Mad666paul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this Floquenbeam. This thread can now be closed officially I reckon. Zero^talk 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also you can always ask for oversight on WP:IRC in #Wikipedia-en-revdel --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As a remark, there is information provided in the editnotice for this page about how to contact oversighters privately. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Beth and others. I was unsure of how much of a problem this disclosure was which is why I posed it as a question here - I think next time (if there is one) I will go straight to oversight. It sounds like is the safest default in such cases. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Require Conflict Resolution Skills

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knanaya#Requesting_an_Admin_for_Conflict_Resolution 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Help required: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knanaya&diff=731827096&oldid=731826569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent sock of banned user. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User Md.Samiulali.37

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

---

Md.Samiulali.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreated Pirgacha Govt. Primary School which was deleted after an AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirgacha Govt. Primary School - I tagged for deletion G4, but user has deleted the speedy tag at least 6 times. Article creator User:Md.Samiulali.37 appears to be a duck-sockpuppet of User:Md Samiul Ali Pramanik who created the previous article, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mohammed Samiul Ali - All have similar names and only edit articles on schools in Lahiripara Union, Bangladesh. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked and tagged, page deleted. Thank you, Arjayay. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

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

Block these users

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

---

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen! I'm Ardi from Indonesia, sorry to bother all of you for a while, can you block these users Adam Aflah (talk · contribs) and Armano Hakiim (talk · contribs)? Because they're possible sockpuppets of Adam aflah (talk · contribs) (which is a vandalism-only account). Sorry for my possibly bad English. Thanks. ArdiPras95 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Normally, sockpuppets are reported to WP:SPI. Anyway, do you have any more evidence than just usernames? Such as examples of how the vandalism looks similar. Admins can't just go blocking accounts because they have a similar username to a blocked account. They have to have proof that they're related. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. ArdiPras95, you have provided no evidence and I have not found any. And please stop BLPPRODding articles that have sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User Sadpopsicle vandalism only account

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

---

Sadpopsicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing only consists of vandalizing articles and personal attacks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Usually, WP:AIV is the place for these kinds of reports. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The user has also made death threats. How do I report this as an emergency? Linguist 111 ^talk 08:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:EMERGENCY or this page's edit notice. NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've sent an email. Linguist 111 ^talk 09:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:173.66.114.253

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

---

This IP address has repeatedly violated wikipedia policies on Tareq Salahi over an extended period of time and appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject. I reverted an edit where they added a nonexistent image (I believe it was deleted due to copyright). The user reverted my edit and violated the no legal threats policy, warning that if I revert again I will face legal action. I have reverted the article again and I am hereby requesting an extended or permanent IP ban for this user. Here is a link to the most recent revision containing the threat. Dane2007 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one year. The IP seems fairly static. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

POV pushing

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

---

A group of editors has made Nikola Tesla article a Serbian fort by reverting every edit that doesn't go along with Serbian nationalistic viewpoint. They've protected the article, protected the talk pages and everyone that tries to edit outside their viewpoint gets banned as one's or another's sock [1], without any SPI or warning, just like that. One should really try to deal with them to understand. I've been dealing with them for much too long and I'll leave this case that made me open this report as a testament.

So this is the case. This RfC was held [2] and an edit had been done [3]. Later on an editor had restored an edit that goes against the consensus [4] and they didn't react until I've reacted here [5]. The consensus was restored. Then we come to this edits from yesterday [6] [7]. Of course that they don't react, but any edit that doesn't go along with Serbian nationalistic viewpoint is reverted immediately.

I won't even try to enforce the consensus. Let this be a testament to their objectivity. It's obvious that they are more organized than an ip that wants to establish a consensus and follow it. Let this be a testament,although this is just a tip of iceberg.141.136.228.99 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reporter blocked. Same IP range as IPs causing disruption on the talk page, causing it to be protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Regarding the page "Lars von Trier"

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

---

The page of the Danish filmmaker and screenwriter Lars von Trier has undergone extensive edits in the past few days, and it appears that Augstn, one of the primary editors, is making counterproductive changes. Problems include reversions of grammatical corrections and instances of borderline-puffery. There has been discussion of it on my talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR. Reporting. Warning, as he is a new user that likely doesn't know about 3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He also wasn't welcomed, so I gave him {{welcomelaws}}. Is it ok if this is closed? -- Gestrid (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed there has been a discussion, and I started this discussion because you were deleting and rewriting specific entries without explaining why. Once the talk started you expressed your opinion and so did I. Your opinion had nothing to do with grammatical corrections as you claim: you insist on wanting a specific film of the director to be mentioned on the lead and an award mention to move elsewhere. There is a consensus of 3 users (1 being myself, User:Kinema) and User:Bndktfanta - the only active users editing the page including you) that these opinions you express don't comply with the living persons wikipedia policy that require high-quality citation. You insist on either analyzing the subject based on your opinion, based on criteria that are irrelevant with what is written on the intro or by providing social media and low-quality cites (imdb and rotten tomatoes). 2 more users commented against your arguments on your talk page. Despite this clear consensus you insist on deleting and rewriting the entries, every day, without mentioning what and why you delete and rewrite nor making an argument capable to break the consensus. Augustn 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

There are 4 users, including myself, the past few days trying to correct a very messy wiki entry with extremely poor text, references and structure. Augstn is not the only one. We have corrected endless links and passages, You, AndrewOne have been fixating with 1 line on the lead for the past 5 days and all you have contributed is constantly changing it, even if most of us have disagreed with your POV. I don't understand the basis of your complain. Kinema (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Augstn alleges that none of the edits of mine that he reverted had anything to do with grammatical correction. This is false. Look at his undoing of "revision 731977816", for example. Furthermore, neither Augstn nor Kinema appear to have read my responses on my talk page. AndrewOne (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That article is an utter mess. Augstn, familiarize yourself with WP:NFCC. Now. All of you, use the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I was part of the talk and agree with the comments by users Augstn and Kinema. You are a bit off track AndrewOne on this one, instead of writing for the wiki, you keep arguing, against everyone (sorry) Bndktfanta (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This is what we are trying to do, clean the mess. I did not revert your grammatical corrections, in fact I thanked you for them (publicly). I reverted your constant deletes and re-writings of these 2 lines (just like other users did). The discussion on your Talk page was never about grammatical issues, it was about context as described on my previous comment. Augustn 21:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

I've removed the NFCC usage violations, the inappropriate formatting, and the inappropriate tagging. Hopefully these won't be restored as the article is improved through consensus and discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do User:NeilN. AndrewOne we need your help, not your constant deletion - thanx. Augustn 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

@Kinema, Augstn, and AndrewOne: One suggestion: Look at a good article like Stanley Kubrick and model Lars von Trier after that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do talk to me - Been using Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock articles as guides so far. Thanks! Augustn 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talk • contribs)

Augstn, you thanked me for a grammatical correction yesterday and reverted another one of mine today. Both had to do with capitalization. I still do not know why you reverted the second of the two.

This is part of a larger problem regarding the article altogether. For example, Augstn also reverted my deletion of a heading that was unnecessary and far too puffery-reminiscent to be encyclopedic. The lead section is poor by the standards of a film director's page. I have been editing film pages for years, and have been familiar with Kubrick's page for a long time. The best way of knowing this issue well, and of understanding how it started, is once again to read the disagreement on my talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne there was no debate about grammatical issues, your arguments were about how well you know the Director and what Rotten tomatoes say about him. On and on. Come on, issue is resolved, keep contributing and lets move on and start making the article better. Lets keep the talking on the articles talk page. Chop chop! Bndktfanta (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That is false, as my comments touched on far more than that. The issue remains unresolved, because everyone (judging from their comments) seems not to have read the discussion on my talk page, which remains the most informative source on this particular problem. NeilN is correct in asserting that the article in question is now a complete mess. AndrewOne (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne, incidents noticeboard here. Kinema (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN said that you should stop creating arguments, move your thoughts and concerns on the article's talk page, respect the consensus approach and start writing the article. The page has been a mess for months, and if you insist arguing instead of being creative, it will remain a mess. You are ignoring everyone, including the admin. Kinema (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

1) Yes, please use the article's talk page to centralize content discussion 2) Please stop dividing your posts with ---. Please see WP:INDENT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne we read your argument and we discussed it with you. It would be better if we moved on now or, if you still believe the issue needs further discussion to have it on the talk page. The Kubrick page reading is an excellent idea btw, except its a dead person biography. any suggestions for a good livin director biography article to study its styleNeilN? Bndktfanta (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Bndktfanta - Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible hacked account

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

---

User:Kathryn Cartini has made several vandalism edits on 25 July 2016, including my own talk page. This user had been a constructive contributor in the past, courteous and open about their WP:PAID editing, so this recent behaviour is very out of character. Combined with the period of inactivity that preceded it, I'm lead to believe that their account has been hacked. I'm not sure what the protocol is in these circumstances, or if there is anything that can be done to investigate my suspicions. --Drm310 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2016 (

User:Drm310 this is unbelievable. Received a flood of messages to my inbox. This isn't the only account in jeopardy. Thanks for the alert, and having my back. PLEASE advise on next steps. Kathryn Cartini (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kathryn Cartini:, compromised accounts are indefinitely blocked as a preventative measure per WP:GOTHACKED. I'd recommend requesting an administrator block your current account and starting a new one with a more secure password. Then just place a link on the new account so that other users know. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Create a new account, secure it with a good password, and tie a trustworthy email address to the account (that is also secured with a good password) in the event that you must recover it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a preventative measure only. Editor remains in good standing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Good call, NeilN; thanks for doing that. Kathryn Cartini, ping me on your talk page if you need help with creating a new account. You just need to go here to do it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Unclosing. The account is not comprised by the information I have unless the person directly accessed the same computer in the same location. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I was informed that this discussion was re-opened. First of all, I should say that I may have inadvertently implied that I confirmed the account to appear to be compromised and that action was needed. I did not check this user's contributions in-depth; I simply pointed Drm310 to create a thread here if he felt that there was a concern, and I gave advice to Kathryn Cartini regarding the need to create another account. Instead of simply deferring the discussion here, I should have helped look in Kathryn Cartini's contributions first and asked Drm310 more questions before recommending that he open an ANI thread. Had I done so, I would have established that there isn't/wasn't evidence to assert or suggest that a blatant account compromise occurred with this user. And for that, I apologize to everyone. I'll make sure to do my part fully before I recommend a discussion like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong, Oshwah. Information came to light that you had no way to foresee. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You did everything right. When a constructive editor suddenly starts vandalizing, WP:AGF dictates we assume loss of control of the account and block because of that. The block can be changed, lifted, or stay in place as further details come to light. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

*Oshwah gives NeilN and Someguy1221 a fist bump* - I appreciate the feedback. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation at Salvador Dalí

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

---

Persistent addition of apparent copyright violation text, as here [8], [9], [10] and [11]. This seems to be identical, whole cloth, to text here [12], which I explained in edit summaries. If I'm in error regarding the copyvio assessment I'd appreciate it; otherwise this really needs to be removed from the article, and rewritten in an acceptable form. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

^(non-admin) It does appear to be a copyvio to me, I've gone ahead and removed the content again per policy and re-linked the source page in the edit summary and commented on Sapphorain's talk page. Given the edit summaries Sapphorain left, I think they just missed the link to all-art.org in the first edit summary that pointed out the copyvio. Provided they don't restore the copyvio content again, I'd say it's just a simple mistake and nothing to see here. Waggie (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Waggie. You're probably correct, but after four reversions and two different editors, I thought it was time to solicit further assistance, rather than edit warring. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Unilateral repeated removal of images

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

---

Was doing general upkeep on Gender, Gender role, and Sex and gender distinction yesterday morning: minor c/e, sister project links, images and the like. Ryk72 (previously indeffed under Gamergate DS) came across the Sex and gender distinction article and was having none of it.

First they removed literally every image from the article. I reverted and attempted to address on their talk. And apparently they have returned this morning to again remove every image from the article, undoing six edits, and also removing {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. Particularly relevant, they also removed an overlay of the Trans and Genderqueer pride flags...from a section entitled "Transgender and genderqueer" ...which...just makes no sense at all. (Note: my last revert on this article was an unexplained removal of text by an IP, not a revert of this user.) Images removed:

• 
• 
• 
• 

They also apparently followed to Gender role, and removed the lead, image thrice, even after I pointed them through both edit summaries and on their talk, to the discussion on talk where we had decided to move the LGBT infobox down to a section, and replace with the generic lead image (first image in the gallery above), following the format of the article on Gender.

I've encouraged them on their talk to find improved images on commons, or in public domain/with the appropriate license, and to suggest or boldly include them in the article. But it doesn't seem like they're particularly want to do that, and would rather just remove everything, as they apparently did this morning on the first article. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please have a higher bar for ANI reports? This could be brought to the attention of your friendly neighborhood admin, instead of a big long report for all here to read, on something going on only a day. This is something that could be said about lots of ANI reports, but that this one comes equipped with images, even, makes the wasted effort particularly striking. EEng 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There are clear factual errors in the post by Timothyjosephwood, above; particularly around the timings of my edits, but also about their nature. There is also a clear failure to WP:AGF. I note that I have not been sanctioned under Gamergate DS - the solitary block on my record was incorrectly made by a rogue, since desysopped admin, under sanction relating to the Senkaku Islands dispute. My edits to Sex and gender distinction (an article which to the best of my recollection I have edited before), were made 15 or so hours ago, and is prior to the discussion between Timothy & I on my Talk page; this request is clearly stale.
I note that "removed every image" is actually "removed two recently added images", which do not relate simply & directly to the article subject. I do not concur with Timothy that these additions which they made were clear improvements to the article, and reverted them on that basis. I also do not concur with Timothy's view that there is a clear Talk page consensus for the inclusion of the image which I reverted from Gender role; the discussion is clearly primarily about other changes to the article. If my edits to Sex and gender distinction removed to much, then I apologise, and am happy to discuss the inclusions on Talk, as I have done at Gender role; but the behaviour by Timothy in reverting to maintain a desired version is contrary to WP:BRD and is borderline WP:OWNnership. This is a simple case of an editor making bold changes to an article, which were reverted, and then edit warring to include those changes. I am not that editor. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to this most recent edit, which removed four, in addition to your previous edit removing the lead image, for a total of five, which, by my math, is approximately "every single image in the article".

I have said nothing about, nor do I have any opinion on other edits you may have made to the article, except for the unexplained removal of {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, this same edit was made eight hours after I posted on your talk. TimothyJosephWood 13:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The edits which I made to Sex and gender distinction and which are referred to above are WP:BRD reverts of WP:BOLD changes to the article made by Timothyjosephwood. Apropos the post on my Talk page, we don't get to force other editors to not object to BOLD changes and we don't get to avoid following WP:BRD by posting Talk page comments. There is not yet a discussion of these inclusions at Talk:Sex and gender distinction; let's have one, with other editors, and form a consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with EEng. The three articles linked in the OP have 251, 287, and 70 watchers, respectively, and I see no effort to address this on any of their talk pages. ANI is not for content disputes (how many times does that need to be said, even to editors with some experience?), and lousy editing judgment (if that's what this was) is not a behavioral issue and therefore not a matter for ANI. Use the content dispute resolution resources available to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If that's the consensus then so be it. I don't see it as a content dispute to repeatedly strip an entire article of images, and carry that mission on to other articles, warring to remove an image that had been there for three weeks, and was placed there after a talk discussion that lasted several days. I see that as flatly disruptive. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Step 1: Get consensus for your view. Step 2: If your opponent edits against that consensus, come to ANI with a DE complaint. You skipped Step 1, and you have no consensus. This is not a case of clear vandalism, which is the only exception I'm aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I do consider the blanket removal of obviously relevant images from an article as damn near if not outright vandalism. It is wanton removal of content, and "revert AGF revision" does not constitute a "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content... provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary" especially when done repeatedly, apparently indiscriminately, and across articles.

I would not take such exception to an editor who has an issue with a particular image for a particular purpose. This is, in fact, why the current lead image on Gender role is there. Blanking an entire page of images is nonsense, but apparently I'm alone on that. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, the article talk consensus could be seen as a mere formality. Nevertheless, it's a necessary formality in my view. If you're so clearly in the right, the consensus should be easy and won't take long. I simply believe in process, working within the system, and letting the system work for you. It often takes longer that way, but there's no real urgency to fix the problem today. All edits are revertable and will still be revertable next week (albeit not necessarily "undo"able).
(Contrary to widespread misinterpretation, vandalism is pure intent to damage an article, and there is no evidence of that intent from an editor with 4600 edits and no vandalism blocks. No amount of bad judgment makes it vandalism.) ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User: ‎Md.Samiulali.38

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

---

Having blocked User: ‎Md.Samiulali.37 as a sockpuppet this morning (see section two places above), we have a "new" editor ‎Md.Samiulali.38, first edit was to recreate one of the same articles - please block again, - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Dano2880

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

---

• Special:Contributions/Dano2880

Racist and Holocaust denial posts on Talk pages. Sample for reference. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And [13] and [14]. Warned this user and was waiting before ANI, but since it's here... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm being attacked again!

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

---

I'm being attacked again, through various personal offenses (see here, here, here and here), by an anonymous editor who is WP:DUCK of this case. Chronus (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month. Not indef only because I don't know when the IP will reset. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• The IP user basically violated the policies WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX over and over again. But if you see my talk page there's another IP user which made similar claims. Probably somebody would need to take more actions. Also, can I deleted the lame discussion from my talk page??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you can delete it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanks, but there are two IPs: 177.142.86.178 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.224.54 (talk · contribs). Chronus (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm bad, but are we in the presence of a WP:TROLL??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Guy seems to think his purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Brazil's former military dictatorship and point out how everything bad in the country is communism's fault. Anyone who disagrees with him is a communist vandal. On that note, I have also blocked the other IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus took better action than me. I notified about the incident to other WP:ARBCOM members and administrators but only User:Drmies answered. Should I deleted the messages I wrote to the other users now that the trouble is solved by now??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Leo Bonilla, if the posts haven't been answered, it's best you remove them with a clear edit summary on the lines of "never mind, solved now". They'll appreciate not having to look into it. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

@Someguy1221: As you can see above, the user return. Chronus (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah that person needs to find a different hobby. I found another sock (SuperTrump (talk · contribs)) and reported them on Commons as well for uploading images they claimed as their own. Tsk, tsk. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the user came back to my talk page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He's blocked now too. Unfortunately he comes back every time on a new IP range, so all we can do is play whack-a-mole for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I can't believe the user went to your talk page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a software expert, but the IP can come back only using a different computer on different locations, changing the internet provider or borrowing a mobile phone, right? Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. If the IP address is dynamic, all the user has to do is reset his router or MODEM. --Elektrik Fanne 18:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh God!!!!! Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggest a request to semi protect your talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus and Leo Bonilla, you can request semi-protection of your talk pages at WP:RFPP, which will prevent IPs from posting on them. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Dominion of Melchizedek

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

---

A bunch of POV problems. A variety of adminhammers may prove useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

this comment by Bssmith117 to his own talk page admits to a clear conflict of interest and a declaration of their 'right' to edit the target article to say what they want it to say. --Elektrik Fanne 16:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Your link leads to the page history, not a specific diff. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Doh! Try this one. --Elektrik Fanne 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Statement is not accurate. I made no such "declaration of their "right" to say whatever I want to say". My statement and purpose for activity on the Dominion of Melchizedek Wikipedia page is to change the introduction of the lead on that page to reflect a more accurate description of the State and current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek.

The current lead is entirely inaccurate for multiple reasons, the biggest reason being the statement cited, cannot be found anywhere in the Quatloos article used. Further, The sources used to "verify" and stand as "proof" of DoM's status in international law have no authority to make such claims. These sources include "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Comptroller of the US. The authority to determine the political status and recognition of a State rest exclusively with the State Department of the United States and respective high offices of other Nation States.

The page for the Dominion of Melchizedek has been skewed, bias, and negative for many years. The introduction proposed by me is not POV, nor should it be considered Conflict of Interest. I asked Any on the Dominion of Melchizedek Talk page to explain which parts he considered Promotional Whitewash and Unsourced as he claimed and I have even updated the introduction with a link to verifying documents. I also asked him to verify and prove that the current Introduction is sourced properly.

I have also asked Bromley86 a notorious editor who always reverts any edit back to its original, to provide me with his credentials in International law and how States Recognize other Societies. This is not about COI, this is about proper understanding of International law, procedure, and up to date facts about the activities of the State. Not about hanging on to information that is over a decade old which is highly opinionated and one sided. Bssmith117 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, under the conflict of interest policy, you are not permitted to directly edit any article with which you have a close connection. Any perceived qualification that you may believe you have does not change that policy. You may only propose changes on the article talk page (with supporting references). If another editor believes your edits are valid, supported and improve the article, then they will carry out the edit on your behalf.

Also note that the article lede is meant to ba summary of the main body of the article. Your contribution most certainly is not, but the existing lede is a reasonable (if somewhat brief) summary of what is a remarkably well referenced article by most standards. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bssmith117: What Elektrik Fanne is saying is that the following statement you made on your talk page is "a declaration of [your] 'right' to edit the target article to say what [you] want it to say." You said on your talk page: "My team and I, regardless of what you consider a COI will continue to do what we can to see that this page is correct and reflect the RECOGNIZED State of the Dominion of Melchizedek." Basically, you seem to be saying that you have no regard for our policies and procedures. Plus, believe it or not, your credentials in this particular case make you less qualified to edit the article, as you seem to have a conflict of interest. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not required to have "credentials" to edit in any subject area. GAB^gab 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but sometimes (as in this case) they're required to not have certain credentials i.e. to not have a COI. EEng 21:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course - I was actually referring to the statement above ("I have also asked Bromley86 a notorious editor who always reverts any edit back to its original, to provide me with his credentials in International law and how States Recognize other Societies.") GAB^gab 00:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reveiwing administrators may care to note that Bssmith117 has made yet another revert despite being warned both on his talk page and above about his clear COI. His revert also means that he has reverted four times in under two hours comprehensively breaking the WP:3RR rule. Since Dominion of Melchizedek is the sole article edited by Bssmith117, it is a clear single purpose account that is WP:NOTHERE to co-opereratively edit. --Elektrik Fanne 11:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bssmith117 indefinitely blocked under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Ongoing & persistent disruptive editing by User:Dr.K.

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

---

User:Dr.K. has edit warred with another editor: see here, here, here, here here; violated 3RR with that other editor: here and here and here; violated civility on an article's talk page here and here; twice removed yet another editor's comments on an article's talk page here and here; and repeatedly vandalized the other editor's talk page: here and here. X4n6 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This user was engaged in a persistent edit war with a newbie over a period of days, which I attempted to resolve as a disinterested 3rd party. I successfully ended the war in the article and also got them both to discuss their differences on the talk page. We had appeared to reach a resolution. At least the newbie agreed and eventually relented. This user did not. Instead, this user has chosen to be persistently disruptive, not only with comments on the article's talk page, but on my personal talk page as well. Even after I attempted to disengage with this user. Enough. X4n6 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: It's pretty disingenuous to refer to yourself as "yet another editor" and call the NPA warnings given to you vandalism. Transparency, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: I believe you are confused. I was not the user this person was edit-warring with - so yes, I was "yet another editor." I was the 3rd party trying to help resolve their conflict. Instead this user turned his venom toward me. But the so-called "NPA warnings" were nonsense deflections, as any actual review of the article's talk page will show. X4n6 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

X4n6, you think repeatedly calling a long standing editor a troll is not a personal attack. You are wrong. You need to adjust your conflict resolution techniques. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: For the record, I also happen to be a long standing editor. But since you seem to believe I'm wrong, perhaps you can explain to me how personal attacks on me; reverting comments on talk pages; and vandalizing my talk page with bogus "warnings;" aren't personal attacks - but me calling someone a troll for this behavior is? X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify then. Partially redacting your comment to remove the personal attack and then correctly warning you is not vandalism or personal attacks. At this point, I recommend you walk away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I never mentioned IPs. I simply mislinked comments to the left side rather than the right. Simple error. But you're not entitled to an explanation when you have consistently behaved uncivilly prior to that. Why don't you try reading the entire section before concluding who is a fault? As for me walking away? You forget: I already had until this user started populating my talk page with bogus warnings and editing my comments. But since you don't find that objectionable, even though WP:TALKO seems to suggest otherwise - and even another editor restored the section after it was removed, then fine. Perhaps I should scrub comments like: "So, not only you are continuing your PAs but now you have crossed into delusional territory." "Unless you have clairvoyant powers how on Earth do you have the gall" " not that I hold my breath you will recognise my GF, given your serial violations" "On top of your walls of text, which were WP:TLDR and I didn't bother to read," " I am afraid that any further discussion under such adverse conditions, as you have created through your continuing violations of our core policies, would be a total waste of time. I think you can talk to yourself from now on. You have earned it." Oh no, no violations of NPA there, right? X4n6 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read the entire section. Twice. And have concluded that instead of calming the dispute, you poured fuel on the fire, making several ill-advised and erroneous statements and an extremely poor final response. The fact that you still refer to the warnings as bogus makes me think a WP:BOOMERANG might be headed your way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're obviously of the view that I did everything wrong and nothing right, can you tell me what was wrong with this edit? Or this one? X4n6 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Your first edit was fine. The second edit was where things start to disintegrate.

• "Before I address the latest editors' concerns, I will confess to some genuine surprise - and disappointment - that we're still having this discussion; because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas" -> Really? Barely after 24 hours and one reply later, you're surprised and disappointed? Pretty condescending. And bad faith accusations of pushing agendas.
• "I urge editors not to edit according to their personal biases." -> Same as above.
• "So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments." -> Same as above.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, I had encountered this newbie editor just a few days earlier while he was pov editing on a different article. After my experience, I knew the newbie would war until he was blocked. So I was trying to facilitate a resolution, coupled with a teachable moment. Fact also is, what you claim was condescending, got me 3 thanks messages from different editors - including the one I reported here. Also, following my final dispute-related post, after K's attacks, the newbie tried to post that the dispute had been settled. So I accomplished more than you're willing to acknowledge. There was also context to my comments which you are unaware of. However, it's equally clear that none of that likely matters. So be it. Agree to disagree. So there's not much else to gain in continuing here. X4n6 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fact also is, what you claim was condescending, got me 3 thanks messages from different editors - including the one I reported here. Correction. I did not thank you for any posts on talk Switzerland. I had thanked you for an earlier post on the newbie editor's talkpage where you mentioned that some material was phrased in a promotional manner. That was before you started the thread on the article talkpage and before you reverted my edit thereby entering an edit-war. I did not revert you back because I had no intention of continuing the edit-war. Dr. K. 07:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• You thanked me for addressing the same kind of behavior the newbie exhibited on the Switzerland page. You also need to review WP:EDITWAR if you believe a single revert constitutes edit warring. Also, as I've noted elsewhere here, I find it instructive that you never complained about the content of my response. Just the comment. Additionally, you just said you weren't "continuing the edit war." Fact is, you had already edit-warred - with that newbie. Another fact is, I resolved that dispute. You're welcome. X4n6 (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I also note you stated Dr.K. was editing the article using anonymous IPs and have not retracted that statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I note that calling another editor delusional does breach NPA. This was however in response to your baseless accusation of sockpuppet, also a violation of NPA, comment about the editor's agenda, also baseless and therefore Aspersions, and declaration (falsely) of edit-warring, WP:Aspersions. Do not accuse editors of wrongdoing without ample evidence for such an accusation, and make sure that the evidence demonstrates the wrongdoing accurately. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad you find the editor I reported did breach NPA. As for the sockpuppet claim, I've already explained how I never made that accusation. And if the two editors weren't warring, there would have been no reason for me to comment in the first place. This section proves there was an edit war] and the article's edit log from here to here proves it. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

X4n6, can I point to "bitter trolldom" as being a failure to AGF and an NPA by yourself. I looked at the talk page, I still don't see what it is that you find objectionable in their writing. Could you point to a specific example, a sentence or what have you, where Dr K. went afoul of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the first five diffs, does not appear that Dr. K made five reverts, only 2 on the 25th and 1 on the 26th, unless you're about to claim that Dr K. edit-warred against himself. Going through the rest of the diffs, I find very little that is inappropriate on the part of Dr K.'s behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: As I pointed out above, I wasn't involved in the edit warring. It was between the user I reported and User:Beboj3140 - who also noted that the dispute was now resolved. X4n6 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Except, that there has been no violation of 3RR whatsoever, five edits of which two are actual reverts. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. is correct. There has been no WP:3RR violation on their part. There has been edit warring on all sides but nothing that requires blocks right now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The two diffs given for "vandalizing" another user's talk page are not vandalism in even the most abstract sense. If this user considers those diffs to be "vandalism" they have got a lot to learn. Doc talk 05:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, @NeilN:: there has been edit warring on two sides. I edit warred with no one. I ended the edit war. And yes, I view unwanted and unwarranted "warnings" to my talk page as disruptive, abusive - and yes, vandalism. X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You entered the edit war. You cannot end an edit war by fiat. Also, I would think all warnings are unwanted by the editors receiving them. And in this case, they were not unwarranted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

At least you concede there was an edit war that did not involve me. That's more than Mr rnddude was willing to concede. And as my response to you above notes, there was no effort to end the war by fiat. But by consensus. It's also important to note that despite everything, the editor I reported and you defend, has never claimed that I did not end their content war. I find that omission instructive. X4n6 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow... I never claimed that you'd edit-warred, and I didn't claim there was no edit-war, I said your evidence supporting the violation of WP:3RR was false. In fact when I did indeed make the mistake of referring to edit-warring I immediately removed it. Also, NeilN quite flatly stated that you were involved in the edit-war with this line, "you entered the edit war" which is equivalent to saying; you have been edit-warring. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's been interesting to see that you and NeilN have viewed the same fact pattern so differently. Even within the same conversation. Of course, I view them differently as well. X4n6 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, on the other hand, you're not an admin and your acct is barely 7 months old. Nor do you have any direct involvement in this dispute. So why are you here? X4n6 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Because AN/I is for community discussion on editor behaviour and anybody can show up. Refer to Doc9871's comment up above, also not an admin and also commented here (1 comment though). Look up the threads and down the threads, tell me what the ratio of admin to non-admin comments is, I'd estimate at around an order of 80% non-admin to 20% admin comments. As to the age of my account, a point that has been brought up a couple times, feel free to ask around, you'll find nothing particularly interesting. I edit mainly for the MilHist project, do some reviews (B-class, GA and A-class), and tend to hang around here (about a quarter to a third of my edits are here on this page). Unusual as I have been told. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Oh come on people, this is a content dispute that went awry. I do not at all see any violation of WP:3RR (and only three diffs were even provided; it takes 4 reverts in 24 hours to violate 3RR). If someone believes there was such a violation, the way to deal with that is open a discussion on the article's talk page, issue a 3RR warning on the editor's talk page, and then if 3RR is actually breached after that, report at WP:ANEW, not ANI. X4n6, your attempt at resolving the content dispute seems to have only escalated it, and I think you should back off. Moreover, it seems that Dr. K's edits and reverts had proper substantiating citations. Can we please keep this content dispute off of ANI and on the article talk page where it belongs? If it still is festering, the parties in dispute need to avail themselves of WP:DR. Can we please close this thread before a boomerang ensues? Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• X4n6 has posted some completely bogus links as "evidence" in their opening statement—it's quite breathtaking to post "twice removed yet another editor's comments on an article's talk page here and here; and repeatedly vandalized the other editor's talk page: here and here" where the links show Dr.K. replacing a personal attack with {{rpa}} and issuing a standard "Comment on content, not on other contributors" warning. More astonishing is that X4n6's account was created in June 2006—my guess is that they have not engaged in many disputes before or they would know to avoid doing everything the wrong way. Out of kindness, this report should be closed with a strong suggestion that X4n6 comment on content, not on other contributors, and that they read enough of WP:VAND to know not to label things they don't like as "vandalism". Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree there's nothing here. We really need some kind of procedure under which a "second" is required before a new thread is opened here, because Wikipedia is not about whining. EEng 08:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Update The OP seemed to withdraw this thread. But, soon after he did that, he started edit-warring on the talkpage of the article, this time adding six tit-for-tat rpa templates to my comments, even though no such suggestion was made at the now closed thread. In good faith, I rephrased the "delusional" comment, since it was commented upon by Mr rnddude, and reverted the rest. Dr. K. 13:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, his last edit to the article talk page was at 07:41 UTC whereas he closed this thread at 09:32 UTC. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• I have collapsed the thread. A new one can be opened if the situation warrants. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you both. Take care. Dr. K. 13:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since the one thing I do ultimately agree with NeilN on is this was going nowhere, I withdrew here. But since the consensus here was also that removing content on NPA grounds was acceptable, I removed the multiple PAs found in the user's last response on the article's talk page - only to have that user again edit-war and revert them. But since this is going nowhere, either here or at the article's talk page, my action here and NeilN's action there, have finally concluded this matter. X4n6 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:AdamSmith12 ignoring warnings

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

---

AdamSmith12 has been repeatedly warned not to remove AfD templates, and is continuing to do it at Namrata Sapkota. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I also suggest that his behaviour in continually redirecting his active User / Talk pages to a moribund page is a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny. Or perhaps he thinks he is being clever.

Possibly related: Why did Nepalirider123 redirect Smith's page to his own...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to say sockpuppet, but, sockpuppet ? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

May I also say that, no way is this AdamSmith character from New Zealand, his grammar fits much better with the Nepalese... Mr rnddude (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the triple post, but, what is this? [15]. Is it imitation of another user or what? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Spot on Mr rnddude... notice they are a member of Wikiproject Asia :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Before the article have dead link now almost article is good and edited/ but again and again why you guys put deletion tag on article/ already i requested and discuss the issues with Kudpung but why you revert the issues Slashme ?? AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:15 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes the article about the New Zealander Nepalese model  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See the reference link Namrata Sapkota if this article will be deleted then what about other article which don't have reference link either any content AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:40 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You and nepalirider have around 240 edits each, and yet, this is somehow possible. 144 of Nepali's 210 edits and 114 of your 239 edits match to the same 20+ pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddudeYou dont have any work. I came here to discuss my matter. IF you can give solution discuss here otherwise leave talk page. I need to know how to fix the issues of Namrata Sapkota AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:59 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple English; content dispute, does not belong here. Problem behaviour, belongs here, and is being discussed. The fact that other things came up as a result of it, that is outside of your control. If you want to fix the article, take it to the talk page of that article. Otherwise, "leave here". Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well you're all going to get a 24-hour reprieve, this guy just cross the 3RR boundary and is blocked for the next 24 hours. I've also protected the article for the next 2 weeks so we should be done with this for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Lugnuts

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

---

Would someone mind giving a swift WP:NPA enforcement block to User:Lugnuts? Based on a 2015 AFD, Lugnuts tagged Muslim Musa for G4 speedy, which I declined because it's completely different from the deleted content; you don't need to be an admin to see this, as some of the content dates from 2016. Response? "obviously the reverting editor is blind" and I can't see that it was previously deleted. Followed up by a harsh message at my talk page, and then I'm told that I didn't look at the previous AFD, but there's no evidence for this accusation, and as a matter of fact, I did look at the previous AFD. It's bad enough to tag articles under criteria that obviously don't apply, but there's no reason to tolerate people who abuse admins for enforcing the speedy deletion criteria. Note his block log; this isn't someone unfamiliar with our policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe you did look at the AfD. It's clear it's the same article that was deleted earlier. I tagged it in good faith (previously deleted article), hence why I believe it did apply. Is it too late to aplogise? I guess so. I just didn't want to waste time with going though another AfD for what I though was an obious speedy. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is the content different in any meaningful way or not? if so, how exactly can we check this? or would this be something only an admin could do. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The previous AfD is a list of non-notable cricketers, so I though it would be safe to assume to tag this as a speedy. I found the initial revert by Nyttend to be a bit bitey, saying I was trying to "deceive administrators", which I was clearly not. Apologies again, but I found that comment frustrating at the least. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

These articles are quite poorly written, random capitalization, lack of punctuation, grammar issues. If we're keeping them, then they'll need a cleanup. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a large trout for being a jackass and making and stating an unfounded assumption, but I don't see any real PA. We don't block people for getting hot under the collar when their speedy is denied on a previously deleted article and they have to take it to AfD. I'm not sure why this is being brought here to ANI when a simple response on your talk page would have sufficed. And no, Lugnuts, it's not the same text because the article was deleted in early December and this new article mentions his debut in late January. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SL. Nyttend - I apologise for being a jackass and being, as SL said, hot under the collar. I was working through this wave of N/N biographies and though the speedy tag applied to the article in question. Yeah, I'm an idiot and apologise again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts wouldn't these articles pass NCRIC because of "has appeared as a player ... in at least one cricket match that is ... at the highest international or domestic level". Isn't ICC an international level tournament? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Short answer - no. Playing at an U19 tournament doesn't meet the requirements by itself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Slightly longer answer is no because an U-19 tournament is not the highest international level (as the senior team is higher). Joseph2302 18:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Good to see you back mate. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable blocking

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

---

Hi. To make this perfectly clear, this account is technically a sock-account. I'm an IP editor, and the address refreshes every 6 hours or so. I was blocked yesterday by User:Graham87 for editing the talk page of Star Trek Beyond. I noticed that the movie had a recent edit where China was one of the countries of origin. There was no source, so I removed the edit, and asked on the talk page if there was a reliable source. Graham87 then put back the edit, and deleted my question off the talk page. I restored the talk page, he redeleted, and he blocked me for 48 hours or so to prove a point. I waited, restored the talk page, asking the question, is there a reliable source, and he blocked me. I asked for an unblock on my talk page User talk:2a02:c7d:ca36:5800:7941:59b9:eca4:43b1 and he deleted my talk page to hide that unblock request, and then blocked me from editing the talk page. I then saw he blocked any IP I had used, but again, since IP address rotate every few hours on a dynamic IP in a big city, I didn't know that those blocks were in place. I would use the block reporting system, but I really don't trust giving my email to wiki right now, knowing he is an admin. I know he is also aggrieved by me asking on the talk page for French Fries why the section on the UK uses a different variety of English than the rest of the article. He is also deleting that conversation from the talk page.

There really should be a system put in place where the person who blocks you, can't delete your talk page and unblock request without answering. I understand why talk pages can be blocked as well, but that should be a second admin.

If there is to be a block, that is fine, but he is running roughshod over procedure, not answering questions, hiding evidence of his own wrongdoing, and generally trying to mute any viewpoint but his own. I've just asked, is Star Trek Beyond a Chinese movie, and do we have a source for it. I had researched it, and found no source. Incidentally, BFI just stated it was a USA movie. Cheerio2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding I had researched it, and found no source, you can't have researched very hard given that it's the very first reference in the article. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a chinese investor does not a chinese movie make. I noticed that, but the standard sources for the nationality of movies (i.e Variety, BFI, AFI) didn't have a listing yet. BFI now lists the movie nationality as 'USA'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does; do you think Star Wars should be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, given that it was filmed in Hertfordshire and Tataouine? Film industry practice has always been that "country of origin" is who produced it, not the actual filming location. Anyway, this is a content issue and not appropriate for ANI; regarding the block, I'd consider it harsh but legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Star Wars shouldn't be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, but I'd also argue an investor in a production company based in a country, doesn't mean that the investors country is listed as a country of origin. Traditionally we use BFI, AFI, Variety, Hollywood reporter, or a film festival to determine country of origin. And, no, this isn't the place for this discussion. The place for this discussion is the articles talk page, which is blanked of this content by Graham87 every time this subject is broached....which is the reason for this ANI. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user talk page the IP wikilinked to was actually a talk page wikilink, not a user talk page link. I took the liberty to fix that. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Graham has been blocking this IP user on site wherever he appears, even though in isolation each incarnation seems totally good faith (aside from some edit warring on French fries a couple weeks ago). Graham seems to think this IP is a troll and does not deserve to be listened to. I'm not so sure, but I have not been able to track down all previous IPs to make that decision. Perhaps Graham's input would be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutabaga&diff=prev&oldid=724197171 was the edit that first caught my attention, that I reverted. I then reverted, maybe poorly, the specious edits that this editor made, which put me on Graham87's radar.

The other question to be addressed, is when is it ok to repeatedly delete a discussion off a talk page, just because you don't like the editor, as Graham did at Star Trek Beyond? This question I asked in Star Trek is by no means settled (i.e look at Talk:Mission:_Impossible_–_Rogue_Nation which has the same issue), but Graham87 deletes it out of hand as 'trolling'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Content dispute pure and simple, whether the blocks are appropriate becomes of less importance the more the IP keeps doing whatever it did to get blocked in the first place. Really, in all of wikipedia is there nothing else you want to edit other than whatever gets you blocked? If not, you'll end up with a permablock. Right or wrong you may be, but best to move on to something else that isn't going to get you a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I ask, an administrator can then "win" any content argument by repeatedly blocking those who disagree (as Graham87 is doing here)? Is the way we are supposed to be running wikipedia? I was trying to establish consensus about the article in question. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, can you point to the first time Graham blocked you? I don't think you did anything deserving of a block aside from that edit war, but it's hard to follow your edit history when your IP changes about every 8 edits. I'm trying to figure out why he thinks you're a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems to originally stem from Blue cod, where the 2A02:C7D IP editor had reverted four times, though the odd thing is that Graham87 blocked the editor after the first edit, not the fourth. Can't see the logic for that one. Mind you, that means that the other three edits were after the block and were therefore block evasion, which may be something that Graham87 has been taking into account since. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I can't. I just looked as well. I know that I have probably annoyed him as well, as I have been quite frustrated that he basically follows my edits and immediately reverts them, and thus, I haven't always said things in the most collegial manner. It still doesn't explain his blocking, and nor his deletion of a talk page when requesting an unblock or discussion. Nor does it explain why he repeatedly deletes a perfectly valid conversation on an article talk page, which has yet to come to consensus. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I will not be answering questions on this again for a day or so. It's midnight local time here, and there's work in the morning! Thanks all for looking into this, regardless of outcome. I really have no problem with Graham, I really do have a problem with blocking without regard to allowing an appeal, and a HUGE problem with people deleting talk page discussions because they don't like the topic of discussion. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorely tempted to block 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800::/64 for block evasion. We don't allow IPv4 addresses to evade blocks, and I see no reason we should allow dynamic IPv6 addresses to evade either. We have UTRS for block appeals and allowing this kind of thing here is, IMO, a bad precedent. Katie^talk 23:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else - and I'm not impressed by the IP's edits either - Graham87 shouldn't have declined the unblock request himself, per WP:Blocking policy#Block reviews, let alone delete the user talk page entirely. Putting "Specious" as a comment under the unblock template would have served just as well as putting it in the delete summary. —Cryptic 23:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I first encountered this editor as 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:9CC1:7D2D:67E9:7675 on the Truck article. I have almost zero faith in IP's or very new accounts who come out of the woodwork to impose a certain variety of English or their warped interpretation of the Manual of Style on articles, so I reverted their edits and blocked them. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:E878:6550:502A:8B98 came along and reverted my edits. I let some of them go, such as at Total Recall (2012 film), where the original edit turned out to be right. However, their edit summaries were very personalised, which raised my suspicions even further. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:C065:A724:4184:1048 complained about me on ANI. I agree it probably wasn't a great idea for me to delete the unblock request. Graham87 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The interesting thing is, I also don't like when IP's come out and impose a certain variety of English or their interpretation of MOS, so when I saw :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.79.119.108 had done that, I went ahead and reverted them (for what it's worth, they just did it again at Chard but someone else can revert that while this discussion is ongoing). Then, when Graham87 saw me do those reversions, he then reverted those edits. I did become personalised, as, I believed he was trolling me to keep the other edits in place (as he did at Star Trek Beyond with China as a movie of origin). I reverted, brought to the talk page, and asked (unless it was clear cut). Graham87 reverted, and immediately blocked me, because as an admin, he can do that. So, I did the same type of reversions he claims he loves to do, but I don't block the editor, and try to wipe all their comments from wikipedia. Yet still we can't have a consensus discussion on Star Trek Beyond as he keeps deleting the discussion there, which is a violation of Talk Page guidelines, but this doesn't bother anyone. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:BCE4:CF2:D7E9:6D88 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As Graham has admitted he has done something that probably should be left as long as he learns from the event that's fine and we can move to the meat of the question: is there any compelling reason to keep blocking an IP user that appears to be trying to improve Wikipedia? If so can we see links on problematic behavior? Tivanir2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the admitted block-evader and IP-hopper still being allowed to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, I asked for a discussion on the talk page of my account when blocked. My request was deleted, along with my talk page, by Graham87, against the general rules of unblock-requests. Please note that I've not edited anywhere else other than here (more or less as a proxy for my talk page) while this is being sorted out. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:F131:5364:7DAE:9888 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Darkinsision with a possible threat of violence?

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

---

The user in question has created an attack page named Irshad Ahmad as a "future big ben bomber", I'm not sure how to take this one but nonetheless felt it was important here to see if authorities needed to be contacted. Regards----Church ^Talk 00:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It was rather badly worded, but it definitely mentioned some sort of future bombing. I think any possible terror threats need to be taken seriously. Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, they changed the names of two hijackers to the names that were the subject of two attack pages they created. (The edits were revdeled). —MRD2014 T C 01:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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

---

The user user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been harassing me for months on end. He constantly makes wanton edits with vague or little motivation, such as this one were I attempted to arrange into subsections, he reverted and called "clutter".[16] He has frequently called me names, such as "troll" and been rude, obnoxious and unhelpful.[17][18][19] These are just a few examples. I believe these are violations of WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. Based on his talk page, it seems to be a recurring pattern with this editor. I would ask for a block to be implemented either from him editing my edits, or a two-way block so that neither can see nor edit the other one's contributions. Either way works fine with me. Holanthony (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

1. The supposed incivility Holanthany cites is more than six months old, and relates to harassing posts Holanthony made on my talk page, repeatedly and tendentiously disputing very basic aspects of BLP policy, including the basic definition of a self-published sourced. In contrast, Holanthony himself was far more uncivil in an edit summary earlier this afternoon [20].
2. Dividing an article with three sentences of text into two sections can certainly be described as cluttering up the page, especially since it also added a completely superfluous TOC box to a very short article.
3. Holanthony has a long and extensive track record of noncompliance with basic BLP requirements; his talk page shows concerns going back three years, and a warning from a highly experienced editor just four days ago. This is just another example of an editor very clearly on the wrong side of simple content disputes trying to use purported concerns over civility to obscure their far more disruptive behaviour, which actively damages the encyclopedia. It is clearly time to limit their ability to edit BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This happened over six months ago why being it up here now? Its too late for anything to really be done with the examples you gave. Also "neither can see the others contributions" thats not how an interaction ban works. As far as I'm aware there is no technical aspect to an iBan that stops you from being able to view another's user contributions. Also at this point I'd consider this non-actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what happened "six months ago", its about showing an ongoing behavior that has not relented in spite of this time having passed. More recently, he admitted to applying subjective double-standards in his BLP editing, suggesting the rules apply to some people and not to others, when in fact the BLP rules are uniform and apply to every person of notability i.e has a page on Wikipedia. Beyond that, his manners are beyond the pale![21] My feeling is that the editor is bullying and actively hounding me, proven by the track records. He is consistently uncivil, such as in the examples here.[22] [23] His talk page shows that I am not the only one affected. The editor claims he is "treated like dirt by the administrators" when it is he himself who stands for the lion share of harassment. And if you want to talk about "issues" on the talk page, then look at the history of his deleted content and all the warnings he's been given (although he's tried to cover it up). Not a pretty sight at all.[24] For the sake of peace, I would suggest a two-way interaction ban as per WP:IBAN, and I see no reason why User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would oppose such a ban, unless he is hell-bent on proceeding with the harassment and proving this fact to everyone. So User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is this the one thing we can agree on? You go your way, I go mine? A ban works just as well for you as for me.Holanthony (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I doubt that HW would agree with something like that. The whole "treated like dirt" spiel is getting old, and it is true that HW is really a total pain to deal with, lashing out before you said even hello; terrible manners. But comments like this, as unpleasant and uncollegial as they sound, aren't really blockable, and who knows, maybe HW is right, maybe you have made those mistakes before. I can't judge that, but either way, I don't think ANI is going to be much help given the reticence we seem to have these days with iBans. Sorry, I have little to offer, accept to keep your cool and let HW do the yelling; it'll make HW look bad, not you. BTW, please sign your name consistently here and on talk pages... Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Okay yes those edits are pointy but are they a block able offense? I'm gonna agree with Drmies they probably aren't. I'm also fairly sure most of us are tired of the seeing "treated like dirt" comment but hey its not against policy.I seriously doubt an iBan is going to be issued out for these remarks. Unfortunately WP:CIVIL is one of the most ignored policies on this project and I'd wager also one of the most under enforced policies. All I will and probably can suggest is to "be the bigger man" and keep a cool head while dealing with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It sucks but unfortunately it is what it is. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Being a "bigger man" is one thing, being a push-over is another. They guy clearly has me on his watchlist and has little better to do than to revert nearly every edit I (and others) make. I suggest looking at his "contribution history" [25] he never ADDS any content, only REMOVES. The only exception to this, is when he adds a "nomination for deletion" for an article and that's only to for the purpose of removing more content. This guy does nothing for the community other than spreading negativity. If I request a ban, and the other party does not actively oppose one (and for what reason would he other than to continue bullying?), why shouldn't there be one? I see no reason not to grant an interaction ban, because I certainly don't want him anywhere near me, not now and not in the future! Worst part of all, the guy is impervious towards learning! Look here for instance! [26] [27] Holanthony (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Snark aside, that looks an awful lot like someone removing stuff that actually doesn't belong. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I monitor a fair number of porn performer blps. There is a genuine competence issue underlying this kerfuffle. If anyone feels moved to do anything here other than simply closing the thread, please review the last 2 days edits at Bridgette Kerkove, Alex Jordan and Randy West (actor) first. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And this brings me to another point, the guy NEVER assumes good faith, which is what one is supposed to do. This goes for his deal with people by and large, which you can see on his history. Notwithstanding, this goes beyond the past two days at those three pages. I still request a two-way interaction ban!Holanthony (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you don't like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz why don't you just watch MSNBC instead of CNN? EEng 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

An interaction ban would do even better! Isn't there any way to get an admin to review this? Holanthony (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be added that HW has already received an interaction ban towards User:SimonTrew recently. [28] What he did to that user is what he has been doing to me, and I would call for a similar resolution as to that issue. He has also received numerous warnings on his talk page, such as this one [29] I notice that User:Mike V and User:Ivanvector appear to have handled the situation with the other editor being harassed by HW, and therefore I kindly ask you to review this case as well for insight. Holanthony (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at David in DC's linked articles. After looking at the history and the talkpages, I suspect the easiest and most efficient way to resolve this is to topic ban Holanthony from all biographies as they clearly lack a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought? I would have been less gentle than HW. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The topic in question was well-sourced and well argued on the talk page. And you simply stating "no" doesn't quite provide for much motivation/reasoning. [30] No, a two-way interaction ban is the way to go, no reason not to approve it, it would resolve the present conflict inherently.Holanthony (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLPCRIME then go away and take a long break. A two-way interaction ban means that HW could not revert your obvious violations, which after having a look at David in DC's list of articles above, I fully expect you to keep making. You also might want to check out WP:HA#NOT where I will quote "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations, the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." So frankly while your contribution log contains lots of obvious problem edits, no one is going to be prevented from looking at them and reverting the dodgy ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I mean for fucks sake, you are editing BLPs and using sources such as youtube and facebook regarding their current medical condition! What on *earth* makes you think thats acceptable? Firstly neither youtube or facebook are considered reliable sources. Secondly even should you want to argue the self-published source exception, it would be a bit hard for the subject to do that after being put in a care home after two strokes! Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Then there is where you include information such as her 'minimum rate' at a brothel... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, isn't that a violation of civility right here then? All the cussing and name-calling? Jeez! The minimum wage info is well supported by a reliable source, so I don't even know you would bring that up? Point of the matter is not the reverting he makes (often on highly dubious grounds) but that HW keeps making incessant personal attacks that are against wiki policy. Since it can be expected that he would keep doing it, a two-way interaction ban is the only way to make it stop. Your argument against it falls flat, because it suggests HW is the only person on Wiki who is able to enforce Wiki policies (which he fails to do miserably I might add). You may want to protect the bullies, but that is not the way to ensure a constructive Wiki community.Holanthony (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Put it this way, the point *is* the reverts he makes. If his reverts of your edits are seen to be improving the encyclopedia, then almost all admins are unlikely to sanction him based on what is at best, mildly incivil language (which in most cases appears to be entirely justified). An interaction ban at this point is not going to help you since now *I* am aware of your clearly sub-standard editing, I will be watching your contributions. Likewise I can see going through your contributions that you have been encountering quite strong resistance in a number of areas from multiple editors. Perhaps you should consider that the problem is not other people, but that it is you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Holanthony, there are currently 50 threads on your talk page, 42 of which are warnings of one kind or another. I find it completely understandable if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is losing patience with you occasionally, since the briefest glance at your history shows you clearly either don't understand Wikipedia's basic policies, or are aware but are deliberately ignoring them—this edit was less than 48 hours ago. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, then what do you make of the fact that HW has even more warnings on his, and the fact that his name has been a frequent occurrence on this very page and has had several actions taken against him, some of which I have referred to previously in this thread? Also, those "warnings" to which you are referring to, mostly refer to auto-generated notifications about disambiguations etc. User:Only in death Look at this talk page (even in his history, since he tends to hide posts that are unfavorable to him) and you will see that he has a history of making frivolous deletions and reverts, often using insults and foul language as the only motivation for his actions. If my problem were with merely the reverts, I would be calling out other editors such as User:David in DC but that is not the case. I tend to disagree with David in DC on most things, and I do so passionately and intensely, but I respect him and do not question his integrity nor his candor, because he (usually) provides motivations to his reverts and keeps the discussion in a civil and constructive tone. Does HW do that? No, not in the slightest. You call it "mildly incivil language", but the is nothing "mild" about it, he has made it a mission to be as destructive to the community as possible and based on what I have seen here, there are numerous people who would testify to this, such as User:Drmies, User:Anmccaff, User Talk:Cameron11598 et al.Holanthony (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Do any of his previous warnings relate to you? They do not. Let me make this absolutely clear, since no amount of pounding seems to be knocking the message into your head; we are not going to take any action against someone for upholding core Wikipedia policies even if they were mildly rude while so doing, and if you continue making disruptive, poorly sourced and potentially libellous edits you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 12:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And do either of the supposed "warnings" you're referring to relate to him? They do not. If you want to talk about upholding "core Wikipedia policies", then let's review the WP:PILLARS. Specifically, have a look at WP:5P4. It says: " Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. ", "Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others." and "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages". I have tried reaching out to HW on the matter on his talk page to figure out his position, but I was met with nothing but rudeness and abuse. Clearly not in accordance with either of the first two sentences. How can you, in good conscience, say that HW is upholding "core Wikipedia policy" when he is in blatant violation of the very same? Holanthony (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In brief, you have more chance of the Second Coming of Jesus than getting a sanction based on a 5P violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading through this mess, I think the point that you're missing is simple: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not the issue here. Your edits are. Stop focusing on his actions and reread the problems above regarding yours. Quite frankly, there's no need to bring him up again. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Holanthony, Hullaballoo isn't going to be blocked for the diffs you have provided; the only real insults are on his own talk page (where users have a very wide latitude), and he clearly doesn't want you there so stay away from it and instead post any discussion on article talk pages, where it belongs in the first place (and if/when needed, utilize WP:DR). The other diffs you provided are merely him strongly stating his perceptions. Eventually you are going to have to own up to the fact that at less than 2,000 edits you are a very inexperienced editor, and Hullaballoo is a very very experienced editor. You'd do well to try harder to take in his points rather than taking things personally. You are not going to achieve an interaction ban with this ANI filing. In fact, you are not going to achieve anything except a possible boomerang if you keep arguing here much longer. As others have stated, it's your editing that's the problem. That said, I'd like to request that this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Softlavender I get what you're saying, and but HW doesn't "make points", he hurls mud pies and insults. If he started making valid points, I would take them in, but you know, it's a two-way street as well. If you don't agree with an edit, you need to state way in a calm and civilized fashion. I am known to listen to reason and if an editor explains a just and valid reason, like David in DC does, I have no problem respecting that, but the behavior by HW does not reflect that, and I know others have had similar problems, which is why I have chosen to start this thread to bring attention to the nonconstructive debate climate that some editors choose to display.Holanthony (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. He is making valid points, and you're not listening. You are the problem, and you are still not realizing it. Nobody "needs" to follow your particular dictates on how to state their disagreements with you. If you cannot accept and deal with that, you are not long for Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Return of IP troll

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

---

@NeilN: @KrakatoaKatie: @Soetermans:. 86.187.160.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of my IP-hopping stalker. AccountForANI (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

see also 86.187.165.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- The Anome (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked both IPs for 24 hours. If/when new IPs surface, for a possibly faster response you can try reporting to WP:AIV with a link to this discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing

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

---

Involved in dispute, has violated Rollback rights [31], and after warning [32]. --Creektiming (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note he claims a copyright vio, but has only used templates and I am not convinced it is the case. I welcome talk, but this editor prefers editwarring, and more than that, using Rollback. Creektiming (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Merged after simultaneous new sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Early Years 1965—1972 is a blatant copyvio of a Rolling Stone page, with only very minor formatting edits by anyone other than its creator. My CSD template and blanking of it has been repeatedly reverted. I don't have time to wade through the impenetrable bloat of the copyvio noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To admins, please be aware that Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) hasn't specified a reason for using Rollback, and has practically admitted he is not prepared to share where he presumes his knowledge of copyvio. Creektiming (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks: I've "admitted" nothing of the kind. You have repeatedly restored a blatant copyvio, after being warned not to do so on your talk page. The source of the copyvio is identified in the edit you have repeatedly reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll overlook this violation of WP:CIVIL through inappropriate language. If I have made an oversight or have misinterpreted your second from last statement then it is my mistake. I have reported Pigsonthewing, for misusing Rollback to editwar and not for its intended purposes. Creektiming (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop deflecting. You have repeatedly restored a blatant copyvio, after being warned not to do so on your talk page. Rollback may be used where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The action by Pigsonthewing was correct. Earwig reveals a clear copyvio. Also recommend BOOMERANG per this. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• The OP is an obvious troll. Check the contributions of Creektiming and their buddy Owaavaax, both of them edit-warring with Andy on The Early Years 1965—1972, repeatedly restoring blatant copyvios that Andy had removed... Thomas.W ^talk 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• The accounts are only about a week old, yet both of them have already been blocked once, Creektiming for repeated disruptive editing and Owaavaax for creating attack pages, and now this. Enough is enough. Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Montanabw has called Pigsonthewings's edit "correct" but has failed to specify why Rollback had to be used and not the other reverting methods. Plus, his/her call for BOOMERANG is based on an edit in which I did nothing wrong except not agree with Pigsonthewing's claim. Creektiming (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It was reverting a Copyvio. The rollback in this case was fair. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just rolled back Owaavaax's abuse of Thomas.W's user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Me too. This and this are blatant personal attacks. Given Ohnoitsjamie's warning to them during their last block, I think this warrants an indef. clpo13_(talk) 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like both are socks of User:Evlekis. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And now they're both blocked. clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that I have revdelled the copyvios. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate use of templates

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

---

I started an AfD that User:GUtt01 commented on. He then decided to 3RR template myself and another editor for edits that were made 8 days ago. In that case, we each reverted three times, and stopped, which is not a violation of any policy whatsoever; it's entirely in keeping with the rules, and a discussion was started, with no input from the other user. Yes, either one of us could have been templated at that time, but we were not, we did not continue to edit the article, and all relevant polices were adhered to in that case. I requested removal of the 3RR template, and was told "admit you are at fault and I will remove it" here. He then withdrew his AfD vote.

Not only am I a longtime editor who definitely falls under WP:DTR, no editor should be templated for following the rules, and no editor should be "forced" to apologize when no wrong was committed. I want the template removed, and GUtt01 cautioned for several instances of inappropriate editorial conduct. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Grow a pair, will you? EEng 21:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I first of all would like to apologise for writing my response in that manner, particularly to the user; I was merely voicing my opinion on the behaviour of the user and the situation that occurred in regards to an article they have since put up for AfD.

But I would like to point out that in the case of the "Edit War" between them and the other user, I did point out something that the user should not have done -> putting a 3RR warning themselves on this talk page - User talk:Riceissa. It can clearly seen that the user was the one who used the 3RR warning template as it is signed by them. According to WP:EW, "Handling of edit-warring behaviors", it quite clearly states to "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."GUtt01 (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

You know you can simply remove those warnings yourself, right? clpo13_(talk) 21:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I know, but a) I very rarely remove anything from my talk page, and b) just because I can remove something doesn't mean it should have been put there in the first place. The underlying behavior is the problem, not the template itself.MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the message about me withdrawing my AfD vote. I just want to point out that I suddenly felt I was voting on a subject regarding a US document that was best to answered by US editors, not a UK editor. GUtt01 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay. There is no guideline our policy that says a regular here can not receive a templated message. The point of the essay is to recommend editors create a personal message rather than use a template. The essay also explains to the recipient that they should assume good faith. Is there anything wrong enough that anything should be done to GUtt01, no. Was the template or any warning needed in this situation, no. MSJapan, if you think the warning should be removed from your talk page, remove it. It is so simple and no action is required here. -- GB fan 21:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Exodus2320

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

---

This user has been spouting lots of religious-nutty stuff at Talk:Book of Daniel. See here. He has similar stuff on his User talk page, and has been in a very slow edit war at Book of Daniel. He is WP:NOTHERE, please block him. @Timothyjosephwood: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No. It's a bit more tin-foil than that. User has been posting off wiki about myself, Favonian and others...because we're demons or something. Also recommend immediately closing this thread because the world is about to end. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are demons? Well, that's the first time I've ever seen that. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To be specific: "the devil, Satan, a demonic spirit or the like". TimothyJosephWood 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed. I'm not sure off-site attacks are enough for an indefinite block, but the user actually posted a link to these attacks on their own talkpage. That's plenty for me. Demonic Bishonen | talk 23:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC).

Thus says the Lord BISHONEN, You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created. Until unrighteousness was found in you. TimothyJosephWood 23:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

My privacy information has been exposed without my consent

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

---

I don't know how this user Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs) knows my privacy[33](race) information, but this user has exposed this information in discussion here. I feel intimidated since I've never exposed my privacy information in any of my discussion, this user shouldn't know this information. I believe this privacy issue is a very serious matter, please delete this race information from the Wikipedia database permanently as soon as possible and take appropriate action thereon. Thank you. Toto11zi (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I failed to add "pro-" in the sentence. I corrected the edit.[34]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So you decided to come to the most watched page on Wikipedia and effectively out yourself over a typo? It appears the joke is now on you. Not that it matters in Wikipedia's point of view but it does seem to matter to you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that information can be used to identify you, although it does narrow the field from 7.4 billion to 1.3 billion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• If they'd known your name or address I could understand but do you really feel intimidated over them knowing you're Chinese ? ..... I'm British and I couldn't care less who knows, I suggest someone closes before more of the communities time is wasted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Because I'm involved in a specific topic on Wikipedia, so people may identify me using searching engines. I don't want that to happen. Please note here I don't confirm or reject the specific race.Toto11zi (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In your opening sentence here, you acknowledge that you're Chinese, so it's too late to pretend otherwise. In future, if you've got a sensitive issue like that, don't bring it here, send an email to your most trusted admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm fairly sure this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:OUTING and could probably be closed as non-actionable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

74.76.208.129

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

---

Making suicidal threats here and here. I have emailed the emergency line. Not sure what else is needed. But someone might wnat to have a dickie bird with the IP. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Please revoke talk page access

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

---

User:Tasmani Uzair has been attacking multiple people on his talk page. Please revoke talk page access. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC).

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

Possible paid editing at Hillier Parker May and Rowden

Philjonescomp is an SPA who has created and been assiduously editing Hillier Parker May and Rowden. This was tagged for speedy deletion (soon retracted) but in a lengthy defence on the article talk page here Philjonescomp writes "...this information has been looking for a new home since and it was felt that Wikipedia was a good place. Mr Couch has made a cash donation to Wikipedia for this purpose.". This comment has subsequently been deleted (rather than redacted). However it leaves a strong suggestion that payment has been made from one party to another to get this article on Wikipedia. The user name also suggests a company rather than an individual.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also suspicious of this "Richard Ashworth" who posted to the talk page. The account he created (after editing via IP one time) seems to also be an SPA. It's also possible that one is a sock of the other, but there isn't enough evidence (in my opinion) for an SPI to be opened, much less for a CU to check into it. In the meantime, I've added the {{Connected contributor}} template to the talk page. It can be changed to be {{Connected contributor (paid)}} if need be. Since I've mentioned Richard here, I'm also gonna give him an ANI notice. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've also notified WP:UAA of the potential "implies shared use" username, "Philjonescomp". -- Gestrid (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but an article on a now-defunct real estate agency is small beer as these things go. The agency probably is notable in a historical context although the article certainly could stand to be cleaned up if anybody cares. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In my lights, the article should be shortened to its lead (three short sentences). I understand the detailed information is looking for a new home, but with all the self-sourcing, Wikipedia shouldn't be that home. Pinging user:Iridescent who removed the speedy template and User:DGG who prodded the article a few days ago. (PROD removed by Philjonescomp.) Bishonen | talk 07:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

Merge. It was sold to Coldwell Banker, so the material could be inserted there. I think there is need in these articles to clarify the various mergers and eacquisitions and changes of name. (but not the list of managing directors and the individual offices) DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Per my comment on the talkpage, I declined the speedy deletion request as "No indication of importance" clearly isn't the case (if anything, this suffers from altogether too many claims of importance), but on the understanding that it would either be reliably sourced throughout or stubbified. Stubbify it for the moment; if the firm was really this large, it will be possible for anyone who cares to do so to source it from the trade press if they do want to restore it to its full length. The whole "paid editing" thing is something of a sidetrack—piecing through the comments, it seems the two "paid editors" are former employees who have written this on behalf of the "Hillier Parker Old Boys & Girls Club" for former employees. This isn't forbidden (we have plenty of old soldiers writing about the army, for instance), and I struggle to see how anyone could have much of a conflict of interest regarding an firm which ceased to exist in 1998. Yes, "used to work for the company" is still technically a COI by Wikipedia's definition, but with no possible way anyone could benefit from this article (other than a theoretical warm glow from making their former employer sound impressive) this is such small fry I really wouldn't consider treating it as a ToU violation. ‑ Iridescent 08:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(adding) A merge to Coldwell Banker would be totally inappropriate. While the "CB" in CBRE Group (the group which absorbed Hillier Parker) does stand for "Coldwell Banker", CBRE was spun off into a wholly independent entity long before it took over Hillier Parker, and it has no connection to the present-day Coldwell Banker other than the name. The alternative would be to restructure the CBRE Group article to describe all the mergers and acquisitions that created it, but that would mean quite a bit of work. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

OWNership issues on BlackBerry-related articles.

Peter K Burian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been getting into disputes with me on multiple BlackBerry-related pages over my refactoring and copyediting of his edits, to an extent that I consider aggressive ownership of the articles. This includes situations in which he reverts back to his preferred version, and specifically calling me out on article talk pages in reminders essentially instructing editors not to refactor or fully remove his work (which in some cases, clashes with the accepted format that smartphone-related articles have used. although cited, it contains stylistic issues, as well as redundant details at times), and properly use edit summaries. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 has reverted all of my edits to the BlackBerry Priv article on at least two (possibly three) occasions in order to delete content that I had added. See the Talk page at that article AND the July 2016 item on my Talk page.

He had provided no reason whatsoever for reverting the content I had added. I explained this in the Talk section:

QUOTE: My edits which updated this article were reverted by ViperSnake151. Why? Who knows? He failed to provide an Edit Summary as Wikipedia requires. Since he has not done so, I have reverted his edits. ....... WP:Edit summary Always provide an edit summary: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.

Yes, I did revert his edit (that deleted all of the content I had added) to get my content reinstated. He reverted my revisions again. Finally, I have just been making edits, adding fully cited content instead of reverting. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply 2 from Peter K Burian. The complainant, ViperSnake151 deleted 90% of the content I had added today to the BlackBerry DTEK50 article. See the Talk page at that article. I did not Revert him but simply added content that I believe is valuable.

More specifically: This article was little more than a stub this morning. I added fully-cited content; later in the day he deleted most of it. He did not Revert, he just deleted large sections of the content that I had added. I did not Revert his deletion of my content, not wishing to start a WP:WAR. Instead, I added back content that I felt was valuable to readers of this article. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of ViperSnake151 deleting content from the BlackBerry Priv article that I had added :

It started without an explanation or logical rationale 16:09, 27 July 2016‎ ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,642 bytes) (-270)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last version by ViperSnake151)

20:06, 27 July 2016‎ ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,388 bytes) (-309)‎ . . (Adjustments; Slider, in this context, almost always refers to keyboards (see link). Move Android Marshmallow stuff together, tag portion for original research)) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

On the DTEK50 article, I did not delete most of it. In fact, I actually expanded it just now. It disseminates the exact same information, I just re-organized it into a more cohesive layout with sections and organization. Note that some of the more finer technical details are in the infobox. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Peter K. Burian re: BlackBerry DTEK50 article: Well, in fact, ViperSnake151 did delete most of the fully-cited, well-researched content that I had added to the article without really providing a rationale for doing so. He then wrote new content. And some of the content he then added was incorrect; (it is NOT a 12 megapixel camera and it is not digital image stabilization) or inadequate (he forgot to include important features of the built-in camera.)

Evidence of deleting much of the fully-cited BlackBerry DTEK50 content that I had added as of that time: 16:52, 27 July 2016‎ ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,251 bytes) (-1,326)(Part of me wants to make an Idol 4 page and merge it into this. It's clearly just badge engineering‎ No rationale was provided for deleting a large part of the text.

My response after he deleted much of the content I had added: 18:55, 27 July 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,433 bytes) (+944)‎ . . (Please do NOT delete all of the text I have added to every BlackBerry article; let's not start a WP:WAR) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• You both need to calm down and stop commenting about one another so much. Looking over some of your discussions (and here), you both get so bogged down on accusations, bolding/italicizing, and carrying on, that it quickly becomes too overwhelming for anyone to intervene. That's probably why no one has bothered to comment in these first 12+ hours here at ANI either - this conversation is already a mess to read. Honestly, to me, this all looks like a content dispute that's getting muddled down with accusations, bad faith, and ramblings. If I were you, I'd propose a few of the disputed points at a WikiProject or WP:DRN, state your case, and let others jump in rather than just arguing circles again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Serge. I suppose I got upset because he was the one deleting my content without an explanation and then he posted a complaint that I am "getting into disputes". Peter K Burian (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He is trying to enforce ideas that are not usually used on technology articles. We've usually kept extraneous statistics about things like cameras out of article text and put them in the infobox sidebar; see LG G2 for an example. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest you two both learn how to use a talk page and work things out. Talk:BlackBerry DTEK50 is not helpful in either direction. The concern is whether this information is warranted or not in these types of articles. Peter, is that the general concern? So find a larger neutral place and just ask about whether they should be included in general and then go from there. I suggest the talk page of a single relevant WikiProject (Technology probably) and discuss it there with some outside views. Else, tag these pages with the WikiProjects on them and host an RFC on a single talk page about a single article and go from there. WP:DRR has plenty of other options and ANI is not the first one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Malformed AFD

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

---

Can someone preperly format Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Benzine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, Tony. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC).

Umm...Bishonen, not actually the 2nd nom. It was just submitted twice. TimothyJosephWood 19:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I know. You edit conflicted me here (as well) when I tried to say so. I've deleted my version. Hope it's done and dusted now. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC).

(Non-administrator comment) ... needs to be seriously pocketed... edit conflicting will be done and dusted _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like there's a meme here somewhere I'm not getting. TimothyJosephWood 20:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: You don't get Bishzilla, Bishzilla gets you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't do drugs kids. TimothyJosephWood 20:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

... -- Gestrid (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

See: This guy took so many shots of marijuana that he forgot to leave a comment. TimothyJosephWood 20:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

E.M.Gregory's latest actions

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

---

A few days back, I started an AfD discussion for 2016 Ramadan attacks, which was created by E.M.Gregory. Since then, he has committed actions that wander into WP:BADGER territory and fail WP:AGF.

First off, he directly accuses an IP user of being a WP:SOCK account for Ianmacm without providing any evidence outside of the diffs (which don't indicate much of anything), and instead of taking the issue to WP:SPI where a professional could've verified his suspicions.

Second off, he puts an edit summary that assumes the people voting for the article's deletion are basing their arguments on the grounds of WP:IDL, even though these people (including me) have given legitimate-sounding reasoning based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

Third off, he makes it clear in his edit summary that he suspects Ferpalnum and has tagged the user as a WP:SPA, along with more sockpuppet suspicion, though Ferpalnum insists he is not based on when he opened his account.

Fourth off (and I find this one to be the most hilarious of them all), he sends me this message on my talk page, right after he explains why his article should be kept.

Now, it's honestly fair game either way if his article is kept or deleted, but E.M.Gregory's recent behavior is rather troublesome (not to mention irksome) and it needs to be addressed properly here in some way or form. Parsley Man (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above seems to be fairly normal behaviour. That first comment was wrong, the sockpuppet accusation falls under PA and the comment he sent to you was uncivil. On contentious AfDs its fairly normal to note an editor with little or no prior editing experience and it's normal to ask the question about sockpuppets when you think its the case (although he should have taken it to SPI). He's free to have his opinion on why another editor is voting, if he thinks its because of WP:IDL that's his right and he can note it if he likes below their comment so long as he isn't being malicious about it. I don't know why he sent you the message, but, it doesn't seem to be a PA or anything malicious, just a bit sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the comment, I'm just going to point out that E.M.Gregory has been active here since 2014. Not sure if that constitutes a "little or no prior editing experience" editor to you, but just saying. Also, I'm not sure what exactly constitutes WP:PA, but given the fact that I was the one who created the AfD (on an article he created, mind you) and E.M.Gregory has a history of what Ianmacm mentions as "failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits", I'm pretty confident the message he sent to my talk page was a personal attack. Parsley Man (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The editors with little or no prior experience on the AfD, not E.M.Gregory. The message he sent you was uncivil, the accusation of sockpuppetry is PA. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. But his assumption that people are voting to delete his article for WP:IDL reasons is still a violation of WP:AGF. I for one won't hold it against him if the article is kept; I just find the material very sketchy and questionable. And everyone has been making sound arguments about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start writing "disclosure; non-admin comment" for all of my comments at AN/I from now on because I've been confused for an administrator far too many times at this point. So, Disclosure; non-admin comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that anyone would confuse you for an administrator. You've been editing with this account since November of last year. Doc talk 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc9871, you're being kind: let me just add, Mr rnddude, that those very comments aren't very adminny. No, a person is not free to just post on-wiki whatever they think. That message wasn't sarcastic--it was assholish. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

What? Drmies where am I being an asshole, and Doc9871 I've had one user ask me to close their thread as an admin (on AN/I) and I've had one user ask me about a block. They were both very new though. I know anybody who's been here longer then a month would know that I'm not, but what about the complete newbies who just got here. But, whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Drmies wasn't talking about you, Mr rnddude. He was talking about E.M.Gregory. Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the comment that I called sarcastic. Mea culpa, I misunderstood. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very annoyed about the sockpuppet allegation and would have let it ride if it had been a one-off. However, there is a pattern of failing to assume good faith and commenting on contributors rather than their edits. The request on Parsley Man's talk page is outside the range of acceptable conduct for an AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I figure you are referring to a WP:CIVIL issue rather than a WP:NPA issue with the comment on ParsleyMan's page. I also wasn't aware that there is a recurring pattern of WP:SPI abuse, and cannot comment about it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Its both. Accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet absent evidence is a personal attack. The comments on ParsleyMan's page fall under civil. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's because he's making an accusation without evidence, he did provide diffs for the accusation though, I'll review them now, see if I can see the relation or not. No, no I won't, since the accused has already commented about it, didn't see it was you Ian that was being accused. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With sockpuppetry there are two things that constitute evidence. Behavioral (so editing patterns, wording, etc) and technical. Technical evidence is gather by checkusers at/after an SPI - they wont go on fishing expeditions just because someone has posted a list of diffs that dont actually make a connection between the two users. Behavioural evidence needs more than just 'look at this'. It needs an explanation of why the editors are connected, what it is that links the two etc. Just 'here is some diffs with not explanation' is not evidence of sockpuppetry. I had a look and the allegation seems unfounded. Unless ianmacm actually was editing logged out (from his comment above the answer to this appears to be no) its an unfounded personal attack (on both the IP and ianmacm) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it obviously isn't me. Nor do the edits referred to show any obvious link, other than being opposed to some of the things that were being said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look, if I were to consider my personal experience with Ian and these comments my conclusion would be this. The first diff, not a similar speech pattern although conflated, Muslim and Islamism showed up a lot on the Islamist terrorist attacks talkpage... now I wonder why that is, it couldn't have anything to do with the people conflating Muslims with Islamist could it? (sarcasm of course). The second diff, there's nothing alike, Ian is in my experience civil even patient, casting aspersions is not his MO. The last diff, anybody, literally anybody, could have said that. On Wikipedia saying "Gone ahead and done away with that section as is..." is like saying "Hello, I am currently doing work" in the real world. The diffs substantiate the accusation of sockpuppetry as much as a broken egg substantiates a murder conviction. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• If one doesn't know what one is talking about one should perhaps not comment at length here. For once (stop the press) I am in total agreement with Only in death: unwarranted sock allegations are personal attacks (they violate AGF, for instance), and these were unwarranted. Thanks Only in death for stating what needed to be stated. This comment, "perhaps send a donation to a hospital in Medina, Tel Aviv, Dhaka, Orlando or Istanbul", that is so asinine that I'm a bit speechless, for once. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm sorry, you may not be talking about me. But, seriously...were you? Or were you addressing Mr rnddude... I got confused by your comment there... Parsley Man (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

He's talking to me. Though for which part, I don't know. If it's sockpuppeting, then ok, if its the comment, I'm honestly not moved, it appeared and to me still appears sarcastic, rude but sarcastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that the message he sent me was sarcastic, but given that he sent it literally five minutes after he explained why his article should be kept (check the time stamps if you're not convinced about that), plus the other actions he has committed in the AfD discussion, I have a strong degree of certainty that he was trying to force me to change my vote and/or guilt-trip me (in regard to his mention of the "hospital donations"). If the message was indeed sarcastic and nothing more, well, then he should've timed it better, because sending me that message soon after he explained his position in the AfD is a pretty questionable course of action... Parsley Man (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is the comment I'm talking about, the comment mentioned in the first section of the case. It's E.M. Gregory's comment. Mr rnddude, my disagreement with you is over your uninformed and hasty commentary on the socking thing, as if making sock accusations is simply a matter of free speech. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• The matter of free speech? I said he should have taken it to SPI, the free speech was for his opinions on why the editor is voting (IDL). I do however apologize and strike my comment on socking, since I was still wrong, sorry am human. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Been sort of following the AFD and !voted early on... gotta say I'm unimpressed with EM Gregory's behavior so far and sorta glad I wasn't the one to initiate the AFD (though I was tempted). EM Gregory recently blanked their user talk page, but there seems to be an uptick in recent problematic behaviors in the past few month, including even a 1 month topic ban on Arab-Israel conflict. Pre-deletion talk page at this link. There seems to be a strong interest in Islamist terrorism, but judging by AFDs, ANIs, and the sanctions, I'm wondering if this strong interest is becoming disruptive or interfering with their ability to edit constructively as part of a team project. There are general sanctions for ISIL articles (WP:GS/ISIL) which the AFD in question is related to. IMHO, the current behavior alone warrants a warning. However, (1) this current behavior, (2) what appears to be an increase this problematic behavior recently, (3) the sanctions for the topic, and (4) the recent topic ban loosely related to the topic make me think admin intervention is reasonable. Someone with a better understanding of this user's past behaviors (like Ricky81682 who imposed the topic ban) might help here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD...you're welcome, I guess. Parsley Man (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you... I think? :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The prior topic ban was based on this close and was based on a combination of massively inappropriate BLP-violating comments on talk page (this and this kind of pointless, divisive, drive-by commentary) and a ridiculous BLP violation changing that a living person had ties to an organization that called on Turks to murder Armenians to stating that the person himself called on Turks to do such that (based on a Swedish-language source) as an "error" was enough for me to drop the topic ban. As of right now, I'm leaning towards making it permanent based on BATTLEGROUND nonsense like this. I'd give some leeway towards it being an AFD discussion but this is getting ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond that I first met IP 70.27.162.84 and IamMacM here: [35] (top of page), and you will see how I took the IP for the alter-ego of a long-standing editor. I did not bring it to this board, merely to the talk page of the IP were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive Here: [36]. I had gone back to IP 70.27.162.84 's talk page to soften my comment by suggesting that the attack on me might have been not deliberate sock- or meat-puppetry, but a careless failure to log in. I did not leave such a remark because the response form Ian (not from the IP, only form Ian at that point) appeared to confirm that he was using the IP to make nasty attacks he had the good judgment not to do in his own name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you were really suspicious about the IP user, I will repeat myself, WP:SPI exists to investigate such suspicions. There was no need to make direct accusations against the parties involved. Parsley Man (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Respond Editor Ferpalnum weighed in at the AFD on 2016 Ramadan attacks with an intensity and aggressiveness that led me to look at his editing record, which showed that he had started editing only a few days before the AFD began.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"were I was frankly astonished to immediately have IanMacM immediately arrive" Why would this surprise you? you pinged them to the page, of course they're going to respond to the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Over the years I have been involved in many AfDs, and this is the first time that one has led to a sockpuppet allegation. As stated above, 70.27.162.84 is Bell Canada so it isn't me and there is no obvious similarity in the writing styles. Sockpuppet allegations should not be made without strong evidence and a formal WP:SPI, otherwise they are just a way of badgering the user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Respond. From my perspective, 2016 Ramadan attacks is an ordinary sort of article, similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks and in a sort of category with 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. I was surprised that it was brought to AFD, very surprised that the grounds were OR and SYNTH since the article was based on solid sources and other editrs had immediately started to help build it [37]. I only just now realized that the IP who showed up [38] and blanked material related to well-sourced 2016 Hamas calls for Ramadan attacks was the IP discussed above. Nevertheless I was genuinely surprised, not shocked, just surprised when ParsleyMan started the AFD. Parsley, as you will see from my occassional comments on his talk page, has been hounding me almost from the time he began editing, with what I then described on his talk page as unusual familiarity with Wikipedia and its rules for a new editor. Here: [39] is one of several complaints I have posted on his talk page. I am far from the sole editor to have posted such complaints on his page. His response has been to intensify his WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me. His behavior towards me meets the textbook definition of WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." The discussion "Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing" on his talk page on Feb. 16-19, 2016 documents his behavior, and another editor weighs in to advise him to stop. I wish he would. Stop. Instead, he lurks, reading all of my thousands of edits and bringing me here when I, very occasionally, lose my temper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, about the recent edit on his talk page: [40]. I not infrequently suggest to editors who have started AFD discussions unlikely to lead to deletion that they change their opinions where, as here, the sourcing becomes overwhelmingly strong (usually as a result of WP:HEY - it saves a great deal of editorial time when editors do so. As for my other suggestion, I give charity regularly, and it is my routing custom to sent to a medical charity when a particularly distressing terror attack occurs. I find that it alleviates the horror, and, given ParselyMan's emotional involvement with these issues, I sincerly thought it might relieve his stress. I am more than a little surprised that my suggestion that he follow such a common practice elicited such a negative response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• re: that AFD I want to add that it is not unusual for me to find myself the sole editor arguing one side of deletion debate, and thereby turning the debate around, simply by bringing persuasive sources - as I fully expected would happen in the AFD discussion that led to this complaint by ParsleyMan, I thought that it was inevitable because the sourcing was extremely strong and multiple editors had built the well-sourced but short article into quite a good page within the space of a very few days.

• Also, I want to add that it is not unusual for me to ask the Nom to withdraw in such a situation, as here: [41]., a half-forgotten i discussion that I noticed again today when someone linked to his article I started last year. What is unusual is ParsleyMan's bringing such a complaint here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit was a sincere suggestion meant in good faith? If you sincerely believe that, I strongly suggest you consider reading about etiquette and tone in communication. To me and other folks here, it was an insincere, assholish thing to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think you could've worded the message way better than that if you were really trying to be sincere. It doesn't help that that was literally the first post you made right after you explained your vote to keep the 2016 Ramadan attacks article. "The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion"? With that timing, if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were thinking your vote was all it took to justify keeping the article and that you were trying to force me to withdraw my nomination. Parsley Man (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I really would like an uninvolved admin to respond to this. Don't wanna see this archived without a proper conclusion, because I do think it needs to be addressed in some form... Parsley Man (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, EM's behavior has veered from merely annoying to now quite uncivil over the course of his career here, and it's making editing and discussion in the general topic area quite a laborious task. I was considering opening a case myself recently, but didn't notice this until now somehow. I'd be glad if someone could sort this out. ansh666 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't anyone going to address this? Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:Parsley Man, in my opinion there is no action to be taken. And the issues have been addressed, in that this ANI proceeding happened, in which you criticized E.M. Gregory and you obtained support from others who also found fault. All of this is punishment delivered to E.M.G. I have been there in both roles: I have been pilloried here at ANI with people chiming in negatively and I experienced that as the punishment it was intended to be. And I have been here with a legitimate complaint or two or three and found that no one was taking any action when I felt it was darn sure that something should be done. Here there is nothing so darn sure. What you and others seem to focus on most as somehow horrible is that E.M.G. suggested at your Talk page you retract your AFD, just after they argued Keep in the article. That diff has been given three or more times above. I think that the kind of suggestion EMG made is perfectly reasonable and I believe I have done that. When I think the article should be kept, and when I think the AFD nominator can also see that the nomination was not justified (or at least the situation is not like they thought), and when nudging them on to do the right thing can get them to withdraw it. That would cut short the drama of AFD which in general a negative experience, and it would save other editors' time. Obviously you are sensitive and did not interpret EMG's suggestion as a polite nudge to go ahead and do the right thing. You find it foreign and interpret it to mean something it did not, in my opinion. EMG's suggestion to withdraw was followed by suggestion to make a donation, which is unusual, and I can see that you could wonder what was meant by that. Another here said they interpreted that as sarcasm. EMG has replied they earnestly meant it, and that is what I then believe. Assume some good faith here, and wouldn't EMG have gone on with sarcasm if they had meant the first to be sarcasm?

I think this ANI proceeding should be closed. There certainly is no evidence adding up to requiring any negative action; at most one or two or more persons could be advised to be careful how they say things and/or be careful how they interpret things. But if no one who regularly closes things here wants to take it on (because it takes some effort to give a good summary and smooth things over where things should be smoothed), I think it is also okay to just let this fade away without a formal close. Parsley Man made their complaints, they were heard. --doncram 03:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Bless you, Doncram. (I am not certain if this is appropriate, but when I heard about last evening's atrocity, I made a donation to a fund for victims. It relieves the horror better than getting irate on Wikipedia does.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Uh...since when did I start thinking the AfD I started was not justified, or that it wasn't turning out like what I had thought it would? I have absolutely no intention on withdrawing the AfD and will wait until a decision to delete or keep the article is made. Parsley Man (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm not going to vote because I'm far too involved, but I will say that this is not new (or even recent) behavior. Issues with Matthew C. Whitaker eventually (months later) revealed on the talk that the whole article was the result of EMG seeing plagiarism by the subject as "unprofessional behavior." In short, he didn't like the subject and wrote the article as a pseudo-biography to basically discredit the subject as much as possible by coatracked every single article he could find about the plagiarism cases into it while cherry-picking quotes to support said position. He also attempted to tie the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack to migrant crime by Muslims based on rumor alone, and then threw a quote from a Swedish white supremacist politician in to try to make into a bigger deal in the country than it really was. Reality indicated the perp was an Eritrean Christian, and several Swedish editors fixed the issues. I also seem to recall a conversation on a I-P topic talk where EMG fought to call a source neutral when it clearly was not, again because it supported his argument. In short, he edits articles with a goal in mind from the outset, coatracks sources to further that goal, and then can't understand why others don't see what he does when the sourlces often don't say what he thinks they do. He has clear biases, which is fine, except if one is going to write about every single Israeli who has ever been killed, such as Shooting of Danny Gonen, and then turn around and write articles on Islamic terrorism. In short, what is being brought up now as "escalation" is the same behavior we've had all along. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I stand behind my behavior in writing and and continuing to edit each of the 3 articles mentioned. As MSJapan's accusation that I had a personal grudge against Matthew C. Whitaker; it is quite simply false. I have had no contact with Whitaker, his institution or this case, which I read about in the news. I do regard plagiarism as "unprofessional behavior." My error, my first contact with MSJapan, was when, as a still very inexperienced editor leaning the WP lingo by cutting and pasting code from the edits of other editors, I somehow managed to mess up a comment made by MSJapan that I was merely attempting to copy some phrasing from. I apologized as soon as the mistake was called to my attention. She has been flinging accusations at me ever since, on the Whitaker page and on others. Once she brought my editing of Matthew Whitaker to this board; no sanctions were imposed. Her accusations about the IKEA stabbing attack are equally false. This was a stabbing by "Eritrean asylum seekers" my edits are there; I consistently described them as "Eritrean asylum seekers" precisely because that was all that was known about them at the time. You can read my edits. As far as I can tell, her claim that I was supporting a "white supremacist" is a badly garbled account of the fact that I added news reports about an uptick in support for the Christian Democrats (Sweden) and comments made by the deputy speaker of the Swedish parliament, Björn Söder in the wake of the Ikea stabbing attack in a section on "Impact". This was early in the refugee crisis, I was in and out of Sweden and other parts of the continent last summer, watching the migrant crisis develop with astonished fascination, and wrote and edited a number of articles on aspects of it (Hungarian border barrier). In the Ikea stabbing attack article, as with the 2016 Ramadan attacks that launched this discussion, feelings run high, different editors perceive these events very differently, tempers flare, and editors fling accusations. I trust that the closing editor here will read the personal attacks against me made at the 2016 Ramadan attacks AFD (some by editors commenting above,) the intemperate accusations flung by MSJapan on the talk page at Matthew G. Whitaker, and the talk page and edits at 2015 IKEA stabbing attack before rendering judgment. As I said, I am human and I do make mistakes, but MSJapan's description is highly colored.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was talking about at all in respect to those articles, and I had in fact forgotten about your "behavior" on Whitaker - you didn't "mess up a quote", you attempted to associate me with the article topic by editing talk page material and then accused me of sockpuppetry by being the subject of the article. Your "uptick in support" in the IKEA article wasn't supported by sources - you put it in there to make a connection that simply wasn't there. The fact that you were in Sweden and have a heretofore undisclosed "fascination" with the topic might cause an objectivity issue, which seems to actually have been the case now that you've admitted it, again, well after the fact. I see that you've also become concerned enough to start posting apologetics on the talk page of the Whitaker article so nobody "misunderstands" you. Sanctions or not at a previous time are irrelevant - the behavior you are engaging in now is the same behavior you have always engaged in since you started editing here, and that is what is at issue here. Diverting it to specifics doesn't change the fact that you have a fairly lengthy record of doing exactly what it is you're being brought to ANI (once again) for doing. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

sigh. I should perhaps mention that I have had cause to refute MSJapan for his tendency to misread, misinterpret or misunderstand WP policies, or, at least, to mis-cite them to win a debate or fling an accusation on talk pages and, especially, at AFD. For example, on that original Whitaker page she accused me of COI [42] I responded [43]. Today at an AFD for a "Murder of..." article, he wrote that "WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death" to which I responded [44]. I seem to recall that he has made similar assertions, and that I have called him on them, at 1 or 2 other AFD discussions in recent weeks; I cannot recall which discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A short defense of E.M.Gregory

For the past few months, unbeknownst to him, E.M.Gregory has been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet who turns up on whatever Middle East/Islamic terrorism-related article he happens to be working on and reverts or disruptively revises his work and abuses him on the talk page. The incident that sparked this very thread involved this sock (editing as an IP) wading in and inflaming tensions in the middle of a good faith dispute that E.M.Gregory was having with another editor. This resulted in E.M.Gregory losing his cool and accusing the other editor and others of being the sock.

E.M.Gregory is now fully aware of the sock's identity and hopefully won't go accusing other editors from now on. In addition, until fairly recently E.M.Gregory was hounded by a left-wing editor (who is not party to the discussion, so I won't name them) who nominated seemingly every other article E.M.Gregory created for ideological and personal reasons.

I won't defend E.M.Gregory's short fuse and constant accusations of bad faith, but he has created a lot of good, well-researched articles, particularly related to religion, which is a topic which is often sneered at by some in the Wikipedia community. Remember that it takes a lot more work to research and write a new article than it does to vote "Delete" in a deletion discussion. I am also certain that "not notable" is all too often a codeword for "not interesting" to the editor or to the Wikipedia demographic. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh. Who would've guessed that the IP editor was a sockpuppet, but E.M. just accused the wrong person of being the sockmaster. Well, color me surprised. Parsley Man (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but E.M.Gregory should be careful before accusing other editors of being sockpuppets on their talk pages. This is not what talk pages are for. If a user suspects sockpuppeting with good reason, they should file a formal WP:SPI with the diffs involved. Otherwise, it is a failure to assume good faith on the part of the editor involved, and is a form of badgering the other user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I second that. It also makes the user look bad and could damage credibility, I might add. Parsley Man (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikihounding discussion

• Thank you, AnotherNewAccount. It is true that I have sometimes lost my cool, and also true that [[User:Parsley Man noticed this when it happens among thousands of edits because he follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, behavior for which he has been cautioned on his talk page by an editor with whom I an wholly unacquainted. [45]. Certainly, I do feel that I have been unduly harassed by editors who make little effort to be collegial. A particularly remarkable example of harassment was the nomination of 3 articles I was involved with for deletion by the editor who was the harassing me, for what I perceived as political reasons. One was an article that I had created 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, one was a SeaGlass Carousel (for speedy deletion), and the third was 2012 Paros (Greece) rape (an article I had happened on at AFD). At the AFD on the Route 60 ambush, Nom described the incident as having had "no lasting significance.' (Note that I wrote that article 12 years after the event; far more difficult than creating an article about a recent attack since sources disappear and become hard to find by searching (spellings of perps's name vary; keywords like "shooting" "Hamas" etc. are so common). Still after 12 years of stories in major international newspapers, the incident did seem to merit an article. My iVote to KEEP read: "*Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Again with the WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusation. Since when have I been hounding you? And really? The AfD nomination of 2016 Ramadan attacks was NOT for political reasons. Parsley Man (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to respond, then I'm just going to assume it's just an empty, unfounded accusation. On ANI, no less. Parsley Man (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Any editor who cares to, although I hardly see why a sane editor would, can compare your edits and mine. It's all on the record. You have been WP:HOUNDING me for well over a year, almost since the moment you began editing. Nearly every day, you follow me to a series of disparate pages just as you did today; [46], [47], [48], [49]. Sometimes, your edits are disruptive (I have complained about a fraction of these on your talk page.) Now you have dragged me to this page. Mostly, however, your HOUNDING edits are minute changes or improvements in an article I have just edited; they have the impact of making editing creepy and unpleasant; like being WP:STALKED. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I hate it. But you know that. We have fundamentally opposing perspectives on major issues, and I suppose that your purpose in WP:WIKIHOUNDING is to drive me off Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Taken straight from WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." In the examples you just provided, I don't see how my edits qualify as hounding.

Yes, I do follow you around, and yes, I guess my first "hound-edits" have been aggressive (I forget now). But I can say for sure that I dropped that attitude now. Everything I've been doing right now (such as in those examples) has just been constructive edits, if anything, and not anything direct such as undoing your edits or recklessly challenging you in edit summaries or on talk pages. All the recent hashing-out between me and you has been happening on this ANI as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure if my "constructive edits" imply something else to you, but if you feel there is some other implication, please specify, because I'm sure I didn't mean it.

But long story short, my recent edits have been nothing hound-like of the sort. Unless I'm literally not supposed to edit on any articles you've edited, are editing right now, or will edit (if Sir Joseph's contribution below is anything to go), in which case there's going to be a problem for me, because that potentially means locking me out of a lot of articles that fall under the mass murder and terrorism categories, possibly others. In other words, a topic ban. And I'm not sure if that's justified... Parsley Man (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This, [50] certainly seems like hounding to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority are in the same topic area, and current events articles (and associated discussions) mean quick edits from everyone. ansh666 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I know tht it is tedious to look through that long list of articles, I have the advantage of remembering them, and knowing how widely they vary: minor poets, scholars influential within in narrow fields, neo-fascist news sites, and Captain Video and his Video Rangers (don't ask). It is a long list, but if you look closely you see that it is a diverse and improbable list to have come randomly or natrually to two editors. Abovce I linked to an editor on Paarsley's talk page who noticed the pattern months ago and warned him to stop dogging my steps. But even with the "shooter" and terror attack articles, many of the ones he followed me to were small incidents or older pages, with few or no other active editors. In other words, we migh randomly have both shown up shown up at July 2016 Dhaka attack, but what are the odds that any two editors, even with an interest in mass killing attacks, would both show up (Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi AND also both show up in 2016 at 2006 UNC SUV attack, Norma Lee Clark, 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack? I mean , Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine...

To see how particular his pattern of following me to odd articles for no purpose is, however, please look at Tyler Anbinder, James Peddie (author), Rajan Menon, Kuruc.info, The New Rambler, Eric Peters (musician), Steven Lubet, Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney, Blakey Vermeule, Mary Heimann, Captain Video and His Video Rangers, and many more as arcane and random as Captain Video and His Video Rangers. I'll stop there, although it is only the tip or a remarkaple iceberg. He had been tireless in following me to article after article to little purpose, then drags me here when I finally lost my temper. This is not a coincidence of interests. It is a case of an editor, me, being followed by a fellow editor who dislikes my perspective on terrorism and my focus on mass shootings (which I think are often notable and ought to have pages) and is trying very hard to drive me off the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're being a little paranoid. Please read that WP:WIKIHOUNDING excerpt I posted earlier. Yes, I can admit we don't agree on some things, but I don't see how adding or removing some punctuation, and probably changing the format of the dates in citations in the cases of some articles, equates to an organized effort to force you off of Wikipedia. (If there's anything else I did, please let me know.) Parsley Man (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Re "If there's anything else I did, please let me know." – Maybe this ANI complaint? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I meant during my edits. Parsley Man (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening an ANI complaint is hardly hounding. If it was, everyone who opened a complaint here would quickly be blocked! Besides, I don't know about you guys, but I sometimes find articles to copyedit or fix up by checking other editors' contributions. ansh666 06:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy, Bob. You apparently went from "many misuse ANI in bad faith" to "using ANI is evidence of bad faith". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• The pattern is not only WP:STALKing (recommend Ansh666 read some of those edits before commenting further), it is that the WP:DISRUPTive pattern of following me around and starting Deletion discussions on articles like Rafik Yousef, a member of Ansar al-Islam who was convicted in a German court of plotting to assassinate a visiting Prime Minister, then paroled after serving time, whereupon he attacked (stabbed) a police officer in Spandau. One other editor supported Parsley during that AFD; an editor with similar views on deleting articles about terrorist attacks who had a similarly aggressive style, but who has either since settled down or, perhaps, merely gone off to HOUND some other editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That AfD was admittedly made based on faulty reasoning; I had completely overlooked those facts. Any other examples? I can explain those too. Parsley Man (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• WhooHoo! One of the annoying things Parsley has done to, well, to annoy me was to turn the ref section of every article I created or did a serious expansion of from multiple columns to a single column. I hate single columns because it is vastly easier to scan the 2- or 3-column reference sections; being forced to scan a 1 column list of references slows editing down and makes it frustrating. Parsley knew that. But I eventually gave up. WIKIHOUNDING is effective; it wears editors out. Which is the point, of course. But just now a kindly IP has gone through several of my old articles, putting in 3 columns of refs. I could hug that IP! It feels like vindication, like being liberated in a small but meaningful way from the burden of a Wikihound who everywhere. Thank you, thank you, IP 95.133.149.157! E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this ANI discussion became more about me than about E.M. Maybe a new discussion should be started, since we're getting off-track. Parsley Man (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• But, enough about me. Parsely, let's talk about you. Why are you still hounding [51] me with trivial edits on pages just because I created them? What was it that you needed to delete on your UserPage? And, it's been ages since you first appeared, editing with an ease and aplomb that I have still not attained, prompting me to ask if you had ever edited under a prior name. Perhaps it's time ask that question again, since you never did give a straightforward yes/no answer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? This feels like a diversion from the ANI I started about you. At least keep the topics relevant and in their proper organization. Also, it's just trivial edits, as you say! Copyedits and fixing. It's not some AfD nomination or outright vandal edit! Is it really the act of simply editing articles you create that falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING, without any indication of vandalism? Because if you think so, please read the definition I put up; it's completely unchanged and taken directly from the main page. And I can't resist the urge to bold the titles in the ledes, since you did not do so. Also, why should I tell you if I edited under a different account before? If you're really that suspicious, go use WP:SPI. Do whatever, but I'm not going to answer that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this and can say only that Parsley Man's decision to nominate 2016 Ramadan attacks for deletion was correct (not wikihounding) as it was based on policy. The article was deleted because it had WP:SYNTH problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to talk about me, why don't you start another ANI discussion? - I have advocated for that change, and gotten almost no support. The current community view is that two quarreling editors' behavior can't be evaluated separately and independently. For now, that's just the way it is if you open an ANI complaint, and it's pointless to demand otherwise for your case. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this feels like a diversion from the main topic at hand. Parsley Man (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it always feels like that to the target individual. Matter of perspective. It's routine on this page for the defendant to try to "turn it around", and that's apparently how the community wants it. So be it. All you can do is try to defend yourself against the accusations. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I really would like a third-party, experienced user or admin to look into these WP:WIKIHOUNDING allegations and respond, because I have looked up its definition and do not see what copy-editing and constructive editing has to do with confronting or inhibiting another's work. And unless the simple act of accessing articles through user's histories and editing them in a safe manner also technically falls under hounding, I don't see any reason why I should lay it off. I'm sorry if E.M. feels backed up and threatened by me (understandable considering our history about certain topics), but I think he's overreacting and should ease up a little. Parsley Man (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I clicked on two of the links provided by E.M. Gregory, James Peddie (author) and Kuruc.info, and it sure seems like Parsley Man followed Gregory there. Whether they did so to harass is hard to tell, but these two minor edits ([52] and [53]) are so minor that I find it easy to believe that they were making a point of some kind--even if only the "you're a lousy writer" point or something like that. Esp. the Peddie edit is off-putting: placing a bare URL tag when there is only one single bare URL? Why not complete that one reference if one really wants to improve the article? No, Parsley Man, this does not look good--and I say this as someone who has come down hard enough on E.M. Gregory. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That honestly wasn't what I was trying to come across, and regarding that one bare URL, I was too lazy to fill it in. I do it with any other article with just one or even a few bare URLs whenever I go around randomly editing Wikipedia articles. Parsley Man (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of what I'm talking about. ([54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]) Parsley Man (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't know what Parsley Man was talking about here either, so I clicked the 2nd link on his list. It leads to 2007 Basilan beheading incident that has hardly been edited in a decade; the fate of the kidnapped priest was left unclear. I googled, and added a sentence + a source [62]. Parsley followed me there [63].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what "what I'm talking about" has for an antecedent, but the odds of you randomly running into those articles right after E.M. Gregory, they're real slim. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That diff list was a follow-up to the comment above since I forgot to clarify on it. And only one, maybe two of those diffs were of articles also edited by E.M. But I can find more diffs of other similarly treated articles that weren't edited by E.M. if you're not convinced. Parsley Man (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. You're not going to convince me. I have thousands of edits in common with other editors. Here is me and Mandarax. Of those 4378 overlaps, the ones where one of mine follows one of his, it's on purpose. The odds are against you, and what would be a good thing for you to say is something like "hey I'll take better care and avoid the appearance of following E.M. Gregory". Drmies (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're not convinced that I put up bare URL tags for articles with only one or a few bare URLs that aren't even edited by E.M.? Wha? Did you look at the other diffs? Parsley Man (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• No, you got misled by your own ambiguous grammar. I don't care for your diffs where you make edits; I am not convinced that it's just a coincidence, that you're either not following E.M. Gregory at all, or that you are following them only for the good of the project. More below. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. Sure, you're making relatively normal edits when you do it, but it does seem clear you are following E.M.'s edits, not merely coincidentally interested in the same topics. Is there a reason why you are doing this? --Mellsworthy (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Because I just want to? Is it really that wrong to do so? I have actually done the same thing to a few other users, both signed in and IPs. All normal edits. Parsley Man (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ParsleyMan continues to follow me closely and to make near-daily edits like this [64] edit on an article I created this morning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• ParsleyMan, no, not normal edits. Yeah, normal edits, but in this context not normal. I am baffled that, while you are being charged with hounding, you continue to follow this editor around. So here's the thing: if you do it again, I will block you (or one of my colleagues will, maybe), for a short time, and the next time for longer. What "it" means in "do it again", that's a matter of judgment, and the best thing you can do for yourself is NOT give any appearance that you are following this editor around. In other words, stay away from them and from articles that they are editing and that you wouldn't have come to unless they etc. etc. I'm not going to spell it out; you just need to avoid every appearance of hounding. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What?! Taken straight from WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Please tell me how exactly my actions have been confrontational or inhibiting when I have not made a single attempt at outright disrupting E.M.'s work on articles. In fact, tell me what Wikipedia considers confrontational or inhibiting (and give me specifics), because apparently we're reading two different versions of the same book. Parsley Man (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello? I would very much like an answer... Parsley Man (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Please answer me... Parsley Man (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please... Parsley Man (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Can other admins please weigh in? I don't know what to think of this anymore... Parsley Man (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone there? Parsley Man (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll try weigh-in, cautiously in this case. Parsley Man, your edits are generally perfectly fine, the problem isn't your edits, it's the appearance of following the editor around. Wikihounding doesn't solely refer to following the editor around with the intent of inhibiting their work. It also refers to this; "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." The fact is, E.M. Gregory is feeling distressed even though you're not attacking them. The key issue here is this; "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". E.M Gregory has expressed their dislike of you following them around, even for these minor edits, and because of this, it's best that you stop going to articles that they are editing. It's not that your edits are wrong, or that you are trying to disrupt, it's an issue of personal discomfort that E.M. Gregory has expressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Then how in the world am I going to edit anything? My topic preference is pretty much the same as his (mass murders and terrorism), and chances are we will overlap on more than a couple of articles. And I would feel extremely tempted to pitch in if the incident is a current event. Parsley Man (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple; current events are for anyone to edit, just don't interact directly with E.M Gregory when and if you do work on them. I highly recommend you self impose a one-way IBAN with E.M Gregory to avoid conflict here for the time being. Any other articles that you do overlap with him on, don't change his work (regardless of whether it is correct or not, wait for another good faith editor to come across it if necessary) and avoid following him directly to any article. If anything, start hounding his contribs log and avoid going to those articles where you may draw attention to yourself and the ire of any admin or E.M Gregory. (Don't actually do that, just carry on with editing article's you're interested in and leave E.M. Gregory and his edits alone.) Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

And how exactly do I do this IBAN? Parsley Man (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not an actual physical or electronic thing, it's like a topic ban except instead of not editing on a certain topic, it means not editing and interacting with a certain person. Interaction Bans (IBANs) like Topic Bans (TBANs) are down to you to follow, in this case, like I suggested, if you seen a comment by E.M. Gregory, don't respond to it (except for here) and if you see an edit by them, don't revert it, modify it, or make an edit that affects it. This doesn't prevent you from editing any page or talk page, just editing that is connected to the other editor. If E.M Gregory posts a comment about you or directed to you, you are certainly allowed to respond to it, just avoid unnecessary contact with them. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I quit. I call for an immediate closure to this whole ANI discussion. Everything's pretty much talked out and simmered down now, and this has gone on for far too long. I also promise that I won't continue to "hound" E.M. ever again. I'm still unconvinced that my actions qualified as hounding and will continue to assure that they were done with the best and most honest intentions (in that case I would preferably call for a reevaluation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING's definition, because I am apparently and somehow missing something), but if not one but two admins pretty much clarified things for me, I guess I have to cease all contact with him now. I'm totally defeated. Parsley Man (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Parsley Man, I don't know how I did not make myself clear. Avoid the impression that you are hounding him. It's really not difficult. And I do apologize for not being on ANI 24/7. As for the definition of hounding, it appears that E.M. Gregory suffered "irritation, annoyance or distress" as a result of you being so damn hot on their trail in all these esoteric articles that were not about terrorism or mass murders or whatever, and that's enough for me. In fact, I myself am suffering "irritation, annoyance or distress" because a. E.M. Gregory makes a convincing case and b. I have to look into it out of some stupid sense of duty and c. you're not responding to the evidence, only clamoring that you don't know what's going on, and d. now I have to be here again to say the same thing twice. So here it is again: if you find yourself butterflying around articles on Wikipedia, make sure to check that this other little butterfly didn't just land on the same damn flower that you are eyeballing. That is all, for now. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so rude. Parsley Man (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You can get all cute about this, but you fail to see a few basic things here: a. I was clear. b. You were wikihounding. c. You were rude in clamoring for an explanation where none was necessary. It is not rude for me to point out how you were wrong, and the very fact that I have no soft feelings for your opponent whatsoever, added to the fact that I scolded them when they were unacceptably rude to you, should make you realize that I'm not just joking around here, and that I am as neutral as can be. I am positively itching to find a reason to block E.M. Gregory, but there isn't one here, and they have done remarkably well with your hot breath on their neck. Now leave them alone. I don't care what you think about me: my job here is to enable editors to edit. In this case, that means I am protecting the other editor, no matter how much you want to argue that it was all just a coincidence. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

SPA and likely sock puppet Toto11zi

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

---

Toto11zi is a single-purpose created October 2015, with the overwhelming majority of their editing activity occurring since May of this year. Almost all of their editing has been related to China's territorial dispute with the Philippines, and almost all of it tending to make articles more pro-Chinese, including adding links to official Chinese government propaganda outlets that treats them as reliable sources. I've tried alerting other editors to Toto11zi's status as a WP:SPA with the template from that page, and they have deleted the tag based on an apparent misunderstanding of what it means (including the fact that single-purpose accounts are not in themselves prohibited, but are merely a sign of a potential conflict of interest). Toto11zi has also ignored other editors' warnings not to re-add disputed information without establishing a consensus. Based on this, and documented problems Wikipedia has had with paid socks, it seems likely Toto11zi is a Chinese government sock and should be blocked. See in particular their contributions to Philippines v. China, the talk page for that article, and their own talk page. Recent problem edits (though there are many): Special:Diff/731368349, Special:Diff/731353692 --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the [[65]], this Chris Hallquist has just been become active from a dormant account which was created many years ago and done dramatic changes to the page only for the specific purpose of removing all the information from China's web sites without collaboration with other editors, at least 2 editors don't agree with his action and explanation. The information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time, and editors don't have an issue with Xinhua. This Chris, not only removed information from Xinhua, also removed all the information from list of following sites, I would consider that's irresponsible way of making edits. Here's what he has deleted:

Information from China's foreign minister web site "fmprc.gov.cn"

Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com

Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn

Information from shanghaidaily.com

Information from www.globaltimes.cn

Information from epaper.southcn.com

Information from english.chinamil.com.cn

Information from www.chinaembassy.cz

Infomration from www.reuters.com which relates to information from China's foreign minister

Information from zm.chineseembassy.org

Information from english.cri.cn

Information from sputniknews.com

WP:PUS says all mainstream can media can make mistakes. Specific examples to treat carefully include Xinhua, here you cannot conclude the statement "Xinhua is not reliable". WP:PUS does list sources which are not reliable and should not be included in section "Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, but aren't", also in section "Scholarly journals". Again, this Chris cannot just remove information with a blunt reason like "it's from Xinhua, or it's from China." We should check each source and scrutinize each statement instead. His accusation is delusional. I suspect this Chris is a sock puppet of another account since he seems quite familiar with Wikipedia features, he only did 2 edits on other topics for the last 3 years and made sudden changes only for this purpose, he did not contribute to this page or discuss with any editors before his dramatic changes, he's not a major editor of the page (see Hariboneagle927's comment) Toto11zi (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond in greater detail later, but just to prove I'm real: https://topherhallquist.wordpress.com/about-me/. Also, Toto11zi seems to continue to not understand the distinction between sock-puppetry (absolutely forbidden) and being an SPA (which I may have qualified for by accident—it's true I rarely edit Wikipedia, and got heavily involved in the China v. Philippines article because I went looking for information on the subject and was horrified to see the Wikipedia page read like a Chinese propaganda site) --Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclinded to side with Chris here, seeing as Chinese media has a known bias.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen Chris contribute to the talk page for Philippines v. China (look at the edit histories) so the claim that he/she edits "without collaboration with other editors" is not true. Your logic that information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time" justifies that it should remain is flawed. If this is the case, then info, even though it is clearly vandalized should remain on the page just because it has been there for a while. Also, the claim that Chris is a sockpuppet of another account just because he/she knows how to edit Wikipedia is flawed. Some editors started as IP editors and then eventually created an account. From Chris's edit history, he/she mostly comments on the talk page which is fairly simple. It is not like editing a template. The claim that "he seems quite familiar with Wikipedia features" as mentioned by Toto11zi is kinda wrong. I also find it wrong to accuse an editor of being delusional. That is a personal attack and could lead to a ban. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry before accusing each other of it. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're telling an obvious lie. I didn't say he's delusional, I said "His accusation is delusional". Your activity started on 11 July, his activity only started on 12 July. Toto11zi (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay:

• The Chinese foreign minister is obviously a government source.
• The China Daily is state-run.
• southcn.com appears to be associated with the Nanfang Media Group, which is Chinese Communist Party-controlled.
• english.chinamil.com.cn is a production of the People's Liberation Army.
• The Chinese Embassy is obviously a government source.
• The issue with the Reuters cite is that Reuters reported "China's foreign minister said X", but a pro-Chinese editor cited this as evidence X is true.
• english.cri.cn is the website for China Radio International, a state broadcasting corporation.
• Sputnik News is a Russian government propaganda outlet. I'm actually fine with it being cited as evidence of Russia's position, but if you look at the contribution log, it was being used to make claims about India's position, and the Indian government has rejected claims it supports China's position in this case (as is amply documented on the article's talk page).

Everything I've just said is documented in my edit summaries, with much of it having already been hashed out in the article's talk page. But Toto11zi chose to ignore all that and re-add disputed claims without building consensus. If you look at the article's talk page, and Toto11zi's talk page, I think you'll see that I and other editors doing their best to assume good faith, but at this point I think they fail the duck test. At best, they seem incurrably confused about Wikipedia policies. And Ssbbplayer, I spent a fair amount of time reading Wikipedia Policy pages before posting this notice—though it's possible there's a better way to handle something like this. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you also list your edit comments you put with your edits? Again this page is not a good place to discuss whether what should be included or not included on a Wikipedia page, and we're still discussing on the other page. In general, in this particular scenario, we're trying to find out what countries supported China in the tribunal case, so information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China [[66]] web site is a good source of information for the relevant topic found in this Wikipedia page [67]]. Obviously you deleted more than you said. Toto11zi (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is that it will twist the facts to support China. How is it a good source of information for the relevant topic. As well, you unilaterally added 70 countries without consensus on the talk page (there were objections to this) just recently on July 24, mostly with Chinese sources to give the false impression that many countries support China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssbbplayer, you lied again, that revert was done by another editor, not me. At least 6 editors including that editor don't agree with you team of 3:

Chris Hallquist (talk · contribs) started activity from a dormant account on 11 July,

Ssbbplayer (talk · contribs) started activity on 12 July.

Collagium (talk · contribs) started activity on 14 July from a new account.

I agree. Toto11zi has been been a case of WP:DISRUPT. The edits against the consensus, refusal to follow guidelines like WP:PUS and pushing Chinese Media as source of edits despite having reliable sources needs to be stopped especially when the matter is already being debated in the talk page. Collagium (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Collagium, you lied, WP:PUS is an essay, it's not Wikipedia guidelines. Toto11zi (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"This page is not a good place to discuss whether what should be included or not included on a Wikipedia page"—unfortunately, I didn't have much choice, as you were accusing me of "irresponsible editing" and sock puppetry. I was merely providing evidence to the contrary—by repeating what I had already said elsewhere. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I have observed, this is just a hate campaign directed to an opponent in content disputes. I would advise user Chris Hallquist just leave it and go back to the discussion on how to improve the article. That's how Wikipedia works. STSC (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we should put this on hold. There is not enough evidence that sockpuppetry is being used so far. I did realized that this topic is straying from the original intent. I recommend closing this case. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

One thing I should note: I posted this as a case of suspected sock-puppetry because I was under the impression that Wikipedia policy treats paid advocacy as equivalent to sock-puppetry. Then I couldn't find support for that on policy pages. But now I'm pretty sure I got that impression from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, which though it's a history of the issue rather than a policy, guideline, or essay, nevertheless says, "In 2012 Wikipedia launched one of its largest sock puppets investigations, when editors reported suspicious activity suggesting 250 accounts had been used to engage in paid editing", which seems to imply undisclosed paid advocacy is sock puppetry. Clarification on whether that impression is correct would be appreciated. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The relevant document is WP:COI. In short, paid editors are expected to disclose their financial relationship with the subject. They are also "strongly urged" not to directly edit articles relevant to their client or employer; doing the latter is not considered a per se disruptive behaviour--that is, you can't really be sanctioned for it so long as your conduct is not otherwise problematic--but it is about the quickest way to arose the suspicions of just about every other legitimate editor involved and incline them to much higher scrutiny of the changes. However, editing without disclosing a paid relationship absolutely is proscribed by policy. It's not socking, which is a term for a very specific kind of behaviour, but it is considered disruptive and usually is met with the same kinds of sanctions, by and large.

However, the problem you have if your only charge is COI is that it will be incredibly difficult to prove based on your suspicions alone. The changes can and should come under increased scrutiny if we have significant suspicions, but there's very little point to seeking a sanction against an editor just because they "seem to be working for X", unless their behaviour in some way violates policy. If in fact they are shown to be a sock of someone whose COI in this area is established, obviously then an indef would be fairly certain. But no, a suspicion of a non-neutral position, or even a suspicion of COI is not on its own equivalent to socking. Even the implication of the two behaviours are not equivalent, since we can somewhat reliable test for one with our technical tools while the other is very likely to rest entirely on speculation--again, unless there is some compelling evidence beyond the bias (be it either just pereceived or real; people can be biased without having a financial COI, afterall).

So while I think we can all WP:AGF with regard to your intentions here, it really isn't appropriate to call this user a "sock" unless you have reason to believe they are abusing multiple accounts. So you probably want to re-read the above documents and be are surer footing with the terminology, especially when bringing accusation of disruption to ANI. Though, looking at some of the talk spaces involved here, I can't say as i disagree with your decision to bringing community attention to the matter in general. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

IP 50.35.84.247 may belong to Toto11zi also. @sysop: check the both sides, if anyone uses puppets, ban. Alphama (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Check both sides and ban those who are sock puppets. Also, I strongly encourage Admins to read this Talk Page [68]. Collagium (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Seconding Collagium's recommendation that admins read the talk page. Since I posted the original notice, there's been a huge amount of further disruptive behavior by Toto11zi on the talk page, particularly personal attacks and numerous refusals to recognize various Wikipedia policies after other editors have explained those policies to them. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that IP 50.35.84.247 is more similar to User:ExGuardianNinja with these examples [69], [70] and [71], and [72] where both of them accuse editors who object to Chinese sources of pushing the pro–American view (in different variants) and seem to edit their own comments (normally you cannot edit other user's comments). I suspect that User:Mmmvidyahoo is connected to Toto11zi since in this edit, he/she does an ad hominem attack to Chris on questioning the editor itself, similar to how Toto11zi considers him a liar ([73]), and one that lacks authority ([74]). This user also recently edited the talk page of Philippines v China today and the Philippines v China article on July 26 and it is surprising that he/she knew about Chris recently when I looked at the user's editing history. I know that Toto11zi knows Chris's actions the most due to the extensive conversation between both of them in the talk page. However, it needs to be checked if these claimed accounts are linked to User:Toto11zi before a conclusion can be drawn due to a similar editing behavior. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know if this would come up in a sock-puppet investigation, but I may as well disclose up-front that I've made some inadvertent logged-out edits, which I've tried to fix when possible (for example). Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would not but if you use both your username and that IP address in an attempt to think that there are more supporters on one side of an issue (e.g User x posted comment y and then an IP linked to User X posted comment z where comment y and z are different ones), that would be sockpuppetry in that one is trying to create an illusion of support. I think so but I am not sure if this is correct. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Addition To the analysis done by @Ssbbplayer I would like to add a non-technical observation. I don't know if User:Mmmvidyahoo, Toto11zi, 50.35.84.247 and ExGuardianNinja are socks of each other but I noted that they all have similar writing styles, points they make are similar and in the talk page they are the only ones with a distinct style of Very Very Long Titles for sections eg:

'Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus' By Toto11zi

'71 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. published with official links on http://thediplomat.com' By User:Mmmvidyahoo

'Huge Deletion of Nations that are Against the Attribution/Support for China List seems to have a hidden agenda.' By ExGuardianNinja.

This is not to even mention use of harsh language against other editors, disregarding consensus by declaring self as 'Major Editor' and accusing them of 'western conspiracy', 'lying' and other lovely words by Toto11zi. Collagium (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Request unblock of User:Martinevans123

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

---

Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor with nearly 90,000 edits and a strong track record in working with BLPs. Coupled with his enjoyable sense of humour and ability to walk away from drama, this led me to nominate him for Editor of the Week some time back. You can therefore imagine my shock when I pinged Martin yesterday to ask for help to get an article through a Good Article review only to receive an email saying he can't because he's been blocked.

The block was placed by Mike V for "sockpuppetry" [75] with a vague explanation of "block evasion, editing while logged out to mislead, creating an illusion of support, and avoiding scrutiny" - which could mean anything. As Martin was not blocked, it is impossible for him to evade anything. No diffs were supplied, no indication of what behaviour led to the block was listed and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinevans123 is a redlink. I see a vague reference to a previous block by Boing! said Zebedee in 2011 (which he later withdrew) - I don't know what that's about, but frankly I don't care. Don't remind others of past misdeeds.

In my opinion, is it completely unacceptable for checkusers to block long-standing content creators without a shred of evidence because they "feel like it" and I want to see Martin unblocked. I don't think it'll come as a surprise that I would unblock him right now and I'm only not because some busybody would haul me off to Arbcom for a desysopping, not because I think the block is justified, and my motivation for the unblock is so we can get an article improved.

I see that Martin is prepared to sit the block out, presumably at which point it'll be "business as usual", but IMHO this is the one of the more punitive and abusive blocks I have seen and I want a wider discussion of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything less from Mike V. He always was a terrible administrator. Cassianto^Talk 10:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks??? Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• The earlier block, back in 2011, was not by me, it was by User:Tnxman307 (who is now retired and has not edited since 2012). I have no recollection of it, but it appears I unblocked after accepting Martinevans123's explanation that his misuse of multiple accounts on that occasion had been an inadvertent breach of policy. The unblock request is at User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 5#Unblock request. I know nothing of the current block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional: The current block message and response is here, just before it was removed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• You'll find some recent accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martinevans123. I suspect the main complaint was the logged-out editing, but no checkuser will confirm the IPs used - it'll need review from other checkusers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the community is entitled to view the SPI or the CU request (with evidence) that provoked this. Viewing his TP history [76], Martin did not receive any notification of an SPI or suspected sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

CU results linking a user to an IP (which is what appears to be one of the claims behind this block) are never published. There is also no requirement for an SPI or for advance notification. (I'm not offering any opinion on those, just pointing out the way it is.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of a filing at SPI is not mandatory. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge performing an unrequested CU is not allowed, however, so I'd like to see the request that was made to perform this CU -- or have the request at least be shown to another admin (say, ArbCom member) confidentially. Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware that performing an unrequested CU is not allowed - can you find any policy that says so? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It is allowed with the proviso being that there must be grounds for checking that are provided on request. (See further down where it says "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run.") This is obviously for Softlavender's benefit not yours Boing!. Since MikeV has never been hesitant about explaining his reasons for running a checkuser before, I dont expect him to be now, so I suggest people hold off until he responds. But in short: no a SPI is not required for checkuser use, no a request in any form is not required, all that is required is a good faith reason (by the checkuser) to suspect abusive sockpuppetry. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see some diffs that show actual abuse ie: making a net negative contribution to the encyclopedia. Indeed, one might say that since the only effect of looking at that sockpuppet category was to make me laugh, that it brightened my day a bit - and that's a good thing. Who really cares if people make edits logged out (whether or not by accident) or set up joke accounts? It doesn't actually prevent the encyclopedia getting written, does it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Since none of the handful of registered accounts was used abusively, I gather it must have been IP editing, and since the CheckUser is probably not going to reveal that because of privacy concerns (although heck we all know where Martin lives), the evidence is probably not going to be publicized; in fact, it may end up being only available to ArbCom and possibly other CheckUsers. That said, the accusation of "block evasion" seems patently absurd/impossible and in my opinion needs to be removed or struck from the block notice. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"There is no policy against editing while logged out per se",- and we know the rest. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I once chose to edit logged out. After a week or two, I was persuaded by an admin to resume logged-in editing, just for appearances sake. They certainly didn't block me for it, and the response from other editors who were aware of the situation was a distinct "meh"—except for one who insisted that I must be up to something nefarious and demanded that I confess my true identity forthwith. (I did so, unaware that the policy specifically says I didn't have to, thereby connecting that IP address to my username, but my IP address has changed since then.) I'm interested to see what Mike V says about this, but he shouldn't be issuing blocks of this type without a more thorough understanding of the applicable policy.
I also have some exposure to Martinevans123, and I've found him to be a good-faith, reasonable, and trustworthy editor. The jury seems to be still out on some of this, but, unless Mike V can justify his action, Martinevans123 is due not only an immediate unblock, but an apology in this thread and a barnstar for his grace in accepting an unjust block. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I see that the accounts Muriel Nobbins (talk · contribs) and Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) edited the same article on the same day, here (though apparently not abusively), with the former apparently pretending to be a new user at User talk:Muriel Nobbins. That's the only overlap I can find. (I offer no comment on whether that should be disallowed.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the comments presented above, I can only concur that this block was punitive and unjustified. As soon as an official discussion commences, I will support his unblock. Zero^talk 09:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

He accepted his block, saying "See you in a month, then".[77] Not one edit since July 7. The "content creator" thing is sort of a red flag. A divisive approach. Much ado about nothing. Doc talk 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this block and wasn't clear about the circumstances. For the sake of clarity, can someone expand on this? At the moment is is something of a guessing game, as it came out of the blue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123 is perfectly capable of posting an unblock request on his own talk page, as his talk page access appears to be fully enabled. Doc talk 10:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

True, but the fact that he didn't doesn't mean he deserved the block. The issue is here now and under discussion per IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Righting a political wrong. I get it. Carry on... Doc talk 10:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't requested an unblock because that is up to Martin. If the block is related to the Muriel Nobbins (talk · contribs) incident, it would have been helpful to make this clear at the time of the block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would Martin want to allow the blocking admin to have his jollies by publicly grovelling for an unblock? Some of us are wise enough to deny these block-happy people from having their kicks whilst at the same time, having a break away to enjoy and concentrate on more important things. We need Martin more than he needs us. Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's no point in continuing the speculation, and it's now the weekend. We need to wait for Mike V to chime in. If he doesn't within 48 hours, enact WP:ADMINACCT and ask Arbcom to review the block. Anyone prematurey unblocking will get their fingers burned in a wheelwar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wheelwarring would apply to the third action, not the unblocking/reversal. Admins unblocking a checkuser block without consulting a checkuser or arbcom risk summararily being desysopped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Folks, can I suggest that as we do not know what led to this block, none of us in in a position to judge whether it was a good or a bad one? From my position of ignorance, I certainly don't consider myself sufficiently informed to offer a judgment, and I don't see how anybody else can be either. So, how about we give User:Mike V (who is probably on a different time zone judging by his posting record) a chance to respond rather than all going off half-cocked? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  But of course. I'm personally far less than half cocked, whatever that means, unless it's some reference to the size of my sexual apparatus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Mandruss, I believe half-cocked is referring to the cocking of a gun. It means going off before you have all available information, as I recall. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  Ah, thank you. I totally agree that this should be suspended pending Mike V's response. Hell, collapse it temporarily if that will help. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, Wiktionary to the rescue! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So this was locked down before Mike V could come and explain his blocking? Why? Does that mean he can give out what looks like a bad block without being accountable? Talk about a lack of transparency. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lugnuts. As WP:CHECKUSER states, "The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run." This thread was a legitimate questioning of the CU, the block, the length of the block, and the claim that Martinevans123 had engaged in "block evasion". This thread, which was filed by an admin, in good faith, and was indeed serving a useful purpose, needs to be re-opened so that we may hear from the blocking admin. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think Mike V deserves a right of reply before we close this, unless we move discussion to his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I was about to post a response of disagreement, I was under the impression that this was closed till MikeV had a chance to respond, I see now that it was closed to prevent discussion without a CU or arb endorsement. I think this thread was indeed opened to challenge a block, therefore, as SoftLavender points out, the onus is on the CU to explain their action. Closing this thread serves the purpose of allowing the complaint to be dismissed, that, I think, is not an acceptable response. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And never mind all that, the close was more than a little capricious considering that at least two admins participated in the discussion without saying anything about it being prima facie inappropriate. I'm re-opening on that basis and the above unanimous agreement. As I said above, I wouldn't see anything wrong with a temporary collapse, which is a different animal from a close. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: MikeV recently gave me a cry-uncle-or-suffer-my-wrath block (immediately overturned, I might add). I too have never been able to understand what this block was about; the community deserves some explanation. That ME123 doesn't wish to demean himself with the customary unblock-request groveling means nothing except that he has some self-respect. EEng 12:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all. A check was initially performed because I noticed that there was some disruption occurring from some IP addresses. (Disruptive editing and block evasion) The check revealed that these contributions belonged to Martinevans123. I then checked Martinevans123's account and found that there were further issues, including logging out to make disruptive comments and contributing to the same discussion (!vote stacking). The edits would connect IP addresses to accounts and I cannot provide that information to the community as per the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, which requires me to follow the access to nonpublic information policy. Mike V • Talk 17:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a very strong accusation to make at such a longstanding editor, and I am not letting you make those accusations without a shred of evidence. Meanwhile I've got an email from Martin (which I can't go into in depth as I don't leak confidential emails) who flat out denies some (but not all) accounts on that list are anything to do with him. Do you want Arbcom to check this out, because frankly I don't believe a word of what you say. And even if it were true, did you need to block such a prolific editor for a month? Will you be addressing Keith Emerson's GA review? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I think you pinged me, and I'm slowly working my way down. I know Martinevans, and his terrible sense of humor (my talk page is full of it, and I think him for it), and that he is a way more than just positive contribur; I also know Mike V, and while I personally like Mike D just a tad better, Mike V doesn't really pull shit like this without a really, really good reason. I'm just pausing here with this gratuitous remark to say that you can't fault him for not revealing privacy-sensitive information if you can't counter them because it's privacy-sensitive information. Let's all just cool down, realize that the world is not on fire (at least not this world), and figure it out. If ArbCom needs to get involved, I'm sure they're watching. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can I suggest that at this juncture, Mike V has told us all he is (presumably) willing and able to tell us; so it is purely procedural that his case should be heard by his peers. There is no alternative to ArbCom now, if only because, without their justifying his judgement there could always be a cloud over it. So it is clearly in his own interests to present his case and reignite the community's faith in him. After all, there he can go into the details the community is forbade. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It would be very good to have other CUs and Arbcom evaluate this. GAB^gab 20:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 (talk · contribs), Ponyo (talk · contribs), DoRD (talk · contribs) and Materialscientist (talk · contribs) to ask if they might be interested in reviewing this. GAB^gab 21:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to ping Drmies and Opabinia regalis, who have checkuser rights but also know how to write articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Only because I was pinged am I commenting at all. I will not review Mike V's block as I see no basis for doing so. If someone wants to get Arbcom involved, that's their privilege, but it would be better and more usual for it come from the blocked editor. Finally, some of the attacks against Mike V are absolutely uncalled for.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• With the caveat that I haven't looked into the actual block at all:
  • Yes, arbcom is a good place to review this, and yes, ideally the request would come from Martin himself, if only to be sure we're all on the same page regarding which particular claims he disputes. Since we're already three weeks in on a one-month block, there's a real chance that nothing would happen till it expires anyway, though of course that wouldn't preclude review.
  • If arbcom accepts an appeal, that isn't "a cloud" over the original block, and shouldn't be interpreted as saying it was wrong or illegitimate or bad judgment or whatever. Sometimes it's because there's new information, sometimes it's just different people coming to different conclusions about the same data.
  • Ritchie333, I appreciate your robust defense of productive editors. But Bbb23 is right, the rhetoric in this thread (not just yours) is over the top. In particular, the OP says "without a shred of evidence" when I take it you mean "without public evidence". Although it can be frustrating to onlookers, that's a feature, not a bug :) If Martin wants to appeal then we can discuss the evidence in detail in private. Remember, nothing good ever happens at ANI! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mike V, I accept you had good reason to perform the CU and the block. However, since Martinevans123 had not previously been blocked since 2011, there was no current "block evasion", so can you please remove that claim from the block notice, unless you found block evasion between 17 August 2011 and 19 November 2011? Ritchie333, there's no need to go into a PA tizz every time an article review is disrupted by a block. There are plenty of people who can assist with a review, and also, even though there are timeframes for GA reviews, there is no rush on Wikipedia. As others have stated, you are welcome to take this to RFAR if you so choose. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• If Martinevans got one of his IPs blocked, and continued to edit from another, that is block evasion. People have to stop expecting complete transparency here - for MikeV to actually provide enough transparency to prove his actions were valid, he would have to compromise Martin's privacy. That is why there are options available for Martin to have his block reviewed in private, if he so chooses. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not ask for "complete transparency". I asked for some sort of confirmation that there was actual block evasion. If it was a scenario such as you described, or the scenario I described, or some other, I would like to hear a confirmation and/or non-privacy-breaching explanation from Mike V rather than speculations from other people. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Any confirmation regarding the exact sequence of events only makes it easier for people to trawl edit and block histories to figure out which IPs belonged to Martin. You should start expecting nothing at all. If you want a checkuser's actions reviewed, you have to ask arbcom. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What an absolute shitshow of cluelessness. You can't teach people to "have a clue". Seriously. Doc talk 06:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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

---

User Qed237 (talk · contribs) many times canceled my edits at 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round.

Website UEFA made a mistake. In fact Budnik scored goal. But the report is misspelled. I corrected this mistake. I specified information from the official website Dinamo, independent sources [78][79], wrote a link to the video. The above video is completely proves my point (It can be seen that the number 9 scored goal; Eugene Budnik has number 9). But Qed237 does not agree with my arguments.Roman Minsk (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? The editor want to impose a change against the current matchreport, which is the official matchreport from UEFA (the governing body of the tournament). This is what effect all official stats for the tournament and is a WP:RS. All I did was to tell the editor to go to the article talkpage to find consensus per WP:BRD as the article is currently correct according to its official sources so changes should be discussed first. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I brought proof that your official source has a mistake. You refer to the website of UEFA. You have no more evidence. What did you want to discuss? And you 4 times canceled my edits (3RR). Roman Minsk (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The article talk page is a red link. Why didn't you take it to the talk page as you were told to do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, other than the 3RR, of which both of them are guilty of. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reported them both for edit warring over at WP:AN3. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid wait, you're counting their first edit to the article as a revert? Although I agree with the rest of it since there's been zero attempt at dispute resolution. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mr rnddude, not anymore. That was a mistake on my part, and I've removed it from the report on AN3. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, they were both edit-warring for their preferred versions, no attempt at dispute resolution, I do note that Qed237 requested that the discussion be taken to the talk page, something they could have done themselves and then pinged Roman Minsk of the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, whether they mentioned that or not, they still violated 3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I brought all their arguments on the user's talkpage. But he did not hear me. He repeats that UEFA are tournament organizers and their report are the official report. Discussion on the article talk page would not bring results. I canceled only 2 of his edits. I did it for displaying the correct data in the article. What is my fault? Roman Minsk (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Minsk: WP:3RR doesn't just apply when you hit "undo". It applies whenever you've undone another editor's actions. As the rule says, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: You talk about this edit 23:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)? Roman Minsk (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Roman Minsk, I'm talking about that one. However, remember that I'm not an administrator and do not have final say in the decision. If you and Qed237 are blocked (which, if it happens, will likely be just for 24 hours), both of you will be able to appeal to be unblocked. Also, I'm currently adding a comment to both reports mentioning the talk on his talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have fulfilled the requirement of Qed237 (And you have a source for that? 23:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)). I wrote the reliable sources. This can not be regarded as an attempt to cancel the edit. Roman Minsk (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Even though you provided a source (which may or may not be WP:RS—I haven't checked), you both still edit-warred, and you still fully reverted someone else's edit. It's up to an uninvolved admin (I'm not uninvolved, nor am I an admin) to decide what to do now. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Roman Minsk: Do you want blocks for both of you or do you want to start discussing on the article's talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: As I said repeatedly both at my talkpage and in the edit summary (the other editor refused to listen), this is something that should be discussed at the article talkpage and not my talkpage to get input from more editors. Per WP:BRD he should open that discussion instead of constantly trying to insert his material as he is he editor who wants to introduce a change against the official matchreport. I am all for a discussion in the correct place. Qed237 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 this is something you could have started yourself, you could of opened the article talk page posted a comment and pinged Roman Minsk to alert him of your starting the discussion. I recognize that you mentioned that a discussion needed to be held on the article talk page in your edit summaries and on your talk page, but, this in no way precluded you from starting it. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a daft dispute. The video clearly shows No.9, Budnik, scoring the goal (it's No.7, Bykov, who actually provides the assist), and the UEFA page is therefore incorrect. I suspect a number of other sources have taken their information from the UEFA page. But there are also a number of very reliable sources showing the correct goalscorer - Sporting Life Sky Sports and more importantly Dinamo's own website - I suspect they're probably reliable as to which of their own players scored. I'd say that's enough to change the information. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there any circumstance in soccer where the guy who physically kicked the ball into the goal would not be credited with the goal, but rather someone else would? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • One, when it bounces of the goal keeper and is in that case an own goal, that's the only situation I can think of. In all cases, whoever touched the ball last, is considered to have scored the goal. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm confused about that too -- in the video, one guy made the long kick, and then the other guy deflected it into the goal. So who actually "scored" the goal? Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The goal is scored by the last attacking player to touch the ball (in this case the #9). If a defender/goalkeeper touches the ball last, but it is considered that the ball would have entered the goal even without their intervention, the goal is credited to the attacking player (like this case where the goalkeeper gets a small touch on the already goalbound shot). Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
        • If the stats folks for the league have something that appears to be clearly wrong, someone in-the-know should contact the league and ask about it. And I concur that all of this should be moved to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gestrid: Do not report people at WP:ANEW unless you have first done all of the following: (1) opened a discussion on the talk page of the affected article, (2) Given them a user-talkpage warning of edit-warring (3) observed that they continued reverting after that user-talkpage warning. Also, do not report anyone at WP:ANEW when there is an ongoing discussion about them on ANI or AN. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well... I would agree with not adding ANEW reports if an ANI report is open, and that the ANEW reports in this case were not needed, but the first three points preclude uninvolved editors reporting habitual edit warriors who should know better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of them are habitual edit warriors, and in addition Gestrid needs to know not to jump from warning to reporting without any intervening reverts by the editor. In addition, Roman Minsk has only made less than 70 edits on Wikipedia articles, and apparently does not know that the place to discuss differences of opinion is on the article talk page, not a user's talk page. Someone needed to help him out and open the discussion for him, which Kinetic37 just did. Can we close this thread now? As everyone has acknowledged, it's just a content dispute, and the filer didn't know how to correctly resolve it. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has very sensibly opened a talk page discussion. Can we please continue the discussion there and use some common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki vj20 and the Mehdi Hasan article

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

---

Intermittently for some time User:Wiki vj20 has inserted third-party claims from twitter that the journalist Mehdi Hasan is of Pakistani descent. Hasan has written and tweeted that he is of Indian heritage, but this is insufficient for this user. Wiki vj20 has repeated refused to take Hasan's comments in good faith, on the article's talk page and in the edit summaries, coming up with original research to dispute Hasan. Please look into this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have started in December of last year. His first edits there didn't change his ethnicity but placed a tag? stating that is was self-claimed. Which, in all honestly, the fuck? who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another. I count a total of eight edit, mostly disruptive for this period, it's a slow burning and long running edit-war as far as I can tell. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Dolezal. EEng 17:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody explain, why this is not considered "self serving". As per WP:BLPSELFPUB #1 self-publishing is (only) allowed if "it is not unduly self-serving;"? The claim on ethnicity is a key credibility criterion on which basis Mehdi Hasan's work as a journalist are predicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki vj20 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EEng To spell out for Mr rnddude " who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another." one such example is Rachel Dolezal. There is no independent source to establish his Indian ethnicity, it can be changed to "unknown" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki vj20 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I took a look at the article and found that the claim that Hasan is of Indian descent is backed up by an article that Hasan has written, where he self-identifies as being of Indian origin, and says that both of his parents were born in India. So from what I can see there's nothing to discuss here, he's Indian. Period. (And Rachel Dolezal has nothing to do with this...). Thomas.W ^talk 19:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:The assertion "he is Indian. period" is again being sourced through one source, that is the subject himself.

Yes, she does. The question was asked, "Who would go around saying they belong to one ethnicity when in fact they belong to another?", and she's the answer. EEng 19:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: No, she doesn't. Mentioning her was relevant only as an answer to the question in the post preceding yours, but not relevant to this discussion as a whole, since we're not investigative journalists but an encyclopaedia that reports what reliable sources say. And the subject of an article self-identifying in a reliable source is accepted as proof for nationality, ethnicity, religion etc in BLPs here. Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now you want to distinguish whether a question asked and answered five posts ago is relevant the discussion as a whole, or someone's question, or whatever. Jeesh, can you just let a question be asked and answered, and leave it at that? Crikey. EEng 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither the question asked nor your reply to it is relevant to the discussion here, which is the repeated insertion of insufficiently sourced content on a BLP. Third-party claims on Twitter are never enough to support a claim about someone's nationality, especially in a case like this when the source for the nationality currently in the article is a published source where the subject of the article self-identifies as being of another nationality... Thomas.W ^talk 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Dozel is clearly an example of a person who took on the ethnicity that was unduly self-serving despite being inaccurate. Mehdi Hasan claim that he is Indian and his parents are Indian are self-serving considering he is a journalist covering the Indian sub-continent. Can Thomas.W or Mr rnddude or Philip Cross please answer why this cannot be changed to "unknown". There is absolutely ZERO objective source that he is Indian. Also can anyone please clarify why this self-identification as "Indian" is not considered self-serving.

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

User:Poodleboy at The Heartland Institute

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

---

Poodleboy (talk · contribs) is pushing their original research on the talk page Talk:The Heartland Institute. See the sections

Talk:The Heartland Institute#The Heartland Institute disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change

Talk:The Heartland Institute#It does no such thing -Stephen Schulz

Talk:The Heartland Institute#Replacement/correction of the 1st statement of the global warming section, the lead may also have to be changed

There's other sections too there where they've discussed other matters in the Heartland Institute article and always with their own thought rather than using sources and they stick in their thoughts into the article if people stop responding to the OR.

I have warned them about WP:Original Research a large number of times and explained as best I can why what they are doing is completely wrong as far as Wikipedia is concerned but they just continue on using the place as a soapbox for their ideas. There's been the same behavior at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change as well. [80] was my warning about OR on their user page..

I have asked them a couple of times if there is any dispute resolution process they will accept the result of but they evade the question.

[81]

[82]

Could something be done to stop this disruption thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq has been unable to explain what is WP:OR about the proposed text. All my edits have proper sources, but sometimes it just proper representation of existing sources, so new sources aren't needed. I've given Dmcq several opportunities to try to explain how the proposed text is WP:OR, and have been responsive to each of his attempts. The text he is calling WP:OR is well sourced, as he should know because we have parsed the source in detail. It is rather deceptive of him to imply it isn't, because I went to a lot of work to make it easy to use by quoting the relevant text in the reference. Shame on Dmcq. Poodleboy (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This has gone beyond being a content dispute. If the Heartland Institute wanted to say something they would make it reasonably obvious, they are very well versed in getting their agenda across. You analysed their page and then said something that they did not say. There is no indication either they or an outside secondary source would agree with what you say. That page is also not a secondary source nor is it referred to by some secondary source, you just found it on their web. OR requires opinions to come from secondary sources. The implication of your proposed change would be to say something practically directly opposite to what secondary sources say. The survey you mentioned does not mention the Heartland Institute, that web page on the Heartland Institute is the only link to the survey. The purpose of the web page was to rubbish the survey not to say anything about the Heartland Institute itself. It does not give the survey or the opinions of the Heartland Institute any weight in the article. There's so many things wrong you should have stopped ages ago. It is pure original research soapboxing and disruption. Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the first clear statement of the issues you have with the proposed edit, who wrote it for you? Would you like to discuss it on the talk page, because there are several points I would dispute.Poodleboy (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the strong suspicion that every editor who has interacted with you already knows that you like to dispute a lot of things. I can imagine few who still like to discuss them with you. I've not seen any meeting of minds in the discussion at all - as I said, I suspect you use a language that suspiciously looks like English, but has a very different semantics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That probably is the case on WP:OWN pages where the believers are intent on preserving an attack or negative characterization. Success can usually only be obtained by parsing things down to the point where a contradiction or obvious ignoring of wikipedia's declared goals is evident. There was however a recent pleasant experience at Peter Gleick where some reasonable person eventually did see the importance of attention to detail. Sometimes it takes only one. Application of reason often requires reaching an agreement on definitions and the values or standards being applied. On science related topics it can require the ability to parse technical literature. regards. Poodleboy (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been lots of discussion already many other people have contributed. No-one has agreed with you. I asked you twice if there was a way of resolving this and ending the dispute where there was a possibility you did not get what you wanted. That statement is just a request to end this discussion at ANI and continue on as before. This has gone beyond being a content dispute. I would now like to leave it to Admins to suggest a better path. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note in your new statement you did not detail how the secondary sources contradicted the specifics that are at issue with the Heartland Institute. Are you sure? Their words have meaning yet may not be specific enough to be meaningful in the current context. If they are doing anything more than expressing a negative opinion, then that opinion should be openly attributed. And you accuse me of not citing sources. Poodleboy (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to aggressively pushing WP:OR in preference to reliance on secondary sources, Poodleboy also is prone to disparaging other editors -- see the sarcastic "who wrote it for you?" in this very thread. Just a couple of other examples are "if you can't parse this, you shouldn't be editing or voting on scientific articles" (in reference to another editor's failure to follow a rather convoluted justification for his OR) and "the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail has nothing on you", which at least was somewhat witty. These are by no means isolated examples -- if this goes to WP:AE or something, plenty more are available. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) ]

Poodleboy Blocked two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hopefully things will be a bit more constructive and collaborative after that. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Plaintowork

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

---

This user appears to edit Wikipedia in order to pursue a political agenda. Many edits of said user have been reverted, but he seems to not attempt to discuss them with other editors. For example, consider this clearly agenda-driven edit. --Laber□^T 19:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That edit was unacceptable synthesis. But it was made more than four months ago, it was reverted very soon afterwards, and it is hard to discern what "agenda" could be behind this. Unless you can bring more recent examples of serious misbehaviour, this report appears to be entirely without merit. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Date-changing vandal from Santiago, Chile

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

---

IP changed dates on A Puro Dolor and Son by Four without providing a source. See the long-term abuse for the IP. Erick (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked one month. Haven't seen this guy around for a while, but maybe I've been looking in all the wrong places. Katie^talk 15:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Potential Issue

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

---

About 20 minutes ago, I went to the en.Wikipedia IRC channel to request a Checkuser on a sock account (checking for sleepers). I was kinda surprised to see that I had been "banned from this channel". I don't go to the IRC channels unless I need something immediately or have a question for an admin. I have checked my account over, I don't see any issues, so I don't think this is a compromised account. Since my IRC "name" is the same as my username on here ("NeutralHomer"), I thought I would alert ANI of the issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:19 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

Apparently it was a temporary issue, because I can access en.Wikipedia IRC channels now. Nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:02 on August 1, 2016 (UTC)

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

Trolling by DePiep

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

---

Recently I was trolled by an editor who has since been indeffed for it. Following disagreements at a couple of CfDs, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Category:Narrow gauge railways in the Republic of Macedonia, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#Category:2 ft gauge railways, an established editor DePiep has decided to join in with the trolling. We should not have to work under such conditions. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith accusation by Andy Dingley.

In timeline: the two CfD's linked do not even suggest undesired behaviour, not even did AD mention that. Maybe AD feels bad because of a CfD result?

Andy Dingley introduced the trolling accusation against me recently: keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way. In that same edit, AD smeared me by associating me with a blocked editor, without proving that there is an inherent connection. Also, AD did not even try to clarify (on their own talkpage) my response [83].

For all this, I accuse Andy Dingley for abusing the AN/I option, and for smearing me with accusations of BF and trolling. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You think this is an acceptable edit to another editor's .sig? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL another proof of bad faith by AD. Clearly, that username-change was caused by me by copy-pasting text. (Promise: I'll never ever copy/paste Adny Dimly's user name ever again).

But admins take note: why did AD not ask or notify me about this presumed attack? Could have been solved within one minute one the talkpage. But no, AD rouses ANI. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This is clearly not acceptable behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

See my response to prev point. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DePiep You've been here 11 years, you should know better. This is clearly not acceptable from any editor let alone an established editor such as yourself. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the link vandalism DePiep did. It'll stay in the diffs, so there's no need to keep it here. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please be clear Gestrid Cameron11598. Exactly what is unacceptable (and why do you skip addressing AD similarly)? And: how is my 11 yrs an excuse for your bad reading? DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I self-correct: should ask Cameron11598 what is unacceptable. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

All you ani admins keep skipping the main point: that AD themselves started accusing me of trolling. If you admin cannot read & understand this thread, why use my "11 years" against me? I repeat: Dandy_Ingley started a BF subthread. No sense in trying to reason with ANI admins. That is my 11 yr experience. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all of us are admins (including me). Many of us here just look for relevant facts, including relevant facts that both the accuser and accused neglect to bring up here. We attempt to bring up all the evidence. I was just fixing a wikilink that you seemingly broke on purpose, and then I notified everyone that I fixed it since it had been mentioned by others. I was trying to stay mostly uninvolved with this one, but, when I see vandalism, whether it be talk page vandalism or link vandalism (both of which apply to this), I'm gonna fix it.

His behavior does not excuse your behavior. It won't in the real world, and certainly won't here.

As for my reading skills, they're perfectly fine. Do not personally attack me again. DePiep had pinged the wrong user. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

-- Gestrid (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you are not an admin, why take offense? Anyway, you accuse me of "link vandalism", so I explained to you that you are mistaking. Why do you not reply to that point, Gestrid? -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(To be clear: better prove your fact that the link was broken on purpose, after I explained it differently.) -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In the heated back-and-forth of ANI (I'm not just following this thread, but a few others currently in progress.), I had missed your apology. In any case, you neglected to repair it. As for your comment about not being an admin, that was just clarification that we're not all admins here. -- Gestrid (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DePiep's comment on Andy's talk page doesn't really rise to the level of action. Neither does Andy's calling it trolling. DePiep's intentional misspelling of Andy's username twice in this thread, however (after claiming that a previous change of his username was accidental) cannot be anything other that intentional trolling in the middle of an AN thread accusing him of trolling. So, if @DePiep: ever misspells Andy's name again, I will block him for 3 months (since the recent 2-week and 1-month blocks for similar behavior evidently didn't achieve their goal). If there is anyone reading this whose opinion DePiep respects, please have a quiet word with him offline. And everyone please do not do anything about any comments (or misspellings) DePiep makes about me, I am immune to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I intentionally misspelled AD's name when explaining that the accused misspelling was unintentionally, because of copy/paste mistake. The fact that Floquenbeam here reconstructs this as bad faith instead of tongue-in-cheek I dare calling bad faith by Floquenbeam. Once again F. is setting up an in/out of ANI blocking route. Why do you hate me? -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC) (late sign)

• Support 3-month block for intentionally trolling if DePiep doesn't knock off the childish misspelling routine. Either DePiep is trolling or WP:CIR is relevant and simply cannot focus enough in the midst of discussion to properly use the correct name and that doesn't matter. Otherwise, DePiep may or may not be trolling but encouraging trolling and basically not caring that a type of antic got an indefinite block is DePiep's choice in the end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The 'misspelling routine' (already explained away some time ago) only started in this thread. So how do you Ricky81682 justify a "block'm" for an 'offence' that did not even exist when this ANI thread was started? (Nicely you did admit that you got the childish/comical point of these misspellings here). Your proposal does not even care about the core accusation of trolling. What do you want, seriously? -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• IMO just drop the 3 onth block and be done with it. Obvious trolling is obvious and it's just nose thumbing at this point. Blackmane (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please describe the 'obvious trolling' more specifically. Until that, I stand by my 1st post here. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Its obvious trolling. And @DePiep: This is what I'm referring to. Intentionally changing AD's name. I wasn't addressing any of your other conduct. Also Your 11 years of experience is extremely relevant, it shows you have been here long enough that you should be familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Particularly WP:NPA, Link Vandalism, and WP:CIVIL --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also on a side note I can read perfectly fine. You however seem to have an issue with interacting with others in a CIVIL manner. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not supporting sanctions because I have a bias and know from experience that DePiep is better than this, and does good work - but gee, DePiep, back off and apologise, please, because you often make it hard for even those of us with some respect for you to speak up. The "name changing" thing is something my 12 year old would be ashamed of. Do better, please. Please? Begoon ^talk 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A nice and sensible post, Begoon, thanks. But even you I want to ask: what exactly was my 'trolling' post? -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said it would be nicer if you behaved better. I'm not here for the arguments. I'm here because I think you're a good guy who sometimes goes a bit off the rails. Apart from that you contribute awesome stuff. I wish you wouldn't do the "going off the rails" stuff. It pisses me off.Begoon ^talk 21:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Begoon, this is ANI not chit-chat. I am accused of serious stuff, and no one is providing a base. Just writing "... off the rails" is not enough. Actually, by writing 'back off and apologise' you do support some blocking route -- by sentiment only. And still you do not provide evidence? Again I ask: please clearly quote & describe what is my offence. (And, of course, one can always reread the origin of this thread). -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Question to all respondants here: exactly what was my 'trolling' offence? Quotes and arguments please. So far, I stand with my first response here. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a single diff that's been repeatedly posted here. The fact that someone accused you of trolling does not absolve you of all actions in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What diff you mean? The fact that you do not produce evidence does absolve. -DePiep (talk)

At risk of falling for the obvious: Twice, DePiep, you have misspelled Andy's name in this thread. First, the time you say was intentional and tongue in cheek, that was the time you wrote "Adny Dimly"; second, the time you haven't addressed when you wrote "Dandy Ingley", by which point you clearly weren't just having a bit of fun. Neither of these are really acceptable; the second is clearly reaching the level of trolling, as several people have now pointed out. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, at similar risk, that was my point too, while stressing that DePiep is generally better than that, and wishing they would just apologise and stop it. I hoped it might help. Begoon ^talk 13:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked DePiep for three months. I note that he has edited after the above posts, but didn't respond to the comments and suggestions by LindsayH and Begoon. The evidence of the trolling in this very thread is compelling, and the responses fail to address this adequately. Coupled with a lengthy and recent block log for personal attacks and harassment, escalation to three months is the logical next step. Fram (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Serial disruptive editor

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

---

• TheSomeGuy97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TheSomeGuy97 has been making disruptive edits for quite a while now. It came to the point that a discussion was started at Talk:DC Extended Universe#TheSomeGuy97 specifically regarding how we should deal with this user's disruptive edits (where you can find more details on the specifics at that discussion). Many different warnings have been left on the user's Talk Page throughout the months, but TheSomeGuy97 refuses to respond to them or even acknowledge that they are there (the user also never leaves edit summaries or even acknowledges other users for that matter).

Yesterday, when the user re-added an image to the Zach Snyder article that was removed by a bot for copyright reasons, I finally left one final warning on the user's Talk Page ([84], [85], [86]). Sure enough, the user re-added the image again without any regard to the warning left on their Talk Page ([87]). It seems like the user just does whatever they want, whenever they want. DarkKnight2149 20:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick look through TheSomeGuy97's talk page there seems to be a WP:CIR issue in regards to image uploads at minimum. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with instructions on how to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

vandal float-IP user again

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

---

float-IP (kyoto-plala, make propaganda of Japan Communist Party) user post again. and uses imitation username of me, Alexandre Poskrebyshev (talk · contribs) this username is already blocked at Italian wikipedia. please block this user and apply again range-block. --Alexander Poskrebyshev (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Harsh Admin

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

---

Hey, my IP-Address was blocked by a VERY harsh Admin known as EdJohnston. First, when I wrongly edited this page with my IP-Address (I was trying to be silly but I know I was in the wrong), it was reverted and I got a warning by some User, which I was OK with. What I was NOT Ok with though, was that not much longer later I was banned without warning for 31 hours by Admin EdJohnston. I NEVER saw an IP-Address blocked for a first-time bad edit ever. I was obviously frustrated by that which led me to hastily overreact and call him a bum on my IP-Address talk page. I admit I overreacted there for a second, and I was definitely in the wrong. So once again some other User gave me a warning and reverted the edit. And again, everything is good until EdJohnston intervenes AGAIN without warning (He never sent me a message on my talk page this entire time) and he changed the block settings HARSHLY. And I mean it, HARSHLY. He changed to a week without any talk page access.

I believe that my IP-Address was subjective to a harsher ban than what I deserved. I don't think my first edits to this page warranted a ban at all, since it was a first-time offense and I was just being silly. Many other IP-Addresses try to be silly, and they NEVER get banned unless they vandalize like 4-5 times in a row. Now, I do admit that calling EdJohnston a bum did warrant a punishment, but for ONE WEEK? No way, the only time IP-Adresses are banned for a week is if they have a LONG history of vandalizing. I only made TWO edits that can be considered vandalism, one on this page, and the one on my IP-Address Talk Page.

I therefore think that, like I did when I called him a bum (NOTE: It was the only time I ever called him out, I didn't go on his talk page or vandalize a Wikipedia Information page to call him, plus I could have called him MUCH worse than just a bum), EdJohnston also overreacted in banning my IP-Address for a long period of time. I am therefore asking if I could have the ban shorten to the original 31 hours, since I admit that I shouldn't get out punishment-free for wrongly calling him out, but I don't think I should be subjective to lengthly IP-Ban that is normally only given to addresses with a LONG history of vandalism over a few silly edits. Plus before I made that silly edit to this page, I did contribute constructively, as I fixed vandalism on a Bomberman video game list page (You can check my IP-Address here. Therefore I am requesting for my IP-Address ban to be shortened to 31 hours to warrant a more equal ban to what I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyaImSans (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Double it ;) -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

To 62 hours or to two weeks? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One week does seem harsh for calling an admin a bum. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

HeyaImSans blocked one week to match IP's block. And you're wrong. Blocks apply to people, not IPs or registered accounts. The only reason why IPs get shorter block lengths is that other uninvolved editors might use them in the future. You can appeal your block on your talk page. More attempts at block evasion will result in longer block lengths. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

He can't edit his talk page, that access was revoked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

User:HeyaImSans Nuff said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

IP User:68.224.250.108 - Disruptive Editing on The Conjuring 2

IP User 68.224.250.108 (talk · contribs) has made multiple edits inserting contested and unsourced information into The Conjuring 2. I have reverted the edits as they are unsourced and/or incorrect, started a discussion on the talk page in an attempt to gain discussion/consensus and issued warnings to the users talk page. The user is adding Supernatural fiction to the lead which is not the case as the events described are based on truthful reports from Enfield, England. The user was also misinterpreting a spin off film as a continuation in a series. The user has not responded on their talk page or the pages talk page, as of the writing of this post. This user has also made contested genre changes in the past to a different films wikipedia page (Predator 2).

This user has begun making these changes again without participating in talk dialogue and continues to be problematic. Relisting for Administrative Review again; previous closed with no action by Drmies as it seemed the user relented. I added the new diff below (Diff 5). Dane2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5

I checked their contributions and found this. While I've never seen these Conjuring movies, this source confirms that the movie is in development and was wrongfully removed from the article. I've reverted the vandalism and given them another warning (their fourth one this month) for vandalism. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr.saze going crazy again, need an admin to revert his page moves

Dr.saze (talk · contribs) is now on a spree of moving his talk page. These moves need an admin to revert. And he needs a stiff block for this current round of DE (for which he has already been blocked once [88]). Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I can't even give him the ANI notice because his talk page is no longer his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I moved his TP back, someone else will have to follow up other alleged DE since I'm going out. BethNaught (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the previous ANI, this is smelling even more like a returning or blocked troll bent on destruction. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also that after being blocked and warned for adding unnecessary AFI nomination info to articles that didn't need it, he went right back to doing that at warp speed after his previous block expired on July 15: [89]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry about this, but I must infrom you that some editors have already appreciated my (according to you baseless) editing. And this fill-up will help all the film fans. Dr.saze (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Did someone say fans? EEng 15:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Some editors? Who? There's not a single note of appreciation on your talk page (although there are numerous warnings which you have continued to ignore), and you've received exactly one "thanks" via notification [90], from Rms125a@hotmail.com, but it's not possible for third-party editors to tell what that was for. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wish I could find out for which edit I thanked him. I don't knowingly give encouragement to vandals or trolls, so I guess whatever edit I thanked him for is akin to that old jibe, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". Quis separabit? 16:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to request that SchroCat look into this as well, as he had repeatedly warned the editor not to add the AFI nominations. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about the AFI nominations, but the change of Little Johnny Jones (film) to Little Johnny Jones (1929 film) looks like it was to distinguish from Little Johnny Jones (1924 film), if such an article were to be written. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not the move in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But it got reverted nonetheless. As to the moving of the talk page, I assume he wrote the article as his talk page and then moved it, which is not the recommended way. Instead, he should have created a sub-folder - or, just created the article as an article to begin with! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. He moved his entire talk page to "Little Johnny Jones (film)": [91]. --Softlavender (talk)

Well, that was a stupid thing to do - as he admitted here.[92] But he did eventually create a "Little Johnny Jones (film)" article, for what it's worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Softlavender on this: there is something decidedly wrong about this editor. Assuming GF and that this is not a returning editor, I've previously tried to point out some basic errors (in terms of formatting, etc), but the editor doesn't seem to want to listen to what I or anyone else has to say, which never augers well for a collegiate editing atmosphere. It's a poor way to crowbar information into an article, but they don't seem to want to listen or learn how it should be done properly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • And I noticed that his user page redirects to Deep in the Heart of Texas (film). Something's definitely out of whack here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That was another page move. I seem to remember a user page shouldn't redirect to main space, so I've taken the redirect out. (If I've misremembered that piece of guideline, Dr.saze can revert). - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Mainspace redirecting to a User page seems much more troublesome than the reverse. It may be this that is prohibited. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's having mainspace redirect to outside of mainspace that's the prohibited one, but as this redirect was left over from a page move then it makes sense to remove it anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Obsessed Wallace huo fan

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

---

User jessicat830 - disruptive and obaessed editing to Wallace Huo's article by reverting every constructive edits to improve on the article. please refer to the history revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E60F:409:ADEA:4084:DA0B:DB0E (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Oshwah

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

---

User:Oshwah is an aggressive bot preventing small corrections, as evidenced by it's talk page. Please tell it to stop. The edit in question this time is on Clutch_(Clutch_album), the correct name of the track is "The House That Peterbilt".

They are not a bot. They are an administrator. I would highly suggest you listen to what they have to say. --Tarage (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

They aren't an admin either --Majora (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah is no bot (All bots must be clearly labeled as such), and this is unacceptable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

They're not a bot or an administrator... but that's besides the point. The edit has been reverted now, obviously Oshwah didn't realize that it was a constructive edit at the time, so I think we can just leave it and move on. Omni Flames (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Keenanthedogg

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

---

Keenanthedogg registered an account in January 2016 and has made multiple disruptive and inaccurate edits since. From this user's contributions, they seem to be a fan of the WWE and DJ Khaled, as they often add entirely spurious predictions about albums that have not yet been released or wrestling matches that have not yet been held. Here, Keenanthedogg added a list of matches to Money in the Bank (2016) even though the event was one month away—the prediction turned out to be incorrect. Here the user added a list of guest appearances to DJ Khaled's album Major Key even though the album would not be released for another month. See also adding unconfirmed characters to a video game article, predicting a DJ Khaled album for 2017, the list goes on.

Keenanthedogg received multiple warnings on their user talk from myself and other editors. Despite this, Keenanthedogg has continued adding false information to articles: another incorrect list of wrestling matches and adding themselves to the album I Changed a Lot. After my warning, the user posted an "explanation" on their talk page that I have been unable to fathom. Unless Keenanthedogg comes to this discussion board and makes a convincing promise not to add speculative info to articles, I see no other option than a block. Altamel (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. I'm sorry you've had to put up with this bullshit for so long; thanks for your patience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. Altamel (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict; issue now resolved, but I'll provide my original sentiments anyway, if only to voice support for Floquenbeam's solution):

I'm inclined to agree. In fact, looking at that talk page, this seems to be just the tip of the iceberg with regard to their competency issues. This user seems to lack even a rudimentary understanding of how to contribute here; they seem to have not read a single policy page or otherwise made an effort to understand Wikipedia beyond a convenient whiteboard to post their predictions and promote their (supposed) rap career, they struggle with the simplest of technical hurdles (six months in, they have not figured out how to sign their posts), and they don't seem capable of even basic communication when confronted with these problems. When told, for example, to stop trying to create an unreferenced article based on their self-asserted claim as a rap artist, they replied with "Will I'm a rapper and my rap stage name is King Bangazs and u have 2 make me my bio same as Future, Fetty Wap and more of them.", after deleting the warnings. Similar self-aggrandizing arguments (which, aside from holding no policy weight, also seem highly dubious) are used to support other of their challenged edits, usually on the assertion that they know the rappers or wrestlers involved. It does not seem there is any editorial work from this contributor that can really be salvaged to improve the encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Could an admin also block User:Keenanthedogg93 and User:Keenanthedogg123? I took a look at Special:ListUsers to see if there were any obvious sockpuppets and these were the ones that turned up. Altamel (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Got'em both. If any others turn up and edit though we should take the theatrical step of opening a case at SPI for the editor. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• It's not CIR, it's trolling. If he knows how to do these [93] [94] he certainly knows how to sign his posts. EEng 07:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between knowing how to do something as opposed to merely copying the line above. --Elektrik Fanne 15:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, especially on the count that it wasn't done properly [95]. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Randy Travis

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

---

An IP editor has spent months vandalizing the Randy Travis page. I just reverted the latest vandalism here. Then I reviewed the editor's contribution history and talk page. This has been going on for some time now. It has led to multiple warnings and a couple of blocks. It looks like the response needs to be escalated. David in DC (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And it continues. David in DC (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that this is a static IP, the previous blocks, and that practically every edit from it is disruptive, I have blocked for six months. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

John McTernan

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

---

Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding a section to the BLP of John McTernan, a British political adviser, which claims that Mr McTernan is terrible at political punditry and analysis [96]. I have sought to discuss this with the user on the article talk page, yet the user feels justified in continuing this section despite its terrible sourcing (WP:SPS such as Twitter). The problem with it is that it is a WP:SYNTH of some examples of where McTernan has apparently got things wrong, but then posting it as a firm conclusion that "As a media pundit, McTernan has made a series of strikingly inaccurate predictions" (which is not sourced to anything). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582 has repeatedly deleted, and then edit-warred, a properly-sourced and entirely factual section on the entry. The section was locked for discussion, but the user declined to participate in the discussion and achieved no consensus support for his view. He simply waited until the lock was removed and then re-engaged in the edit war. He has not demonstrated any rule which the section breaches - it does not contravene any specific area of WP:BLP that the user has identified - but merely asserted his own opinion and repeatedly deleted without discussion. The user has a long track record of attempting - usually unsuccessfully - to remove/revert any entries or edits I make on any subject. Anna Lertreader (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Anna Lertreader for 48 hours for persistent edit-warring and BLP issues after warnings, and this isn't the first article on which they hsve edit-warred recently. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP talk page used as forum for potential libel

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

---

Back in February, I have removed a long dissertation from Talk:Lennart Poettering that was entirely an attack against the article's subject and in no way a discussion of the article itself. Immediately, I was reverted and accused of being a sockpuppet of the article's subject, and of vandalizing the article and I was threatened to be brought to SPI and COI for investigation.

Then the whole thing settled for months, but now an IP in the same range reverted back to the February state again, and stated that my account would be suspended if I continued "policing" the page (i.e. making sure it remains compliant with policies), so I ask that someone else step in on the matter.

LjL (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That attack on the article subject is not acceptable, so I have reverted and given the IP a short block. I now have it bookmarked and will keep an eye on it, but I am off to bed shortly (I'm on UK time) so if someone else can keep an eye on it too that would be a help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes peeled for you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and goodnight :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_August_4#4_August_2016

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

---

I can't see this as anything but utter madness: The claim that the possibility' that the US Federal Governemnt is wrong in saying a file is Public Domain is sufficient reason to delete in the absence of any evidence that it actually isn't in the public domain.

Has Wikipedia gone crazy, or decided to assault the very concept of Public Domain or something? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Calm down and keep the discussion in one place. Stop casting aspersions against the discussion participants. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

@BethNaught and Black Kite: It's on Jimbo's page too. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: 86.180.213.190

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

---

• Special:Contributions/86.180.213.190

Persistent disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No someone hacked my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.213.190 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The first one has been blocked; the user is currently at:

• Special:Contributions/81.129.26.189

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Vmzp85, WP:UNBROKEN and WP:CIVIL

Vmzp85 (talk · contribs) keeps warring over WP:UNBROKEN issues at Mexico City International Airport [97] [98] [99]. He also uses vulgar language (In Spanish) for his edit summaries. I suggest anyone to take a look at his talk. He has been told about WP:UNBROKEN long ago.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's vulgar language. Google Translate confirms it. In his latest edit summary, he seems to be saying "Report me, but first check my contributions." Whether or not his contributions matter, he did violate the very first thing listed under WP:IUC by using profanity. I suggest an admin delete the edit summaries, preferably after this case is over so everyone, including non-admins like me, can see the evidence. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNBROKEN is not relevant to those edits. We went through UNBROKEN earlier this month, Jetstreamer, at WT:REDIRECT. The other editor is simply updating the target to the current title, and there is nothing wrong with that. If there were an existing redirect for "Minatitlán/Coatzacoalcos", UNBROKEN would dictate changing that link to [[Minatitlán/Coatzacoalcos]], but there is not one. That is the only situation addressed by UNBROKEN. Since the rest of the dispute follows from your misinterpretation of the guideline, any CIVIL would seem moot. You are both edit warring in violation of policy, but you can't complain about edit warring when you're doing it yourself. Thus you're misinterpreting WP:EW as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that I did not use vulgar/uncivil language. The corollary of this is that it seems I should stay away from WP:UNBROKEN-related edits for a while.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In my ideal Wikipedia, there is no justification or excuse for such language, but prevailing practice is that CIVIL is relative to context. Using the Spanish word puta, when your opponent is wrong as to the content issue, is probably never going to be actionable on this page.
I don't see why it's necessary to stay away from UNBROKEN, unless it's really impossible to grasp what it means. It can be concisely stated as: "If there is an existing redirect that matches your desired link text, use it. Don't bypass it using a piped link. Full stop.". This is an example of an UNBROKEN edit (I use the shortcut NOTBROKEN instead). The only reason to refer to the guideline text is to learn the reasoning behind it, and its very few rarely-seen exceptions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• So, you all got a little Spanish lesson, but is someone going to address both parties' 3RR and edit war for which a warning ought to be given? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well you could always place the warning or heck I could. Heck any editor could. As a matter of fact Vmzp85 Warned for edit warring and Jetstreamer Warned for edit warring --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC) apparently an admin needs to issue these my mistake --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC) Ok some confusion but apparently any one can give those warnings as was originally thought. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted someone to make a difference between both behaviours. I've never used uncivil language. Both me and the user in question having the same warning at our talks does not make any difference at all. "Do not do it from now on" would suffice. The absence of comments from Vmzp85 is also intriguing.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The warning is generated by a template, its the {{uw-ew}} template that is used for edit warring. Which is what you two were doing. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As a sidenote, you may also use Twinkle.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That was the template generated by twinkle. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: There is nothing wrong with those edits, I do this all the time, as long as the link is already piped updating the target link is prefered especially on navigational templates . Mlpearc (open channel) 19:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with Mandruss on this one; using profanity to express angry or disrespectful sentiments is the very definition of WP:INCIVIL and is never appropriate on this project. While I understand and agree with Mandruss' nuanced sentiment here (that it is simply unlikely that this behaviour will generate a sanction in this forum at this point), I'd add that this state of affairs exists only because, through sheer exhaustion with the many hotheads that come through here, we've allowed the needle to be moved on that issue in recent years. But we can, and in my opinion absolutely should, push back against that sort of cynicism and growing amount of abuse of our patience by those (including some very experienced editors who should clearly know better) who cannot comport with the basic principle of keeping their discourse calm and free of insulting, inflammatory language.

There's also a separate issue regarding the use of another language in edit summaries to begin with; if Vmzp85 wants to contribute to the English Wikipedia, their edit summaries need to be done in English for the sake of clarity of communication with other editors. The fact that, in this event anyway, only the summaries which contain profanity seem to be in Spanish is quite telling; it seems to suggest that Vmzp85 knows this behaviour is inappropriate, but wants to vent and so is doing so in a way that muddies the water around the comments. Those of us who communicate in multiple languages will surely recognize this as an instinctual propensity. But while it is tolerable (even humurous) in many other social contexts, it remains blatantly incivil here. Vmzp85 needs to be warned about this behaviour and, if it persists, a short-term block at the least is an appropriate administrative or community response. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't disagree. I think the only difference between your position and mine is one of political capital. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

This IP editor likes to add unsourced stuff to dog articles, mostly claiming a dog in a movie was a breed it was not. They also removed sources on some articles. diff They've been warned before and just delete the warnings. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I notified the editor. Two blocks last month for the same stuff. Being given how unresponsive to criticism they seem to be, I tend to think WP:NOTHERE applies. An escalated block is likely deserved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Informationskampagne

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

This editor seems to have an agenda to add information about Karaites to articles. He wouldn't be the first. In any case. His every post on Talk:Haggadah#Karaite_and_other_versions has been a personal attack. Also, he edit wars to restore an article namespace template to the talkpage. His edits are so lame that I really didn't want to post here, but his personal attacks are getting more vicious, and I have run out of patience with him. His reply to my explanation on his talkpage only proves that he has no idea of the behavioral problems with his edits. We also had some problems on Lekhah Dodi and Rabbeinu Tam. Basically every article he edits. Perhaps some admin would be willing to talk some sense into this editor. By the way, if his edits weren't so lame, I'd suspect him to be a sock. Perhaps also something to look into. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BOOMERANG. Debresser is a well-known edit warrior and long-term POV pusher who is a constant presence at AE due to his history of personal attacks and inability to follow policy. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't socked, as far as I know. He has no real need to, since he rarely gets blocked. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about you, not Informationskampage or Debresser. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This IP range is actually frequented by the now-blocked CrazyAces, unless I'm reading it wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's within the same /33 IPv6 range, TheGracefulSlick, which means a big range. It's only if the interests or the writing style are similar that we can apply WP:DUCK to CrazyAces in such a context. And they're not, to my ear. I think CrazyAces is a red herring. That said, I don't admire the personal remarks of the IP in this thread, I think they're most likely a registered editor editing logged out, and if they continue in the same vein, they can be blocked under their own steam. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm not a registered user. I was at one point considering it, but why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Especially when you'd rather block people reporting problem users instead of the problem users themselves. Wikipedia is way too tolerant of actual problem users. 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are. That's why you haven't been blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering this IP appeared out of nowhere and has no edits previous to joining ANI, I would most likely say they are a sock, possibly from what you're saying. I am not very familiar with CrazyAces. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree the IP6 address was a sock. Quoting WP:BOOMERANG makes that obvious. I would be happy to know who the real editor is (perhaps even Informationskampagne himself?), but it is unlikely we'll ever find out. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disregarding the IP6 editor, and whether he is a sock, can we start discussing Informationskampagne and his problematic editing, please? Debresser (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that, while there are definitely suggestions of an unhelpful refusal to WP:AGF, maybe even a battleground mentality, nothing in those brief exchanges rises to the level of an action worthy of a sanction at this point. Nor does there seem to have been sufficient effort to draw in additional community involvement to try to establish a consensus before bringing the disagreement here. It takes two to edit war, and this seems to be a back and forth between the two of you alone. The one person who did respond to the third opinion request gave cursory support to Informationskampagne on the content issue, while also cautioning him with regard to his attitude, which is starting to show signs of a needless personalization of the disagreement; I have to say that I am leaning in the same direction as Robert on both points. Putting the incivility issue aside for a moment, to the extent you accuse IK of edit warring here, I think you ought to have at least RfC'd the issue before bringing that matter to ANI (caveats of stable previous version not withstanding) since it has generally been a 1:1 back-and-forth between you two on that edit. Honestly, I think that you may find the consensus on that content matter will support IK's approach, but that's just speculation at this point, as no substantial effort to expand the scope of opinions has been made, other than the 3O (which I think IK opened?).

I honestly don't see any evidence of behaviour (on that page, anyway) that is realistically likely to be sanctioned at this juncture, which is probably why this thread has had next to no activity since you opened it. However, all of that said, I would certainly not mind seeing a checkuser regarding Informationskampagne and the IP who commented above--but I note in the article's revision history that he seems to have mistakenly edited once while not logged in, and the IP that shows on that occasion is not consistent with the one utilized above in this thread. Can you think of another contributor who might have an axe to grind against you? Whether it's related to the current dispute or not, I'd rather not see blatant socking for the purposes of affecting an ANI discussion go unanswered, especially if it involves WP:hounding on the part of someone who followed you here. But again, as to the talk page discussion, I recommend you RfC the matter. If your argument prevails and generates a consensus consistent with your position, and IK continues to edit war his preferred version in, then there will be unambiguous cause for community action. Right now it just looks like a contest of wills between two editors--though I will do you the credit of saying that you are handling it in a more mature and civil fashion. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I still think some warning or explanation about civility on their user talkpage would be helpful. Which is basically all that I asked for ("Perhaps some admin would be willing to talk some sense into this editor.").

Contrary to what you seem to think, I agree with them on the general content issue. My problems with his edits are more specific regarding WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE and his English. You can see that on the talkpage.[100] In view of that fact, I see no reason for an Rfc. In general, I think an Rfc would be overkill for such a small-scale disagreement. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion. I think that this should be mature and civil enough. I also think that it is better to speak about the problem and how to solve this rather to try blocking users. I am not: 2607:FB90:6858:B5D4:71BE:8519:5D3C:EC94. Informationskampagne (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC) And I do nat have an agenda to add information about Karaites to articles.Informationskampagne (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Haggadah#Third_Opinion. It appears that the request for the third opinion was whether there should be mention of the Karaite and Samaritan versions of the Haggadah. I offered the (non-Jewish) opinion that there should be (because, for completeness. there should be mention of all of the versions used by all of the Jewish denominations); there wasn't a question about how much weight. Unfortunately, Informationskampagne also asked what to do if Debresser engaged in vandalism. That is an aspersion amounting to a personal attack. Debresser is a stubborn editor. Debresser is not a vandal. (Experienced stubborn editors are almost never vandals.) (However, it is popular among some editors to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute.) At this point I don't see any conduct issue that warrants a block, although maybe I have missed something. I do see a marginal conduct issue, with two editors who dislike <deleach othereach other's edits, that warrants a warning to both. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor insists on repeating an edit that proves he is not familiar with basic usage of templates on Wikipedia. That same editor engages in personal attacks with every edit (including even after he asked for a third opinion), and I should receive a warning?! I reject that idea as doubly insulting.

I also see no reason why Robert McClenon should make the bad faith statement that I dislike Informationskampagne. I reverted his bad edits and I asked for some admin here to explain to him that personal attacks are not good. That doesn't mean I dislike him. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Douglas R. Docker fabricated references + sock-puppetry and related vandalism by AFJP FAN 420

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

---

• AFJP FAN 420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mystic Technocrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been writing false information about the above article, latest examples are: 1. In the talk page (here he fabricated a reference himself on Discogs then claimed he "found" it) https://www.discogs.com/it/user/AFJP_Fan 2. In the article, he claims "universal praise" based on one review

These are two latest examples of a much larger campaign which I believe stems from a single stalker. The article has already been semi-protected due to repeated vandalism, disruptive editing, unsourced libel and insertion of links at random on a slew of other unrelated articles. Originally, this misconduct was from IPS, the main ones being 161.113.11.16 and 161.113.20.135, but the most serious libel and defamation came from this one 107.77.194.97 with an edit about Docker being the piano teacher of Saddam Hussein's son... (here with false rewference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_R._Docker&diff=729327065&oldid=729325184) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_R._Docker&diff=730709845&oldid=730577894) where Docker becomes affiliated with a neo nazi band.

Eventually the article got semi-protected, TWICE, and on the same day two profiles magically appear, Mystic Technocrat and AFJP FAN 420. I think this insanity has gone on long enough, and I beg the admins to do something serious and permanent about this. I am planning to request speedy deletion cause by constant vandalism anyway. Thanks.Janthana (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously it does not qualify for CSD. But there seems some pretty clear WP:TAGTEAMing going on; possibly enough, in fact for an SPI. I'm sure they are 'close' to each other, off-wiki: the question is, how close. Just look at the dates of their first edits. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Leave me out of this, no tag-teaming on my part. Show me one non-constructive edit I made. I've cleaned up vandalism for chrissakes. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have blocked Janthana for disrupting the article and personal attacks; per WP:WIAPA, accusations about personal behavior must have solid evidence, and a report like this, with no evidence whatsoever, must not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Right; sorry if I appear to have misread the situation. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you may have read it rightly. The problem is that Janthana didn't provide any real evidence, and searching through the page history, I found nothing problematic by Mystic Technocrat. (I did find disruption by AFJP FAN 420, whom I've just now blocked). Since you think there's a link, it's entirely possible that I just missed something; provide some links. Just please note that the bits about the two accounts magically appearing is obviously wrong; Mystic Technocrat registered on 9 July 2016, one day before the semiprotection, but AFJP FAN 420 registered on 5 April 2016, a month in which the article had no edits except for the addition of commas. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Mystic Technocrat started editing one day before semi-protection was imposed, and Muffled, perhaps even Janthana but poorly articulated, was talking about the coincidence of the two users' editing of the article, not when they created their accounts. In point of fact, Muffled's comments about closeness is spot on. The two accounts are either socks or meat based on a check. I lean toward the latter based on the technical characteristics.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I only did cursory look, but a couple of things jump out. Firstly, there's their interaction. Also, as I mentioned the dates of first edit- AFJP FAN 420's account was created on 5 April- but did not make it's first edit until 11 June @ 15:33- two days after Mystic Technocrat's account was created, @15:14. Note that the times of account creation, although on different days, are almost the same. Likewise, their editing patterns: AGPFAN has majoritively edited on a Thursday, and MT mostly on a Tuesday- but note, mostly in the same 12-16:00 time slot. Which is why, if anything, I would suggest WP:MEAT rather than sock. Behaviorally-speaking, they have pretty consistently backed each other up; here and here, for example.

@Bbb23: Sorry Bb, I was too slow with my case! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

So in other words, you checked stuff I didn't. No complaints there :-) I just thought that you were somehow saying "Nyttend, you blocked the reporter, so maybe I misread the situation", and I was saying that the block for the reporter was irrelevant to whether the two accounts are linked. The block for the reporter was unrelated to the substance of the report, and the report's claim that the two were created together was my sole comment on the substance. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep- that kind of was what I was saying! But thanks for that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you to @Bbb23: for taking care of the 2 IPs I mentioned above. They WILL come back however, as they have in the last 6 months. Let's wait and see. To @Nyttend:, apart from the block which I really don't carte that much about, but I am appalled by an admin reinstating a clearly libelous edit about a connection with SADDAM HUSSEIN as being legitimate, well referenced and verifiable. I could go on for a long time about this, but I will just say that the issue is now solved. Maybe now we can all work on a seriously written article, which is what I've been trying to do since 2013! Janthana (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, quite. @Nyttend: What was in that chunk of text you restored? It's been revdel'd now. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, there was a libelous edit about Douglas R. Docker traveling to Iraq and become Saddam Hussein's son's piano teacher (!) and another one about him being involved with neo-nazi bands.

@Janthana: Please stop saying 'libelous': it makes people nervous, the invoking of the courtroom. I was under the impression it was sourced material. If that is the case, it was unlikely to be defamatory. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix is correct. This text was removed by an IP last month because it was sourced to the April 2004 issue of a publication that "went out of print way before 2000". I discovered that this publication's WorldCat entry lists no end date; of course it's possible that the submitting institution was unaware of its conclusion, or possible that it hadn't yet concluded when the WorldCat entry was created and that nobody's updated the entry since its conclusion, but seeing that the IP claimed that the publication's been gone for twenty-ish years now, it's highly unlikely that nobody would have submitted an update, especially as there appears still to be a publication of this name in existence. The IP's claim thus appearing to be badly wrong (either inept or vandalism), I restored the content. Elsewhere, an IP had {{fact}}-tagged sentences that didn't have citations immediately after them, even though they were seemingly supported by a citation at the end of the paragraph (this is never acceptable, unless you've checked the citation and it doesn't support the content in question), so Janthana removed these sentences, and I restored them because the IP gave no indication of actually having checked the sources; the IP's actions were a typical example of imagining that you have to provide a citation with every sentence, rather than providing a citation that covers every piece of text. And by the way, the block was imposed for personal attacks and disrupting the article by doing things like blanking the infobox; since Janthana refuses to learn, it's highly likely that further blocks will result. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, I am the one who created it. And I am the one who supplied the photo. I did remove it because the vandalism had become unmanageable. You might still be in your "I know thus you'll learn" mode, but the fact is that your revert and all it's previous versions have been removed from above. Which means the form of my intervention might have been wrong, but the substance was not. The rest is cosmetic opinionating and posturing because being admins you feel you have the power, and that's fine. But the FACT is, STRUMENTI E MUSICA went out of print a long time ago. I go to the local newspaper stand here in Italy weekly and haven't seen it since the '90s. At that time it focused on academic classical music (competitions, exams, Conservatories etc). Today there is an online versions which focuses entirely on accordions. I have no idea why, but that's how it is. Now you tell me how a rock musician would end up in an online magazine about accordions as the classical piano teacher od Saddam Hussein's son? You based your judgment on extremely superficial info. But that's fine too. The result of all this is that the article has been semi-protected, most vandals have ben blocked, the subject of the article is now aware of what's going on and has taken action. So go ahead and block me. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Janthana (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: here is the link to the magazine in its current format http://www.strumentiemusica.com/. Find me the referenced issue and the article which talks about Saddam Hussein. You won't, not online, not pointed, not in a library or in a university. You won't because it was FABRICATED. Janthana (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "So go ahead and block me. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.", I'd postulate that it does actually make a difference. I think about now is the time where everybody might consider dropping their stick and walking away. There is rarely every a good reason to issue a challenge like that Janthana as it's one that is likely to be met ("be careful what you wish for"). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi It WAS libelous and as you well know there is a clear policy against libelous edits of living persons especially wit no or poor references. In this case the references where fabricated and false. Since the admins did not do their job and not only blocked me for doing the right thing, but also reinstated the defamatory edit, I finally wrote to Douglas R. Docker's website. They were kind enough to reply and said they would write directly to Wikipedia. I assume they did, since the whole mess has been revdel'd now, as you said. What is sad is that nobody here bothered doing their job properly and shot the messenger instead of tackling a very serious offense. Docker told me he will probably get here, open a profile and make sure no more libel gets out from Wikipedia. Being an academic myself, and having worked in research for quite a while, I have to say my opinion of the Wikipedia process plummeted after this. Neutrality should be one of the pillars, but this was far from the case in this situation. I found the whole approach superficial, and very biased. Too bad. But again, as I said, the problem has been solved now. Janthana (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your opinion is still just that: an opinion. You clearly have not learned from your block. Never mind. Thanks, at least for revealing your off-wiki WP:CANVASing :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No, false information with false references is libel. Period. And if you refuse to understand that, you are party to it. And I resent your "teacher" tone. This is not school. Regardless, the libel WAS removed and that's all that matters. As to "learning" I do that in real life, not here. Janthana (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You should probably read Nyttend's post here, Janthana. It's thoughtful. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Guerilla Cricket

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

---

Could I get a few more experienced eyes on this article please? A bunch of well-meaning but misguided newbies have decided to create an article on this exciting mix of cricket and alternative comedy, which does tickle my funny bone very much .... however, there is a time and a place for humour and putting it directly in articles isn't it. I have left the article in this state, which I think is reasonable for the time being, but already several editors have come along and add what I can only describe as unencyclopedic nonsense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333. Sure; I'll be happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've given Hamzabutt93 (talk · contribs) a 24-hour block for obvious edit warring - technically I was kind of WP:INVOLVED in as much as I've been cleaning up the article so it doesn't get deleted, but he was given fair warning (and not just from me, either). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I was also trying to help get the fancruft off the page, also added a request on RFPP as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Content such as this was perfectly appropriate to remove. I'm confused about this quote in the content though:

"The site is not popular with the England and Wales Cricket Board, the sport's governing body, as it does not pay for commentary or broadcast rights. Though the site has not managed to gain interviews from professional English cricketers, guests on the show have included David Papineau, professor of Philosophy of Science at King's College, London."

Is that content correct and legitimate? It just stood out to me almost as if it's actually claiming the opposite of notability... haha. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unsourced and POV, only source I can see is [101], which is a blog. Removed it, and watchlisted the page. Joseph2302 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you Joseph2302. I'm currently on mobile so it was hard for me to fully review it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Spectator may not be to your political tastes, but to say "it's a blog" is ... naive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice. I like the changes you made, Ritchie333. Thanks for doing that. The content is looking better. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that the link is to a blog. A magazine blog perhaps, but still a blog. Whether this particular magazine blog which is hosted by The Spectator has sufficient editorial control from The Spectator to qualify as a WP:RS, I have no idea but it's hard to criticise the blog part when the URL itself calls it a blog. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Worth noting that most of eg this edit, among many attempts to insert the same content, is a copyvio of [102]. Perhaps some revdel attention would be appropriate? GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Y Done — Diannaa (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Suggestions for handling copyright, SPS, misrepresenting sources?

Racingmanager (talk · contribs) has been creating a lot of new articles basically by copying content from their personal website - www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/. They subsequently amended the copyright notice on their website when warned that these dumps appeared to be violations. Lots of threads, but this and the following section on that page are the gist. There is much more, for example at User talk:Racingmanager, but they keep deleting it. The discussions were messy and fragmented - there is also stuff at User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Copyright_issues, which raised ancillary points such as WP:SPS.

They have today created 1927 English Greyhound Derby and I have had to trawl through that, finding both apparent copy/paste issues and also some blatant misrepresentation of at least one source - discussion at User_talk:Sitush#Greyhound_Articles but, again, somewhat disconnected because Racingmanager has been refactoring, spewing their own comments across various pages and also deleting warnings on their own talk page.

Diannaa has been involved, as has Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Racingmanager has ca. 10,000 edits over a prolonged period, including the creation of everything in {{English Greyhound Derby}} and a lot of other greyhound related articles (regarding stadia etc). It is obvious they are knowledgeable but in their attempts seemingly to dump the masses of stuff they have accumulated elsewhere, they're creating a lot of problems relating to copyright and attribution/sourcing. I suspect the difficulty arises because they did not annotate their original research with source materials and are now trying to push things through without reconstructing the information from scratch.

I can't handle this. Can anyone suggest a solution? - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All of my articles are appropriately sourced. My website carries a wikipedia recommended message on the homepage but Sitush is still not happy because he does not like the wording used which I have already said to him I will clean up. In regard to the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article I have used sources and listed them but he has removed one even though it appears on page 54 of the book quoted.

He even accused me of so called blatant misrepresentation of at least one source which he has just realised was a false accusation and has just apologised to Diannaa and not me I might add! He now reverts edits that I have made regarding clarification and citations I added for the clarification and citation tags created by another user. Now he is even criticising the way I use my sandbox and is harassing me on my talkpage.Racingmanager (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Diannaa has done some more digging and it looks like Racingmanager may have copied stuff from an older website (greyhoundderby.com) - to their own (greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk), then started dumping their own site on Wikipedia. Ok, in among the above linked discussions they announced changing the license at their own website so as to be compatible with WP ... but that is useless if they copied it from elsewhere in the first place. And there would still be issues such as the misrepresentation, eg: here. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comparing revision 732140547 of 1927 English Greyhound Derby to the source website http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1927.pdf is a match; there's a pretty much complete overlap in the "Competition Report" section. But greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk is the website that's recently been released under a compatible license. HOWEVER, comparing with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1927-greyhoundderby.htm also is a match (copyvios report), and the Wayback Machine shows they have had the content since 2006. This kinda throws all the material at greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk under suspicion as being potentially copied from other sources. The PDF from greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk was never archived by the Wayback Machine, so I can't tell using that tool, but two other tools (this one and this one) both show Racingmanager's PDF was created on March 21, 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the article differences between greyhoundderby.com and the 1927 English Greyhound Derby article. The website states -

• the wrong result of the winner of the Northern Final
• the wrong northern qualifiers
• no mention of the illness of Great Chum
• no mention of the cost of Entry Badge
• no mention of the Hopsack

How can you possibly claim that the article had copied the website.Racingmanager (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the copyright issue, we normally don't cite our own research or copy-paste from our own website to this one. Your PDFs don't cite any sources. What makes them a reliable source for this wiki? Right now we have no information on that. — Diannaa (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Racingmanager is trying to retrospectively source information from their site. The problem is, as noted above, they're not even getting that right. I've no idea how widespread the problem may be but I've looked at a few since this issue first arose a couple of weeks ago and the number of problems is astounding for someone with that number of edits. They means well, I have no doubt, but I'm on the verge of thinking we need to nuke the lot unless someone is willing to go through all of their creations. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks to Sitush for the notification of this discussion. Racingmanager was advised by Diannaa on 20 July to stop creating articles and resolve the copyright issues in those that still stood; this does not seem to have happened, as 1928 English Greyhound Derby was created only yesterday, still including WP:COPYVIOs. And older articles such as the 1979, 1984, and 1986 English Greyhound Derbys have not yet been rectified. This suggests that his interest in conforming to WP requirements is absent, and that the comunity is going to have a helluva lot of work repairing his damage. The question, then, seems to be wheteher Racingmanager is present when we do. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain where the copyright violation is on the 1928 English Greyhound Derby is? I don’t understand why there is a problem with creating new articles because I have already said I am going to clean up the earlier articles. The articles I am creating are for the benefit of Wikipedia in an area that Wikipedia does not cover well. I have continually proven that there are no copyright issues regarding my original website which has now prompted the other user to suggest that I have copied other websites. If it is such an issue I will start editing the older articles now starting with the 1953 event and then moving forwards to hopefully appease the user. If you require it to be done some other way then please explain clearly. I will ensure I put in the page numbers from the Barrie Dack book but please advise if I am missing something else.Racingmanager (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have completed the 1953 edit. I have added the appropriate page numbers of the sources, the information is in my own words and I have provided an explanation regarding a technical item. Can you please provide feedback if you think anything needs doing differently. I will not start 1954 until I receive some feedback because I would like to try and appease other users .Racingmanager (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the copyright violation on 1928 English Greyhound Derby: The "Competition Report" section has a large overlap with http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1928-greyhoundderby.htm. According to the Wayback Machine, they have had this content on their website since at least June 20, 2006, while your document http://www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1928.pdf shows a creation date of March 21, 2015. It's the second one like that we've found. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I do seem to have used a lot of material from the 1928 report on Greyhoundderby.com, I will need to rewrite the section. I am sorry for this and will delete the 1928 report, this was one of many of the sources I used but was obviously not careful enough in formulating it when putting it together in the first place. Can you advise with regard to the 1953 report because I have received no feedback.Racingmanager (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any copying from http://www.greyhoundderby.com/1953-greyhoundderby.htm in your article 1953 English Greyhound Derby. I am unable to check what's in the book Greyhound Racing: The First Fifty Years by Barrie Dack, as the closest library with a copy is in Edinburgh so I have no way of knowing if there's copyvio from that source and whether or not you have represented that material accurately. There's still two overarching problems: you are using your own website, your own research, and adding that material to Wikipedia, without any outside confirmation that the information on your PDFs is correct. None of them list any sources. What makes this material a reliable source for use on this wiki?. Right now we have nothing but your word. And the second and most important problem is that you were asked to stop creating new articles or adding any additional material to this wiki until you've gone back through your existing articles and checked them for copyright violations. (While you are doing this, you could improve the sourcing on each article, adding in confirming sources that are not your own website.) This task has to take priority over creating new articles. How you would do this is use the copyvio tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to compare each of your articles with the corresponding article at www.greyhoundderby.com, and remove any copyright violations that you find. As I said before, I can generate lists for this purpose, or you could use this list. The most important thing you need to do, right now, is stop adding more copyright violations to this wiki. If you don't you will be blocked. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Diannaa regarding this, and it extends to all the articles about stadia etc also, not just the Derby articles. It might be better if you pretend that your own website and those of others do not exist. Go back to the book and newspaper sources and start over. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I plan to remove any reference to my website and check that the material I used against the Greyhoundderby.com website using the list you have provided. One single year competition report in the Barry Dack book covers anything up to three pages and therefore I know the any material taken from this is in my own words because I had to shorten the story of how the greyhounds qualified for the final considerably. I am also attempting to use wording that reflects general use but there are of course many racing terms that are common. However I will ensure I try to delete words like legendary, fabulous etc. I will carry on with the edits of the existing year reports before looking at the history sections of racecourses. Racingmanager (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One way this could be resolved is by trimming the articles back to bare facts - the entrants and results. Facts are not copyrightable under US law (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.), which removes any copyright issues. Unless something notable happened, with press coverage in reliable sources, the details of specific races back in 1927 are probably not worth including anyway. This doesn't look like something where the COI noticeboard could help; not seeing promotion here. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Update - I have checked all of the competition reports using the copyvio tool https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ with the greyhoundderby.com website and can confirm that all was ok. I also manually checked and have decided to take down the report for the 2004 English Greyhound Derby because there is one sentence that I found to be similar despite being given the ok by the copyvio tool. I will rewrite this one in due course. I am up to 1962 so far with the re-writes.Racingmanager (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I don't see where you answered this question yet: "you are using your own website, your own research, and adding that material to Wikipedia, without any outside confirmation that the information on your PDFs is correct. None of them list any sources. What makes this material a reliable source for use on this wiki?. Right now we have nothing but your word." What's changed since then? --Begoon ^talk 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see above that you say you are now sourcing to somewhere else. I should have read more carefully. --Begoon ^talk 10:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Calcoform using political controversies as battlegrounds and not hiding it

The user Calcoform turned up in March 2016 and was warned for edit-warring on New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, putting in unsourced changes to present a denialist agenda while calling it "Verifiable, sourced facts" and saying that accusations of sexual violence were "used by far-right propagandists to spread hatred against refugees". This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=708580862 stands out for blaming "white German men" when the word white does not appear in the source! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/first-cologne-attack-verdict-suspects-unlikely-convicted-new-year-eve

On the talk page, he went on a rant, saying, in full:

This entire piece - from the misleading title to the discredited material offered as 'facts' - is designed to spread racism and hate against refugees. Dishonest editors with a far right agenda simply stick down material which has been entirely discredited. They ignore the involvement of German nationals in the alleged assaults, and fail to make clear that there is hardly any evidence at all for sexual assaults, beyond anecdotal ones (CCTV and phone pictures reveal nothing except for a few minor thefts - hence the handful of minor convictions, which have been conveniently ignored in this piece) Those who produce these kind of propaganda pages for Wikipedia discredit the site, and actually harm their own extremist cause because sensible, educated readers can see exactly what they are doing. Intelligent, moderate readers should compare this dishonest, exaggerated, extremist Wikipedia entry with the latest facts:

"There is zero evidence for these rapes, beyond vague claims. Wikipedia is meant to be about hard facts, not propagandists desperately trying to support a racist agenda with what they can scramble together from dated newspaper articles. The 'excuse' for the lack of images of these crowds of men assaulting young women is the 'poor quality' of film. Of course, because in 2016, CCTV and phone cameras used to record pretty much every single public incident in the world just aren't up to it in Cologne."

And what do the "latest facts" say, according to his source?:

"Most of the men who sexually assaulted women in Cologne on New Year's Eve may never be caught, the city's police chief, Juergen Mathies, has said."

"About 1,000 men of North African and Arab origin gathered near Cologne's main station on 31 December. Smaller groups formed, first surrounding women and then threatening and attacking them, the report said. Chancellor Angela Merkel's immigration policy has since come under mounting criticism."

So his source, which he claims to be the truth and to knock out all sources before it, says exactly what the article says and what he finds so "racist"!

After five months dormancy, he returns to make edits to Harry's Place, a small blog. He says "Added balance to correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals", which shows his level of neutrality, and edit-wars to put in contentious claims from two other tiny blogs to say in the lead "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia " and " Its contributors use online pseudonyms to spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia". After being reversed and warned, he goes on another rampage on the talk page, again making conspiracy theories and saying that his precious blogs are "extremely reliable, and verifiable information".

This edit history shows that Calcoform has a left-wing/Islamic bias and can't leave it at home when he edits, inserts manipulated information to deflect crimes by people he sympathises with onto "white people", accuses people of being racists for using reliable sources, and is generally unpleasant in his summaries and posts. Maybe he has some other interests like gardening or cookery and he can write about them instead, but I am certain that the evidence I have provided shows that politics and religion are not the place for him 89.243.99.144 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Having both a left-wing and Islamic bias (when it manifests in the way as it did with this user) is kind of ironic, since one also protects Islamism with that, which really is a far-right ideology infused with more hate than most modern western neo-nazi movements. Besides that, I think the disgusting agenda pushing and sexual abuse denial should be stopped by a topic ban. I haven't looked at the things he wrote on other topics, I leave that to other editors. --Laber□^T 16:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Laberkiste, these are the only edits the user has made (apart from one banal edit to a journalist). This is an account used when this person wants to go on a great big rant (look at the five month absence). I only theorised about other contributions, because if he is banned from politics and religion, there are other things in the world that are not so controversial and people can contribute to maturely. 89.243.99.144 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

With "other edits" I referred to his edits on other things that the Cologne Assaults, e.g. Harry's Place. --Laber□^T 17:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am concerned about the demonstrated slanted editing style, as per these diffs:

• Edit-warring, use of weasel "alleged": [103][104][105].
• Blatant POV-pushing: [106][107].
• More POV-pushing on another article: [108][109][110].

The user has been warned about edit-warring and POV editing. I support (at least) a topic ban on Calcoform from New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany and Harry's Place. GAB^gab 17:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reviewed this users (short) Wikipedia-career and can only conclude WP:NOTHERE, WP:ABF, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Additionally, this user (apparantly) does not understand WP:RS thus adding WP:CIR to the list. A topic ban might remedy the situation, but the evidence presented above, in my opinion calls for an indefinite block. Kleuske (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of giving one very final chance to make productive, neutral edits in a different subject area, but I fully respect if a reviewing admin decides to dish out a block, instead. GAB^gab 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI. He just screwed that very final chance: "What a twisted, censorious, manipulative view of knowledge you have." In my book that's a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

[111] Accuses ThePlatypusofDoom of vandalism. More ranting on TP. Kleuske (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

More personal abuse and now in fullblown WP:3RR-territory. Kleuske (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reported user has been blocked for 48 hours by NeilN for edit warring and battleground conduct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. So yeah someone needs a timeout. Clearly they are doing nothing to contribute and are just here to be disruptive. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked two days with a clear warning that behavior has to change. This does not preclude a topic ban if consensus favors one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the infrequent editing and the disparity of the chosen topics, i don't see what the topic is we should ban him from. Let's hope 48 hrs suffices. If not WP:ROPE applies. Kleuske (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kleuske Both topics involve politics and Middle East (in general but not specific). These are topics that should be written about with the utmost care and biased editors in either direction should find something else to write about 89.243.165.189 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to construe the Middle East extremely broadly if it's to include Cologne and Hamburg. Kleuske (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing was that the people identified, arrested and tried for those crimes (that he says didn't happen and were done by others, take your pick) were of backgrounds from the Middle East. Hence the subject attracts people who think all Middle Easterners do those crimes, and people who think that none of them do those crimes, both of which are pathetically delusional viewpoints 89.243.165.189 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this not a declaration of (edit) war? This guy is pretty persistent in his work on a page nobody reads about a website outside the top 500,000 in the world. Also on the talk page he is trying to give away other users' identities. As Harry's Place writes primarily on Israel/Palestine I thought it would be protected like other pages to prevent edit warriors of either side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.189 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It is and he shows every sign of being quite persistent. Hence he's blocked for 48 hrs with a warning in no uncertain terms. If he persists, WP:ROPE applies and he will be blocked again. Kleuske (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

On second thought... This user has already shown a battleground mentality. To edit 'Middle East' and/or Israel/Palastine topics (broadly construed) that's useful like a good, clean kick in the head. Perhaps it is better to issue a topic ban on the Middle East. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion, 2607|FB90 range

Below is a copy of a report I've entered at AIV, and am now bringing here. Range of IPs that have disrupted perhaps dozens of articles, with a penchant for dogs and hip hop artists. Several articles have been protected, and some of the accounts have been blocked, but there's still a lot of residual damage, at articles like this [112], where the edits go back at least to July 11. Graham87 blocked at least two of the early accounts, for three months each [113], [114]; cross-checking their edits helps lead to related accounts and articles. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2607:FB90:4D:5F4C:6518:DDF0:C0E0:D27 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion. Third or fourth time I've reported this user in a day, all 2607|FB90 accounts. Is a rangeblock possible? If not, more articles, like German Shepard, need protection. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Stale report. Nobody has addressed this in nearly 12 hours and the edits were a content dispute, not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained, this is block evasion, involving persistent disruption to multiple articles, some of which Ronhjones has already protected. One of many incarnations, and perhaps the first: [115]. Since this isn't being addressed here, I'll ask seek further assistance, either from individual administrators or at ANI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI is the right place to go, per points 3 & 4 above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do--this is the most persistent and widespread such example I've come across in a while; two of dozens of examples can be seen in the edit histories of Great Dane and Boxer (dog). Please don't legitimize the edits as content disputes. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC) [End of AIV report]

I haven't really been watching the dog articles lately but I did notice some of these changes the other day. Although the geo-location seems to be different, I suspect it is the long term problem discussed here, after this thread on Drmies talk page months ago, and partly written up here. Same breeds, same changes etc. I think Graham87 may have blocked some similar IPs in the last couple of days. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; that's helpful, and establishes a much longer history. All the time I spend dropping hot potatoes with Drmies, and I didn't notice this. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• User:Sagaciousphil, thank you. AN is the right place, since you're asking for a range block (you know I don't know how to do those). 99, thanks for looking into this as well. I just protected the Boxer article; I am very tempted to semi-protect all those articles indefinitely. The editor has an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski/Archive. There is no talking with them; they seem impervious to all attempts to communicate, and obviously their editing skills are, how to put this, challenged. Drmies (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

His favourites are mainly breeds within the Working group, some of the Pastoral Group with a handful of others (Basset Hound, Labrador Retriever, etc), plus various rappers (if that's what you call them). Blocks never seem to have been particularly effective as he just switches off the router or whatever it is that changes the IP; pending changes only works if reviewers actually check against the ref, which doesn't always happen. I have no idea whether the weights/heights are correct in the targeted breeds at the moment and they should really be checked against the Breed Standards. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Drmies or other admins: looks like he's started again today? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, what do you mean "if that's what you call them"? Too many rappers: Nas and Beastie Boys turn it out. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Xboxmanwar on music articles

Earlier this month, User:IndianBio made this comment to Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs) which also summarizes my frustration:

Xbox, you are a valuable editor and the main discussion raised at Talk:Rebel Heart was to sough your expertise when I realized that there was a discrepancy. I wanted to involve the community also because there might be countless articles where such discrepancy glared. You never sought to edit collaboratively but went on this rampage of WP:IMRIGHT. That's not how this works. A WP:CONSENSUS is paramount to mass changes. You were being reverted across multiple articles and warned for it, but you never paid attention. The result was you edit warred so many times now across multiple articles, because you never thought of being the better person with your expertise and seek a DRN or BRD.

At the article Kodak Black:

I removed unsourced content here, as only one of the songs listed had a source, and the editor who added it also added a chart entitled "List of singles, with showing year released, peak chart positions and album name". Since only one of the songs actually charted, I reworked the edit, and added a source with this edit. Xboxmanwar reverted the edit here and added unsourced content back to the article; content which doesn't factually belong to the chart with that title. There was a clear purpose to my edit, yet Xboxmanwar had little regard for that. This sort of edit waring is endless with this editor.

On that same article, there has been talk page discussion here and here about not adding certain aliases to the infobox. Despite that, Xboxmanwar has added the aliases 7 times: [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122].

• These last 2 lines are both inaccurate and misleading. First, the second "here" discussion highlighted above is timestamped after all of the 7 diffs provided, and per my comments below that discussion seems to have been accepted by Xboxmanwar once it was explained clearly. Additionally, the "seven times" is inaccurate and disingenuous since DIFFs 1-3 are contiguous (non-removed) edits for the same day, and DIFF 7 is the original adding of the problem content. I do not know if this was intentional or accidental misinformation but assuming good faith it still means that all other evidence and diffs in this report should now be considered potentially flawed and reviewed carefully for accuracy. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries: This editor regularly leaves unsourced edits, with edit summaries like:

• "please leave it like this, this is how it should be"
• "guys I got this tracklisting"
• "Its not unsourced, its a fact, and if don't believe so, check out this link: {{URL|http://thepatour.com/}} He used to be on that page, gone now."
• "Check BMI for proof on middle name".

Or bullies other editors in edit summaries:

• "Cleanup, replaced embedded lists with tables, looks cleaner, and the tables doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL or anything at all, if anyone has issues for ridiculous reasons, see WP:COMMONSENSE, and for other issues, see WP:IGNORE, thank you."
• "Bruh are you dumb?"
• "No offense Magnolia, but you are really bad at maintaining this article"

After I nominated this article for deletion, Xboxmanwar left this message on my talk page: "I am disgusted on how you nominate Allen Ritter for deletion, again". He then called me a "dick" here, and "disrespectful" here.

At Kodak Black, he wrote "you are too restrictive on this article, I never seen anybody kiss this article's ass as much as you, plus you removed the chart that @JustDoItFettyg: added, and you removed it because the source "isn't reliable", are you lazy? The source that Fetty provides is from Billboard itself, how can you call that not reliable, thats straight from the source of Billboard. You need to let loose".

I have sought help with this editor at dispute resolution, and at third opinion.

Section blanking

• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions, he twice blanked the deletion discussion, here and here.
• At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz, he blanked the deletion discussion here.
• At Desiigner, he removed the AfD template here.

Canvasing

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination), he canvassed other editors for support here, here, and here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I both agree and disagree with the filer. I noted an interesting thing... it seems Xboxmanwar arrived here in January of this year and nobody posted a "Welcome" template that explained the rules of WP. In fact the very first thing that did happen was he was bitten by Magnolia677. Thus he got started off on the wrong foot from the get-go. That does not excuse all of his behavior but it helps to understand some of it. Xboxmanwar has been disruptive and at times rude and uncivil. However he has also shown the ability to respond positively to discussions that are calm, polite, and provide clear explanations such as here where he was corrected for violating WP:ETIQ and here where I was hand-holding him through a good faith (but aborted/unsuccessful) effort to try and salvage an AfD including where he acknowledges some of his faults .

Xboxmanwar has been here only about 7 months and in that time has produced hundreds of productive edits on many other pages. Yes, he has made mistakes and is still learning. Yes, he can be slow-to-learn and obstinate at times. And yes he can be hotheaded. So can other editors who have much more experience. I have tried to help him to learn because despite his prolific work he is still very much a newbie and I believe we need to dramatically AGF and nurture such editors yet at the same time call them out and politely correct them every time they make a mistake. We need to be teaching high-potential editors like this rather than attacking them and driving them away.

I think raising this AN/I is good to get this discussed but there are certain "big picture" questions that need to be considered in this case: Noting the volume of pages he has worked on is Xboxmanwar's problematic behavior present in many/most/all of the pages he edits or only on a few? If only a few then what are the common factors for the pages with problems? Is there perhaps one or more editor interaction issues that need to be addressed? Would an IBAN of some kind be helpful here? Or is the problem resolvable by more training or some kind of mentorship perhaps? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely 100% agree with Koala Tea Of Mercy; we must remember to always reflect a good faith-based point of view and in a manner that doesn't bite or make them feel discouraged for making mistakes (a completely normal thing that everybody does). We must be diligent at communicating with new users in a manner that welcomes them to the project, teaches them in a manner that makes them feel like they're important to us (because they really are!), and encourages them to learn and become a long-term contributor here. There's no reason why we shouldn't be doing this for all new users who make mistakes in good faith, and appear to be trying to contribute and improve the project. It's an element that we tend to fail at, and it's absolutely key if we're going to retain editors and contributors here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm 50/50 with the reporter as well. A few of the edit summaries and comments that Xboxmanwar added were not appropriate; some contained personal attacks and opinions towards others, calling them "bad at maintaining articles", a "kiss-ass", and were straight-up insults. But, Magnolia677, you're not entirely innocent from this either. The insults made on your talk page started when you said this to him in response to his initial message here. While I believe that his message was created in a bit of frustration and could have been a bit more calm in nature, I don't see anything completely uncivil or any personal attacks. Expressing feelings of frustration and disgust, or stating that something made somebody feel annoyed, in itself, is not uncivil. You started taking that discussion into an uncivil argument when you called his message "childish"and told him off.

I agree that the blanking and canvassing are disruptive, but I don't see the need for administrator action at this time. I think that Magnolia677 should be reminded to keep a cool head when dealing with difficulty such as this, and that Xboxmanwar should be given a warning (maybe even a final one) for civility and disruption; further violations of policy, or editing against consensus purposefully will lead to blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Response

@Magnolia677: It appears that you have been following me around on Wikipedia, going through all my history, just to make this report, may I say that you have issues too? Before, you spam marked most of the articles I made before for AfD, including the article Desiigner, which he had a number one on the charts at the time, but still marked it for deletion here, with the other editors on that AfD page showing their disgust of this editor marking it AfD, with one notable comment:

• Speedy Keep, the artist has a top 5 hit in the US and you nominate this for deletion?

This shows that this editor carelessly just marks articles for AFD without backing it up, all with the same message (with Ben Billions being slightly different),

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Billions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoey Dollaz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubeatz
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnage (DJ)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiigner

The messages he left on those pages has no backup information to support his claims as to why an article "fails", not pointing out what made the article "fail", I only blanked those pages because I was furious at the time on why this editor would AfD articles without backing it up, just with the same stale message, and eventually other editors agree with him, (Another editor has pointed this out to them before on the original Allen Ritter page, the one before I remade the new and recently deleted article, but they were ignored by them and other editors), still failing to say where the article fails, with most of them says Delete, fails this and that, and thats it, they don't where the "impact zone" is, so that can be fixed. These articles that this editor marked AfD had no issues with them, but then this editor came along and in my opinion, screw things up, because they didn't do any harm to anyone, and the other editors that saw the article didn't do anything because it was fine, but this editor didn't like that idea.

This editor's claim on my "unsourced edits", are hysterical,

For MC4, thats how the tracklisting should be, just like every other article with a tracklisting, so the unannounced songs can be put in there when the are announced, its logic.

For Major Key, I can't even believe this editor tried to use this excuse, this excuse doesn't help this editor at all, I simply filled in the tracklisting of the album, because it was released that night, I don't know how this is supposed to a "behavioral issue" in any way.

For this Kodak Black issue, the website (it takes time to load) removed him from the concert with Lil Uzi Vert, and even through I cannot find a older mirror of that website, I have one key evidence that he was on that website before, plus you can see here the original poster versus the new poster, as he was quietly removed when he got jailed, and the promoters obviously don't want to state about it, only to remove him, this editor doesn't want this information the article even through we have discussed about it before and that outcome didn't work, as I explained to this editor as to why to include it, but only to see to blatantly remove it again with no explanation, which shows that this editor is oblivious on this matter.

For D.R.A.M., simply do a BMI Repertoire search to find the info about a certain song if its registered in the system, just like ASCAP and SESAC, which you can find artist info (Example: Full Name, Award Winning Songs), which I used to find his middle name.

For Allen Ritter, I was furious with him because this editor stated to cleanup the article, but only to remove sources (that were even correct, just the parameter was wrong, but the editor didn't seem to care (If you read through that page, you will see what I mean), and they didn't add any sources to help contribute to the now-deleted article, you can't call that a cleanup, plus this editor did the same thing on the first nomination, and this editor claims that even through he has a Grammy nomination, they claim that it doesn't count, regardless of the other people nominated with him, he was still Grammy nominated and is liable for it. I angrily respond to this as this editor pointed, but they dismiss it, calling it "a teenage rant", which to my reaction, was an insult, so I insulted them back, by calling them a "dick" and "disrespectful", but then it looked like that turned my back on me, which made me even more disgusted, and I was trying to point out on the second AfD nomination with Koala Tea Of Mercy on how he is notable, plus that editor has had issues with this editor before. Thats also why I was canvasing other editors to help me save the article, but all of the editors I've reached out to didn't respond.

For my "bullying", this user states that I'm bullying other editors, whereas I'm only "bullying" him in all the entries he posted, which now shows that this editor likes to make false claims,

I'm not bullying, I'm "criticizing". This editor watches this article like a hawk, reverting every tidbit this editor doesn't like on the article, like in those entires he posted, I was putting embedded charts in the article, since that is the "norm" for musician articles, seen here, here, here and here, but this editor removes them and puts embedded lists instead, which isn't used often nowadays on Wikipedia.

For this Kodak Black issue with the charts, please look here near the end and here.

For this Kodak Black issue, the source was straight from Billboard, which is reliable, but this editor refused to understand it.

For the Kodak Black stage name issues, please look here.

For the issue with IndianBio is something else, please don't bring him into this and mix this up, I am done with him already.

This editor has put a ton of claims on me, I should note that even through this editor had AfD most of the articles I have made before, this editor's list of created articles appears that this editor has made peculiarly articles on ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading them, also based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim.

Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And this is why I have reported you here. Your last comment demonstrates your lack of concern for the Wikipedia project, and your inability to detect when you have just insulted a large group of people. Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns. An excellent story was written here about User:Coal town guy, who wrote hundreds of articles about West Virginia. Most US states have active user groups, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. When I wrote the article on Bruinsburg, Mississippi I discovered that the largest amphibious operation in American military history (until the Allied invasion of Normandy) took place there. You can now find a link to Bruinsburg on the Ulysses S. Grant article. Hundreds of other editors could share stories of the importance of documenting small settlements and ghost towns. Yet to you, these Wikipedia articles are "ghost towns and small unincorporated communities that almost nobody will have an interest in reading", and "based on the fact that those articles have very little information on them, and the chance of regular users finding those articles are slim". How dare you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: The fact that you ignored all my other counter-claims I've written in response to your report on me, and only cared about my last comment about you, makes you look single-minded about the last thing that should be taken cared of. To re-clarify, I never said nobody, I said almost nobody, which means that you are in a certain area of people that have that interest, and thats fine, what I'm saying is that a lot more people will discover something popular and/or upcoming, like "Kodak Black", versus an article you made back in 2013, "Low, Utah". If you look at the stats for "Kodak Black" in January 2016 versus "Low, Utah" in the same month and year, you can see the obvious difference in article views. I'm not saying that its a bad thing to have these articles, I'm saying to for you to try to be pertaining about the articles you mark AfD, since people will be interested in more mainstream things, regardless if that article wasn't right (Example: This article fails this and that.), rather then something thats simply a ghost town in some area in the world that most people won't find out about or go to. You marked AfD on articles that I made that you and I both know will have more views than most of those ghost town or unincorporated community articles you or anyone made, unless something significant happened there, like the Castle Geyser, its a property not that's not very occupied, only to be known because its a geyser, they shoot water to the sky from the ground, plus, this particular one has specially formed cone. Also, I do care about Wikipedia, which is obviously the reason why I'm on here, making edits everyday, fixing things up and whatnot. I never insulted a large group of people, like I mentioned before, I know certain people like you have this interest, and I'm totally okay with it, but with the uprising of rappers, record producers, singers, celebrities etc. I'm pretty damn sure that people will take a look more at that "dumb" stuff (Examples: Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Taylor Swift (Their current feud), etc.), then lesser known properties. Those articles that you caused to be deleted could've had a bigger impact than lesser known properties with little information on them. Sorry, but thats the cold hard ugly truth, go ahead, hit me with more insults, but I'm simply saying what's happening. Also, just like you mentioned in your response to my first response, "Several editors on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about small communities and ghost towns." Oh yeah, well I on Wikipedia have worked hard to create articles about rappers, record producers, singer, etc. taking hours trying to contribute to the articles I make, and you come nominating them for deletion, whereas nobody ever touched your small articles for a couple years (Example: History of Low, Utah), basically hasn't been touched since 2013, versus the articles I make will be revised in the future, those small articles are dead ends. So if you think I've done wrong first, believe me, you did. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This gives me a headache wading through all these walls of text. I already had to bonk these two's heads together for edit warring at Kodak Black here, and since then they've gone on to make literally dozens of edits daily to this same article, arguing, undoing each other, name-calling, on and on. I wish I had this little to do over the summer break. Maybe a page ban for Xboxmanwar and Magnolia677 from Kodak Black would give us all some peace. --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Demeaning others work is not going to score either of you any points with anyone. It's a childish waste of others time by both of you. KNOCK IT OFF!

That having been said, I agree we should have done better initially by the editor in question. I question whether it would have done any good. If you peruse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Ritter (2nd nomination) you will see at least three editors attempting to explain the concepts of WP:RS and WP:N. During that time frame, I left him a message on the same topics, along with a welcoming template and an invitation to Teahouse. I strongly urged him to make use of these resources and invited him to ask questions on my talk page if he so desired. To date he has asked no questions at Teahouse or at my talk. He seemed to at least not be applying IDHT to Koala Tea Of Mercy, but there is no indication if any communication there. (IMO, the reason for lack of bad attitude toward this particular editor is because he supported keeping Allen Ritter, even tho he conceded that the only basis was IAR. This shows an extreme BATTLEGROUND attitude). In short...for all our lack of cordial treatment initially, he still isn't getting it. Witness this response to a now blocked obviously paid editor two days ago. This edit was the topic of discussion. I would propose that we insist this editor get some mentoring. Perhaps KTOM would be willing? John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Coming from someone that dismissed Allen Ritter as not a musician,

That would all be great, except the subject of the article in question is not a musician and WP:MUSICBIO does not apply to him. Yawn. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If he wasn't a musician, I wouldn't have added a Wikipedia article about him, but he is one, he is a singer, pianist, songwriter and record producer, here are his credits, WP:MUSICBIO does apply to him, as well as WP:COMPOSER, plus his Grammy nomination, regardless of the people he was nominated with, also the 1, 2, 3, 4 ASCAP Awards he got, makes him notable. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I was afraid someone was going to suggest that. Sadly I will need to decline. Normally I would be willing to mentor newbies on occasion but the next semester at my college is starting in a few weeks and I have materials to prepare for my classes and will be getting back into my research projects so I will have a much restricted availability for Wikipedia. In fact if you see me here after a few weeks from now until the end of the year it means I am playing hooky from my academic responsibilities. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to offer myself as a mentor if it's needed and mentoring is the conclusion that the community comes to :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question responding with more BATTLEGROUND is fairly substantial proof of the problem. I opposed him in a discussion so therefore I cannot possibly be able to offer objective analysis? The bit about accepting the paid editor's OR needs to be addressed. This isn't the place to rehash Mr. Ritter's notability. The community has already decided that. John from Idegon (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I'm not a paid editor. Xboxmanwar (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Any degree of extra patience that I think we might reasonably give to an editor solely on the basis of a missing welcome template is evaporating quickly here. On the basis of this thread alone, there is ample and continuing evidence of WP:incivil and WP:disruptive behaviour and a propensity for needlessly personalizing disputes, all fueled by an apparent WP:OWN mentality over the articles and content in question and a steadfast refusal to internalize some of our most basic editorial guidelines on sourcing and verification (WP:V and WP:RS, for example)--all this despite their having been here for more than half a year. Indeed, the further this discussion progresses, the more inclined the user appears to be to double-down the WP:IDONTHEAR and battleground tactics. There's just too much name-calling and obstinance in evidence here to be completely dismissed by a rocky start and a lack of guidance.

Handy templates or no, all beginning editors need to acclimate to policy and demonstrate basic competency with the consensus process and our civility standards. That is not the direction this editor is headed in and, from where I'm standing, that seems to be as much about their disposition as anything. The WP:Personal attacks and the questioning of the general value of other editors needs to stop, immediately, if this user is be a net-value to the encyclopedia. If they cannot put the breaks on these behaviours themself, and in short order, then I think a short term block is warranted to make the point. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Xboxmanwar - The fact that you can somehow parse the statement I made above as accusing you of being a paid editor brings WP:CIR into play. Perhaps if you had not blanked your talk page you could have easily looked at the actual conversation in question to clarify it for yourself. So, to repeat myself, when a now blocked editor posted on your talk page this:

We represent Ralph Jeanty and Sean McMillion who are writers for August Alsina.... They wrote August Alisna's verse in "Do You Mind", They have offcially been added to the credits on album...Please stop undo-ing Thank you

diff

you replied:

Ok I believe you, I have fixed your edit with the correct parameter, thanks for the notice.

diff

This conversation pertained to this edit.

You need to explain your reply.

I purposely omitted the name of the blocked editor although it is easily accessible in the diffs. There is nothing he or she could add that is on point here and they are unable to anyway, because they are blocked. Leaving the name out eliminates the need to notify them. John from Idegon (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Maybe because it was true? Also, I know that you didn't accuse me as a paid editor, I was just pointing that out, but after that editor posted their notice on my talk page, I went to do the research myself, and I found the some information, which is the link I've provided . I shouldn't have said that I believed them, but I'm sure they were true, judging by their work with August Alsina and Betty Wright, two guest artists who appeared on Major Key and the link I've provided, plus the paid editor's desire to add their credits to the song "Do You Mind" on that album makes me believe that its true. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since my name was pinged in this mountain of conversation (I had missed it in the original ping). My dealing with this user (Xbox) has made me realize that there is a huge wP:CIR as well as incivility and the major concern here was WP:IDHT. I absolutely have to agree with Snow rise here that just a welcoming template miss, is not the problem here. The continuous Edit warring mentality as well as the OWN issues and Battleground leads me to sincerely believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I never intended to be in a Battleground, but since Magnolia667 keeps reporting me about continuous disputes we have, it had been turned into a Battleground. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Xboxmanwar please explain how the reference you cited above meets the requirements for reliable sourcing. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: WP:SELFSOURCE. Xboxmanwar (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I am at a loss as to how that source verifies that edit. If I'm missing something, please would someone explain? Second, my understanding of self source (which I'm still not sure the source in question would be on the article in question) is that we will accept an official social media page from the subject of an article to verify info we would accept on face value from the person (the only two examples I can think of are religion and sexual orientation. If I'm wrong, please correct me) or minor facts such as birthdate, place of birth and hometown, but only in the absence of better sources. If I've got this wrong, please correct me. I don't believe any error in interpretation is major tho. I do not see how it could ever apply to a page on a recording.

@John from Idegon: I'm sure that a self-source doesn't apply to solely minor facts, or the examples you've provided, WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't not state in any way as to only applying to certain subjects. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this report's lame excuse for battleground behavior is very troubling. Primarily for him, let me recap this thread:

1. Magnolia677 reported Xboxmanwar for inappropriate behavior on numerous articles.
2. More than one editor responded saying Magnolia677 was guilty of bite. If Xboxmanwar would have simply kept his mouth shut at this point, this thread would have closed with Magnolia677 being admonished not to bite and that would have been that.
3. Instead, Xboxmanwar responds with a TLDR reply chock full of lack of CLUE and personal attacks. Magnolia677 responds in kind, which obviously he shouldn't have. Then Magnolia677 got smart and shut up.
4. Another editor stepped in and suggested banning both editors from Kodak Black.
5. At this point I decided to get involved, chastised both editors for their poor behavior and proceeded to outline my observations of the lack of clue in Xboxmanwar's interactions with others and his editing in general.
6. Xboxmanwar responds with a personal attack and trying to rehash closed matters.
7. Several other editors also make observations pertaining to Xboxmanwar. In particular citing battleground and various things pertaining to lack of clue.
8. I ask twice before getting a meaningful response about a particular and quite recent issue regarding OR.
9. Unless my lunch is in my shoe, he responds in a totally clueless manor, still quite battleground in tone.

Therefore, I feel I must propose the following:

That Xboxmanwar be topic banned from things pertaining to the music industry, broadly construed, for an indefinite period. That he be required to secure a mentor and with said mentor's assistance, learn to make constructive edits in other areas. After 6 months and with the recommendation of his mentor, this ban can be appealed and should be lifted if he has successfully mastered the alphabet soup of policies he needs to know.

Discussion? John from Idegon (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Where at 6. I do a personal attack, and for 2. why would you tell to shut up, Magnolia667 was the one who reported me, what makes you think I should stay quiet for that? Also, maybe if you read the "walls" of text, you could understand more of what's going on than just dismissing it. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support this sanction and would like to have a mentor assigned to Xbox. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support (Non-admin observation) Unfortunately Xbox (IMO only) would continue to do battle here on a regular basis without having a mentor to reel him in from time to time. I believe the last sentence written by Xbox above speaks volumes. I may be wrong but not all the time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aloha27: I said earlier that I never intended to be in a Battleground, I simply want to know where this editor's rogue claims come from and as they said before, they didn't read everything, or IMO only, they didn't bother to read any of my main responses and presumed that I was automatically wrong without reading them and they went directly to a solution. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Centipede92

This user started as a Trump campaigning account, resulting in some page deletions and a rename of said account, which was several months ago. Today, I noticed that he edited the article on Ali Khamenei, stating that he was dead without mentioning any sources. Considering the previous behavior of said user, I resorted in adding a level 4 warning to his talk page. Later, this user states on my talk page that I can't (well I just did so...) give him level 4 warnings and my opinion is "worthless". He also used an insulting edit summary on his talk page. Since this user seems to have very few productive edits and seemingly has massive issues with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, I propose a indefinite block.--Laber□^T 01:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• That edit was a mistake, reports were coming out that he had died and I edited the article before a reliable source had come out, turns out it was false, my bad. With that said, there was 0 reason for you to slap a level 4 warning on my page over a mistake I made over a month ago. I sense you are just trying to start a quarrel here. --Centipede92 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Centipede92 - The final warning, given your past, and the fact that you modified a biography of a living person -- was perfectly appropriate. Your edit summary with this warning removal is also not helping your case here. Any further disruption or edits that are against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can lead to blocking without further warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

An "only warning" for an isolated mistake from over a month ago is appropriate? Interesting, you're the first I've heard claim this. And you and Laberkiste seem to have some misconceptions here, I was never associated with the Trump campaign, I chose my username because I joined planning to primarily edit Donald Trump-related articles. The user seems to take issue with me, our first interaction was him nominating my userspace draft for deletion, claiming it was "promotional" when it clearly wasn't. After that he left a warning on my talk page for an old edit, then reported me to AIV for... messaging his talk page? Strange. Anyway this user just seems to have a beef with me for some reason, don't know why, you can look at my edits and see I haven't caused any trouble for anyone. --Centipede92 (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Centipede92 - I will acknowledge that the edit was made over a month ago, and the warning was left in an untimely fashion (the person who reverted your edit should have left a warning)... maybe even in a bit of a random fashion (in fact, I'm curious as to how and why this is coming up now - maybe Laberkiste will explain this). I don't have access to all of the information, since your past does involve pages that were deleted. This is why I am not endorsing a block; I'm simply stating that, yes while the warning seems random and ill-timed, it was made due to an edit that clearly violated Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. The warning states that if disruption continues, blocking can be imposed without further warning. And for this reason, I believe that the warning is appropriate. I hope my clarification helps you to understand my thoughts.

On a side note, this statement you made is uncivil and not appropriate. It's okay to be frustrated and ask about a warning to the issuer, but telling someone that "your opinion is worthless regardless" is not okay. It's also for this reason that being on a final-warning basis, rather than a being blocked, is appropriate given the evidence I have. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A level 4 only warning was probably a little over the top, especially considering the edit was a month old and no further BLP violations had been brought to light. Instead of a template message, a personal message reminding them of the BLP policy would have been more appropriate considering how young Centipede2's account is. @Centipede2: Any editor may give another editor a warning of any sort. Administrators, although they have the accesses to block people, are not the only ones who have the necessary authority to warn people. They will take into account any warnings an editor may have before imposing blocks or other sanctions. In this case, I'd say this can be closed with a simple reminder to all involved to maintain civility and for Centipede2, BLP violations are taken very seriously. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A level 4 or 4im warning seems appropriate given the past issues with editing. It is kind of 50-50. However I do believe I would have done the same, since it was a serious BLP issue the 4 or 4im would have been appropriate regardless. Centipede2 You also didn't help yourself with disregarding WP:CIVIL. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What "past issues" are these, exactly? I've never had another warning or had a page deleted. Also I see looking at the edit history that lots of other users added info of his supposed death to the page, he didn't warn any of them. --Centipede92 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment I believe the deleted page that is being spoke of was your You Can't Stump The Trump article which was deleted on May 29th 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can%27t_Stump_The_Trump&action=edit&redlink=1 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) My apologies Centipede92, I was going based off of what the OP wrote, I suppose I should go back to the old tried and true method of "trust but verify" although you do have a page that has been deleted You Can't Stump The Trump. A level 4 warning was still appropriate due to BLP concerns. I'd also like to take this opportunity to make you aware of the Discretionary Sanctions imposed on Biographies of Living Persons which authorizes any uninvolved Administrator to place sanctions on any editor who violates the restrictions that have been placed by the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That was a redirect from being moved, the page is still in my userspace --Centipede92 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless you'll still want to make yourself aware of that ARBCOM case if you are editing BLPs. I do think that a block at this point would be a disproportionate. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• What is being asked for here? A block? A ban on editing BLPs broadly? A ban around post-1932 US politics? Some other restriction? A warning? ARBCOM gives a lot of leeway and without actual community consensus, just discretionary sanctions. I think blocks are a bit excessive and WP:AGF] on the Khamenei one, it's not the first time people have reported rumors but I don't know the full history here. The stump the trump page is now a draft but while it's not notable, it's not something I find blockworthy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Amusso1234

Amusso1234 has repeatedly replaced the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites/Sample with an article about Aaron Rowe, a character in a book called The Dead I Know. (see diffs 732629676 and 732931264) They have also created Template:Aaron Rowe two times, but it doesn't belong in the template namespace. According to their edits at Talk:Aaron Rowe (diff 732789050), they are a student trying to complete an assignment. While they may not intend to cause any harm, their activity is disruptive, and they might be WP:NOTHERE if they're doing this for a school assignment. Sunmist3 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If we are to believe Amusso1234 he/she is 9 years old, so please let's not be too heavy-handed. EEng 07:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw that as being in year 9 in school and not that age. I deleted the template and left them a message. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly deserve a trout for that. (Did seem a bit precocious.) Please crush his or her spirit without mercy. EEng 07:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry no trout for you. I'm from Cambridge Bay so you get one of instead. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what he's trying to do, but he's still at it at WP:WikiProject Websites/Sample EEng 16:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems to have stopped. I doubt it's an assignment as those usually result in a flood of those together not one person. Left a lengthy talk page comment so we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My stalker's latest IP sock

86.187.168.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AccountForANI (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify who 86.187.168.41 is stalking, because it certainly is not this account as it has never made any edit to either of the articles that 86. has edited (or indeed to any article whatsoever). Or to put the question another way: since you refer to 86. as "My stalker...", of whom are you a sockpuppet? --Elektrik Fanne 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been here before, I believe with a similar query that has since been resolved. I will try to find it in the archives. If there's a reason for anonymity, than, it'll be somewhere in the archives. I found their thread, Archive 930 thread: Return of IP troll, [123]. Whomever it is, Ed at least was of the opinion that their report is genuine. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch Mr rnddude; pinging Edgar181 as FYI. It's a curious account that has seven edits; all to noticeboards, and six just to ANI _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the main account is trying to deflect harassment and such away from themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This is an IP-hopper that has had a fascination with reverting my edits to video-game articles for about 7 years now. I've submitted dozens of reports to ANI before this under my main, but I've switched to an alt here to deny them attention from my main. You can find a few of the previous reports here. AccountForANI (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@AccountForANI: Apologies for any implied WP:ASPERSIONs in my post up there!- _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And likewise. I should add that without any context, it did look like a rather odd report. --Elektrik Fanne 15:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked 86.187.161.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.187.168.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing and semi-protected the targeted pages for a couple of days. These are IP socks of an editor that has been persistently edit warring across multiple pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like something we could tailor an abuse filter to catch since their ip range isn't very wide and there's a pattern in the edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@AccountForANI: are there any specific pages this stalker targets? Or is it just your edits in video game articles? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really, it's just my latest edits that they target; last few articles in my edit history usually, though they seem to disregard articles that are not video-game related. My request for an edit filter regarding this whole issue got rejected though, see this. I could speculate and say that they do have certain triggers; A few days ago I did edit an article Magic Carpet 2 which was one of the articles that they edit-warred like hell over for years, that's most likely what caused them to return now that I think about it. Originally the vandal stuck to a certain set of articles, the stalking only became a thing once they weren't allowed to force their edits through on those articles, but they still seem to come back to avenge any edits to these articles it seems. AccountForANI (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

AccountForANI, please excuse my removal of your post earlier. Your username seemed fishy to me and it alerted me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I know it looks weird when a single-purpose account comes in complaining about other users. The no info thing really didn't help either. AccountForANI (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@AccountForANI: Perhaps add {{Alternative account}} to your user page? Just for future reports? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Persistent OWN behavior despite multiple editors' warnings

With heavy heart and great regret, and after much discussion, I must ask on behalf of multiple editors for action regarding User:BaronBifford, who has exhibited persistent, and indeed defiant, WP:OWN at Superman. Perhaps this would take the form of a few weeks off Wikipedia in order to break what may be obsessive behavior. Perhaps a topic ban of some length would be in order. His behavior is not only disruptive, but at least a couple of us fellow editors are genuinely concerned for him, given his voluminous, nearly SPA pattern of editing.

After a talk-page consensus goes against him, he slow-motion edit-wars by biding his time and then sneaking in edits that other editors have rejected. Here are examples where another editor's edit-summary links to discussions he ignored:

• [124]
• [125] after his edit-warring here
• and [126].

Here are examples of more slow-motion edit-warring:

• this on July 23 following
• this on July 22.

He frequently goes against Project guidelines and MOS. Edit summaries that mention but do not link to relevant talk-page discussions, which are now linked to on this page, include:

• [127]
• [128]
• [129] with discussions at Talk:Superman#"In other media" section and Talk:Superman#Publication that show no consensus for BaronBifford's unilateral changes. He initiated additional discussion at Talk:Superman#Radio, TV, and movie adaptations that also resulted in no consensus for his changes. Other examples of time-consuming and pointless arguments to go against guidelines and MOS include Talk:Superman#Cover date vs actual publishing date and Talk:Superman#Image staggering.

Other examples could be given. What's perhaps more troubling is that multiple editors have worked patiently with him to no avail, only to have him denigrate anyone who works on the article other than himself. For example:

• [130]: "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"

• [131]: "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work on this article… How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

• [132]: "I'd rather conform to how the professionals do it then the sloppy work of Wikipedia's amateurs!"

• [133] "You haven't put any dedicated effort into research or refining the content of this article, or an other superhero article. The superhero articles of Wikipedia are generally shit, because they are written by fanboys who don't care for presentation, thorough research, or the perspective of the layman."

• [134]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article."

• [135]: "I don't think you have the same kind of perspective I have developed over the past nine months."

But I think the biggest concern comes out of a statement that shows he just doesn't get the idea of consensus and guidelines / MOS:

• [136]: "the only reason he is opposing me is that I've failed to gain consensus with everyone else and that my proposed changes are not consistent with many other articles on superheroes." Well, yes! That's exactly right. And he somehow refuses to accept these basic tenets of Wikipedia.

Or as he puts it another way [137]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors."

If you go to the Superman talk page, you'll find multiple editors trying to talk him about this, going back to at least May 31 [138]. You'll find much regret in my voice in many posts, including one my last, at Talk:Superman#CC of notice just placed on an editor's talk page. But nothing any of us has said has had more than a very minimal impact. He regards us as impediments to his article. Or as he puts it [139]: "I am disappointed by the constant obstruction of other editors who take no intense interest in the development of this article." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As another one of the editors who has tried to help the user in question understand why this can't continue and why we need to discuss these changes and then being accused of knowing nothing of Superman I unfortunately have to agree with this. I have chosen to edit the article when it's needed IE: vandalism, incorrect info posted. As I believe Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without users working as a team. The article has had several consensus done and the article has been written per those. I take no satisfaction in having to take it to this point. The user seems to be under the impression that they are the only editor who should be editting the Superman article and they are the know all be all of the subject. The larger concerns for me are the constant ownerish attitude and the constant dismissal of other editors edits or opinions or consensus. My largest concerns are comments like

[140]: "The best articles on Wikipedia tend be those written by one guy who commits lots of time and money. The worst ones tend to be the ones built piecemeal by many editors." And [141]: "I'm the only [person] doing anything constructive on this article." And comments to other editors like [142]: "WarMachineWildThing, looking at his contrib history, is mainly interested in professional wrestling. How can these guys appreciate the work I'm trying to do? I feel like I'm a painter whose every stroke must be approved by a committee of plumbers."

Those types of comments are just a small sample. While I do edit wrestling articles more often it's because they seem to be vandalized alot I was in the wrestling business for 10yrs so yeah I have alot of intrest in it. But I have a Superman collection that was started for me over 40 years ago before I was born, I had the ONLY Superman Tribute Truck that was featured on the Chris and Dana Reeve Foundation website because Christopher Reeve was on the hood, and Im known as Superman by the kids in my area because of the Charity work I do, so I have alot of interest in Superman and knowledge. But the user seems to think because I don't edit the article obsessively my opinion doesn't matter. If you look at his edit behavior of his last 200 edits I would say 90% are on the Superman article alone which is a concern for me as I am concerned for the person behind the screen of their ownerish and obsessive behavior that has caused them to think that what they are doing is right and don't understand how this behavior is harmful to the article and themselves. Sorry for the long windedness but I agree this user needs to understand this is not acceptable behavior and should be given a "time out" Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae has been exceedingly patient and afforded BaronBifford every opportunity to demonstrate a sincere and consistent willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors. Unfortunately, despite the generous patience of Tenebrae (and several others like WarMachineWildThing & myself), BaronBifford has repeatedly ignored or outright mocked consensus-building and consensus itself. He has lashed out: telling an editor to "piss off"; criticized the "generally shit" quality of superhero articles; called others "squabble editors"; etc. What concerns me more, however, is when Baron repeatedly expresses what he sees as his right to edit certain content, even in the context of general opposition to his proposals. Here are just a few recent examples of Baron's general attitude of ownership:

• "What exactly do you think you guys do for Wikipedia?"
• "I'm the only editor doing any meaningful work"
• "I have yet to hear anyone else put any critical thought into this."
• "Where did you get your bizarre notions?"
• "I'm the only [one] doing anything constructive on this article."

At the very least, I hope an uninvolved admin will seriously onsider a Superman topic ban for a time, though I defer to Tenebrae's greater experience in suggesting the best course to move forward. Levdr1lp / talk 03:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think Superman is within the scope of any ARBCOM sanctions so it wouldn't be just a uninvolved administrator but a consensus here for a topic ban. As of right now, everyone is posting talk page comments that show possible incivility but it would be helpful to show to see the actual edits and the actual RFCs and the actual discussion with the editor that are evidence said problems. This reversion may or may not be appropriate but I can't tell from the way BaronBifford edits what is the actual problems here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• • • I've given links to examples of his contentious edits at numbers 54 to 59 above. And the issue here is WP:OWN, so if there's a more appropriate venue than this, I'm sure we'd all be glad to move the discussion there. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The main arguments against my edits are that they are somewhat inconsistent with some (but not all!) other articles on superheroes. They refuse to take into account the specific nature of the history of the Superman character. There are also a lot of ad hominem attacks against me. They want me to pass every little structural change I make through a committee, a process which is extremely slow (how many days did it take an admin to respond to this ANI thread?). My detractors say I refuse to "collaborate". My rebuttal is that they fail to collaborate. I've numerous times asked Tenebrae and others to participate in my research. I even offered to buy reference books out of my own pocket to encourage him. But his meaningful contributions have been minimal. He has made corrections to my grammar and formatting, and he has mostly been correct in that regard. But he has contributed nothing insightful to the article, which is painful after all the time and money I have expended. He likes to flaunt his credentials as a professional editor (of what I don't know), but what I want is an historian. Tenebrae does not come off as an historian. A sincere fanboy, yes, but not a serious scholar. I once had a perspective similar to his, in fact. I too am a massive superhero geek. But my research into the details of Superman, the commercial and creative talent behind the character, has changed this perspective. As the knowledge in an article develops, the structure of its content must mutate. The traditional bindings the he placed on this article deforms its body.

The biggest point of argument here is my wish to place a summary about the movies and TV adaptations of Superman alongside the information on the comic books. This seems logical to me, because there is so much cross-pollination between the books, TV shows, and movies that I cannot imagine not describing it holistically. This is how the professional books have addressed the topic, including Encyclopedia Britannica and all the reference material that appears in the Bibliography. Only here on Wikipedia do we have the notion that Superman is "primarily" a comic book character and that his movies and TV shows are a footnote in its history. BaronBifford (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardly a footnote, given we have entire articles such as Superman in film and Superman (franchise), as well as Category:Superman films and Category:Superman in other media, among others, so his claim is without merit. Organizing all this under an "In other media" section as the MOS has described for years is sensible and as per longstanding consensus. As for the Britannica article, one paragraph placed high in a short article is no different from what we already do in mentioning other media in our article's lead.

Refusing to follow MOS consensus when multiple editors on the talk page say they agree with the guidelines is contentious and WP:OWN-ish and in no way part of the collaborate effort for which we strive. It's like trying to edit with Donald Trump. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here, I agree with Tenebrae. The MOS has been consistent on pretty much every single fictional character article: the initial source is the main point and then films and TV shows and the like are separate. There is zero reason why Superman alone should be completely reorganized differently than literally every single other piece of work out there just because you personally like the way Britannica does it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

First, a college student with the hubris to refer to himself as a scholar when I've published and edited many articles about comics — though I'm not going to out myself — shows someone without the perspective that he might have gained by examining the more than 100 comics-related articles I've created in 11 years here. I don't know what criteria he uses to denigrate someone with the ad hominem label "sincere fanboy," but I would say his obsession with Superman as shown in his edit-history makes him the pot calling the kettle black.

In any event, his slow-motion edit-warring and his constant arguing with other editors over settled guidelines and MOS is exhausting and WP:OWN-ish. His idea of collaborating is to go on the article talk page, tell us everyone is wrong and that only he is right, and then to go back to the article and make contentious changes. I ask: What should be the community's response to this behavior? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you mistake dedication for "obsession"? I hear Wikipedia is struggling to retain editors and here you are trying to shut down a hard-working editor who is neither a troll nor a vandal.BaronBifford (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to listen to other people here and ignore the fact that this version has been built upon years of general consensus and views, then you're more of a hindrance than a help. Respect the fact that your suggestions are contentious and put forth some effort in convincing others to agree with you on them. Just because you most strongly believe in something doesn't mean that's the way it should be done. Again, if you only edit the Superman articles and only want them structured a certain way, propose that but realize that other people are concerned about how all fictional character articles are designed and in that vein, Superman is just a single article or series of articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page fully protected two weeks. In the mean time, RFC's should be started or WP:DRN should be used to help settle content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I like to think I got a lot of shit done up to this point. Four steps forward, one step back — not bad. BaronBifford (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish your comment above showed some indication that you see the problem, but you're just being self-aggrandizing. That's not actually helpful.

The ball is in your court, BaronBifford. As the admin suggests, please start an WP:RFC or start a detailed discussion at WP:DRN. But I think the issue is larger than specific edits, and three other editors here agree: Your WP:OWN behavior needs to be addressed. Because if you don't initiate discussion and simply return to contentious editing in two weeks, honestly, that's no good for anyone and it's no good for Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the comments he left above he doesn't care what anyone thinks or the fact that because of all of this the page is now locked down and he's going to continue with this behavior. When you can't work with others or follow the consensus that has been agreed upon and continue to do what only you want, that's not good for anyone. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Having read that talk page, I can't escape the conclusion that this is a bit of a mixed case. On the one hand, I find that I agree with a great many of the copy edit observations BaronBifford makes there, and I feel he presents his views generally in a very cogent manner. That said, there are also some clear issues with WP:OWN here, as well as a fair bit of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT with regard to said behaviour--which of course is not uncommon in such cases. Now, not meaning to backseat admin Neil here, but I don't think I would have opted for page protection in his place; if indeed there is one editor moving against consensus (as seems to be the case), then I don't think it's in the best interest of the article and share the skepticism of others that it will resolve the core issues.

That being said, Neil's approach does give BaronB an opportunity to back up and re-assess his behaviour here. DRN is an excellent way to iron some of the differences out and hopefully find some unexplored middle ground. But it can only work if all parties come to it open minded. And with regard to Baron I feel that can only happen if he accepts that, on this project, he must pick his battles and that, no matter how right he may feel he is on a particular content issue, it is vastly more important that editors embrace the principles of collaboration and consensus than that they stick to their guns on this or that particular issue; the former might make one little passage more reliable, but it's the latter that makes our collective content vastly more reliable in the aggregate. If he cannot comport himself to this principle, this is likely just not the project for him to contribute his time to, and we can expect this problem to not only persist on the Superman article, but indeed to follow him wherever he takes his editorial interest. That would be a shame, as I think he has strengths as an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snow Rise's assessment here. BaronBifford, regardless of the quality of your contributions, continuing to persist in behavior consistent with WP:OWN or rejecting collaboration with other editors is not going to end well for you or this project. Please be mindful of how you conduct yourself. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I propose a topic ban relating to Superman themed articles? That would seem to be the most appropriate response to this situation, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Neebras' creations

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

---

Within a month this new user Neebras (talk · contribs · count) has created 97 pages of which 13 have already been deleted, some are on various stages of deletion like PROD/AfD/Speedy and some have been redirected. Same applies to categories and templates. Is some admin action warranted here or should we continue spending community time in debating and discussing edits of this user who took BEBOLD seriously whereas we cant? Their talk page is full of notices and I see a nicely written note by @WikiDan61: suggesting a slow down and giving time to ponder which probably has fallen on deaf ears. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest an indef block until they agree to create all new articles via WP:AfC only, and a topic ban on creating new categories and templates (if they want a new category/template to be created, they can request it at the relevant WikiProject). If they agree to both of those conditions, the indef can be lifted, but if they breach the agreement, the indef goes back on. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You suggest an indef block? There is currently one warning, and an apology, on the user talkpage. FFS. Begoon ^talk 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

[143]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I missed the history, but still, an indef block? Sledgehammers is a word that springs to mind. --Begoon ^talk 12:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read the rest of my proposal. This isn't the first time we've indef blocked a disruptively creative user who fails to heed dozens and dozens and dozens of posts on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're supposed to take Be Bold seriously, it's meant quite seriously. On the topic of admin action, have they been warned about their actions being disruptive? if not, then that should be the first step. Use template {{uw-disruptive3}} or {{uw-generic4}} to warn them, if they persist, bring it to AN/I and admin action may be taken. They haven't received a formal warning, just a couple reminders and a mild warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Neebras, you shouldn't ever remove a thread about yourself from AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that Neebras just deleted this entire ANI thread is further proof that he needs to be stopped from his disruptive editing until such time as he agrees to edit within supervised channels. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• General comment Whilst it's true that 14% of his contributions have or are likely to be deleted, 86% haven't; make of that what you will. This user has been here less than a month, yet has still written stub articles. Some of these ([144], [145], for example) meet WP:NTENNIS. Other actions- this foolish blanking here- could just reflect inexperience with WP procedures. And as has been indicated, since no one has formally told him he needs to abide by them, why would they? I suggest WP:MENTOR, if agreeable to both parties. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll slow down - I'll stop creating articles of my own opinions like List of Shaan and Alka Yagnik duets, Bollywood duets. I think it will be good for all. If u notice, all the articles deleted were within List of Open Era Tennis records, which I weren't aware about. Some otther articles were deleted as the subject had articles regarding the same. But Bollywood songs articles and Tennis bios I've created all are beyond discussions, they've quite perfect, my sources (atpworldtour.com, wtatennis.com, mirchimusic.com) actually are reliable. So, I think there's no problem on my songs and tennis bio articles. Is that ok? Neebras (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Neebras: Actually, most of the tennis biographies that you've created do not meet the criteria for inclusion. While the sources you've noted are reliable for gleaning statistics about a player, they are not discriminating about which players they cover. In order to establish notability, we'd need evidence that the players achieved any of the goals set out at WP:NTENNIS or were otherwise the subject of significant coverage. Inclusion in databases that list all players is not considered significant. But you know this, because commentary like this has been posted on your user page more than once. The fact that you choose not to accept that assessment is problematic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh dear ... I'm another who had tried to advise Neebras on their talk page, and the concerns I found and raised included copyvio (I believe the editor felt insecure about their paraphrasing skills). But I'm afraid that checking up on how they have been doing is one of the things I haven't been able to get to since having to work on all the translations produced by the WMF translation tool. I have no doubt of Neebras' good faith, and tried to improve some of their articles, partly to show how to do things like italicising film titles and fully identifying references (and indeed I saw them pick up on some of it). I wonder if anyone would be willing to offer a mentorship? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think WP:AFC is the way to go. Other editors use it, why shouldn't this disruptively creative editor? I doubt he is really going to slow down enough for mentorship. He has just now created 4+ (and counting) new articles, one hour after deleting this ANI thread and then saying "I'll slow down". So much for slowing down. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add: He's still creating an article every hour. It's time to block him until he agrees to go through WP:AFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Is, for example 'radiomirchi.com.' a reliable source? If not, it's another for PROD- and both the latest creations rely on it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm another editor who has pleaded with Neebras to be careful in creating non-notable tennis articles. There was another one today Tina Plivelitsch that I just prod'd. To be fair, some articles were notable but were sourced with incorrect info. Players were said to win tournaments that never existed. It turned out they won other events that made them notable but that wasn't in the article and we had to search it out for ourselves. There are a few other articles that editors here have complained about but which are actually notable. Such as jr players who have won one of the jr Grand Slam tournaments (singles or doubles). That makes them notable even if they stink the rest of their careers. The trouble is I can't rely on this editor to create a notable article... each one has to be gone over with a fine toothed comb with a good chance it will have to be thrown out. He seems to refuse to read the notability guidelines at WikiProject Tennis Guidelines. Before making it into mainspace his articles need to be heavily vetted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:NoahTheKingOfWikipedia

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

---

I just cam across this users' userpage and talkpage, and have seen some pretty alarming behavior from them. They may be trying to help fight vandalism, but the way that they are going about it is extremely hostile, and they have already made personal attacks against other more established editors. Not only that, but they are apparently trying to act as an administrator, too (see the note that they have on their talkpage). From what I can tell from the actions/contributions of this user, they seem to have been here for awhile, but their account is very new, which gives off the suspicious vibe of sock-puppetry, too. Any other thoughts here? Thanks, all. 2607:FB90:FC4:1524:0:F:CFCC:FC01 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There's something amusing about TheKingOfWikipedia getting a message beginning, "Hello, I'm Colonel Wilhelm Klink..." [146]. EEng 02:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, my IP just changed Haha, yeah true... :-) 172.58.40.177 (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Note: NoahTheKingOfWikipedia was blocked by TomStar81 for a Username Violation --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

New editor with focus on starting AfD discussions

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

---

The third edit of this editor, diff, includes the text "WP:NOTADVERTISING WP:NPOV WP:NRVE WP:PROMOTION", which is not an indication of a new editor.  Given the sketchy deletion nominations, it appears that the editor intends to be a burden to the AfD volunteer community.  For example, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Bauwens (3rd nomination), the nomination disregards previous nominations (WP:BEFORE B4).  Unscintillating (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor hasn't been warned and I am unaware of any sockpuppet discussion going on about them. Perhaps give them a {{uw-disruptive3}} notification with an explanation that they should not be participating at AfD before they gain some experience, all of this before bringing them to AN/I. It is however very suspicious that they learned of AfD by day 2, perhaps a long time IP contributor. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• THe editor has now been warned with my standard boilerplate. Bringing this immediately to ANI was inappropriate. If there were to be a toxic spree of very poor AfDs, then bringing it to an admin's immediate attention would be the better solution. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Misdirected talk page.

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

---

Some admin intervention needed here, I think. The Talk page link on List of people who have declined a British honour leads to Talk:Declining a British honour, with a hat note "(Redirected from Talk:List of people who have declined a British honour)"; clicking on the Article link from the talk page leads back to List of people who have declined a British honour, with a hat note "(Redirected from Declining a British honour)". I haven't been able to correct this myself; could someone with the appropriate tools please do so? RolandR (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing: 86.180.213.190

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

---

• Special:Contributions/86.180.213.190

Persistent disruptive editing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No someone hacked my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.213.190 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The first one has been blocked; the user is currently at:

• Special:Contributions/81.129.26.189

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Alleged paid editing

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

---

Hello administrators. I am currently attending Wiki Conference India in Chandigarh. Here I met a guy who is an attendee (not a regular editor) and started sharing his experience about an article he wrote last year (which was deleted for G13). He then told me that he was contacted by a user (admin Michig) on Facebook (that FB page is also deleted / suspended now), who asked for $200 for the page to be created. They later communicated on email (see picture. The email id also is inactive). I noticed that Michig has very clearly indicated on the userpage that "If you receive an email purporting to be from me and offering to rewrite an article for you, presumably for money, it is NOT from me. Should I ever offer any help I will do so via your talk page and would never ask for money in return. Thank you.". Email claims to be admin Michig. Not sure what the relation between the two is or what to make out of the entire incident, but still bringing it to notice of administrators so that this can be investigated. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Arum Kumar SINGH, perhaps check Michig's user page, he's had issues with this before. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Nvm, you have already done so. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a well thought-out out trolling exercise, certainly. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a new ploy. It's been happening on and off for the last year or two. I'd have to do some digging into the archives but it has definitely come up before. A few editors have actually been caught out by it. Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, anyone can make off-wiki claims to be almost anyone on Wikipedia. Needless to say this is not me. My name certainly isn't Tamsin and the scammer didn't even get my gender right. I suppose I should be flattered that these people think that pretending to be me will get people to send them money. Hopefully the notice on my talk page prevents any gullible sorts from parting with cash. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Michig, for $100 I'll get you promoted and then you can charge twice as much. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Shh! You're helping them! TimothyJosephWood 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Very reasonable price, but I get enough shit being an admin. --Michig (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Rip off Wiki or wot. Two bob and a pickled egg, here... _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• I remark that the screenshot is a derivative work of the fraudster's words and the Gmail app, which are copyrighted and not freely licensed, and so you cannot legitimately license it CC-BY-SA and upload it to Commons. BethNaught (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. So the discussion now is turning to license discussion from alleged paid editing or troll (whatever the case may be)? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  Put it another way: if I hadn't retired from Commons, I would have nominated it for deletion. No, you are not allowed to break Commons copyright policies just to report something like this. BethNaught (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  As much as IAR is brilliant, copyright needs to be respected. I've F3'd the file, and would like to thank AKS for bringing the above issue to everyone's attention, and that it's clear the file was uploaded in good faith :) Given this type of scam does the rounds pretty often, I think this thread can be closed with no action -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a brief search of the first 75 articles created tells that little more than 10% of the articles created were previously deleted pages. These are Terry Gajraj, Bradley Skeete, Ryan Walsh, Tyrone Nurse, Dave Crowley, Bobby Arthur, Joe Symonds and Johnny Hill. I have only checked the main-space and not deleted drafts. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's loads of money in creating articles about boxers who died in 1929. --Michig (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• This may be related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody, in which case you can email the details to info-orangemoodywikipedia.org. I've had this happen to me twice. In both cases the person being extorted emailed me to verify that I was actually the person making the offer. There is no reason to believe that Michig is involved in this in any way. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Does seem to fit the pattern described there, so reporting as suggested may help to get more of these accounts blocked. --Michig (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Will email all details as requested by SarahJ2017. I don't have my laptop with me now and will do it as soon as I can. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have emailed the details to the email id. I guess we are done here now, unless someone has anything to add. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Rodionos at Time series database

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

---

At the article Time series database, User:Rodionos is trying to remove the edits they made previously to this article. By way of background, the editor appears to have taken exception at my removal of mentions of non-notable companies from this article, one of which was Axibase. An article on Axibase was CSD'd by me previously and removed by an admin. I haven't discussed this on the article Talk page, but I have tried to engage with this editor on their own Talk page to no avail. I've reverted his edits on this matter twice but there's no response. I'm not sure how best to proceed. Apologies if this isn't the right forum. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

HighKing, this and other article-content issues need to be discussed on the relevant article's talk page, not on user talkpages nor here at ANI. Please open a discussion thread on that article's talk page, where all interested editors can participate and come to a consensus, thank you. In the future, do not discuss article-content issues on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by Freddie Benson ³²¹

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

---

Freddie Benson ³²¹ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly violated copyright policies since December 2015 as per the warnings on their talk page. 3 of those warnings were mine and one other from Brocicle. The most recent violation is this edit, which is way too similar to the initial press release of the episode here. They have also attempted the same copyright violation with this edit. Here is more evidence of copyright violations: [147], [148], [149].

I have tried to contact the user in question, but they do not respond at all and haven't used an edit summary in a long time if I am correct. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for repeat copy vio after warnings, the edit you cite was made after your June 9 warning. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!

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

---

How would people here evaluate the following? User A writes to user B: "I have the following objections to the new article you created (etc. etc.) but I will hold off on nominating it for speedy deletion for one week so that you can fix it." Then user B says "I disagree with your objections because of this reason and because of this reason and because of this reason (etc.)". So user A says "Well, if you're going to insist on _arguing_ with me, then I'll just go ahead and nominate it for speedy deletion and it will be gone so fast you won't remember that it existed." Then user B says "I think you're mistaken because etc. etc." So user A nominates the article for speedy deletion, showing the intention to wait a week is insincere.

Such has been my experience with "MjolnirPants" (user A in this discussion). See User talk:MjolnirPants. I wrote on his page "Normally discussions among those who edit Wikipedia pages include disagreeing with others' views and putting forth the reasons for disagreeing. You're the only one I've ever seen declaring himself exempt and ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you." Should anything besides that be done? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The editor was doing you a favor by explaining to you what was wrong with your article and allowing you time to fix it. Your response was to throw that back into their face. That's essentially saying "I call your bluff". Their going ahead with the nomination is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Remember, they were trying to do you a favor. They have no obligation to do so. --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Secondly, looking at the article, I only see one source and three links to the same grouping of webpages. That alone is suspect. You should have kept this as a draft until you had something more substantial. I support the speedy delete. --Tarage (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

If there had been just _one_ link to that "grouping of webpages", would you consider that even more questionable? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

. . . . and let us note that his statement about "what was wrong" with the article asserted that those web pages existed for the purpose of selling something. That is patently false. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

. . . . and he said it was a duplicate of Paleolithic diet, and again, that is absurd. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like a content dispute. Unless there's a pattern of misuse of CSD templates, I don't think any admin action is needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage : There were substantial issues that had been raised that were not the infallible and unquestionable propositions he claimed they were. And when he told me it should be speedily deleted because it was on the same topic as another article, he didn't even attempt to say which other article that was. What would be the point of saying he'll wait a week when he really meant "I'll wait a week if you acknowledge that what I say is unquestionable."? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can one inquire on this page about opinions of exchanges that have happened without requesting administrative action? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." You had a disagreement, the other editor tagged the article. No intervention is needed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: I would suggest reviewing WP:DRN for the dispute resolution policies and procedures. Dane2007 (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

This is an admin!

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

---

I'm staggered to see that the OP above, Michael Hardy (talk · contribs), is an admin! (I know - I had to check multiple times, and I'm still hoping I'm mistaken.) As if the above cluelessness isn't bad enough, after it was closed he went over to MjolnirPants's talk page to launch the following - User talk:MjolnirPants#I apologize for doubting your infallibility. That comes after the following which preceded the above report, User_talk:MjolnirPants#Collegial discussion, in which he accused MjolnirPants of being insincere which is especially galling as MjolnirPants was going out of their way to be positive and avoid the need for a CSD/PROD tagging. Do we really have to put up with admins like this who give us all a bad name? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• For the continuing personal attacks on MjolnirPants at User talk:Michael Hardy ("he told me I was forbidden to communicate but should simply obey him" which is blatantly false, "He is a hard-core bully" which is totally unacceptable, and "He is angry that I would do anything so abusive as to say he was mistaken about factual assertions. I was willing to communicate about issues; he was unwilling" which is another false accusation), I have issued a short block and a warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And then there's this sarcastic comment at someone else's user page, which is yet another dig at MjolnirPants. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

...and I was thinking admins know what kind of discussion should be done on ANI! — RainFall 08:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is easily one of the most unusual blocks I've ever seen. This administrator's edits go back to 2002(!), and this is their first block, ever. Correct? I've never seen an admin of this standing blocked for personal attacks like this. Doc talk 10:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Should it make a difference that they are an admin? Or, should the only difference be that admins should be expected to be held to higher standards? MPS1992 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• My opinion is that admins should be held to a higher standard - but if there's a consensus that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to unblock and annotate the block log accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree, but I'd settle for equal standard. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Where was {{Uw-npa1}}? Followed by further warnings? Surely admins are entitled to similar due process before being blocked for personal attacks. Doc talk 10:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  Legalism. Surely admins don't need to be advised about NPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  And if soneone had put a {{Uw-npa1}} there, I imagine they would have been rebuked for "templating the regulars". MPS1992 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I could perhaps understand a first warning, but, if you're an admin I would have an expectation that you understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour. The only reason to issue a warning to an admin is in heat of the moment circumstances where a mistake was made unintentionally. An admin, and an editor for 14 years, should by this point be very aware of the policies that they are espousing. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• There's no requirement for templated warnings, and there was an attempted discussion on his talk page - but all that led to was personal attacks, after the above ANI section was closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, the "He is a hard-core bully" attack came after the above section was closed, and after NeilN had tried to calm things - I consider that as sufficient warning. And, of course, an admin is supposed to know not to launch personal attacks without having to be warned like a newbie. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood's got it right about this generation. Won't bother to link it. Soon enough, the statement "You're wrong!" is going to be considered a "personal attack". See, it implies fundamental wrongness. To say "You're wrong!" without quantifying it with something like "...in your opinion" is a personal attack. It's like saying, "You're a wrong person". Which is certainly a personal attack. Doc talk 10:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

All of which has nothing to do with this situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You are dismissing what I said, and this hurts me. I consider it a personal attack. Please apologize. Doc talk 11:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I dislike dismissiveness when it's directed at me, too. That doesn't make it PA. There is a clear and distinct difference between "That is absurd" and "You are a bully". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think a block is over-the-top. People are entitled to show a little emotion from time to time. There was no harm done, and no likelihood of any disruption. It was explained to me (here) that Ancestral health is a scam (that's my quick summary), and it's likely that Michael Hardy is unaware of that, while MjolnirPants recognized the links used in the new article as problematic. That would explain the latter's unhelpful approach at their talk. Unfortunately Michael Hardy was in a frame of mind where something got under his skin and he was very mildy sarcastic—if everyone stopped talking about it, the mini-drama would have stopped hours ago. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I found nothing on the page you linked that alleges that ancestral health is a scam. How does that work, when in the first place it is not a person or organization, and in the second place, the organization formed for researchers and publishers in the field does not attempt to sell anything? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  If "there was no harm done", let's scrap NPA as there is never any harm done by mere words. I'll suspect you'll be at the head of the line begging to have it back. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  I appreciate your thoughts, Johnuniq, thanks - but I honestly don't do you really see "He is a hard-core bully" as merely mildly sarcastic? (rephrased as a question) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

  (extra ping @Johnuniq:, as I amended the above after having signed it and there wouldn't have been a notification sent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC))

  As an aside, given what has been revealed about the "scam" uncovered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ancestral health (and the lack of sources other than primary ones), someone should probably nominate Ancestral health at WP:AFD as being non-notable - I won't do it myself as I wish to remain uninvolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have blocked (full disclosure: I wasn't aware the editor was an admin). My last post asked him to move on and there were no more edits after that, period. Not sure the behavior would have continued, necessitating a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, that (in addition to objections from others) is enough for me - I've unblocked and have annotated the block log accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)**@Boing! said Zebedee and NeilN: Not to be disrespectful of Michael Hardy, he's one of the early Admins who was simply granted the tools - so far as I can see without requesting them. He got them Dec 2003, and his last use was to unblock someone about 4 years ago, and before then in 2010. I'd like to see him resign the tools. I think there are still a number of Admins around who got the tools just for editing, don't use the tools and are almost certainly way out of touch that shouldn't have the tools, but unfortunately our procedures don't allow us to remove the tools just for not using them. All they have to do is edit to keep the tools. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but there you are. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Doug may be wrong about non use of tools and desysopping. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)I was wrong, hence striking. -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine why the tools should be removed based on this reasoning. If anything, he should celebrated as a freaking pioneer here! With some balls! Sure, it's now the year 2016 (PC), and like Rip Van Winkle he may have awoken to a much different world where you can't be sarcastic. A nightmare? Doc talk 11:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I completely agree that old-days admins who haven't used admin tools in years and who are badly out of touch with current admin expectations should lose them, ideally by resigning (and that's not in any way disrespecting their pioneering work in the early days of the project). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you believe that Michael Hardy has abused the tools to the extent that they should be taken away, that can be done. If not, he's as entitled to keep them as any other admin who still actively edits but may rarely use them. I passed my RfA almost ten years ago, does that make mine invalid too? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oh yes, I know the rules and that there's no way to remove the tools without misuse - I'm just opining that there should be a way to take them away from the old-style admins who were appointed with no community input, especially when they show they are badly out of touch with expected behavioral standards. But in the absence of any such procedure, I'd like to see admins who never had to pass RFA resign and actually run for RFA if they wish to keep the tools. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Wrong about what? User:Seraphimblade, you passed an RfA, Michael Hardy didn't, apples and oranges. You know I haven't suggested he has abused the tools, why would you suggest that? I'm saying that he isn't using the tools, hasn't used them for quite a while, and is probably "badly out of touch with current admin expectations". Since May 2005 he's only used the block tools 25 times - I don't know if that's when logs started or if he never used them before. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What are "current admin expectations"? This old-time admin is so out of touch that he needs to be run through the gauntlet? You think there's, like, an endless supply of admins or something? We need to sack the old guard for being "badly out-of-touch"? This is positively Orwellian. It's almost like a Twilight Zone episode. Doc talk 13:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

They're at Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations of adminship, with the Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct part appearing to be applicable here. I also suggest that the community would expect admins to understand the purposes of the various noticeboards, how to respond to deletion requests, and how to handle dispute resolution. Oh, and generally, I don't think we should retain any admins today who do not have a mandate from the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of touch admins can do real damage. The worst case I've seen was when two valuable veteran editors with clean block records were blocked for edit warring with a sock of a LTA. The admin (returning after a five year absence) then reverted the article back to his preferred version and template protected it. Furthermore, he refused to lift the blocks (I and another admin did so) and, in the end, issued a half-hearted apology. What I'd like to see is a bot placing a message on the talk page of any admin who hasn't performed an admin action in over a year. This message would remind them to review policies, guidelines, and community norms before picking up the tools again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am very surprised to see this still going on, I thought it was concluded with NeilN's calming of the situation last night. I agree that there should be some process in place similar to what was described above regarding a bot placing a message on an admins page if they aren't using the tools. Separately, I do think inherited admins (that is, the older ones who received the tools just for editing) should be eligible for a WP:RFAR without abusing the tools - for conduct issues. I don't think there would be a lot of issues with that but in cases where repeated issues such as this happen, I think it would be justified. Dane2007 (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regardless of the editor's access to tools, I am far more concerned with their complete obliviousness to core Wikipedia principles. For example, when asked to find "independent, reliable sources", his response was to ask why his sources "cannot think independently". That alone is an incredibly misunderstood statement. An editor who has been around as long as he has should at least have some concept of this, and yet they continue to parrot the same bullying statement. Please, will someone explain to him all of the things he clearly does not understand? --Tarage (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Doug Weller, just for the record Michael Hardy wasn't one of the early admins who was just granted the tools (those are listed here, should you care), he's just someone who passed RFA before they were archived in the current [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foo]] format. His RFA is here. ‑ Iridescent 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: Hehe, that's an RfA? Am I allowed to go back in and say something obnoxious so we'll be better able to recognize it a century later?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bbb23, Wikipedia was a very different place back then. Despite the rose-tinted view some have of the Jimmy-and-Larry days as some kind of golden age, it's worth remembering just how low our standards were back then. (This was a Featured Article in 2004, and I haven't cherry-picked a poor revision either; that's the version which passed FAC.) On that same RFA page, a little further up note the voters being impressed that a candidate managed to rack up as many as 943 edits. ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I apologise and have struck through my original statement. A very different world then. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just for the record the statement earlier in this section that he hasn't used the tools for years is a tad imprecise. Most of his logged admin actions are deletions, most recently in May this year. Not that the quality of his admin actions are being challenged here, but I have seen him being compared to admins who return after a five year break or who haven't used the tools in years. ϢereSpielChequers 22:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's also not nearly as hard as people like to claim to return after being inactive or not using the tools for a long time. Just sayin' ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry I wouldn't want to endorse that meme, I'm aware that the slower our rate of change the less our returnees need to refresh to get back up to speed. I was just a bit shocked at the misinformation being asserted about this editor. ϢereSpielChequers 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

nao template

I don't know why there's a prevalence of (Non-administrator comment) tags in these threads but can it please stop? There's no need for them. It is well understood that experienced editors comment at ANI. Any thoughtful comment will be given the same weight, coming from an admin or not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I really wasn't quite sure whether or not it was necessary so I just jumped on the bandwagon. Duly noted. As always, thanks! Dane2007 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my accusation of bullying.

I stand by my accusation of bullying. I attempted to communicate with MjolnirPants in a collegial manner but I was ordered simply to obey and not question. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not the most sensible post you ever made, Michael. I'm largely in agreement with BSZ and NeilN, above, I confess, and Doug Weller speaks a great deal of sense - but sticking your head back up now, when stuff had calmed down? Feels like you're doing it just for fun, or sport, in all honesty. Begoon ^talk 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, erm, well, I really don't think that's the wisest thing you've said in the past 24 hours, Michael. Can I ask you, please, to read over the discussion here and read what's been said on your talk page, and count the number of people who agree with your assertions - I might have missed one, but I count zero. There are people who sympathize with your over-reaction, and I can see that - we all get stressed from time to time and don't react well. There are people who don't think any action is needed, and I can see that too. But I see nobody who thinks you are in the right with your accusations of bullying here. Please have a think about how discussions should work towards consensus and how editors (especially, I'd say, admins) are supposed to listen to consensus, and please don't dig yourself in any deeper. Perhaps give it another 24 hours and relax a bit before commenting further? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know Michael Hardy but is it worth getting a CheckUser involved? There seems to be some.... odd behaviour here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on what? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

At first I had the same thought; surely he couldn't have been acting this way all along and nobody noticed, so maybe we might want to think about the possibility of either a compromised account or some recent physical condition leading to changed behavior. I rejected both of those theories after examining his posting record. He has always behaved the same way; see [150] for an example. The thing is, he pretty much never uses the admin tools and pretty much never has anyone object to his edits, so the record shows month after month of multiple productive edits in the area of mathematics with little or no conflict. But on those rare occasions when there is a conflict, we see the same lack of understanding about policy we have seen here in recent days. I could find zero abuse of the tools, but I also had a really hard time finding any recent use of the tools at all. So IMO there is almost no chance of this being a case of a compromised account. If I had to make the decision right now, I would recommend no action required at this time. I don't have to make a decision now, so despite the evasion on his talk page (See User talk:Michael Hardy#Would you be willing to request a voluntary desysop?), I will wait to see if anyone else posts any concerns with diffs to back them up. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wake this morning to see he's still carrying on, still repeating the same accusations against MjolnirPants (on his own talk page). If he doesn't stop this soon, someone is going to have to do something to make him stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, I missed the fact that he's launched another complaint about MjolnirPants, below! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I had hoped this would die down, but since it hasn't and since I'm still bedridden following surgery with too much time on my hands I went through the ANI archives, and believe that the following should be addressed:

2005 - MH is rebuked for protecting page that they are engaged in an editing dispute over

2007 - MH starts an ANI discussion complaining of two admins who deleted an article whose AfD they closed (6 delete vs. 1 keep by MH) who he states "appear very very hostile to Wikipedia's conventional norms and procedures". MH is subsequently pointed out to have been wheelwarring against three other admins on this page's deletion. MH argues that the AfD was not an umambiguous vote for deletion since notices where not posted in places like the math wikiproject, and additionally states "Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people.".

2008 - MH is subject of ANI discussion about stalking after leaving an unprompted antagonistic and demeaning essay on someone's talkpage regarding a dispute between them which occurred over two years prior. MH makes comments such as "I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered.", justifies his calling someone "mentally challenged" by saying "I was defending the victim against the bully when I wrote that second word, and I confidently stand by the word "liar"". Also "I was not insulting him; I was accusing him."

2009 - MH is subject of ANI topic for calling another users comments "bullshit" multiple times, and wheelwarring with two other admins even leaving an edit summary while reverting the first admin reading "his deletion looks like another attempt of speedy deleters to look as if they lack common sense."

2012 - MH has comment redacted (by none other than Boing! said Zebedee) for outing violation M. A. Bruhn (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - I'd forgotten ever having interacted with him before. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Who the $#@% is this guy? Under 50 edits[151] and we get this sort of "newbie" analysis? Doc talk 09:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871, Somebody who with 50 edits has interacted with Michael Hardy on 4 different pages and 23 different edits and has been here for a month and a bit. Long time editor, recent register? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Woah there. I have over 50 edits (51), my account is over 7 months old and as far as I'm aware I've only interacted with him at the AfD and here just now. It actually took a significant amount of effort to get my edit count high enough so that I could make some edits to the depression article which I have been meaning to do for a while. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This is your first account? Doc talk 11:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I've asked ArbCom to consider a desysop (or any other action they might see fit), at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Michael Hardy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just read this, and the thread a few sections below, and I'm appalled that this user is still an admin. I personally thought your block was in order, Boing! said Zebedee. Clearly our standards for an admin these days are very different to those in 2003. Zero^talk 10:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

i need to know from where the source came from

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

---

on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#The_formation_of_a_Jewish_state it said " He supported the creation of a Jewish national homeland in the British mandate of Palestine but was initially opposed to the idea of a Jewish state "with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power.” now it show me the source from Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb now i need to know from which page this book supporting the claim im not leaving comment on the talk message because i saw nobody comment there.

Try the village pump, that's a far more appropriate venue than AN/I for this sort of thing. We don't deal with content disputes and discussion here. Also, remember to sign your posts. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

what is the web address of village pumb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

it show me that there are few discuss locations which one do i need to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Try the help desk, they'll know where to direct you with your question and if that fails, maybe reference desk. They deal with article specific questions. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Good this WP isn't a bureaucracy. EEng 05:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Somebody unhelpfully created a user page for me

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

---

Somebody unhelpfully created a user page for me: User:M.boli.

• I have been happily editing for many years without a user page and don't need one. Talk page is enough. But I think I don't have the ability to delete it.
• The user page is uncomplimentary. Of course I could fix that, but I'd rather delete the page.

I have no idea who did it. I have not been disputing with anybody of late and this seems to have been done by a single-purpose account.

Going forward, is there any way to protect against this? Also is there any place short of AN/I for posting an incident like this? I looked around, and there weren't any obvious possibilities. Would normal new page patrolling cause this to be deleted? I'm not sure how much user pages get patrolled. M.boli (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Gone; in future, if you want anything in your own userspace deleted just put {{db-u1}} on it. If you really want it protected against recreation I can WP:SALT it for you, but think very carefully about whether you really want that. (As a general note, having a redlinked userpage is almost-universally perceived as a sign of immaturity on Wikipedia. If you don't want a userpage, I'd recommend redirecting it to your talkpage instead but hey, it's your reputation not mine.) ‑ Iridescent 21:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I will remember the {{db-u1}} template, I don't see need for extreme protection.

I wasn't aware of the social status and perceptions implied by a redlinked user page. From my point of view, it is helpful for spotting my own edits in a history list. And by-and-large other editors have treated me with respect. I'll give consideration to changing things as you suggest. Thanks for the gracious advice. M.boli (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages

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

---

Talk page abuse at cosmology related talk pages by IP-hopper:

• 2A02:587:4112:2300:A16B:26A9:ED95:C4DA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 7 Aug
• 2A02:587:4112:2300:F4CA:C186:EEC9:6C89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 5 Aug
• 2A02:587:4112:2300:D002:1EA0:421E:EE98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 5 Aug
• 2A02:587:4109:BF00:C4A2:387E:F301:C52F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 1 Aug to 4 Aug
• 85.73.219.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 29 Jul
• 2A02:587:4111:ED00:28F0:5889:6644:3F6D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 28 Jul

Had final warning on talk page ([152], [153]), but chooses no to stop. - DVdm (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he's just being dumb for the sake of dumbness. 2A02:587:4112:2300::/64 blocked one week. The others are too stale. If he resumes from another IPv6 range, let me know on my talk page and I'll whack him. Katie^talk 14:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

More non-notable sports entries from User:Basketballfan12, apparently in violation of topic ban

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

---

On July 2, this user was indefinitely topic banned from creating new sports-related articles (except for drafts) because of the high percentage of his entries that were being deleted at AFD. As far as I can tell, this topic ban hasn't been reversed, but the user has published five sports-related articles in mainspace since July 14. I am hoping that I am misunderstanding the terms of this topic ban or something. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that this user violated their topic ban within two weeks of it being enacted and then several times after that. Action may be required to address this. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well. I deleted one of them via G5; in principle we could delete all of them that way, but that seems like a waste to me. I wonder if the user isn't trying to prove that they can write up proper articles. Maybe. Anyway, I blocked for a week--maybe I should have blocked indefinitely, on the spot, a block that would be lifted the moment they promised to stick to the terms of the ban. This is one of those lose-lose situations, but the topic ban was there, and they violated it. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "trying to prove that they can write up proper articles" Unfortunately, the deleted Mason Katz is a continuation of the same style of bios on minor league players with sourcing mainly with non-independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • But that does not apply to all the others. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I was only commenting whether the editor has learned from the topic ban. I wasn't implying that all their creations should be automatically deleted. Sorry for the confusion.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
        • It's OK. With non-communicative editors you keep guessing. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block. The topic ban was pretty obvious and clear and even had an out but the editor chose to ignore it. Support G5 as well or else the person won't learn to listen and pay attention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support block. It's a pretty clear violation of a topic ban. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants

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

---

The user called "MjolnirPants" told me that

(1) a page to which I had linked existed primarily for the purpose of selling something, and

(2) that an article I had created was a duplicate of another page, and he didn't tell me _which_ page, and I didn't know, but that

(3) he would wait a week before calling for speedy deletion so I could improve the page.

He didn't wait a week, but moved quickly. I responded to

(1), that the linked page made NO attempt to sell anything, and

(2) he should tell me _which_ page he thought was duplicated, since I didn't know.

My disagreement with (1) and my inquiry about (2) were respectful.

But he was angered by my having the effrontery to disagree with him, and said I had no right to dispute his points. That, he said, was why he decided not to wait a week. He claimed I was obligated not to dispute his point in (1) or inquire about (2).

Is there some policy that forbids me to dispute something (as in (1)) asserted by a less experienced user or to ask him to clarify (as in (2))?

To order me not to dispute his opinion in (1) is abusive. To tell me I am forbidden to ask which page he thought was duplicated when I didn't know and he hadn't said is abusive.

I told him he was a bully and several people told me that by so saying I was "insulting" him. In fact I was _accusing_ him, just as several people _accused_ me of "insulting" him. If my _accusation_ of bullying is "insulting" or "attacking" him and thus forbidden, then why is the _accusation_ against me not equally "insulting" me and thus forbidden?

MjolnirPants had no business forbidding another to disagree with him, as in (1), or forbidding another to ask him _which_ page he thought was duplicated, as in (2). Michael Hardy (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? WP:BOOMERANG. Quick and fast. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How you ever got the bit I will never know but I suggest you pack it in otherwise you're going to find yourself either blocked or desysopped, Stop trolling and improve the project like the rest of us. –Davey2010^Talk 04:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have done FAR more to improve Wikipedia than have all but very few, if any. I've worked on it daily since 2002. I've created hundreds of new articles and edited probably more than a hundred-thousand. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Good for you, Would you like a medal ? ..... –Davey2010^Talk 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael, really, let this go. Continuing to let things gnaw at you like this is bad for the soul. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy boomerang OH MY FKN GOD! I can't believe we have to go through this again? Does he not have any competence? Can someone explain to me why he constantly uses underscores? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

We're not going through this again, since I previously posted only an inquiry. I'm told posting inquiries here is not considered appropriate. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Qwermnbv12 and other accounts - persistently uncollaborative

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

---

Reporting User:Qwermnbv12 for disruptive editing. This same editor has edited out of several different accounts and IPs over a long period of time, including User:SportsEditor518, Special:Contributions/1a2b3c4za, User_talk:2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F. (The editor disputes this; I started a sockpuppet investigation is here, which details the evidence of use of multiple accounts – which includes editing on the same topics, the same stilted writing style, the same behaviour in disputes, and a knowledge of Wikipedia dispute terminology clearly exceeding that expected of an account which as opened only a month ago).

This editor can be best summarised as a single-topic editor (interstate matches in Australian rules football), with a personal desire to see this topic given as much praise as possible; any attempts to diminish the praise given to his desired topic is immediately reverted.

The pattern of editing is always the same:

• Pushing a POV bias to praise interstate football as much he thinks he can get away with (e.g. the edit war [154], repeatedly reverted by another editor [155]).
• Automatically reverting any significant edits to his work, including desperately needed style and grammar changes ([156] [157])
• Stubborn refusal to actively collaborate or compromise in any way. His approach is always to revert any changes to his work, then state his position and refuse to budge on it. Here's an example where another editor lost her patience almost immediately: [158]. I've undergone some time-consuming efforts to negotiate in good faith, and likewise been stonewalled. [159]

This editor and I had a long dispute last year when he was using the SportsEditor518 account, relating to the article Interstate matches in Australian rules football. It went to a dispute resolution, in which SportsEditor518 basically stopped engaging in the resolution once his arguments fell apart, but he still continued to revert any changes to his work. This led to an ANI in which he was admonished but no formal action was taken. The same editor was soon afterwards involved in a 3RR block on a different article: (ANI here).

The current dispute pertains to the same article (interstate matches...). I've been trying to precis what amounts to a long and stilted list of cherry-picked quotations that has poor style and grammar, is too long, is replicated on other articles, and which amounts to an attempt by Qwermnbv12 to WP:SYNTH a positive opinion. My latest attempt, in which I've done the precis precis, tweaked the style on the sub-articles which contained the same text Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and explained my actions explanation were met with the familiar immediate reverts ([160] [161] [162]) and a stubborn response rejecting the whole change and making no attempt to compromise. response.

Bottom line: the pattern of behaviour from this editor has not changed over a one year period. He is a POV-pushing single-topic editor who will not compromise with anyone on that topic, and an editor with poor style and grammar who regularly reverts attempts to correct it. He is ultimately disruptive to Wikipedia, and I believe the time has come to block this editor and his sockpuppets/other accounts on a more permanent basis. Aspirex (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is something you should be bringing up at the SPI case. Very few of us admins here are allowed access to the tools that help. For faster results see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a CheckUser (Bbb23 for example|. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI is now equipped with the information to resolve this matter. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Anyone here speak Greek?

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

---

Jaguar

I'm being pestered on my talk page by a user, Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου, who obviously doesn't know any English at all but does machine translations from Greek to English and vice versa (his user page claims that he has a basic, en-1, knowledge of English, but his contributions show that en-0 is closer to the truth...). My only interactions with him have been reverting POV edits (claiming that Greece owns the copyright to the word Macedonia, and changing every mention of Macedonia to FYROM), shortly before he was blocked for a month per Arbcom discretionary sanctions, but as soon as he returned from his block he started to post the cryptic question "The Jaguar does what?" on my talk page, and keeps doing it over and over again even though I've told him, in English since I don't know any Greek, that it's total gibberish in English, just like any foreign language idiom (which I believe it is) would be if machine translated word for word. So would a Greek speaker please tell him in Greek to bugger off? And also tell him that per WP:CIR people who obviously don't know any English at all shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... Thomas.W ^talk 14:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W, figured it out. Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου has encountered the (talk page stalker) template which leads to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker which has a picture of a jaguar. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: Maybe, but that doesn't solve the main problem, that he obviously doesn't know any English at all. If he had understood my replies, which were written in plain and simple English, he would have explained what he's doing on my talk page, instead of just posting the same gibberish over and over again. I'm also not sure it has anything to do with the tps-template, since he posted the same question to me on his own talk page more than a month ago, i.e. long before he used any tps template (he's actually not even using the tps-template, instead writing talk page stalker by hand, the template adds it in small letters, with a link), a question I didn't see until today... Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Thomas believed anything you want . Just me , my family ( kin ) and the foreign tongue-shaped tutorial knows how good or bad know English .--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know and perfect English . The Jaguar know that it is an animal . But I do not understand why likened to wikijaguar.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What he says Nein meant. I do not understand what the Jaguar's image.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to explain it on Thomas W.'s talk, but I'll repeat it here in case he doesn't see it. Jaguars watch and hunt their prey in a specific manner. In English, that's called 'stalking'. 'Talk page stalker' is a term we use here for people who watch other people's talk pages. The picture is simply an image to go with the template. That's all it is.

If you can't understand what I wrote, please stop editing the English Wikipedia. Katie^talk 14:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood . Thanks for the explanation ! If you encounter with so and Thomas will be well .He did Middle East issue.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: The problem is that if he doesn't understand the rest he won't understand the last sentence either, which is why we need a Greek speaker... ;) Thomas.W ^talk 14:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thomas.W French and Italian may work just as well, I believe this is the same user and they appear to be quite a bit more multilingual. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust those claims since he also claims to be fluent in German, but obviously isn't (I've checked his contributions there...). Thomas.W ^talk 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We can easily test his claim by having him talk to me in German. I am fluent in German, some minor Grammar issues aside.

@Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου: Sie behaupten das sie gut Deutsch sprechen können. Frage doch deine Fragen auf Deutsch?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

All around and understand the words do not worry . If you need a Greek interlocutor I am here . And greek(l)ish write.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You're definitely not helping your case. We're asking for a Greek interlocutor to help talk to you. If you didn't already understand that I think it both clearly demonstrates the need or at least why you shouldn't be editing and also the unsuitability of you as a Greek interlocutor. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the record, Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου is currently blocked on Greek Wikipedia for harassment, which I presume is why he's now moved over here. ‑ Iridescent 15:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: He's also indeffed on the German language Wikipedia for "Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar", i.e. what we call "not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" (after pushing the same Greek POV there as here). Thomas.W ^talk 15:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And for that.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am .I do other things than to deal with the Macedonian.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think at this point in time a block is in order, besides the whole not here bit, I wonder what he means by "deal with the Macedonian." There's only so much we can do for someone who doesn't speak a word of English. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• The user is currently requesting a username change. For the record, I directed him there before reading this thread, as he seemed a little clueless and unable to read the instructions on WP:RENAME. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If no one shows up Wikipedia:Local Embassy has one person recently active listed under Greek, User:Catlemur. I believe FPaS also has some level of Greek Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph by "deal with the Macedonian" he means dealing with Macedonia (Greece) and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Greece refuses to acknowledge FYROM as Macedonia because there's a part of Greece called Macedonia. He's not referring to a person, but, the nation and territory of Macedonia. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I still read it (and that could just be how it's written) as he's here to deal with "those people, " the Macedonians, similar to righting great wrongs. But that's probably just lost in translation. Regardless, I don't see any good coming of this, especially if he edits in contentious areas. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Understood and understandable, I read it differently based on both Thomas.W's original post (in which he questions the editor's changing of every reference to Macedonia to FYROM. Greece's "copyright" to the name Macedonia as he mentions.) and my own knowledge about the former Yugoslav territories and history. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• He's here to "right great wrongs" by changing every mention of Republic of Macedonia to FYROM, i.e. pushing Greek POV. For which he's currently topic banned from everything that has to do with Macedonia, and has just served a one-month block for violating that topic ban. Thomas.W ^talk 16:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Only Jaguar I had understood , all the rest I understand. I think the debate should end .--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot more to discuss here than just the Jaguar. Thomas.W ^talk 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I could . Just bored . I immediately renamed without being read .--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thats what I meant. The word meant Macedonian Macedonian issue .--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W and NeilN:, I have just recently received contact from the same user. Firstly they post this Greek comment on another users talk page. And after I issued this notice on communicating in English, I then received this explanation, which basically confirms that they intentionally aimed to harass myself and in a semi-vicious way. This user is clearly not here to contribute towards Wikipedia, and is only showing signs of stalking editors and causing harassment, insult, and victimise the community. Who is going to be their next victim, before some sort of intervention needs to be taken? Wes Mouse ✒ 16:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Which fits in well with him currently being blocked for "harassment and stalking" on the Greek Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

We have an editors already blocked on two other Wikipedias for this kind of conduct. THe user also has been blocked for a month of conduct related to this area in violation of ArbCom. Is there any reason we shouldn't indef and be done with it? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Iridescent and Thomas.W:, if the user is indef blocked from Greek and German Wikipedia for harassment, then they must be on some of personal recorder-breaker for seeing how much of Wikiemdia they can be indef blocked within 24 hours lol. Is this a new sport for the WikiOlympics? Wes Mouse ✒ 16:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef. "Disruptive editing, language issues, harassment, AE issues" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Signedzzz and ownership issues at Elizabeth Dilling

There is a longstanding issue over at Elizabeth Dilling and Talk:Elizabeth Dilling arising from User:Signedzzz’s clear sense of ownership over the article. This is an issue that has been going on now since 12 July 2016. Since that point, Signedzzz has repeatedly deleted any additions to the article with which they do not approve (even well-referenced ones: [163], [164], [165], [166]). When asked to explain these deletions, they have often provided unsatisfactory and uninformative responses and have resorted to clear instances of Personal Attack ([167], [168]), false accusations ([169]), and generally unwarranted un-civil and hyperbolic behaviour ([170], [171], [172] etc) toward several other editors, myself included.

On 14 July, an RfC was opened to discuss the proposed changes with which Signedzzz disagrees; a consensus has come out in favour of supporting most of them. Accordingly, they were incorporated into the article. Nevertheless, Signedzzz has refused to accept the validity of an RfC and has edit warred both to prevent the RfC's conclusions being incorporated into the article and to delete the RfC itself ([173], [174], [175], [176]). Their edit warring was brought to the attention of administrators by User:Pincrete, resulting in User:EdJohnston issuing a warning to them on 16 July. Signedzzz continued edit warring at the time [177] and, despite taking a break from the article for several days, has now returned and continued their edit warring [178]. Given that this is not an isolated incident – Signezzz has been blocked on four occasions over the past two years for their behaviour – measures clearly need to be taken. An earlier attempt to deal with this issue fizzled out but given that Signedzzz's actions have continued in spite of previous warnings ([179], [180], [181], [182], [183]), I propose an indefinite article ban be placed on this editor with regard to the Elizabeth Dilling article and perhaps also its Talk Page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

[To clarify, this section is not about a content dispute. Any discussion regarding content can take place at Talk:Elizabeth Dilling and the RfC found there. This section is for a discussion of Signedzzz's behaviour on the article and its talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC) ]

Support/Oppose

• Support article ban as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban. I got called to the article by the RfC, and Signedzzz's behavior immediately struck me as out of line. I posted a number of comments on the talk page, including one directed at Signedzzz on how they could engage with other editors more productively. Signedzzz complained that that one comment was off-topic, so I tried to move the discussion to their talk page[184], but Signedzzz responded by deleting that message. As an aside, I agree with Signedzzz that the RfC was initially poorly-worded, but WP:RFC is clear that this is not justification for Signedzzz's behavior. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Very weak support for a one month long article and talk page ban. WP:OWNership is clear. It feels like Signedzzz feels like everyone should discuss all other edits on the talk page and then it's WP:BLUDGEON about it. A poorly designed RFC doesn't give carte blanche to delete it. I think some time away is what is needed, not a wholesale topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support I don't think an indefinite article ban is the solution. I think perhaps a 3 to 6 month article ban would be better. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I continue to support an indefinite ban, although a six month article ban would perhaps also be acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the RFC (2 weeks ago) since it personally attacked me, and no discussion had taken place. I then restored it when told by an admin there was no 3RR exemption for removing a bad faith RFC. My edits yesterday were not "edit warring". I removed uncited info (famous for fighting socialism, had 2 affairs), and a section heading ("European travels" in Russia, Japan and Palestine) and some unfortunate phrasing ("the younger Elizabeth Kirkpatrick" - younger than who?) In other words, stuff that would make it no longer a GA. Yes I wrote the article, but why shouldn't I remove uncited info from it? This is in incredibly bad faith. It is no wonder that there are so few editors. zzz (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• And by the way, "false accusations" is complete rubbish - see the last ANI report, where the OP admitted to adding false information while the article was on the Main Page. zzz (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • zzz, I don't think the issue is with the edits on the article itself, but that you've done an extremely poor job of discussing them on the talk page. I looked up the previous ANI you refer to, and something MBO said about your behavior strikes me as exactly right—"your reasons at the talk page were at times vague, unsubstantial, and lacking in any argumentation". And in some cases, you didn't even go that far, but rather simply deleted cited material with no more reason given than "wp:v" (for example [185]). Futhermore, the errors you're referring to on MBO's part look to me fairly minor, and do not justify indiscriminately reverting their edits without explanation. Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:V is no explanation, really? I realise you are not interested, but you should look it up anyway: Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. As I just stated, "... became known for her opposition to socialism", in your example, is uncited original research (and non-neutral), added to the first sentence of the lead section of a GA. As I stated before, MBO added in the lead section that Dilling came from a "highly religious" family: also totally failing on all three counts. As you both have a problem with me removing this stuff, you need to try and get Wikipedia's core content policies changed. zzz (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability being a core content policy is not an excuse to not discuss disputes over whether something is verifiable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• "My edits yesterday were not "edit warring". I removed uncited info". This is demonstrably untrue. Here is Signedzzz deleting a number of appropriately sourced referenced statements from the article; the exact same statements that received support during the RfC but which they have consistently opposed for reasons left unclear. Their most recent explanation for these removals ("WP:V") doesn't even apply to this material whatsoever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the diff of my edits yesterday: [186]. I did not remove any "appropriately sourced referenced statements". There is only one statement I removed that had been raised on talk or in the RFC, which on article talk on 14 July I explained was not verified by the source, in answer to your query. There was no reply to my explanation, so I assumed it was clear. I have just added further clarification of this: [187] zzz (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• "the OP admitted to adding false information while the article was on the Main Page". This is again deeply misleading and a deliberate warping of my original statement. I have acknowledged that I added "Soviet war hero" into the article when the original source material merely specified "Soviet hero". That was an error of interpretation on my behalf, and I'm glad that it was spotted. However, if one were to read Signedzzz's comments on the issue then they would be left with the impression that I was deliberately adding significant falsities into the article, which is palpably untrue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

See above: you also added that her family was "highly religious", which is also an error of interpretation on your behalf, as you previously admitted at ANI. (There were other mistakes, such as getting her name wrong) zzz (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: No diffs have been presented as to zzz's supposed removal of well-referenced additions to the article. Furthermore, the RfC violated WP:RFC in a multitude of ways (not the least of shich is "short, simple, neutral" -- and one issue, not numerous issues -- and the fact that it should not interrupt ongoing discussion). Plus RfCs need to run for 30 days; they cannot be considered "consensus" until that timeframe is complete. I see no reason to ban zzz from the article until proper neutral discussion and/or DR is utilized. Please everybody go back to the drawingboard and discuss these content disputes on the article's talk page, within Wikipedia guidelines. It seems to me, by the diffs the OP actually provided, that zzz objected to the article being mucked about with while it was on the mainpage. Now that that's over, please everyone try to have more civilized discussions, and please answer questions when they are posed on the talk page rather than ignoring them. I think this ANI has served as a notification to zzz to edit and discuss collaboratively. If they continue to evade good-faith discussion, then enact a one-month ban from the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC); edited 09:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: - With respect, this discussion isn't about a content dispute. Yes there is content that has been disputed, but that issue is being dealt with at the RfC. This section is to deal with Signedzzz's behaviour, which has included severe ownership issues, edit warring, refusal to accept the validity of an RfC (to the extent of repeatedly deleting the RfC), and un-civil comments and personal attacks on editors who disagree with them. Moreover you state that "this ANI has served as a notification to zzz to edit and discuss collaboratively. If they continue to evade good-faith discussion...", but they have already been warned on multiple occasions now by various uninvolved editors and administrators ([188], [189], [190], [191], [192]) and it has had no effect. Warnings just aren't working. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Keep in mind, the original RfC was dismissed as inappropriate (and at the time invalid) by an administrator. The rest is a fairly accurate characterization of the situation, based on my involvement on the previous AN/I thread, but, I will be taking a look at the page again to see what progress, if any, has been made. SoftLavender brings up a general point rather than a "in all cases" one. I am not sure if she is aware that this discussion was held previously (with no immediate action taken) but I don't recall her participating in it. I think if anything, that last thread would have been the "notification" that you refer to SL. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've been quite willing to admit that my original RfC post — while in my opinion even handed — was long-winded and not in keeping with the specified format for RfC requests. I'm at fault on that. That is why, on 22 July, I replaced that post with one that was more appropriate. However, I do not believe that the inadequacies of my original RfC post invalidate the fact that virtually every one of the proposed additions has been validated by uninvolved editors at the RfC; moreover it doesn't in any way legitimate Signedzzz's behaviour. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not legitimizing anything until I've gone through the talk page. When I get through the talk and see what has been happening since the last thread, I'll decide what is and is not legitimate (from my perspective). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, there has been some misunderstanding here, Mr rnddude; I never meant to imply that you were trying to legitimate Signedzzz's behaviour (although reading back my message I can certainly see how I gave that impression! My bad). All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• As for the lack of diffs, there was one present alongside a link to the article's edit history, however I am happy to add further diffs in if it helps demonstrate my case. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, in my mind your OP did not make any valid case against zzz and only demonstrated that he objected to people mucking about with the GA article while it was on the mainpage, which is understandable and forgivable. And as I mentioned, the RfC violated WP:RFC in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is "short, simple, neutral", and an RfC should be about one issue not numerous issues, and an RfC should not interrupt ongoing discussion. Plus RfCs need to run for 30 days; they cannot be considered "consensus" until that timeframe is complete. I recommend scrapping that malformed RfC. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

SoftLavender, I feel the need to point out that this "RfCs need to run for 30 days" is incorrect per WP:RfC here; "Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Consensus is decided when nobody left is interested not when some arbitrary time has passed. Usually 30 days, but, extended if many people are interested, shortened if not. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, the creator of the vastly malformed RfC, cannot claim "consensus" after barely two days of it being opened, especially considering the complete mess that that RfC is. It should be scrapped as against policy, or left to run at least 30 days and then closed by an uninvolved admin. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the future of that particular RfC or its inadequacies. If you wish to do so, then let us take that to Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Before our comments push this thread outside the realm of readability, I think what SL is saying, is that because the RfC is illegitimate (on the grounds that she has explained), so are the edits that have been made to the article as a result of that RfC and that signedzzz's reversion of those edits was legitimate (no consensus to add had been established, so the removal of that information is actually to be expected). What I think is being said is to go to the article talk page, restart the RfC and deal with one issue at a time. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

From my own perspective; Signedzzz has at times been very WP:OWN about the article, they have made very strong and rude comments to you and other editors. They also did edit-war to keep the article to their preferred version, however, given the issues with the RfC (and yes I do believe they are pertinent to the discussion in my opinion) what should now happen is; re-open the RfC, if you need help for formatting feel free to ping me, pose the recommended change (one change) and see how the editor responds. If there is any issue, regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:EW, WP:-INSERTWPHERE- then bring it here to address. Chances are, this thread is a final warning, the next one is a TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, re: "no consensus to add had been established, so the removal of that information is actually to be expected"—normally I'd agree, but zzz showed little interest in discussing the issue on the talk page. If you read the talk page carefully, much of it is MBO trying to get zzz to engage in consensus-building, and zzz ignoring MBO. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hallquist, yes that's true, MBO has indeed tried to engage with Signedzzz productively, however, if consensus is built then, despite any object that Signedzzz might raise, that consensus is implemented as no editor OWNs the page. I recognize that due to Signedzzz reverting and EW to remove the RfC (malformed as it was) this became a difficult thing to do. What MBO now should do is take the malformed RfC scrap it, start a new one, one that is correctly formatted and thereby dispel any objection Signedzzz could legitimately raise and if the problem persists, bring it to AN/I or AN/EW (whichever may be the case). This split on what the correct action is, exists because the correct action (strictly following policy) is to redo the RfC and remove the content implemented as a result of the RfC. Which, Signedzzz did. The other side is that Signedzzz has had OWN issues with the page and so their actions can still be construed as being non-constructive. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you entirely about that. I may have mistakenly fallen under the impression that you were saying that an RfC must run for 30 days, rather than, that is should run for 30 days (especially in this case) to give people the chance to comment (and that if nobody is interested after at least a week or two then to consider closing it (but not in this case)). I agree with the rest of both of your comments, I did not mean for my correction (based on my interpretation) to detract from what you were saying. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• If zzz is banned from the article, then Midnightblueowl should be banned from the article for the same amount of time. This is a clear case of two editors failing to collaborate with each other. Zzz spent four months diligently growing the article from 11,000 bytes [193] to 31,400 bytes [194], and got it to GA and on the main page. Midnightblueowl immediately came in and made several dozen consecutive edits [195]. On the same day, Midnightblueowl filed a completely non-neutral RfC [196]. Then after only two days of comments from outside editors she shoehorned in her preferred version [197] and edit-warred over it [198]. Clearly the problematic editing is not confined to zzz. So in my mind if zzz is banned from the article, Midnightblueowl should be as well, for the same amount of time. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Really? I haven't launched personal attacks, been un-civil to all manner of users, deleted an RfC repeatedly because I disagreed with the results it was generating. I haven't been repeatedly warned about my behaviour on the article (indeed in over ten years as a Wikipedia editor, I haven't been blocked on a single occasion). Yes I clearly have a strong bias on this particular issue as I don't want to be blocked, but even so I think that this is a dramatic and rather uncalled for suggestion. What purpose would it serve? Anyone reading through Talk:Elizabeth Dilling will see that I have consistently reached out to Signedzzz in the hope of working cooperatively; I have praised their efforts in getting the article to GA status. Moreover, I have tried to bring in uninvolved editors to give their opinions, and when they disagreed with me I certainly didn't attack them (as Signedzzz has done). These aren't the actions of someone who has severe ownership issues over the article. To try and compare my actions with those of Signedzzz here is absurd. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The praise was combined with accusations, in the RFC which you launched while the article was still on the main page. This appears to me as the actions of someone with ownership issues. zzz (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Softlavender, I agree with MBO. It seems like you're not taking concerns about personal attacks (and lack of consensus-building) seriously. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't. As the far more experienced editor, she should know better than engage in all that nonsense I just detailed above, which precipitated the entire affair. Not only that, this is the second ANI she's opened about this article; the first was bot archived just two weeks ago: [199]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was indeed archived (without achieving anything but a warning for Signedzzz), but the problem has persisted. Hence the new post. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how "the problem has persisted" in the past two weeks. All of your evidence was from before that time period. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: When Midnightblueowl says the previous ANI "achieved nothing but a warning", that may be too generous, reading the thread, it's not clear to me what the content of the warning really was (beside perhaps not to remove the RfC). There hasn't been much editing activity on the main article in the past two weeks, but that may only be because editors were waiting for more of a conclusion from the RfC. There was, nevertheless [200], which zzz didn't give any kind of clear explanation for until I pushed for one. They were also dismissive and hostile towards my attempts to suggest how they could participate in the talk page more productively. (As I've noted previously, their entire response was to claim my comments were off-topic, then revert my edit when I tried to take the discussion to their talk page.) I question this somewhat given zzz's past block record, but maybe this is a situation that calls for a less-ambiguous warning before we jump to a ban? Something like, "be civil, explain non-obvious reversions on the talk page without being asked, and recognize that merely quoting the source may not make it sufficiently obvious to other editors why you think a statement has verifiability issues." This would probably be the right approach if zzz had no prior history of conduct issues, but given the history I lean towards a two-week block.

If MBO is referring to the warning given by Katie, part of the confusion over whether the behavior persisted may be due to not reading time stamps carefully. Looks like one of zzz's big reverts came just an hour before that warning. Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: We don't solve content disputes with ANI bans proposed by protagonists. Really, we don't. Begoon ^talk 11:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• The content dispute is being dealt with at the RfC. This section is here to discuss Signedzzz's behaviour, not the content issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. The many words I read all seemed related to a content dispute. I'll read it all again with a view to finding behavioural issues. Begoon ^talk 11:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon pay careful attention to the parts where MBO is trying to get zzz to engage in discussion on the talk page, and zzz is just ignoring MBO. See also my initial Support comment, where I link to the diff where I tried to address zzz's conduct issues on their talk page, and they ignored me. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Given zzz's history of behavior, do we have any reason to think banning them from one article will solve future conduct issues from them? That might just make zzz into somebody else's problem. A better solution might be a two week ban block (zzz has previously been banned blocked for 48 hours, four days, one week, and one week). Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Given that the issue of ownership and everything stemming from it is only impacting one particular article (and its talk page), then I would lean toward an article ban as the most appropriate course of action. However, if there is a case to be made that their behaviour is also negatively impacting other articles (and I have no idea whether that is the case or not) then I think we could be talking about a wider ban; in my opinion however, evidence for a wider pattern of behaviour stretching across multiple articles would need to be presented first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't expect zzz is currently displaying similar behavior on other articles. But given they're past behavior, I think it's reasonable to worry that a ban from the Dilling article will just cause them to pick another article as the one they "own". Maybe a two-week block could get zzz to realize that their behavior is, in general, unacceptable. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Midnightblueowl Gah! I got my "bans" and my "blocks" mixed up. One advantage of a block is it creates an electronic trail in the block log. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, and we do have logs for other forms of sanctions—if so, those logs might be worth checking before making a decision.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Lavrense

Lavrense (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne, an article beset historically by original research, neutrality and BLP issues. The article purports to list living people in line to the throne of Brazil, which is a republic. User problems include:

1. Use of multiple accounts and IPs, including Manowarr (talk · contribs), 177.44.53.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 177.44.61.1 (talk · contribs), 177.44.56.35 (talk · contribs), 177.44.50.211 (talk · contribs), and possibly Anotherwikipediauser (talk · contribs) while pretending to be more than one user: note pinging himself and edit-warring from an account and an IP
2. Edit-warring: e.g. [201][202], including edit-warring without edit summaries to remove tags[203][204] despite requests and warnings[205][206][207]
3. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: adding frivolous tags[208][209] despite admitting that it was "fake and silly"

I ask that Lavrense be restricted to one account and subject to a 0RR restriction. DrKay (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

DrKay, if you are reasonably sure of your facts (and they appear to be well documented), consider taking the issue to WP:SPI. If you are fairly certain of the facts, there's nothing to stop you doing the necessary blocking yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a content dispute and blocking their opponent would be a violation of INVOLVED. That said, while Lavrense has logged out edits (which I can neither confirm nor deny are the ones above), I don't think their attempt was to be malicious in using IPs. A warning should suffice. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk · contribs)  Confirmed to The Replicator (talk · contribs), and an industrial trashcan worth of logged out edits. I have also protected the one page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. With regard to The Replicator, as Anotherwikipedianuser is unrelated to Lavrense and appears to just be one user operating two role accounts in different topic areas no action is needed there, unless the logged out edits are to avoid scrutiny. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Erand Hoxha article

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

---

IP address 109.236.34.60 has been vandalising the Erand Hoxha article for weeks. This person keeps replacing the content info of a football (soccer) player with that of an actor.

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Next time try WP:RFPP it's probably quicker. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me much more likely someone trying to create an article who doesn't know how. Beyond the problem of simply replacing an existing article, what they're trying to create looks to be copyvio and I'm not seeing much evidence of notability, still hard to call it WP:vandalism. I don't see any harm in protecting the page, and it can be difficult to communicate with an IP that changes frequently, still perhaps this could have been avoided if early on some explanation was offered to the IP about how to create an article rather than simply a likely incorrect accusation of vandalism. In any case I've done so now. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking a bit more seems to be some sort of concerted campaign Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erand Hoxha (actor), Erand Hoxha (actor), Erand Hoxha (Actor) by one or more people probably with a COI. So explaining how to create an article most likely wouldn't have help. I suspect they already knew. So appears I was mostly wrong and there is something dodgy going on and I apologise for that. (Although I'd still be reluctant to call it vandalism.) This does make me think 1 week protection probably isn't going to be enough unfortunately. If it reoccurs and you need to ask for longer protection I suggest you link to the AFD and maybe the two deleted articles to show there's some sort of long term campaign to have an article on the actor rather than simply a clueless editor who doesn't know how to create an article, as it'll probably point the admin to the need for longer term protection. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think a week will do it either. But I usually don't start protections off with anything longer. If the problem persists then Kj1595 can let me know on my talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of WP:ROUTINE and trivial content by User:Yaysmay15

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

---

Can anyone look into this issue? Said user, which as of now is editing through a sockpuppet account after being previously blocked by @HJ Mitchell:, is persistent and relentless in adding WP:ROUTINE and or insignificant entries on articles pertaining to Philippine history. As detailed here, most of the additions consist of little more than trivial or incidental events of little to no exceptional merit, and despite warnings by myself and a few other editors, I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears as the user doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate if at all. And to top it all off, he threw a profane rant at me in response to my edits, threatening that he'll bring this to Rodrigo Duterte's attention should I continue on reverting his disruptive edits. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You could conceivably consider that as a, not credible, death threat and that Yaysmay15 is seeing you as a criminal needing to be picked off like those being hunted in the Philippines. Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's like the Wild West here these days, given how drug junkies are capped left and right by what I presume as bounty hunters or those who are bent at silencing them. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible CIR issues with new user inserting copy-pasted text

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

---

Withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC) SWF88 (talk · contribs) inserted an entire rather long sentence copy-pasted from his/her source into the article The Great Wall (film) and despite me repeatedly telling them to edit it has only cut four words and moved two others around (details with diffs here). He/she has now started accusing me of making personal attacks just for trying to explain this to them.

I am not sure how to deal with this, since (1) I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the talk page with this point any more than I already have, (2) I don't want to rework the sentence so that it isn't a plagiarized copy-paste job myself, as in my opinion the material is inappropriate for the article anyway and the source's view is being distorted, and (3) SWF88 seems to be a good-faith user who just needs WP:COPYVIO explained to them by someone with more patience than me.

Anyone want to be a WP:MENTOR?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• For God's sake will you take something like this to some friendly third editor? ANI is for serious incidents or longstanding intractable problems, not e.g. a long copy-pasted sentence somewhere. EEng 07:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm ... no ... this noticeboard is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". In this particular incident, someone has been violating one of our content policies and doesn't seem to understand why this is wrong, no matter how many times I try to explain it. I think the solution is mentoring, but I don't want to do this, and it would be pointless for either me or some friendly third editor to even try if SWF88 is not amenable to mentoring, and if mentoring is not possible then a block or TBAN to prevent further disruption resulting from this WP:CIR issue may be warranted. That is not a discussion that should take place on the talk page of some friendly third editor; that is for ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm ... no ... Note the plurals in what you quote: "administrators and experienced editors". It took only one other editor to help you. I'm not trying to be hard on you, but if every tiny problem like this came to ANI there would be thousands of threads here at a time. ANI should be the last resort. (I'm not counting Arbcom, which hardly counts as a resort.) EEng 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be at WP:Adopt-a-user for mentoring purposes, and wouldn't the first logical step be to go to their talk page and suggest that they request a mentor. If they refuse to respond and cause further disruption, template them and repeat your request for them to find a mentor. If it goes on after that, then perhaps admin intervention in the form of a short block and request that they find a mentor before continuing to edit Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You know, to quote a great movie villain: You're absolutely right. (I'm not shooting your father played by Sean Connery, though.) If only more ANI contributors were as helpful in responding to threads like this as you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88; I'll take a look at the talk page (in a couple hours as I must leave for now) and see if I can explain the difference between a near exact phrasing, a close paraphrase and a proper distinguishable paraphrase (whatever the correct terminology for that is). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Rosmah Mansor copyvio issue

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 July 5? I tagged Rosmah Mansor as a copyvio on July 5, and x42bn6 has rewritten a clean version of the article at Talk:Rosmah Mansor/Temp since then (on July 23). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've asked one of the clerks to have a look. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Osama Chandio

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

---

In IRC, User:Osama chandio came up to me and he requested to be unblocked. I gave him the standard offer and he agreed to the terms. If the user violates the terms of the agreement, then he should be indefinitely blocked and I recommend any other editor to respectfully decline another request. This thread is to see if other editors agree with this (maybe support/oppose to give him a second chance?) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

His edits were all garbage and he set up multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to continue editing. I blocked most of the accounts. But, that's not much different from what many other people do here, initially. I endorse this standard offer. Let's hope he can abide by it. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. 17 socks in less than a span of a month? I believe in 2nd chances, but this is not an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia. If I felt the SO would end without a block I'd agree, but this is wasting time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

C'mon, have a heart! It's only 17 socks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore and Lugnuts: There's this guy who calls himself 'OrangeMoody,' he told me he'd like to be given administrator permissions. Should we give it? /s I still believe this user could be given another chance Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks back on trail of carnage and destruction by self and 100 sockpuppets... uhhh, nevermind. sweeps "trail of carnage and destruction" under the rug. Nothing to see here. Disclaimer; This is a joke, on the off-chance that somebody decides to take me seriously for some incomprehensible reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:Clausgroi at the List of best-selling music artists

We're having disruptive edits as well as edit-warring by User:Clausgroi at the List of best-selling music artists. Initially, this user insisted on changing Genesis' long time accepted 100 million claim in sales with 150 million records published by The Daily Telegraph. He/she would not start a discussion at the talk page of the list, after his/her edits were rejected. He continued edit-warring even after he/she approached User:Charles Matthews, who suggested that Clausgroi should discuss this at the talk page of the list. Eventually, I had to open up a discussion at Talk:List of best-selling music artists myself in order to avoid edit-warring. I provided explanation after explanation in number of ways about how we use certified sales to recognize inflated sales figures, that even reliable sources publish inflated sales figures. After exhausting myself for days trying to find ways to explain everything so Clausgroi could get the point, in the middle of Geneis' discussion, Clausgroi started a discussion about another artist, now turning his/her discussion to sources and sales figures posted for Michael Jackson. While I tried to provide further explanation about the second artist, he/she jumped in the list and began disrupting and edit-warring.

Since I can't see an end for Clausgroi's disruptive behavior, I'm turning to AN/I, hoping that people here may find other ways to talk some sense into this person. I have exhausted all my patience.--Harout72 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• That entire article just looks like one big list of original research to me. There are so many different ways, and so many sources as to those methods, of measuring record "sales" that you're always going to end up with one big argument. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The list has very few rules to follow, not many. And everything is well sourced, that's not original research.--Harout72 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I have some sympathy for Clausgroi's overall position here, as will be clear to anyone who reads the whole thread on my User talk. It is not clear to me that the "rules" and enforcement on that list are being operated properly: it is not always the case that a "consensus view" is beyond challenge. On the other hand, I wanted to see Clausgroi use the talk page of the list, so that we had a serious statement of opinions on both sides, not just reverts. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that {{Talk header}} is already on the page, I have removed personal attacks exchanged in the thread by Clausgroi and Harout72. The point at issue is on the reliability and application of sources, it seems. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Charles Matthews, thanks for your interest in this case. I just wanted to let you know that I followed your advice and tried to discuss the matter with the user, but it's been difficult, since he seems to think he doesn't have to prove what he claims. My last comment on that discussion sums up my views on his behaviour. I ask that you and other experienced users involved in this discussion/incident report read it to be aware of my stand on this. Thanks. Clausgroi (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Clausgroi, I have proved and I have explained everything to you in every possible way. Regardless, what you are explained, you don't seem to get the point. And that is damaging to wikipedia. Unfortunately, that discussion has been dragged on too long and I don't believe anybody's interested in reading it now.--Harout72 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, the work you have been doing on the list is admirable and I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank you for that. I myself wouldn't have the patience you do to edit the article all the time. However, you must expect people to disagree with you and question your edits. That's only normal when you participe in a colaborative project. In those situations, you must be prepared to explain to them what you mean and prove your points with verifiable and reliable sources. The discussion there was about Genesis, indeed, but then it evolved to something else, which is just natural. I asked you to prove your claim that Michael Jackson has sold 100 million records in only 4 years (2009-2013), but you didn't. I can't help but conclude the figure given in the source(s) was inflated, and that's why I removed it. Clausgroi (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, given that with Bobtinin you have been applying some of the same impatient and superfluous phraseology, I think you need to consider the whole tone you have been using there. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, my tone you've noticed comes from exasperation. Look at all of the derogatory phrases you've removed here, the 90 per cent belongs to Clausgroi. That said, I have spent literally thousands of hours on that list, retrieving the certified sales for every single artist, applying correct certification levels. How is that for being impatient?.--Harout72 (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Not just when they feel like it. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment (attempted outing) by 115.188.30.217

115.188.30.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did an attempted WP:OUTING on my talk page. The attempt has been oversight'ed [210] but the IP should be at least officially notified that this is considered WP:HARASSMENT and violates WP policy. Jeh (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that they blanked 3,000+ bytes of sourced content in their only other edit. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Appears from editing pattern and geolocate info that it's the same person as 115.188.27.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who not only blanked the entire 3 GB barrier page for no good reason, but also accused me of sockpuppeting several other accounts and of hacking an MSDN blog page (!). IP earned a one-week block that time. Jeh (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User N-HH is Wikipedia:Harrassing me in multiple ways; an intervention is required

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

---

N-HH has, since [1 July 2017], been harrassing me in a variety of ways. I would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this matter, as N-HH's pattern of repeated offensive behavior makes editing unpleasant for me. Such harrassing behavior by N-HH takes place in direct communications, and in edit summaries calculated to be noticed by me and clearly suggestive of targeting me even when no direct communication takes place. N-HH's pattern of repeated offensive behavior appears to intentionally target me, to be aimed at intimidating, browbeating, bludgeoning, and/or hounding me into complying with his/her point of view, to undermine me, and to discourage me from editing.

Multiple examples of both H-NN's harrassment and of my futile efforts to productively address it with H-NN are documented in the discussion threads User_talk:Froid#.22Copyediting.22_at_Fort_Bridger_and_elsewhere and User_talk:Froid#Copyediting.2C_again, as well as in User:N-HH's Revision history (which details specifics of N-HH's stalking/hounding of my activities on Wikipedia, N-HH's multiple (though not always) subjective or inappropriate reversions of or changes to my edits, and N-HH's frequently uncivil edit summaries).

Additionally, a review of the archives at User_talk:N-HH reveals N-HH has engaged in this sort of behavior in the past, with other editors, and has been the subject of administrative review for that behavior. N-HH's thoughts about that, as s/he posted today at User_talk:Froid#reaction_to_N-HH.27s_post_of_11:03_7_August_2016_.28UTC.29, are:

"I'm not a fan of going to ANI or other project pages to moan about other editors, preferring to try reason first, but please don't let me stop you if you think my attempts at reasoning with you (and other editors in the past) – in the face of your (and their) obtuseness – constitute harrassment.".

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Froid (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I posted the required ANI notification on H-NN's talk page. Froid (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly a report of someone being harassed "since 1 July 2017" is a violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. EEng 19:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

A read through of the links provided show that H-NN has bent over backwards to try and explain the problems with Froid's editing. The attacks on H-NN here User talk:Froid#Further evidence.... contain zero "evidence" to prove any of the allegations made and are an example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Froid would do well to read WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

After a similar evaluation, I was about to make a similar comment. Froid is not being harassed, and his/her talk page reveals a long history of battling in defense of nonexistent grammar/style "rules", and sometimes-bizarre edits e.g. [211]. EEng 19:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Came across this by chance, I agree with you both. There is no evidence of Froid being harassed and the accusation, without evidence, is a) a breach of WP:NPA, and b) grounds for WP:BOOMERANG. I'm still going through it all, but, My immediate impression is of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Having looked through the talk page, Froid should issue an apology to N-HH for their "disparaging" comments (WP:NPA/CIVIL/ASPERSIONS have been violated here by Froid). That said, N-HH, it may be best for you to leave Froid alone since you've been following (not hounding, but, still following) their edits for at least a month and across a variety of categories of pages that I don't see being coincidental. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As I've openly said to Froid, and as is clear from the record, I have been keeping an eye on their edits on and off for a while (after finding an odd edit by them on a page I watch), and correcting introduced errors when I've come across them – which is quite often – as well as trying to explain to them certain points about grammar. I'm happy to back off from doing all that – as I was about to anyway before this ANI thread – not least because it has proved fairly futile and is not going to make much difference in terms of preventing the introduction of errors and/or unnecessary changes to perfectly good copy – which was, after all, the ultimate aim here. It was not my intention to harrass Froid, simply to get them to take on board some legitimate criticism of their assumptions about grammar and copyediting and to take a bit more care with self-proofing their changes. Unfortunately, that turned out to be slightly harder and to take longer than expected. N-HH talk/edits 09:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive re-creation of article deleted at AfD

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

---

An article about "Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor" was deleted at AfD for lack of notability, with not a single third-party source independent of the subject providing substantial coverage of the organisation to be found anywhere, only the organisation's own press releases, mentions of those press releases, and articles/interviews dealing with people with claimed conncetions to the organisation.

The article has since been recreated multiple times, some of them under slightly different names to evade scrutiny, recreations that have been deleted as CSD G4 (admins can look at the history of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and various others similar names that slip my mind right now). A redirect of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor to a person with at least tangential connection has however been allowed to remain, a redirect that has also been turned into an article two or three times, and then reverted to a redirect (see page history). A number of people connected to the organisation (including indefinitely blocked user Qualitatis) have also repeatedly added the organisation's press releases to articles here, including articles under Arab-Israel discretionary sanctions, each time with a very prominent mention of the organisation to get free publicity, in addition to multiple links to their website (sample edits: #1, #2).

And today user Anassjerjawi, who claims to be "the official representative of the organization", has recreated the article not once, but three times within minutes of each other, under three different names (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor), meaning that we now have three substantially identical articles about the same non-notable organisation, an organisation that still can't provide any sources that verify notability per Wikipedia's rules, just the same old press releases, mentions of those press releases and articles with only a marginal connection to the subject of the article(s). Since I'm tired of them by now I have nominated all three for CSD G4 and requested creation protection at WP:RFPP, but since noone seems to want to touch it I decided to post here too. Thomas.W ^talk 16:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• All three articles have now been speedily deleted, not as G4, though, but as G12 (blatant copyright violations), which is another reason why all article titles that have been used should get full creation protection, so that a new article would have to go through an administrator, and they would have to show sources establishing notability and present a draft that could be checked for copyvios, before a new article can be created. Thomas.W ^talk 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thomas.W, okay good point. All salted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Administrator BorgQueen

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

---

BorgQueen (talk · contribs)
Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs)
YSSYguy (talk · contribs)
Last week an article was created- ASL Hungary Flight 7332. I thought the subject was not notable so I nominated it for deletion. The AFD can be found here- WP:Articles for deletion/ASL Hungary Flight 7332

Aviation accidents are routinely placed in yearly templates after articles. Such as this one for 2016[212]. A accident without an article or an accident who's article has been deleted or redirected per AFD are routinely removed from these templates. That is the consensus of the WikiProjects that maintain these.

This morning a small edit war broke out at the template. BorgQueen decided that the ASL Hungary entry in the template should no longer be there with the edit summary 'The article is at AfD'[213]. Editor YSSYGuy reverted the edit[214] with the edit summary- 'not a valid reason for removal' but BorgQueen reverted that with the summary 'It is valid, as the article is going to be deleted. Check the AfD before reverting blindly'. I saw what was going on(Yearly Aviation templates are on my watchlist and I've helped maintain for years) and was about to revert BQ when Editor Eugen Simion 14 reverted Borg Queen instead here[215] Note Eugen has helped maintain the templates too and voted keep in the article's AFD.

What happens next- BorgQueen closed the AFD as a WP:SNOW even though the AFD had only been running for four days and when two editors of the seven participating had voted keep. Five to two Delete to keep on a 4 day old AFD hardly seems a WP:SNOW. I think the article should be deleted, remember I started the AFD, but I think a closing was way too premature.

BorgQueen's edit warring over at the template also I think makes them WP:INVOLVED so far as being an unbiased administrator so far as needed to close a AFD properly....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I first removed the link to the article from the template because I saw no reason to think the article had any realistic hope of surviving the AfD and therefore was about to close the discussion in the first place, per WP:SNOW. My net connection comes and goes, so I was planning to close the discussion slightly later when my connection was more stable, which I indeed did within a couple of hours, as closing an AfD was a more complicated process than simply removing the link. It was a simple administrative job but perhaps my edit comments weren't detailed enough, but I am not involved in this matter; I simply have noticed the AfD while passing by. The number of editors arguing keep are irrelevant as it is not a vote. The only rationale they've offered is that it is "not really that common," which is, frankly, absurd. But you know what, if you'd like to have a fresh set of eyes to look at it, please feel free to do so. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was absurd or not, is arguable. You used your tools to get your way in an edit war. Don't forget your last edit summary to the template- 'The article has been deleted. You guys make a simple admin job so difficult'. So you were edit warring as an administrator and then taking action as one. Those guys you referred to only interacted with you at the template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The way this is supposed to work is that the AFD is closed, then the backlinks are removed. Not the other way around. That's problem #1. Problem #2 is that an administrator appears to have cited WP:SNOW without actually understanding what it says. Problem #3 is that I have a real problem with admins who even give the appearance of being involved and then use the tools to put the hammer down for their 'side.' Closing an AFD with the script is something like a three click process, and it's arguably easier than removing a link from a template. BorgQueen's explanation doesn't cut it for me. Katie^talk 13:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Katie, BorgQueen hasn't closed AFD other than the one I cited since May 2012 (or longer. I only went back their last 500 Wikipedia edits[216]). I think that is further proof of their violating Involved. Their statements and actions say a great deal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm exactly like BQ - I have a bad habit of being impatient and removing links before the AFD's deleted however when someone disagrees with you you then leave it be ... It's completely inappropriate to edit war over it and then 2 hours later decide fuck it I'll close the AFD to get my own way - I don't believe it's really worth desysopping over however they should be given a strong warning over their conduct. –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the AfD should have been marked as snow and closed before the seven days. Although I do agree it would have been delete. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Davey. The AfD close was blatantly inappropriate, and by extension, the removal of the link in the template was. Removing the link prematurely suggests you personally intend on seeing the article deleted, therefore it is a violation of INVOLVED to execute the deletion. Also, you just can't close a discussion after 4 days per SNOW when a quarter of the opinions are "keep". That's nothing short of blatant abuse. Sometimes we close unanimous discussions a day early, but anything beyond that will likely get an admin strongly chewed out. That's something I learned pretty fast as a newbie. This was a pretty clear misuse of the administrator privilege from someone who should really know better by now. I echo the conduct warning suggested above, given how clearly out of line this was. Swarm ♠ 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Two minor points. There have been 3-10 Aviation accident (Can't remember them but one. I have nominated a bunch of not notable accident articles. Received a Barnstar for it too) closed as delete on day four to even barely a day after the AFD started[217]. In all those cases the deletes were unanimous and numerous. Secondly, a slight correction. Some articles nearing delete have been removed from the templates (WP:BOLD) but if someone objected and reverted the deletion the policy is to leave it alone....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate for BorgQueen to delete the article after getting in an edit war at the template. It also seems like intimidation to mention your administrator status when you are involved in an edit war. Is this worthy of a de-tooling? No. Is it worthy of a warning? Probably. In the words of my favorite college professor "Even the image of impropriety could in itself be considered impropriety". BorgQueen also seems to misunderstand the meaning of WP:SNOW but that in it self can be fixed easily (read the policy and ask for clarification if you don't understand it.) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've only run into BQ on vandalism and front-page-related issues, and their batting average on those is about 1.000. And God knows I'm not immune to occasionally trying to go faster than necessary in service to expedience and (what I preceive to be) common sense. But yeah, the AFD close and the reverting seem a bit too aggressive, and BQ's batting average is now down to .999. I'd suggest re-opening the AFD and letting it run the full 7 days, and letting the article stay on the template until the AFD runs its course. And a reminder (not a "strong warning", just a reminder) that it's best to err well to the safe side of WP:INVOLVED. I'm inclined to close this as I've described unless someone thinks there's more to be said. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, I only chose the stronger warning option as I assume it would stick more than friendly reminders and plus I still believe their conduct was in this case inappropriate but If you think a reminder is better than a strong warning then I have no objections to that, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with the consensus here that this seems to have been an unambiguous abuse of privileges. I also agree that I don't think the circumstances call for any kind of genuine sanction, but I do hope BorgQueen will take the observations here on board and avoid similar actions where she is WP:involved in the future. [Insert "bow to the will of the Collective" joke here. :)]. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Floquenbeam. Restore the article, re-run a new AfD discussion for a week and someone uninvolved can close it. That way justice (to the process) can be done and be seen to be done. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • How could anyone argue with Floquenbeam's logic here? Would certainly get rid of any possible COI slant and clear the air IMO.   Aloha27  talk  20:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Everyone seems to agree about reopening the AFD and restoring the article, so I've done that. I don't want to get involved in the bikeshed problem of crafting the wording of a reminder/message/warning/trout/etc to User:BorgQueen, so I'll leave that to others. In my experience, BQ is pretty sharp, and they are quite capable of reading an ANI thread, so personally I don't think any message is explicitly needed; they'll understand the result of this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

That IP again - does not answer and does not change behaviour

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

---

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

Since Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive930#Disruptive_IP was archived without action, the IP has again done disruptive editing. I thought a block was deserved last time and guess what, the last shenanigans (or rather, the recent repeat of old shenanigans) did not change my opinion. Maybe it is done in good faith but WP:CIR. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. Swarm ♠ 17:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

VANDALISM by JJMC89

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

---

JJMC89 is a destructive editor. I can list number of edits he did, that can be categorize as vandalism. Being in the scene for longer time doesn’t make it right! Does it??? Please look at his revision history I notified JJMC89 regarding the discussion on administrator’s notice board. But unfortunately JJMC89 has deleted the notification. I believe JJMC89 is disrespectful for the guide lines of Wikipedia. And should be prevented from editing any article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksmith101 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggest immediate boomerang on OP - please see JJMC89's talk page history. GAB^gab 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User Mathsci and all the things

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

---

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:AGF and WP:NPA

• Accusing me of POV pushing for removing "riddled with bullets". Same thing here saying that I have a "problem with the sources", before later saying it was apparently paraphrase. Apparently per talk is a paraphrase of a translation from French by the user, and is just their preferred wording.
• Calling me lazy.
• Carrying on about me in summaries for edits to content I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with.
• Warning regarding personal attacks by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.
• Removal of comment on contentious editing by John, who is apparently a "Scottish based twit"
• Threatening to report me because I accidentally removed the wrong source, and because one edit equals a war.
• Warning here from me for personal attacks on another editor.
• Engaged in a short war with Ianmacm over whether there should be a current event tag on the article, then went to this thread, where apparently the problem is that other editors don't respect the French nation.

WP:EW

• First AN3 reported by Erlbaeko (warning)
• Second AN3 reported by Erlbaeko (no vio)
• Unrelated warning from me for warring with others.

WP:COPYVIO

• This thread where the text of a published article was removed by me for COPYIO, reinserted again, and removed my me again. I warned on their talk, at which point I was accused of removing it out of "antipathy to French sources" on the article talk. They then collapsed the discussion, and reinserted more copyvio that was removed by Biwom, reinserted back into the article, removed again by Biwom, and finally removed a third time by me.

WP:BLP

• I removed names from the article which were then reinserted and again removed.
• Then came this thread where "You created part of the problem yourself by insisting on given names not being used." (Apparently BLP is optional now.)

I could probably go on for a while more, but I figure this should suffice. This editor clearly WP:OWNS the article and has taken turns systematically warring and attacking each editor there in turn. The current spat on the talk is pretty representative of the article over the past few weeks. The user exhaustively reverts and exhaustively attacks until the other person just gives up. Well, I give up. Talking does nothing, and judging by their block log neither does that. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• It does rather look here as though Timothyjosephwood is in the right here. Repulsive as this terrorist attack is, Wikipedia is not a newspaper with a political agenda, therefore emotive descriptions should be avoided. Wikipedia's job is to impartially describe an event in a detached fashion, not report it from the front line with such expressions as "riddled with bullets" etc. Giano (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not even about whether this wording is used or not. It's about the fact that nearly everything on the article has to escalate to warnings, final warnings, and noticeboards, even for something so mundane. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You issued the warnings on your own, Timothyjosephwood. You chose to escalate things here. You chose not to continue discussions on the talk page after BULLYING me there. You mention copyvios above as if they were ongoing. But you know perfectly well that I asked Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and later Diannaa for advice. They provided that advice, although not all at once. What particular reason did you have for omitting to mention that here? I would say that it was a major failure to WP:AGF on your part. Perhaps even a ploy to alienate one of the few bilingual editors active on the article. But I am not aware of any point of view I am trying to push beyond accuracy. You were eager to add details of the 73-year old friend of the perpetrator to the forked BRDP (biography of a recently deceased person). Now that he's given an interview to Nice-Matin dispelling many rumours, you seem to have lost interest. The personal interview with him is interesting, even enlightening, but not anything for wikipedia at present. Looking for sources is very important. You don't seem to do very much of that at all. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Similarly your account of edit-warring is a bad faith misrepresentation. Both times this was dismissed. First by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (with a warning about editing the timeline box) and then by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who saw no violation of any kind. What reason did you have for not mentioning that? Why do you not WP:AGF? Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As for BLP violations, given names or the first initial of a surname is not a BLP violation as far as I know. On the French article, all the first names and initials now appear. I assume they know what they're doing. Timothyjosephwood seems sure of himself and points the accusatory finger at me. But it's in the New York Times here.[219] How sure can anybody be in those circumstances? Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition on the talk page Timothyjosephwood made references to me adding sensational content on how victims died.[220] When I told him that no such content had been added or envisaged, he said that is was "hypothetical".[221] Again a huge failure to WP:AGF. These invented scenarios of his are unhelpful and verge on the inflammatory. Timothyjosephwood states in the second diff that "a news source is not an encyclopedia". The article 2016 Nice attack is written entirely using news sources. Is this Timothyjosephwood's latest ploy for justifying removing things that don't appeal to him? A news source is not an encyclopedia? Is that why he made this spurious report here? Making statementsof this kind shows a huge misunderstanding of the way in which wikipedia articles on disasters like this are edited. A great sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media is needed. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

General comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of Timothyjosephwood's time is spent trying to dismiss sources in French or make spurious comments about anodyne and non-controversial content, usually misciting wikipedia policy. He has no knowledge of French; but feels free to discuss linguistic points nevertheless. He feels insulted when I question why he is trying to guess the meaning of French words. Wikipedia is after all the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. But it doesn't magically give them linguistic skills. And in this case Timothyjosephwood has given the impression that his linguistic skills match my own. That might be unintentional. As far as translation is concerned, he does not appear to have assumed good faith. When a French source has been translated partially or in summary, he has expressed no interest. A source in Marianne (magazine) was important for establishing the chronology in the article, which for a long time was contradictory. He showed no interest; he made a lot of complaints about claimed WP:COPYVIO and was surprised when I consulted administrators (see below). rather than engage on the talk page, he has come straight here. I understand that he is unhappy having his linguistic skills questioned. I have no political agenda; just a desire for accuracy. That means scrupulously reading and re-reading sources; unsurprisingly the vast majority of them are in French. Two weeks after the event, that is even more true. It is, however, not my fault. It is the way the cookie or Nice biscuit crumbles. I worked quite hard on these translations. This started with a word-for-word translation of the French wikipedia section "attaque". It was first added to the talk page of the article and then slowly put into the article itself. On his own admission Timothyjosephwood does not speak French. The initial reports from immediately after the attack were tentative and often erroneous, subject to correction. That is described in great detail by a Parisian journalist working in Nice for Nice-Matin writing very recently.[222] The initial translation was word-for-word from fr.wikipedia.org, using their sources initially, but with English language sources added later. This was followed by an iterative process of chacking and re-checking. A great help with the chronology was an article in Marianne (magazine) published last Sunday where the police report of the CCTV timings of the police officer in charge, Sandra Bertin, was published. This allowed many inaccuracies in the article to be clarified and removed including timings and events on two maps. The attack itself lasted only 4-5 minutes before the lorry was disabled. That became clear a long time after the initial news reports and was not necessarily reported in non-French news media. Initial French and English sources reported that when halted the windscreen of the truck was riddled (Telegraph), pockmarked (Guardian), peppered (Telegraph), raked (BBC News) with bullet holes: French sources use the word "criblé" which is equivalent to all of these. The BBC sources also described bullet marks in the front of the truck. This is repeated in numerous French sources, sometimes as captions to images of the truck just before it was towed away. Timothyjosephwood has described the sentence "The windscreen and front of the truck were left riddled with bullet holes" as inflammatory, non-neutral and unsourced. However it is multiply sourced to UK sources, which are reproduced in French sources. Like early reports (as the Parisian reporter comments) errors did creep into the early reports. I found a source in Arte, normally considered a reliable channel, which stated that it was "portière passager" which was riddled with bullet holes; although repeated elsewhere, it contradicted later more careful reports. I removed it in this edit[223] with an explanation. As far as I am aware, I have been the only wikipedian to correct both maps in the article to reflect the official chronology (of Sandra Bertin). This has required a knowledge of French plus careful fact-checking against the three official reports of the Procureur de la République à Paris, François Molins, the official in charge of the investigation. He gave long announcements on 15 July, 18 July and 21 July, which were well summarised in the top French newspapers and less well summarised in British newspapers and elsewhere. Recent events where I have been only editor to add to the article include: The definitive list of 84 fatalities, published by Agence France-Presse The two black banners listing all 84 names draped on the Hotel de Ville in Nice The three Nice residents, honoured with bravery medals by the local authorities in Nice for their role in slowing down the truck. These included a motorcyclist and cyclist, whose actions were described explicitly in Nice-Matin and repeated elsewhere, mainly in French news media. The arrest a week ago of two further individuals in connection with the attack. One was released and the other transfeerred today to Paris for questioning. Nobody else has attempted to add any content of this kind. I have assumed that is because they cannot read French sources. It does not mean WP:OWN. I have no case to make; perhaps I would ask non-French editors to check that they know about the geography of Nice and know where to find 62 Route de Turin and its environs on map. In the case of Timothyjosephwood, he has shown a negative and condescending attitude to French sources. My own feeling is that, in the case of a disaster or tragedy like this, there is no reason to distrust French sources. Why should they be unreliable. They might be unreadable to some, but that does not make them unreliable. More recently the non-French press has moved on to other issues and is no longer reporting on these incidents. That is to be expected. Timothyjosephwood apparently has had no training in French yet has attemtped today to discuss French words and French legal terms as if they were related to American legal terms. I have no legal expertise, but my own feeling is that French laws about terrorism are probably quite recent and give the French State very special powers in these circumstances. Translating the phrasing of the charges under the law is not easy; in particular the translation of "en relation à une entreprise terroriste" is probably best translated as literally as possible. I understand entreprise as "undertaking" or "activity", so "in relation to a terrorist undertaking". I am aware of "entreprise" most often being used as "business"; here the use is legal. Non-French speakers might think it means group, but then why not use groupe in French? A careful examination of how I edit shows the process of checking through more and more sources. Here is where I removed the Arte source as errorneous.[224] But again, from 14-16 July, many errors worked their way into early reports because of the general confusion mentioned by the Parisian reporter. I can see a number of US editors with no training in French hazarding a guess on translations. Why do that while having no experience in French? I was in the South of France from 1999 until 2014. I started editing wikipedia in 2006. I have edited many articles about that area, mainly in Provence rather than the French Riviera. I am familiar with local newspapers. I can understand recorded interviews without difficulty, although I have only used them for double checking written reports. It took me a while to work out what "et nique" meant and why it should be omitted on wikipedia; I also understand why Molins prefaced it by "et je cite" when quoting the SMS during his press conference. I could not write the English equivalent. User:Pincrete has pointed out that I am one of the few vaguely bilingual editors active on the article. At the moment US editors seem more interested in Elders of Zion-type conspiracy theories hatched in the US rather than any recent progress in the investigation or reports in the French press. That applies in particular to Timothyjosephwood, who has for at least two weeks shown a great antipathy to sources in the French press. On the other hand he has edited the BRDP (biography of a recently deceased person) on the perpetrator. On the talk page of the main article I mentioned a recent interview with a 73-year old friend of the family. Timothyjosephwood wanted to include content about the 73-year old in the BRLP, including a possible sexual relationship with the perpetrator, not borne out by the interview; he showed no interest at all when I added information about the interview on the article talk page in the last day or two. Contrary to what hs been proposed for the BRDP, the 73-year old acted as a father figure although his orientation was in line with the La Cage aux Folles cliché from the Côtes d'Azur. Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood misrepresents my translations. He knows that I asked

• Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

and that on Dougweller's talk page Doug suggested

• Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

as a copyright expert. Diannaa intervened and said the short one paragraph translation (all that I needed) was fine and otherwise I should just use a paraphrase, as if the content were written in English. Yet, once that was settled with senior administrators on wikipedia, Timothyjosephwood presents it here as a continuing copyvio. That seems to show a huge lack of good faith in his part. In constrast to Timothyjosephwood, Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa took time to understand the problem of explaining sources to non-French speakers. They were courteous and eventually advised me that the short segment that I wanted to discuss was fine. Timothyjosephwood has taken a very begative attitude to the use of French sources and seems almost resentful that anybody would think of using them. But the current developments mentioned above are only covered in French sources. On ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre. I use evry possible source and check them meticulously, which is not always easy. Timothyjosephwood wants to delete "The windscreen and the front of the truck were left riddled with bullet holes" as an affront to humanity, some bizarre of POV-pushing and editorialising. Rather than discuss on the talk page, he ran straight here as if I was some rogue packing wikipedia with inaccuracy upon inaccuracy, copyvio upon copyvio.

But why exactly would I ask Dougweller or Moonriddengirl, and eventually Diannaa, for advice? So that I could continue on an editing rampage? Obviously not.

Here I simply reported what I had read in the Guardian, the Telegraph and on the BBC News website; and countless other places. Anodyne and neutral. I incidentally was able view the pictures of the truck, taken by journalists, riddled with bullets as described in the sources (more specifically the driver's side of the cabin, a true but irrelevant detail). Mathsci (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Merde!, Mathsci, User:Timothyjosephwood excuse me but this is a really stupid ANI. Mathsci AFAI can see has been an invaluable asset on the article, and 4/5 of the time appears to have been mostly right. However, excuse me for saying it Mathsci, at times you over react in a major way, (WTF has the 'Elders of Zion' got to do with anything ?). It really is possible to communicate and correct misunderstandings between Fr & Eng without getting personal and without acres of text. Somebody close this please and everyone calm down. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That was this conspiracy theory nonsense Claim of Israel's role of flase flag attack which I would file under Elders of Zion or Edwin Mullins Eustace Mullins. Nothing to do with the article and beyond the comprehension of UK editors. Timothyjosephwood's editing sprees on the article are cosmetic and do not involve finding or checking sources. I was very happy to find the article with the CCTV information. Timothyjosephwood seems to resent sources like that as if they conjured up by magic to cause him angst. Many things that we have learnt more recently are surprising. I wondered how a very large truck could get on to a narrow one-way road going in the wrong direction with cars parked on either side. A small detail, but completely clarified by the CCTV report. the truck did not take that small road but the Avenue de Fabrol further up. I also understand how the truck could accelerate before the first fatalities. Nothing for the article, but awful to contemplate. I listened to the interviews with the family of the probable first victim, a French-Moroccan. The daughter of one was abused by an Islamophobe when she went to visit the spot where her mother had been killed. As I say, hard to listen to. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant Eustace Mullins? Edwin Mullins doesn't seem to fit at all in to what you were saying. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since when does violating WP:COPYVIO, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EW and WP:MOS make someone an "invaluable asset". Pincrete asking for this to be summarily closed is inappropriate. Yes it is quite possible to communicate between french and english "without getting personal" however Personal Attacks by Mathsci seem to indicate he is incapable of doing such or is unwilling to do so. Perhaps a page ban is in order.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone is an 'invaluable asset' when they are the only one competent to inform the rest of us of the difference, for example, between a French legal term and its 'close neighbour' in US or UK terminology. The PA's in my opinion are mainly silly and sometimes possibly the result of his frustration at not being understood. 'Scottish based twit' is daft and unnec., but we've all been called worse. The copy-vio was solely on talk page, his literal translation of a French source, which he -and others- were unaware was still copy-vio. Mathsci is possibly too emotionally invested in the article, but on balance, I still believe he has been a major asset, and I have not had any problems communicating calmly with him. I was 'pinged' here, I've given my opinion, unless a specific response is needed from me, I don't intend to take any further part in this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm simply not going to read that wall of text. And this is part of the problem on the article: If someone edits they war, and if someone engages in discussion it's pages of WP:IDHT until they give up.

Second, per Pincrete's comment today on the talk "I also noticed 'riddled with bullet holes' some time ago, but didn't want to make a fuss." And that's exactly what it is. Even minor changes to the article are a battle that must be fought. The user is clearly here to make an encyclopedia; they're just not here to make it with others. This was exactly the nature of the AN3 warning given by EdJohnston: "The fact that Mathsci has worked to improve the article does not immunize him." TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete didn't 'want to make a fuss', because he didn't think it important enough, and he knew the content was sourced. When other editors also thought the language a bit inappropriately dramatic, he agreed with them, and the content has been changed without rancour. I've made it clear that I think, on balance, Mathsci has been an invaluable asset, please don't use my name to imply otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Guys? Can I make a suggestion? Go and chat about it on some subpage somewhere, and I am pretty sure you'll reach an accommodation in short order. The mediation folks may be able to help, but honestly? I think you'd settle this over a beer and be on to the election within half an hour. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion on the talk page. Timothyjosephwood decided to bring things here. He didn't like something quoted in sources labelled "grauniad", "torygraph" and BBC. He didn't like reading that a terrorist's lorry had been damaged by bullets in some way or other: windscreeen peppered, raked, pockmarked or riddled with bullet marks; right door or left, right side or left of cabin similarly. Unimportant details, but giving some idea of what took place as reported in the media. Timothyjosephwood just removed the innocuous phrase: "leaving the windscreen and cabin of the truck riddled with bullet holes". As for User:John, I defended him when Wnt launched an attack on him on RSN; John later sent me thanks through his thanks button. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • There's already been two RfCs generated by Mathsci's behavior, and neither of them involved me as a belligerent. I started one and closed the other. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Which RfC's about my behaviour? Which particular statements did they discuss concerning my behaviour? Please link to them and explain yourself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)
        • I found one RfC prematurely archived.Talk:2016_Nice_attack/Archive_5#RfC_on_the_removal_of_a_timeline Five for removal of timeline, two against. The first RfC was here.Talk:2016 Nice attack/Archive_5#RfC_on_Mia_Bloom_Inclusion Content about Mia Bloom was removed once after significant new content had been added about the perpetrator not being a "lone wolf". As I commented then, anybody was free to add it back, in a relevant section, but nobody did. So perhaps to do with my editing, as I had modified the article quite a bit. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
          • The Bloom RfC was salvaged after Mathsci went forward with the side they supported, less than a day after it was opened, overriding four votes against. In the second case it took third party intervention (me) to restore the status quo and open an RfC, and an AN3 report by Erlbaeko, to have Mathsci settle for anything less than their preferred version. Pretty much par for the course. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Timothyjosephwood has left the RfC on the timeline box hidden festering in a talk page archive. The two AN3 reports of Erlbaeko resulted in a warning about the timeline box and a conclusion of "no violation". Timothyjosephwood's stating otherwise does not change that. At the moment he is simply misrepresenting facts. I don't have a preferred version and have altered many things when it has been suggested, e.g. after a talk page comment I rewrote the sentences concerning the cyclist and the motorcyclist originally introduced by me into the article. I also changed the archiving on the talk page to once a week. Timothyjosephwood has abandoned the timeline RfC to the archives. He has also stated "News sources are not an enclyclopedia" (see above). An odd thing to write. Timothyjosephwood has invested much effort into vetoing French sources from the article; he has also tried to obstruct short translations or summaries from French articles from appearing on the talk page. Meanwhile US news sources have at present essentially stopped reporting on the disaster. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• This report seems vague—if there is any significant issue, please briefly outline it, with a couple of links (a diff, a discussion), and a brief statement of how Mathsci was a problem. I say that after trying to understand TimothyJosephWood's point just above where he says "The Bloom RfC was salvaged after Mathsci went forward with the side they supported, less than a day after it was opened, overriding four votes against." However, the RfC on Mia Bloom Inclusion was closed by TimothyJosephWood in a way that seems to vindicate Mathsci who pointed out that comments written before the majority of details were released should not be featured in the article. The RfC fully supported Mathsci's position, and TimothyJosephWood's objection in this ANI report seems to be that a misguided RfC should halt editing for 30 days. Is there anything substantive rather than an issue which seems to show that Mathsci was correct, and where his comment is a model of good RfC conduct. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The report is that in two months off indef, they've managed to accrue a long list of NPA violations, edit warring, violations of BLP and COPYVIO, and warring to violate COPYVIO. Their comments above re: "short translations" shows their inability to WP:LISTEN, as they still don't understand what was explained by multiple people: short quotes are fine, and full articles, which they warred to include, are not.

Add an inability to understand WP:NOENG, as they apparently believe quite strongly that "English-language sources are preferred" is a slur, and that I am on a personal war against France. This is evident by the pages of tirades above, as well as by the string of personal attacks and aspersions yesterday, and reverting to use euphemistic wording of their own translation, then doing the same with other wording, both of which were eventually fixed by others.

The RfC I closed was an attempt to maintain peace. The RfC I started was an attempt to end a war. I have attempted to be a mediating party on the article, as Mathsci has had constant conflict with multiple users. Simply put, they WP:OWN the article, and on multiple fronts, with multiple users, they have shown a willingness to violate policy to maintain that. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• TimothyJosephWood seems to be trying to make a "pattern of behaviour" argument here. It is likely that Mathsci does not like TJW or their editing, but I do not see the former's behaviour as outside the norms. There are no BLP or COPYVIO violations that I could find. There are some personal attacks and some bad faith. Even in the somewhat heated discussion which TJW characterizes as "threatening to bring him to ANI", most of the discussion is good-faith and focused on content. In contentious areas, a bit of friction is unavoidable, unfortunately. As for content, most of Mathsci's edits seem to be good and helpful. There are some disagreements over policy. It would be good if other people are involved more, perhaps through an RfC or WP:3O rather than just the two of you arguing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP and COPYVIO issues linked to above under main header. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, scratched it. The COPYVIO issue seems to have been resolved and so has the BLP issue. I am inclined to think that they were good-faith disagreements over policy, but they are still violations. Mathsci should be more careful. There is a pattern of behaviour suggesting WP:OWN here. I don't know how it should be addressed. Perhaps a warning suffices, because I don't think it is egregious, and most of Mathsci's edits are helpful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Two months off indef": why does Timothyjosephwood mention the arbcom block here? It has no relevance whatsoever.

On his own admission French language falls outside Timothyjosephwood's expertise. Nevertheless he is trying to edit an article on a recent disaster in France where almost all new sources are currently in French. That puts him at a disadvantage. He has been misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources: blanking French quotes from the talk page; surrounding them with walls of bogus wikipedia policy; and making shrill complaints about copyvios when English translations are given. I use the best sources I can find. They are rarely US sources.

Timothyjosephwood has neither an informal nor a formal role as any kind of mediator. Mediation on wikipedia is quite a different thing. It is definitely not self-appointed vigilantism.

Timothyjosephwood's most recent declaration has been that "a news source is not an encyclopedia". When he writes something like that, how does he expect other editors to take him seriously? N'enseignez pas votre grand-mère à sucer les œufs. Mathsci (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I note that Timothyjosephwood has not made very many content edits (3,000) and has created no articles. According to his "logic", these articles by me—Chateau of Vauvenargues and La Vieille Charité—should not exist. I only used French sources. The same with Porte d'Aix. So what he writes is baseless nonsense showing a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of wikipedia.[225] He has no idea of my writing skills or lack thereof. He cannot speak French and is trotting out rules to discriminate against editors who know French better than he does. If he had created articles like Clavier-Übung III, his negative commentary might be worth reading. At present, without diffs, it is a personal attack by somebody seemingly with overt prejudices concerning the French language. I am British and have a deep respect for France, its culture and its language. Timothyjosephwood's alphabet soup of claimed wikipedia policies about sources in French would justify the deletion of many articles I have written related to France. His attitude is highly disruptive. Why such a negative attitude to the French language? What about Phèdre which I edited extensively? Or Iphigénie? Or The Four Seasons (Poussin)? No Timothyjosephwood's crusade against French sources is doomed to disaster. He has cast aspersions on my editing skills, but he shows almost zero awareness of how I edit. His "report" here is an example of WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as WP:BLP violations go, Timothyjosephwood added this piece of salacious gossip to Talk:Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel about a claimed "principal lover".[226] The 73 year old recently gave an extensive interview to Nice-Matin. It is briefly discussed here Talk:2016 Nice attack#Best friend. Timothyjosephwood has not done anything to remove his BLP violations from Talk:Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. His sources were the India Times and Sky News. So horrific content and unreliable sources. Is this the "model editing" he wants other wikipedians to emulate? This is what happens when an editor dismisses French sources. Quelle horreur ! Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources" - Failure to understand WP:NOENG after having it explained multiple times
• "blanking French quotes from the talk page" - Failure to understand why pasting an entire article was WP:COPYVIO
• "shrill complaints about copyvios when English translations are given" - Failure to understand why a translation of an entire article is WP:COPYVIO
• "walls of bogus wikipedia policy" - Complete WP:IDHT
• "any kind of mediator" - Although I have defended this editor multiple times, including when they were improperly templated on their talk
• "a news source is not an encyclopedia" - I don't even know. I guess WP:CIR, when someone says "a news source can say 'raked with bullets', but WP shouldn't".

The user flatly doesn't care about policy, period, in any case where it interferes with their ownership, and fails to even acknowledge that they've at all violated it. The block log is relevant because they've already been blocked twice for harassment, twice for warring, and once indeffed by ArbCom. It's a pattern that goes back to 2008 and they've apparently learned nothing. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And I guess the user wants to have a spat over where arbitrary breaks are, even though the above thread includes a pages long diatribe posted by them that makes it unnavigable. TimothyJosephWood 21:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I will reply above not here. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This report is painful to read. I'm seeing so many words that are not devoted to responding to the actual complaints made. If we don't want a book written on here, can someone take a look at closing it? Arkon (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know. Going off the rails over something minor, and claiming a 1:1 contribution-to-disruption ratio seems to be their MO. TimothyJosephWood 23:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Back when the article was new (and I was still watching it), I noticed that Mathsci's editing on it and talk-page comments were very whiney, accusative, bossy, long-winded, and chauvinistic. That's one reason I stopped watching/editing the article. In my observation Matchsci has a huge ownership problem with any article he starts to edit. All of that said, it does not seem that TJW is dealing well with the situation, and moreover has thrown a bit of the kitchensink into his OP of this ANI. I think TJW needs to be more accommodating of French sources (if you edit via Google Chrome you can instantly get the translation), which for this article are certainly not to be dismissed out of hand since it is a French event. TJW also needs to remember to ignore PAs and discuss only content. Reacting to or pointing out PAs only leads to more problems. I don't know what the solution to this whole scenario is, but I suggest we treat it like the (series of) content dispute(s) that it is, and proceed from there (including, if necessary, forms of dispute resolution). Mathsci should be warned that any further bullying, domination, or personal attacks or aspersions will not be tolerated in either edit summaries or posts and will result in a block. And that shorter, more concise wording is always preferable to unnecessary detail. Any edit-warring by any editor should be dealt with through the normal channels of (1) discussion on article talk page, (2) user talkpage warning, (3) WP:ANEW report. Plus we could definitely use more eyes from admins and experienced editors on that article and its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I could have gone further in my OP and didn't, for what it's worth. Perhaps more importantly, there's not a single diff provided where I've cast aspersions on French sources...because...well...I haven't. TimothyJosephWood 00:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"...this is the English Wikipedia, and we should probably prefer English sources..."here.--Noren (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

And that's perfectly in line with guidance at WP:NOENG. TimothyJosephWood 01:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better to start with the above claim that your stated preference for English language sources is supported by policy and move the debate on to whether the degree of preference was appropriate within that policy, rather than to muddy the waters with the demonstrably incorrect claim that you never cast aspersions on French sources.--Noren (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What aspersion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to muddy the waters with the demonstrably correct claim that I quoted WP policy nearly verbatim. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've checked through all of your edits and all of your talk-page comments, and you are correct; you have never disparaged French sources. Therefore Mathsci's gigantic wall of text above (now hatted) is an utter red herring, and his constant dishonest aspersions against you on that score on the article talk page ([227], [228], [229], [230]) are completely out of order and beyond the pale -- I'd say he deserves a sanction for those aspersions, especially when combined with his other uncollaborative behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you didn't look carefully at the edit history. There are 5 talk page archives, even though the article is recent. There's also deleted content. It's easy enough to provide the diffs. The BLP violation of Timothyjosephwood occurs here[231] and is described in the previous section. Please don't forget that. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked the talk page and every single one of its archives, and every single edit TJW made to the article. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide diffs. On the completely unrelated matter, why are you showing a diff of direct quotes/information from India Times and Sky News on the talk page of a completely different article, where the person in question is not even named? TJW got consensus for that wording on that talk article's page, and even pinged you to participate: Talk:Mohamed_Lahouaiej-Bouhlel#Sexual_relationship. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the new section below. The BLP violation is explained in the previous section where I mention the recent article in Nice-Matin. Your other question about diffs is taken up in the new section below. I am still analysing them. I analyse your own handful of contributions here, just to check whether your initial complaints stand up to scrutiny. Contrary to your statement here, I cannot conceive how you could have analysed the diffs of the OP in the time interval you provided yourself. The description below mentions your own very brief involvement on the article. It concerned the image in the infobox. I created the image for the infobox that has been there for approaching two weeks. You complained about an image of a shoe,[232] opened a talk page section specifically on the infobox[233] complaining about the invisibility of the PDA on the image at that stage but suggesting a cropped image,[234] you complained that the image still used in the French infobox had too much "ocean, beach, trees, and buildings"[235] you dismissed my comments when I mentioned the actual course of the lorry and landmarks on the PDA.[236] I told you that the wrong part of the water front was pictured, mentioning the landmarks of on the route of the lorry. I explained I was looking for suitable images in all sorts of places (commons, flickr cc, etc).[237] You replied that "All I care about at present is that the infobox image match the claim in the current caption that it shows the promenade. It doesn't, and it was changed without discussion." At that stage the image showed the Quai des Etats Unis not the PDA. I don't see that you were "bossed" there. Some WP:IDHT from you. You did not acknowledge the current image added later that day. You made no more edits to the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have any evidence that TJW ever disparaged French sources. Nor did he engage in any BLP violation on this or the other article; in fact, as I noted, he called for talk-page consensus and specifically pinged you before posting anything. And as below, you are trying to falsely trump up ridiculous charges against people not even party to the disputes between you and TJW, in order to somehow deflect attention away from yourself. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the section below. Please could you do so now? And please don't complain about tl;dr. I explain there that I have analysed most of the diffs, but that doesn't seem to have registered with you. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• [This edit, a reply to Softlavender, was moved here twice by Softlavender, who also deleted content in so doing: the edit was addressed to her, but she felt that she should control where other editors placed their comments to preserve the chronology. She then allowed herself the luxury of changing the chronology herself, with the above edit.] You made these edits to Orgelbüchlein, an article completely outside your normal editing interests or expertise.[238][239][240] Francis Schonken's editing of articles on Bach's sacred music is currently restricted. Despite that he made an edit to the lede of that article. When he was reverted, you plunged into edit warring in a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, determined to make your WP:POINT. In an edit summary you wrote: "This odd and controversial claim (see Talk page) is made here and is not backed up *anywhere* in the article. Either cite it somewhere, or remove it." You stopped as soon as I made this simple edit;[241] I then made this edit.[242] You were previously aware of the sources. These edits of yours were purely disruptive. You questioned this statement of the acknowledged Bach scholar Russell Stinson as if it were controversial,

"The Orgelbüchlein is simultaneously a compositional treatise, a collection of liturgical organ music, an organ method, and a theological statement. These four identities are so closely intertwined that it is hard to know where one leaves off and another begins."

The edits you made then were tag-teaming to circumvent Francis Schonken's editing restrictions. You knew then that the statement was uncontroversial. Yet you capriciously described tit as "odd and controversial". Those edits cast you in a very poor light. Here, as if still nursing a grudge, you reappear with a litany of personal attacks. But you have to justify yourself with diffs, not just an uncontrolled outburst. Please take a few minutes to reread WP:NPA to refresh your memory on wikipedia's policies on personal attacks. You edited disruptively on Orgelbüchlein then. Why should it be any different now? Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken is not restricted from editing Bach's sacred music; I was not tag-teaming with Francis; each of my edits was entirely appropriate and neutral; the uncited material had been repeatedly challenged since 2012; you finally cited it. Moreover, this has nothing to do with 2016 Nice attack, but it does indeed reveal your ownership behavior. Softlavender (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The summary is here.[243] It was more stringent than a restriction on reverts in Bach's sacred music, because the closing administrator thought Francis Schonken might game the system. You were tag-teaming because you were repeating his edit immediately after I reverted it. You flouted the editing restriction be acting in place of Francis Schonken to circumvent his restrictions. Combined with your inapt words "odd and controversial" to describe Stinson's text, you were editing in bad faith. Your text above is also a personal attack, without diffs. You were not editing there in good faith, so, given that behaviour then and your attacking tone above, why it should it be any different now? If you had edited more responsibly then, things would be different now. As for Orgelbüchlein, there is a clear indication of the state of the article on the talk page.Talk:Orgelbüchlein#To_do_list It contains a list of chorale preludes which still are in an incomplete state in the article. There are 25 completed sections and 22 incomplete. I wrote most of A solis ortus cardine while preparing the next section to be added. With a failure to WP:AGF you interpret that process of creation as "ownership". But that hasn't on any other articles I have completed. I mean Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel), Concerti grossi, Op.6 (Handel), Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, and so forth. Your edit-warring on Orgelbüchlein showed bad faith, as do your personal attacks here. Your edits to Orgelbüchlein were disruptive; and again I cannot see it's any different here. Mathsci (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. He is not restricted from editing Bach's sacred music. And all of your other claims are incorrect as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What...exactly...what? Nevermind. Here, have some of this. TimothyJosephWood 01:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: After finally getting through this book I am inclined to agree with everything User:Softlavender has said because this to me seems to be getting noone anywhere.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What is being requested here? Is it a topic ban or a block or something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I assume that Timothyjosephwood wants me to be banned from all articles do with France and the French language (principally because I speak French). I also assume that Softlavender wants me to be banned from all articles related to sacred music (principally because I know about the subject and am the only editor on wikipedia to add content on Bach's sacred organ music). But if you look carefully in the previous section you will see that another administrator user:JzG has dismissed Timothyjosephwood's report here; as have various other editors of long standing familiar with my edits. I don't think Timothyjosephwood was happy with that outcome, so he created a new section here and persisted. You'll have to read everything to sort that out. I hope that answers your question. Mathsci (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I have no idea what would solve the problem. I may have suggested a topic ban before this spat with Softlavender, which strongly suggests that it's not a topical issue. The user apparently still thinks they've done nothing wrong, and that the major issue is that they're being somehow discriminated against because they speak another language. Seems the current strategy is simply to make the thread too long for anyone to read, by adding pages of unrelated content. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Evolution of article

I have spent some time going through to the article talk page. It takes a long time and I'm not even sure whether there is any point. I have about 150 edits to look at. It is evident that cannot be done speedily as Softlavender has suggested. After looking through the edits, my initial feeling is that everybody was trying to improve the article in some way or other. With a knowledge of Nice, having stayed there several times, plus a knowledge of how the South of France worked, I had a different approach to US editors. I learnt from the French while living and working there. I have followed the same pattern while trying to improve the article. I knew about the landmarks there and the geography. That first emerged in discussions of the images, particularly for the image in the infobox which I created. I also used the French article as a reference for how ours should look. There was initially a very wide divergence. Although French editors will understand quite quickly how Nice ticks (just like Marseille), that need not be true for US editors. Hence the importance of landmarks and cross streets on the PDA. The PDA is long and finding an image showing the right segment took some work. Softlavender did not understand the process behind that nor the relevance of the Hotel Negresco and the Palais de la Méditerranée. The French had already decided on the Negresco for their infobox, because of its iconic significance in Nice. That icon has been desecrated now. The image also gave a good idea of the PDA itself (traffic lanes, pavements, central divide). That structure is visible on our annotated map which I created by assembling reasonably high resolution tiles on openstreetmap. Apart from the images and the maps, I used google map to trace the route as if on the PDA for checking details; similarly I checked the Route de Turin around number 62, the apartment of the perpetrator. The geography was an important starting point for improving the article. The actual evolution was governed by when information became available. In greatest detail information first appeared in French sources. The 3 news conferences of the prosecutor on 15, 18, 21 July, available on videos as a spoken narrative in French. Portions of this have been transcribed in detail by the French media and to a much lesser extent by the UK media. The next information came on 25 July from the policewoman in charge of CCTV monitors on 25 July and gave a detailed chronology for the truck on PDA. The rapidity of events brings home how awful the disaster was. The article changed in several ways. First by the victims table being moved and rejigged. Two sections were interchanged to make that possible. The charges from the 21 July conference were paraphrased in English and given a separate subsection. In the meantime Nice-Matin located three heros, two of whom played a crucial role in halting the attack. The French account of the attack was translated into English and was introduced into the first two sections of the article, with sources gradually added in French and English where possible. Two sentences on the heros were included and the chronology matched with the CCTV reports. That also happened on both maps, taking into account the events involving the heros. Apart from recent arrests and the Agence France-Presse listings of all fatalities, that brings the article up to its current state. Investigations are pending; and there are ongoing disputes over security issues between the government, local authorities and the national and municipal police. No great changes are anticipated at the moment.

I might return below to how the sporadic and unpredictable way information became known affected editing. The disaster is still so terrible that examining such matters at this stage seems ill-advised, when people are still struggling to understand the enormity of the attack as well as it details. Certainly reading and listening to the French sources obviously helps in creating content but it also takes its toll. I might comment on Timothyjosephwood's role in this. However, I am very reluctant at this stage to discuss any aspect of his edits in detail, although I have looked at over 2/3 of them so far. I would like to give him the opportunity to withdraw this report and calmly reflect on the sad process we have gone through on wikipedia in recording this event. Using noticeboards as a means of attacking other editors who have invested large amounts of time improving the article is not the way forward. The article is about France and the French; the main sources are in that language, whatever wikipedia policy might be; and the task on wikipedia is to give an accurate and sensitive account of the terrible disaster in English. It should not offend any French person who reads it. That is my point of view. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just putting this out there, someone can correct me if I'm missing it, but...none...of this 800 word essay has anything to do with why you've repeatedly violated policy, nor does it even attempt to justify your repeated accusations that I'm somehow vehemently anti-French. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have read this whole discussion and I can safely say you're characterizing Mathsci's "accusations" against you unfairly. My read of this is that his view is not that you are anti-French, but rather that you have a bias against sources printed in French even though they may be the most salient with respect to French happenings. TJW, I have always respected the way you handle conflict when I have had the fortune to observe you in action on this board and in other places. I would echo the sentiment above that giving some room here for dispute resolution between two parties would be in the best interest of the encylopedia, in order to preserve the value that both of you can bring it. 107.7.142.6 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Having read through this ridiculously long thread, I'm inclined to agree with Timothyjosephwood here. User:Mathsci, if you don't provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French" and all the rest of your unsourced allegations of racism, I'm inclined to block you for personal attacks. Note that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available is a formal and official Wikipedia policy, not just some vague guideline which one can disregard should one feel so inclined, and "dismissing French sources" is an obligation provided sources of equivalent quality exist in the English language. ‑ Iridescent 13:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Offtopic bickering. Take it to Racism if you genuinely want to argue about it Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Iridescent, I hate to cut in with this, but, French is not a race. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC) French is both a nationality and an ethnicity. TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Seriously? Racism is distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin (my emphasis); are you seriously trying to claim that "French" is not a nationality? ‑ Iridescent 14:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Iridescent This is the first time in my life, that I have heard somebody claim that you can be racist against anything but a race. This is absolute news to me and to Google as a whole "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." So no, I am not claiming that French is not an national or ethnic origin, I am claiming it is not a race. What is your source for the definition, I find it disturbingly distorted (from its original meaning). Ah, self-referencing an article on Wikipedia, I see, glad I stay away from topics of racism on this encyclopaedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Since I am here, I made a claim that "French is not a race", are you going to seriously claim it is? or are you referring to the part of my comment which I have removed, mostly for being incendiary? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have analysed 150 odd edits in an unsaved version on my sandbox. But as I say above, I am reluctant to add that here. I have catalogued 63 diffs. I could summarise the problems here. The above is not an essay but a detailled explanation of how the article was written, much of it by me. Why ridicule its length? The writing has largely been uncontroversial but painstaking. Images, maps, French sources, English sources, comparison with the fr.wikipedia.org article, etc. Other editors have helped with some of the writing about local heros; others have smoothed the text; others have helped establish the timings, which were hopelessly wrong for a long time.

There was a nasty public thread on wikipediocracy about this which User:Stanistani has kindly put into a private forum. I very much appreciate his help. I don't know whether you contributed there, Iridescent, because I looked at nothing beyond the identity of the original poster.

The IP is correct that the main sources used to correct the article have been in French. English sources have been scrupulously searched out whenever they exist. It takes a long time, searching for "attentat nice" or "nice attack". Sometimes "arrestations" sometimes "arrests", etc. English language sources have dwindled to almost nothing now. No wikipedia policy can change that.

Using the French sources has required the facility to understand spoken French (as a double check for correctness), mainly because most information was divulged at the 3 press conferences of the Paris Prosecutor. There are very few sources in English for most of the content after 18 July; when they exist they are patchy and not necessarily reliable. The Guardian is usually fairly reliable as it has learnt to check and correct facts after the event. But it is patchy. The chronology is available only in French. The sources about the heros are in Nice-Matin. As far as I remember you're British. You will be able to verify that once small details start appearing that might be important for the article they will not necessarily appear in any useful form in the UK media. The US media does not seem to report on this at all. CNN translates "mon ami" as "brother", suggesting a false equivalence between Tunisians in France and African Americans. Most of the newly sourced content appears in Nice-Matin.

This report was started by the OP shortly after this edit by him.[244] He objected to statements, sourced to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and BBC News about the state of the lorry after the final gunfire between police and the perpetrator. He found the phrase, "leaving the windscreen of the truck riddled with bullet holes" to be sensationalist writing. Roughly the same phrase in all the sources, including the French (criblé d'impacts de balles). I don't want to trot out the 63 diffs. The OP is well meaning but at a disadvantage because of language. It was when he started attempting to translate French himself, that things went pear-shaped. I would not blame him, but I would suggest that he is more circumspect and does no try to discuss fine details of the French language. In the end on the article with another active British editor a phrase was concocted which seems to suit everybody: "There were multiple bullet holes in the windscreen and front of the truck." My contribution there was minor and grammatical. Some images of the truck being towed away after each bullet hole had been labelled with a police tag were used as a double check. Mathsci (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So basically no. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you really want them, you can have them. I have prepared a first draft unsaved in my sandbox, but I don't see the point at the moment. They'll stay there unless my computer crashes. Things went pear-shaped when you attempted to have a discussion about how to translate legalistic French. With no training in French, that is an extraordinary thing to try. You even seemed to cast doubt on other small translations by me in a wiki-bureaucratic way (SMS messages). As I've written on the talk page, a paraphrase avoiding these ambiguities is better. It is not WP:OR to state that the charges were made under French laws concerning terrorism. That is a neat way out of things as far as I'm concerned. I share the views of the IP on your qualities as an editor. But the sources are what they are. We have no control. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So "no", then? Claiming the evidence exists in a private forum on Wikipediocracy, a site of which I believe you're the only member in this discussion and thus you know none of us have access to, is evidence of nothing at all. (And no, I'm not British, but even if I were I don't know why you'd think that would make me believe the UK media is inherently unreliable, which appears to be the thrust of your latest argument; sure, they have shitty tabloids the same as everywhere, but they also have the BBC, the Times, and Sky News which are arguably the most reputable news sources in the world.) ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't said no, I said I'm quite willing to provide a list of uncommented diffs, possibly even commented.

You write "a private forum on Wikipediocracy, a site of which I believe you're the only member in this discussion and thus you know none of us have access to". It's not what I wrote. It is your misreading. I have had no access to wikipediocracy since 2012. That is why I left this message on wikipedia for the main administrator of that website.User_talk:Stanistani#Request I repeated it in an wiki-email message to make sure he got it. There are editors on wikipediocracy who like to write my whole name in full whenever possible.

Sky News is unreliable. The Times is not available without subscription. The sources I have used in writing the article are BBC News (extensively), The Daily Telegraph (extensively), The Guardian (extensively) and France24 in English (extensively). I have not used The Daily Mail. Because of the time delay, US newspapers are not particularly useful. I never said the evidence is in a private forum on wikipediocracy. I wrote that it is an unsaved version of my sandbox where I have been gathering diffs. Quite different. Why credit me with things that I either haven't said or written? I asked Stanistani to place the discussion on wikipediocracy in a private forum because of privacy issues. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am still waiting for User:Iridescent to explain why he made these wild statements about wikipediocracy. I have prepared 28 diffs, dated but uncommented. When he explains why these wikipediocracy, I'd be quite happy to provide the diffs, possibly once I've added comments. After all Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa helped me. Mathsci (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That will be directly above where you claim that the evidence is in "There was a nasty public thread on wikipediocracy about this which User:Stanistani has kindly put into a private forum" and (implicitly) accuse me, without any evidence (obviously, as there isn't any) of being a Wikipediocracy member, perhaps? I'm not going to engage with you further; this thread is pretty clearly you returning to your old game of flinging accusations at everyone in sight in the hope that some of them will stick, since if you had any actual evidence we'd have seen it by now, so I'll let whoever's stupid/brave enough to close this thread to judge your conduct for yourself. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never said that you're a member of WPO; I apologize if I gave that impression. I know admins and ex-arbitrators who are. Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Casliber, GorillaWarfare, even AGK. I am not (I was banned in 2013). One arbcom banned person is prohibited from posting about me there. He persists and each time that happens the thread is removed from public view. The reason for that is that some members of WPO post the full names of people that they don't like. Of course I don't associate you or any other arbitrators or ex-arbitrators with that kind of nonsense. You have had my selection of diffs posted on your page. I haven't finished preparing it. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a single one of those diffs "provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French"" - perhaps you meant to post some actual evidence to justify your personal attacks? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Mathsci has had 'issues' over France related content, with a history of displaying ownership. Nor is this their first rodeo when it comes to personal attacks. Lets not mention the banning incident either... Mathsci does not like other people editing articles where Mathsci feels their 'expertise' is superior. This results in edit wars, personal attacks and noticeboard drama. This behaviour goes back to 2007 and has not changed noticeably since. Their block log is indicative. Noticeboard reports tend to follow a predictable pattern, walls'o'text until everyone is bored. Since it took Mathsci off-wiki harrassing an editor and attempting to out them on wikipedia before any action was taken regarding him, I suggest nothing is likely to gain consensus here, regardless of the evidence presented. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're talking about six years ago? When Pmanderson decided Marseille should be spelt with an "s"? And ChildofMidnight tagged bastide? There might not be an "s" at the end of Marseille but there certainly is at the beginning of "Stale". There has been no off-wiki harassment by me. It might be that a wikipediocracy troll have been supplying you with false information. Please be careful of those trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh so you *didnt* attempt to track down Cla's home address then? Sorry I must have you confused with some other Mathsci... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No, not at all. I imagine you might be blocked if you continue editing in this way. Mathsci (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Just because somebody writes something, doesn't make it true. Mathsci (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Shots fired. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote Iridescent: "User:Mathsci, if you don't provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French" and all the rest of your unsourced allegations of racism, I'm inclined to block you for personal attacks. Note that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available is a formal and official Wikipedia policy, not just some vague guideline which one can disregard should one feel so inclined, and "dismissing French sources" is an obligation provided sources of equivalent quality exist in the English language." Considering that you have recently been unbanned (after about 2 1/2 years), I wouldn't bother with escalating blocks and simply go back to indef. An unban like this is a final chance, not a clean start where the past is forgotten immediately. Fram (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have the diffs in my unsaved sandbox and could add them as an uncommented line of diffs.

Please provide English language sources for the following. The chronology of the attack from the official CCTV police report. The fact that the truck started its attack just after 22:32 and was brought to a halt just after 22:35. The detailed report of the sighting of the truck around 22:00 at the intersection of Avenue de Fabrol and Avenue de la Californie. The report on the award of medals for bravery to Alexandre, Franck and Guenol with citations for all three. The accounts of Alexandre the cyclist and Franck the motorcyclist as they engaged with the truck on PDA. The official list of 84 names of the killed, published by Agence France-Presse. The draping of the town hall of Nice with banners listing the names of the 84 dead. Accounts of the last two arrests and where the arrests were made in Nice. You can have four or five days if you want. Mathsci (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well this is turning into a complete farce. Drop $10,000 in unmarked bills at the spot at midnight, or the diffs get it! TimothyJosephWood 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, 28 raw diffs have been posted on Iridescent's talk page. He or she doubted they existed. I prepared an initial list of 67 diffs with commentary. Then I selected these but want to add commentary and possibly tweak the list. That takes time. I didn't start this request. Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Apparently this discussion has, for some reason, moved to Iridescent's talk. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It hasn't. Iridescent was given a preliminary list of diffs, that's all. Then, as a game, he or she decided to add their own commentary. But how could Iridescent know about parallel edits to the article, about particular sources, about specific content, about context or about questions being posed to Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and eventually Diannaa? Iridescent played an interesting and unusual game. Not one that many administrators have played before. Mathsci (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• There's not much of a discussion there. Ok, wherever it is, at this point, I guess I support a topic ban for Mathsci from the 2016 Nice attack article and talk page. I was waffling before but there seems to be arguments repeatedly and mild incivility all around but the amount of people Mathsci wants to drag into this is evidence that the editor needs to do something else rather than pile up walls of text here than do not actually explain the edits but simply seem to annoy more and more people. I agree that the Mathsci "I can read French and am therefore better at this than anyone else" routine is tiring. And no, I don't see a reason we should be preferring sources by languages. The reliable sources should be consistent with one another, regardless of language and if there is a difference, the debate should be on its reliability not on its language. It's one articles, there's over five million more and no one person is important enough that others should be attacked for their lack of knowledge of other languages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to drag anybody into this. I haven't presented diffs here and on the contrary did not want to. Those active on the article such as User:Pincrete have acknowledged that the majority of recent sources are in French. There are no equivalent English sources. Where there are, of course we use them Here is recent content where there are no English references. The police CCTV report in Marianne (magazine). The report on the bravery medals awarded by the local authorities. the individual testimonies of the heros. The report on the names of those killed in France Agence-Presse. The report on the black banners draped from the town hall in Nice listing all the names of victims. The recent arrests in Nice and their precise location. Earlier information was available in many English sources but, now that other events have overtaken these, that is no longer the case. Actually I don't see the article changing very much apart from some rejigging which is done by random editors. In its present semi-stable state I don't envisage editing it very much at all. Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are examples of content added recently where no non-French sources or no detailed non-French sources were available:

• [245] the description of how the motorcyclist and cyclist intercepted the truck; the precise details for the cyclist were worked out thanks to contributions from Biwom.
• [246][247] Arrest of 36 year old suspect in Nice.
• [248] correct timings from police CCTV report
• [249] official list of victims from AFP; banner on Nice city hall
• [250] description of the five suspects charged
• [251] 3 medals for bravery awarded by local authorities

Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a single one of those diffs "provide some evidence for "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French"" - perhaps you meant to post some actual evidence to justify your personal attacks? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

They are all examples of content added by me. The parts of the articles where I have done most work are the Background and Attack sections, which were initially a translation from the French article; and the section on "charging of suspects". I also reconfigured the victims table to ease congestion in the article (too many boxes and images vying for space).Mathsci (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain the language problems and will do so now. Tjw has stated his preference for English language sources many times (ssee diffs below); when content as above has been added where only French sources were available, nobody has objected including Tjw. Slight problems have arisen in discussing the police CCTV reports on the talk page. Moonriddengirl and Diannaa were helpful in explaining how sources like that, only available in French, could be discussed in detail on the talk page. For the CCTV report that was done in summary form with links to the article. The timings were not in numerals but in words, because that is how reports are written. I converted some of those into numbers on the talk page. That content again was accepted with no difficulty. This information was crucial to the article in establishing timings. The initial version of the article implied a half hour period for the attack. The CCTV footage indicated a period of less than five minutes from the start of the attack (at c 22:32) to the halting of the vehicle (just before 22:36). That source radically changed both maps in the article and the description of the attack itself. This would not have been possible with only English sources, even if Ricky82682 and Fram might think otherwise. The maps were redrawn by both me and Erlbaeko. The map in the infobox is used on about 60 wikipedias and in its current state is due to me. The correct entry point on to the PDA was also described in the police CCTV report. Previous maps and content suggested had gone the wrong down a tiny one way street; there were no sources at all for that. Where Tjw have differed has been on precise legal terms. On the talk page of the article I have suggested that if we don't know things precisely we formulate so that is informative for the reader (we mention French laws of terrorism) and then give a short form of the charges. Individual words can create problems, but the detail is rarely important. So in summary I would that although Tjw has expressed the wish for sources to be in English he has in fact shown great flexibility.

I regret that the two of us have disagreed and that individual words like "entreprise" and "complices" have caused problems. Ultimately we have always agreed. In this case there was probably a misunderstanding in this chain of edits on 1 August.[252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260] Something of a storm in teacup for describing how the truck was damaged. In one these diffs Tjw wrote the following,

"A news source is not an encyclopedia. They may say "riddled with bullets", "smashed through the crowd", "careened down the street" or any similar such language to their heart's content. That doesn't mean WP uses this language, because it is non-neutral, euphemistic, editorialized, and otherwise non-encyclopedic. You need to take a break, and consider dialing back your persistent WP:OWNership of this article. If you cannot bring yourself to discuss and edit with others in a constructive collaborative manner, rest assured this article will get on just fine without you. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you would not make me go to the trouble of compiling your multiple warnings for and violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:EW for a noticeboard post, because I'm pretty sure I can otherwise find something more productive to do with my time. You may consider this a final warning on all grounds atop multiple final warnings you have already been given."

He was in fact discussing the innocuous phrase "leaving the windscreen and front of the truck riddled with bullet holes". A phrase used in multiple English sources, with variants for riddled. He sensed something "sensationalist". The word riddled was removed in a later version. However in his edit he strayed onto other territory. The writing in the "attack" section—initally a straight translation by me of the corresponding section in the French article—was kept neutral and extremely careful. The language used for fatalities was psrticularly careful and deliberately understated. In that sense it was unlike press reports which used phrases like those mentioned by Tlj. Knocked down slike kittles, thrown into the air, limbs found enmeshed in the front axle. Any detail like that has been carefully avoided. So my reading is that there was a misunderstanding. Both of us wished to avoid anything hyperbolic in connection with the fatalities.

It does actually helps to have someone fluent in French editing the article. The article can be improved as a result. I have used the thankyou button for Tlj before the incidents on 1 August (e.g. when with Wehwalt he was able to find images of tributes) and I believe we sing from the same song sheet. for almost all the article the main source has been what the Prosecutor said and how it has been transcribed. French sources give great detail, AFP translations less so.

Tlj has expressed his antipathy to French sources on the talk page[261][262][263] but when he sees it used to add valuable content he has never objected. He has sometimes overreacted when I have tried to discuss sources only available in French. That was the case for the CCTV report which was vital for writing the article. I actually did not know how to proceed in cases like that so sought help from Dougweller, Moonriddengirl and later Diannaa. The non-existence of sources in English is hardly my fault. The fact that they are in French is no problem to me and I am willing to provide translations and/or paraphrases for others as I have done several times. Tlj removed many of those as being too lengthy and so possible COPYVIOS; but now that the rule for translation-paraphrasing or brief translations is known, it can be accomplished within the framework of wikipedia. Again I think that the attempts to equate French culture with American culture when attempting translations of single words is doomed to failure. Context is everything. The diffs from August 1 contain examples of Tjw trying to do that. I have explained how adopting a different approach (French laws on terrorism) circumvents the problem without entering the domain of linguistic WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The EW reports of Erlbaeko resulted in warnings to both of us from EdJohnstone about edits to the timeline box (which has an unresolved RfC). If somebody is deceiptfully committing COPYVIOS the last thing they're going to do is ask the 2 wikipedia COPYVIO experts Moonriddengirl and Diannaa about a possible problem. There is no outstanding copyvio issue. I do agree that there are probably better ways for me to handle language difficulties without being unduly rude to others, even when others were trying to do something completely out of their depth. There I should learn from Dougweller and Moonriddengirl. Patience. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Really?? Your ban would be for OWNISH behavior, your argument all articles dealing with French should only have French sources is my point to English Wikipedia/French Wikipedia comment.I said nothing to the effect of there shouldn't be French sources, You like to put words in people's mouths clearly. I also never said any article should be deleted because of French sources nor did I say you should be banned for adding French sources. I find it really hard to believe there are no English sources but whatever. You think you own the article, you clearly think you own this ANI and you have yet to show anything showing you aren't being OWNISH. That's why you should be banned and why I still support an article ban Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NOENG "says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". In this instance Eng sources of equal quality have not always been available. One particularly notable instance is in respect of 'timing' of the event. Most Eng sources came out within a few days of the attack. Most Eng sources printed timings in which the 'attack' started shortly after 22.30 and the driver was shot dead at approx. 23:00, ie the attack lasted somewhere over 20 mins. Several editors have defended these timings simply because they are NYT, BBC, Gdn, Reuters etc. As far as I know, the timings have not been updated in Eng sources. A child could see these timings are nonsense, taking over 20 mins to travel under 2 KMs is an average speed of around 3 MPH, it might be possible to kill turtles at that speed, but not 84 humans. I wish Mathsci would calm down a bit, but other editors are implying here, and have defended on talk, that content which is patent nonsense is OK, so long as it is based on Eng sources. That isn't how 'WP:NOENG' is intended to be interpreted, and I for one have been happy that someone has understood where Eng sources have got things wrong (and Eng sources have now largely moved on to other stories). Pincrete (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the attack section of the article using US sources:

At approximately 22:10 CEST (20:10 UTC), 30 minutes before the incident, a 19-tonne white cargo truck was seen approaching the Promenade des Anglais, driven erratically. A witness described how the vehicle was repeatedly speeding up and slowing down. The truck then turned on to the Promenade and headed southwest, but finally doubled back again.

The fireworks were finishing at approximately 22:40 CEST (20:40 UTC), when the truck slowly breached the vehicle barriers opposite the Lenval children's hospital. Alexander Migues, a motorcyclist pursued the truck and attempted to pull open the driver's side door, he clung on to the vehicle but was forced to let go after the driver directed a gun at him. Watching this, two nearby police officers opened fire on the truck.At this point, the driver sped up, drove northeast, and plunged into the crowds on the Promenade, swerving to hit pedestrians. Police tried to stop the truck with gunfire, as the driver continued for 2 kilometres (1.2 mi), killing and injuring pedestrians. Following an exchange of gunfire, the attacker was stopped near the Palais de la Méditerranée hotel. Prosecutor François Molins said, "the driver fired repeatedly on three policemen, who returned fire and pursued him for hundreds of metres".[20] According to eyewitness Éric Ciotti, an individual identified as M. Migues jumped onto the truck, distracting and drawing gunfire from the driver while the police surrounded the truck.[20][33] The vehicle was raked with bullets and the driver killed.

Police discovered a magazine, a pistol, an empty grenade, and replica Kalashnikov and M16 rifles in the truck.

This version is riddled with errors. Alexandre Migues was a cyclist. The motorcyclist was called Franck. All the timings are wrong. The first road was Avenue de la Californie, not Promenade des Anglais, etc, etc. Here is the current version which started as a translation from the fr.wikipedia.org article. It uses some English language sources but also several French sources.

On 14 July in Nice, at approximately 22:30, just after the end of the Bastille Day fireworks display, a white 19 tonne cargo truck emerged from the Magnan quarter of Nice and turned eastward on to the Promenade des Anglais, then closed to traffic, near the Fondation Lenval Children's Hospital. Travelling at close to 90 kilometres (56 mi) per hour and mounting on to the pavement as if out of control, it hit and killed numerous bystanders before passing the Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen, where it was first reported by municipal police. 400 metres (1,300 ft) from the children's hospital, at the intersection with Boulevard Gambetta, the truck accelerated and mounted on to the kerb to force its way through the police barrier—a police car, a crowd control barrier and lane separators[43]—marking the beginning of the pedestrianised zone.

Having broken through the barrier, the truck, driving in a zigzag fashion, knocked down random members of the crowd milling about on the pavement and in the three traffic lanes on the seaward side of the Promenade. The driver tried to stay on the pavement—returning to the traffic lanes only when blocked by a bus shelter or pavilion—thus increasing the number of deaths.[45] After reaching the Hotel Negresco, the progress of the truck, already travelling less fast, was slowed down by a passing cyclist, whose attempts to open the cabin door were abandoned after being threatened with a gun through the window; followed by a motorcyclist, in pursuit since the Centre Universitaire Méditerranéen, who threw his scooter under the front wheels of the truck at the intersection with rue Meyerbeer, striking blows at the driver from the running board before being struck with the butt of the driver's gun. The driver fired several shots from his 7.65 mm firearm as police arrived; they returned fire with their 9mm Sig Sauer handguns, gave chase to the vehicle and attempted to disable it.

The truck travelled a further 200 metres (660 ft) until, in a badly damaged state, it came to halt at 22:35 next to the Palais de la Méditerranée approximately five minutes after the start of the attack. There, two national police officers shot and killed the driver. There were multiple bullet holes in the windscreen and front of the truck. The entire attack took place over a distance of 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi), between numbers 11 and 147 of the Promenade des Anglais, resulting in the deaths of 84 people and creating high levels of panic in the crowds. Some were injured as a result of jumping on to the pebbled beach several metres below the Promenade.

In addition to the firearm used during the attack, an ammunition magazine, a fake pistol, a dummy grenade, a replica Kalashnikov rifle, and a replica M16 rifle were found in the cabin of the truck. Also recovered were a mobile phone and personal documents, including an identity card, a driving licence and credit cards. There were several pallets and a bicycle in the rear of the truck

Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with anything? You've offered nothing to justify your personal attacks and violations of policy. You are repeatedly filling this thread with pages upon pages of completely unrelated content. Why is any of this even here? No one is debating about the content of the article, they are debating your conduct as an editor. Are you so removed from the discussion that you actually don't understand that? TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You insist that there were policy violations. But the EW reports by Erlbaeko resulted in one warning to him and me about the timeline box (EdJohnstone) which was observed; and no violation (Lord Roem). Equally well problems of explaining French sources to assist those who might have difficult reading them (like you for example) were clarified by asking the wikipedia copyright experts Moonriddengirl and then Diannaa. What more could I do? There were also no BLP violations: the French article lists all the first names of charged suspects. I have apologised and apologise again here if you were offended when I criticised your level of French, when you attempted to translate words. I have tried to build bridges with you. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• The length of this response and the complete lack of relationship to any actual substantive issues here (hint, this isn't WP:RSN) is further evidence to support a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue appears to be Timothyjosephwood's rejection of French sources. He has militated on the talk page about that, as the diffs show.[264][265][266] As Pincrete pointed out above, not using French sources would have resulted in a highly misleading and erroneous article of no use to the reader. Contrary to what WarMachineWildThing has suggested, there are no UK-US sources for the CCTV report that was so useful for excising multiple errors. Timothjosephwood played no role in making those corrections. I don't WP:OWN those corrections, I just made them (by meticulous editing and sourcing).

But with 21 edits to the article yourself on 14-15 July,[267] you're presumably commenting here as an editor not an administrator. You made this edit[268] deleting 3 English language sources in the lede (BBC, Guardian, CNN), replacing them by one French source from Le Figaro. (According to Timothyjosephwood that would violate WP:NOENG.) You also tinkered with the incorrect estimated speed of 20 km ph[269] an unsourced and inaccurate internet rumour (correct speed was 90 km ph), And now you are proposing to punish me for improving the article using French sources and correcting some of the hopeless errors created while you were editing. Wow. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I have made 477 edits to the article. I've helped improve it and correct multiple serious errors using French sources when no English sources were available. It is an article about a French disaster. Some of the injured are still on life support machines and any further fatalities will be reported in the French press. The investigation is continuing in Paris with the 6 charged suspects. Although there might be continuing political recriminations in France, that is unlikely to be reflected in any edits to the English article. Since I don't think there's very much more that I can do to help on the article, I will voluntarily stop editing it now. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked

I have indefinitely blocked Mathsci. Less than 4 months after his ban was lifted, we have the above situation, where even after days of asking for any evidence for his accusations, he still fails to provide diffs which support them in any way (the three diffs given here do not in any way justify the accusations, and the much longer list given at Iridescent's talk page have been analysed and give the exact same conclusion.) Instead of retracting the accusations and accepting that his opinion is not shared by uninvolved editors looking at his diffs, he continues in the same vein. Coupled with other problems (like the copyvios), I see no reason to believe that ending his editing of that one article will make any fundamental difference. If people see a different solution (topic ban, talk page restrictions, whatever) that may produce a better, lasting result, they are free to try that out of course, but some reassurance that Mathsci has any idea of what he did wrong and how we will avoid getting a similar situation again in a few months time seem to me to be the minimum to even consider unblocking. Fram (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This ANI has not been closed, therefore I wish to add this comment. It is a great pity that editors have 'locked horns' about Fr/Eng sources, which is the issue which has most often 'flared up' on talk. I am the first person to admit that Mathsci's 'you don't speak French, so you don't know what you are talking about' at times has been tiresome and has soured relations with other editors (even though at times it has been demonstrably true, poor understanding of French, and preference for Eng sources has led to serious errors and wrong surmisals, from many of us). It is simply a fact that the best sources, most complete, most accurate and most likely to print corrections and updates have been French. That is hardly surprising. I take no pleasure therefore from knowing that the one person who has been able to point out the errors has been banned. Mathsci is guilty of over reaction, but so is this ANI IMHO. Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pincrete, I think quite honestly, that you have summarized my own feelings towards this thread quite well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Meh, he's been in danger of this for some time. Demonstrably incollegiate. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have not followed the article in question or Mathsci's edits enough to have an opinion on whether this sanction is justified but, as one of the few editors who work in the field of Baroque music, the loss of his expertise in that area will be a loss to the project in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block. If I may borrow a comment from above - "Demonstrably incollegiate". Long term.

One may "if" and "but" about particular points in this epic thread, but its existence and consequent disruptive effect, along with its many precursors, demonstrates that this is an editor whose approach is unlikely to change for the better. This editor has long treated this place as a battlefield, and was allowed back in on the understanding that they would stop doing that. Yet here we are again... I think It's time to say "enough". --Begoon ^talk 14:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'd be the first to admit that this user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and that the project would be better off if they had learned a long time ago to work with others who are as well. Unfortunately, across articles, users, topics and years, they do not appear to be able to do this. They have proven themselves to be generally immune to reasoning, policy, and sanctions, and I can see no reason to expect this to change. TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Seems to be an overreaction, but an editor on as thin of ice as Mathsci should have been skating a little less aggressively. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: An overreaction? I'm looking at it more as an unfortunate, regrettable, and sadly inevitable last resort, all preferable avenues being, by now, painfully exhausted. --Begoon ^talk 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Some editors seem to value Mathsci's contributions, and they have undoubtedly improved upon many topic areas, therefore I would have liked to have seen a month long block or a topic ban type action first. However I am not as familiar with this user's long history as you or many others, so I can understand your feelings. My point was only that it seems like an overreaction to this specific case for an indef block. All history taken into consideration would be a different circumstance...Mr Ernie (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your point, but I still think it's better to take the bigger picture into account here. Always treating every incident in isolation means that repeated patterns are never addressed. I don't think that is really a sustainable approach. Begoon ^talk 16:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a wise and measured approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd miss Mathsci as one of the editors with detailed knowledge of Bach's work, able to make images available such as this lead image, and writing Orgelbüchlein. I bet some readers value his contributions. I had no conflict with him, even if we don't always agree. - I admit that I don't watch ANI, so saw this only by its sad result. I have no time to read it all, but see that is about a tragic recent, with emotions high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And that's truly the tragedy. If Mathsci could make those valuable contributions without all these massive shitfights, then all would be well. It seems he cannot, so here we are. I don't like it either. --Begoon ^talk 17:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Not the first such tragedy, and not likely the last. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Tentative suggestion @Fram: I would like to make it clear that I agreed with your block. I also note that you propose alternative sanctions; on the proviso that "some reassurance that Mathsci has any idea of what he did wrong and how we will avoid getting a similar situation again in a few months time." I'm not sure, incidentally, that we do have such assurances in the current block request here. But- as a suggestion for the future- in light of the community reciving and accepting such assurances, perhaps a TBAN would be in order. Something along the lines of French politics and terrorism, broadly construed. Thus there might still be room for his editing in the arenas that seasoned editors have already told us they would miss his input from. The project would (hopefully) be protected- and so would Mathsci. This, as I said, should all still be contingent upon Fram's suggestion, noted above.

Incidentally, in case anyone thinks I am partisan towards this editor, I am currently *banned* from his talk page  :) just FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems fair, and I'd support that, assuming that we can somehow be confident that the battleground attitude won't continue to be a huge issue. As several people have pointed out, Mathsci makes many valuable contributions, and we should certainly not lose them without considering all alternatives. Begoon ^talk 14:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for unblock

I propose unblocking Mathsci on condition he abides by what he has said on his page in response to my question what he would do differently if he was unblocked: "I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills." I believe he's sincere. Of course sincerity now doesn't preclude backsliding later, but many people will be watching him, and quite a few admins will surely be prepared to re-block if there's cause. Compare further our discussion on his page.[270] I posted a proposal for unblocking first to Fram, the blocking admin, but he hasn't been online for some time. So I'm taking it here now. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC).

Take your responsibility if you want to unblock him, stake your admin on him, if he lets you down, give up your mop.. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, this is completely and utterly unhelpful. Admins use their best judgment and community input in these cases. There's no access to magic crystal balls. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Had enough chances. Makes promises every time then moves on to another area and causes a hassle there. Years of personal abuse directed at other editors coupled with significantly personalising disputes that ultimately led to his previous ban. Even in the unblock request on his talkpage it is *always* someone else's or something else's fault. Its never him, there is always an excuse. He outright blatantly lied in his unblock request "I have no history of making personal attacks." Actually he has an extensive history of personal attacks going back to 2007. So, lies in his unblock request, has made repeated promises previously that always end up broken. Nope. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The mission of WP is also to maintain a community where continuing to build an encyclopedia is possible and expedient. This is why we have community standards. If someone cannot be bothered by those standards, regardless of how much they may directly contribute to the encyclopedia, then they are a detriment to the project taken as a whole. Sometimes building an encyclopedia, and maintaining a community where an encyclopedia can be built come into conflict. This is one of those times.

The user has been given ample opportunity to understand and comply with community standards. If the last decade has not been able to provide for this, there's no obvious reason why the next one should either. I also believe that they are sincere, but it has been shown that they, at a base level, don't understand what it means to do what they are saying they would do. TimothyJosephWood 21:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support A number of unusual considerations apply, primarily that Mathsci is usually correct about underlying content issues—his problem is that he thinks that is a reason to unduly push, when what he should do is wait for others to resolve the disagreement. He won't be editing 2016 Nice attack for a long time and the situation that arose in this case (where he can read the sources and others can't) is unlikely to recur. He does good work in articles on baroque music and mathematics, and is on notice that he must walk away from future disputes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Grudging support. I'm singularly unimpressed by this saga, in which MS posted a big stack of diffs on my talkpage which allegedly demonstrated that TJW had "a great antipathy to sources in the French press", "[a lack of] sensitivity to French people, French culture and the French media", "a negative and condescending attitude to French sources", "misinterpreting wikipedia policy to dismiss French sources", "discriminates against editors who know French", and then tried to complain about me for having the gall to actually read the diffs in question and point out that they demonstrated nothing of the kind ([271], [272], [273]). I also find MS's conduct in this thread and on his talkpage, in which he appears to be convinced that his judgement is faultles, that all other editors on Wikipedia are stooges being manipulated by his enemies, and that if people don't agree with him that's a sign of other peoples' stupidity and not that MS is wrong, to be both offensive and generally obnoxious. That said, there are obviously a fair few people who feel that MS has something useful to bring if he can rein in the battlefield behaviour. Let him back in; enough people will be watching that if he carries on with the "anything I say is correct, therefore disagreement with me is prima facie evidence of disruption" posturing he can be shown the door again easily enough, and he must realise by now that the next block is going to be a permanent community ban. If he behaves himself from now on, then we've avoided losing someone productive; if he doesn't, then any re-block is going to be so widely supported that we avoid having the situation of someone wasting other peoples' time complaining that their block was unfair to anyone within earshot. ‑ Iridescent 12:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Only in death. I agree that he had enough chances. As an example: In the attack section of the 2016 Nice attack article, I made a correction from Hotel Negresco to Hotel Westminister, ref. diff. Hotel Westminister is located here on the Promenade des Anglais, ca. 200 m to the east of Hotel Negresco. In my edit summary I noted "According to source and video.". Note that the video in question had been the subject of several discussions on the talk page. Ref. Talk:2016_Nice_attack/Archive_4#Filmed_from_Hotel_Westminster, Talk:2016_Nice_attack/Archive_4#Motorcyclist_in_attack_section and Talk:2016_Nice_attack/Archive_5#Map. As described on talk, you can see the Westminster logo in the video (the neon sign in front of the balcony seen at 00:15). Also note that the source, this Telegraph-article includes the same video, and says "It is understood the motorcyclist fell just before the lorry reached Hotel Westminster.". Still, Mathsci claims that "No source I have seen or used in the article mentions incidents outside Hotel Westminster.", ref. diff. Even if I explained to him where that source is and that it "is used as one of the sources for this info in the article", ref. diff, he continue to say that I "makes claim not mentioned in any source cited at that time in the article...". Ref. diff. I believe he lied to avoid a block for his 3RR violation. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Tentative Support with adding the topic ban mentioned above by Begoon Muffled Pocket otherwise oppose --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Mathsci is a passionate editor who has helped the project on subjects math and Bach (read Clavier-Übung III and Orgelbüchlein), among others. He has helped me to a title image for a Featured article, and the next (to-be). - The topic of recent violence was new for him and tends to raise emotions. - I fared well with a maximum of two comments to a discussion, - try that, everybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. He usually is pretty good at getting back on track and staying there after being admonished in a given case - I expect that he will stay off recent violence topics after this. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Unblocked. Fram, the blocking admin, has now replied, saying that he still has concerns but also that if I feel Mathsci's reassurances are reasonable enough to give him another chance, then I'm free to do so.[274] That, together with the discussion here, is enough backing for me; I have unblocked Mathsci on conditions as outlined and agreed to here. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC).
• Keep blocked I am so, so sick and tired of people being given a free pass and getting to blatantly ignore WP:CIVIL just because they are a "valued contributor". I don't care if Mathsci is the Platonic ideal of content posting-- he is utterly toxic to the community and he should have been given the boot a long time ago. Jtrainor (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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